Interpretation of inventions vs. biology

Now let’s interpret the data in the inventions vs. biology table.

It doesn’t take a religion to see that biology is full of inventions. In many ways they match or outperform our inventions. Inventions that absolutely required intelligent design. Inventions in biology are litteraly staring us in the face!

Yes, we can make cars that are faster than animals. Yes, in the near future cars might be able to find petrol stations themselves. Yet, every improvement has been and will be an act of intelligent design. And I doubt that we can ever make car factories the size of a car engine.

The most reasonable interpretation to make, one that requires the least direct assumptions, is that nature has been very much intelligently designed.

Admit it, you cannot create a frog that can do all the things a frog does. Whoever made this, is much more intelligent than us. The concept of intelligent design is absolutely evidence based. It is plain obvious!

Pseudoscience: beyond the limits of science
The problem is that we cannot put our designer to the test, which makes him supernatural. An act of supernaturallity is called a miracle. We cannot cause the designer to repeat his actions in order to test him. Because we cannot test the designer, applying the concept of intelligent design in science is considered pseudoscience.

However, this is not a problem of reality, but rather shows the limits of science. Using the term pseudoscience as an argument that the intelligent designer does not exist is just silly. Using the same arguments, we cannot scientifically prove Napoleon Bonapartes actions, because we cannot ask him to do it again. Does this mean Napoleon Bonaparte did not exist?

We have evidence for a lot of Napoleon Bonapartes actions, but like I showed, we also have compelling evidence that nature is very intelligently designed. So we have evidence for this miracle.

Miracle: evidence based
Now read this statement:

“Somehow or other an extraordinary idea has arisen that the disbelievers in miracles consider them coldly and fairly, while believers in miracles accept them only in connection with some dogma. The fact is quite the other way. The believers in miracles accept them (rightly or wrongly) because they have evidence for them. The disbelievers in miracles deny them (rightly or wrongly) because they have a doctrine against them.”

(Chesterton, Orthodoxy chapter 9.)

So if you do not believe in intelligent design after seeing this evidence, you have a doctrine, regardless of whether it is correct or not.

Have you ever had a situation that somebody explained to you how something works, and that you thought: “That’s clever!”? When you see that, you observe intelligence at work. Have you ever had that thought when you looked at nature?

I cannot even invent something that I can put in the ground, and that knows how to convert that ground into grass. Yet, that is what seeds do. They are so small! Think of how clever that is.

Intelligent design: evidence based
Just to clarify a definition: the intelligent designer is usually called God.

Intelligence is an observable property of the designer/creator God, and it is displayed by his creation.

Scientific prediction to prove intelligent design
Now that we see that intelligent design is a concept based on observations, we can use that information to make scientific predictions. We can do that, because intelligence is not bound to supernaturallity. Let me give you one prediction:

I don’t know if we are ever able to create life. As long as we are not able to do that, it is because we lack knowledge and/or intelligence. However, if we can ever make it, I predict that it will require an incredible lot of knowledge and an incredible lot of intelligent design.

Advertisements

6 Responses to Interpretation of inventions vs. biology

  1. Johan says:

    No we cannot put God to the test.
    We can however put evolution to the test and simply observe what happens. Yes I admit short-term tests, but still it is not about the length of the test but about the idea and concept behind it.

    http://phylointelligence.com/observed.html

    • Johan says:

      Ok that was strange. Somehow the link didn’t work
      Here’s another try…
      http://phylointelligence.com/observed.html

    • Geodetective says:

      Thank you Johan,

      It is known that some species can quickly change to meet their new invironments demands. In order to do that, the genetic information on how to change must already be available within the dna. If not, the creature simply dies. They do not change within millions of years, but much quicker than that. That is what I call exception handling: https://geodetective.wordpress.com/evolution/

      The interesting things is that carnivores can easily turn into herbivores. That is what you would expect while taking the bible seriously. Even the oldest fossils of crocodillians show that crocidillians used to be herbivores. They “evolve” back into what they originately were.
      But do note that the first time scientists saw the speed of change within lizards, they were baffled. It was much quicker than expected. Now they know the change rate.

      It is also well known that bacteria can reprogram themselves. When needed, they can reprogram themselves back to what they were. This is not evolution, but pre-programmed data.

      It is also known that speciation happens. It is also known that chromosomes can split up or fuse.

      Also, duplication of dna information is known to occur. Just like deletions. I am aware of that. However, these are copies of existing information. For example, if you would perform the same operation with text, a deletion can cause “hello world” to fall apart into “hello” and lose “world”. A new copy of hello would cause it to change into “hello hello”. It will never convert into “hello world” again, since “world” is lost.
      Biologists observe information is lost much quicker than it is generated.

      Changes of finches was well excepted by creationists long befor Darwin attached evolution to it.

      Retroviruses can implement themselves to form something new, however the first dna that eventually became retroviruses may have been created. The placenta has a gene that has a structure similar to retroviruses. Scientists conclude the placenta has formed due to a virus. This is however a very large piece of dna that would suddenly appear valuable. The chance that it works is extremely unlikely. Another interpretation would be that those genes are capable of becoming a retrovirus, but that they are meant to be in the position they are. Cause and effect may have been swapped. We cannot test that again.

      I don’t deny that we observe a lot of changes in biology. However, I do not see how we can extrapolate that to the extent scientists do that. How did the heart evolve? How did the kidney evolve? How did blood evolve? How did the first cell form? We cannot even make a new cell in a labratory. I have no reason to believe cells can form from chemicals.

      I also don’t see how evolution can anticipate. For example, a bird cannot just fly because it has feathers. It has a complete aerodinamic design, plus hollow bone structure, plus an entirely different breathing system than we do, because it would otherwise be to heavy to fly. There is no reason why a very complex completely different breathing system would form. It becomes beneficial when the bird starts to fly, and not earlier.

      Biology is full of dependancies like that. It is not just as easy as extrapolating, because you cannot extrapolate through barriers.

      The fossil record also does not show gradual forming of creatures. In the cambrium explosions it goes from nothing to complete creatures without transition fossils.

      Beside that, scientists do still have some problems to fix. For example: the oldest tetrapod footprint is dated 125 million years older than the transition from fish to tetrapods (tiktaalik).

      • Johan says:

        I didn’t have a proper biology education. But neither have you. Still forgive my non-expect reactions. Nevertheless I’ll do my best.

        * Creatures change quickly:
        ‘Must already be available in the dna’’: Yes to change quickly. But there’s also a steady slow change.
        You do not make me believe that the DNA of a poodle was already available in the early wolf.

        ‘They do not change within millions of years’: A claim about the ‘unobserved past’? OK: ‘Yes they do!’ They change (relatively) short term. Why not long-term?

        * Creatures do not change into but change back
        So, the wolf really was a poodle before it got a big bad wolf

        * Copies of existing information so no _new_ information
        Yes copies of existing information, which then change separately.
        So Hello World -> Hello Hello World -> Hallo Pello Word -> etc
        A new word which makes sense has a better chance to stay. When the new separately changing word starts to make sense, I think you can call that word ‘new information’

        * Virusses becoming part of DNA extremely unlikely
        Uhuh.. Scientists often use the technique to implant new DNA into the nucleus of a cell using viruses. Guess how they got this idea.
        And ‘Suddenly appear valuable’: No. It starts like a useless peace of information like ‘Pello’ in the example before. It stays because it causes no harm to the species. It mutates over time and (sometimes) starts to make more sense. So not ‘suddenly’

        * How did certain organs form?
        Step by step. A good example is the evolution of the eye.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

        * How does evolution anticipate?
        It doesn’t. Its the trial and error principle.
        Feathers developed for a different reason then for flying. I’m not an expert in these things but maybe species even developed feathers just for attracting mates. (Like some crabs today develop very large useless scissors just to attract females) I’m just guessing here. But feathers got a different meaning when feathered species had a better chance to survive when they fell out of trees. Still guessing here. And there was even more chance to survive when they got lighter and they could hover over predators on their way to different trees. Etc etc.
        Note that wings are developed over and over for different species. Birds, bats, butterflies etc all have a different set of wings. (I sometimes wish humans had 🙂 )

        * Fossil record shows no gradual forming
        That is simply a lie. But you can’t know everything. Yes there are gaps in the tree of life, but there is certainly gradual forming in the fossil record.

        * The cambrium explosion
        It is called an explosion because the few million years it took is a relatively short time. And the reason that no transition fossils are found do have several reasons. For example, it is usually bones that are preserved in the long term. So there is not much to find in the period before bones were developed.

        * Scientists have problems to fix
        Well duh. There wouldn’t be sciense when there were no problems to fix.

    • Geodetective says:

      Johan,

      You got my statements out of context.

      The example of creatures forming “new organs” (which already existed anyway, so it isn’t a new organ) did not evolve in millions of years, but developed rather suddenly. That is not “the evolution of an organ”, but more like “switching it on”. The information was already available.

      The poodle-wolf issue is totally different. It is a straw man argument.

      About the retrovirus: yes, some viruses can implement dna that wasn’t there. However, it came from somewhere.
      It is claimed that the placenta formed due to a retrovirus. It is a rather large piece of dna that had to work instantly, otherwise the creature would die. So again, you took my claim out of context: I wasn’t speaking about retroviruses in general, my statement applies to the example.

      The “evolution of the eye”: 6 of the 30 components of the eye have been reasoned away. the others are not explained at all:
      http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/Eye-diagram.svg
      http://www.scheppingofevolutie.nl/index.php?url=art_vezeloptiek_oog_bedraad_muller.htm
      http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosmos/origines/oeil_pg.htm
      http://www.deltacourse.org/resources/docs/evolutie_verklaar_je_nader.pdf

      Some fish have lost there ability to see because they don’t use it anymore in deep water. The rare -true- cases of evolution transitions that are found are backwards.

      The eye is not an essential body part. You can live without eyes. I have never seen an attempt of “the evolution of the heart/kidneys/blood” or anything like that.

      And again: “fossil transitions not found” was referred to out of context. I was talking about the cambrian explosion. There is no transition there whatsoever.

      Stop with the straw man arguments and referring to my statements out of context. You are using mostly debating techniques in stead of getting to the point.

      • jopie64 says:

        * Statements out of context
        Maybe a little part. I cannot answer inline like in mail, so I try to refer to your statements by the lines starting with ‘*’ which provides just enaugh information to refer to what you wrote but not more. The reader can easily find your statements by scrolling up, its not that hard I think. Its surely _not all_ out of context, its refering to context.

        * Organs evolving quickly
        You always say that scientists claim things like ‘It is like this’ and not ‘We think it is like this’ even when they are not 100% sure. Now you do exactly the same by claiming ‘organs must be developed rather suddenly’, and a lot of other things.
        I already made an example about how this does not have to be true for the wings and for the eye.

        Then for the eye you say the wiki page is just skipping alot of features for the eye. But that was not my point. The point is, it _could_ have developed over _many generations_. The many features an eye has are just details in this context. They simply could have been develop about the same way as the features the wiki page was talking about.

        An eye was usefull already when it was far from what it is now. So it could happen step by step. That is the point.

        * Poodle wolf straw man
        Ok my reaction about the poodle was also referring your reaction of the lizard. I was not talking about an organ but about an entire creature. That was the difference.

        * Retrovirus implanting DNA.
        Ok so I might have had the wrong reaction because you were not claiming away the possibility a virus could implant DNA.

        * Placenta need to work suddenly.
        Here you claim a placenta must have evolved suddenly. And here I’m going to repeat again, it _could_ have happened over many generations. Yes a creature using a placenta nowadays could not give birth without one. Yet there are many creatures who do not have one (or actually grow one together with a baby-creature) and they usually lay eggs as far as I know.
        So how _could_ a placenta evolve slowly? Here I’m going to speculate again because I don’t know.
        – Retrovirus brings in new DNA
        – Egg laying creature is caused no harm due to this new DNA but it does nothing useful either
        – Many generations and mutations in the DNA later, alot of things happened with this new DNA most of them doing no good at all and some even make the creature die more quickly (so those are selected out)
        – One of the mutations somehow caused the egg to stay inside longer so the egg was protected from predators a bit longer
        – Long story short, egg could stay inside longer and longer and the new feature we now call ‘placenta’ became something the creature could not do without
        This is of cource a major simplification. And mainstream science is also still speculating.
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2336813/
        The point is, because it is _not known_ how it evolved, certainly does not make it _impossible_, and still very plausable.

        Next time please think about how a feature _could_ develop slowly before claiming it must have appeared suddenly.

        * Evolving backward: losing features
        Please explain what does make this a -true- case? And what the other ones not?

        * No attempt of evolution of e.g. a heart
        Simply google ‘Evolution of heart’ et voila
        You have never seen an attempt because you appearently never looked for it. Its not that hard to find though.
        You will probably claim they are false attempts. The point is they are nevertheless attempts. (Of which I think they are very plausable ones)

        * Fossil transitions not found being out of context
        Lets repeat what you said there:
        “The fossil record also does not show gradual forming of creatures. In the cambrium explosions it goes from nothing to complete creatures without transition fossils.”
        In this context, it looks like you took the cambrium explosion as an example of the complete fossil record not showing gradual forming. If you just meant the cambrium explosion part, you should have formulated it differently and not blame me for interpreting it wrongly.
        Nevertheless, here you can read why the cambriam explosion does not pose a thread for evolution:
        http://biologos.org/questions/cambrian-explosion

        * Me mostly using debating techniques
        I do my best to honestly interpret your arguments, but I’m not perfect. However claiming that I _mostly_ use debating techniques in stead of being to the point is just unfair. I could blame you for doing the same.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s