Why aren't we designed better if there is an ID?

[_Hughes]

No "design" was used - they merely replicated natural conditions from the time frame. Did you even bother to read the article?

“By changing the way we mix the ingredients together, we managed to make ribonucleotides,” said Sutherland. “The chemistry works very effectively from simple precursors, and the conditions required are not distinct from what one might imagine took place on the early Earth.”


Like other would-be nucleotide synthesizers, Sutherland’s team included phosphate in their mix, but rather than adding it to sugars and nucleobases, they started with an array of even simpler molecules that were probably also in Earth’s primordial ooze.

They mixed the molecules in water, heated the solution, then allowed it to evaporate, leaving behind a residue of hybrid, half-sugar, half-nucleobase molecules. To this residue they again added water, heated it, allowed it evaporate, and then irradiated it.

At each stage of the cycle, the resulting molecules were more complex. At the final stage, Sutherland’s team added phosphate. “Remarkably, it transformed into the ribonucleotide!” said Sutherland.

According to Sutherland, these laboratory conditions resembled those of the life-originating “warm little pond” hypothesized by Charles Darwin if the pond “evaporated, got heated, and then it rained and the sun shone.”

Yup read it. And I remember when all the hoopla was going around... it's still more supportive for design than the natural model.

Even the quote above, "By changing the way we mix the ingredients together, we managed to make ribonucleotides,” said Sutherland."

Too funny. Who changed the way they mixed the ingredients together? They did. Based on what exactly? So, what they are saying is that phosphates always wait until the final stage before mixing... then RNA is born.

It's really quite amusing.

Stephen Meyer responds: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 08013.html

The problem, ironically, is their own skillful intervention. To ensure a biologically-relevant outcome, they had to intervene -- repeatedly and intelligently -- in their experiment: first, by selecting only the right-handed isomers of sugar that life requires; second, by purifying their reaction products at each step to prevent interfering cross-reactions; and third, by following a very precise procedure in which they carefully selected the reagents and choreographed the order in which they were introduced into the reaction series.

Thus, not only does this study not address the problem of getting nucleotide bases to arrange themselves into functionally specified sequences, but the extent to which it does succeed in producing biologically relevant chemical constituents of RNA actually illustrates the indispensable role of intelligence in generating such chemistry.

And the bigger issue is:

Nevertheless, this work does nothing to address the much more acute problem of explaining how the nucleotide bases in DNA or RNA acquired their specific information-rich arrangements, which is the central topic of my book [Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design]. In effect, the Powner study helps explain the origin of the "letters" in the genetic text, but not their specific arrangement into functional "words" or "sentences."

[_EAllusion]

Hugh -

The conditions the scientists artificially created are conditions that easily could exist without human interference. They were just recreating a model of natural conditions and letting it run on its own. However, this shows how empty your earlier challenge is. You want scientists to show that molecules could contain "information" (you're using the concept incorrectly because of influence from creationist sources, but whatever) through natural processes. But even if this was simulated to your satisfaction, all you would say is "Aha! It took intelligent scientists to make that happen, didn't it?!"

[_quark]

It's pretty remarkable that humans can survive and thrive on this little rock out in the middle of the Milky Way. Maybe the glory of God is survival of life without God's help.

[_Hughes]

Hugh -

The conditions the scientists artificially created are conditions that easily could exist without human interference. They were just recreating a model of natural conditions and letting it run on its own. However, this shows how empty your earlier challenge is. You want scientists to show that molecules could contain "information" (you're using the concept incorrectly because of influence from creationist sources, but whatever) through natural processes. But even if this was simulated to your satisfaction, all you would say is "Aha! It took intelligent scientists to make that happen, didn't it?!"

If it were true, that our intelligence/DNA etc. all was derived from Space+matter+time+energy and that is all. Then how come it is so darn difficult to replicate?

Let's give it a score. Let's say that the Human Brain is the pinnacle of this score, say 100. With our abilities to recall, imagine, articulate, analyze, interact, feel and be self aware. What would the pinnacle of our own creation be? Probably a computer of some sort? And what sort of score would you give it? I'd think maybe 20 or so (your number maybe higher or lower)?

Now, how much intelligence do you think it takes for us (collectively) to create this pinnacle of our own creation? One person alone? A team of 10 or 20 people? I'm talking about start to finish. From the plastic bits to the electronic circuits and the programming etc.? I'd guess probably at least 30-50 people.

So, given all that it takes for us to create one super awesome computer, and you want me to believe that our brains are just derived from non-living matter over millions of years? Please, I need actual hard evidence to believe such an bold claim. I mean, I can see that intelligence creates things everyday, yet you want me to believe that non-intelligence creates even better things than we can? If that were the case I think we'd see a little more evidence of that principle at work in the world.

[_EAllusion]

So, given all that it takes for us to create one super awesome computer, and you want me to believe that our brains are just derived from non-living matter over millions of years? Please, I need actual hard evidence to believe such an bold claim. I mean, I can see that intelligence creates things everyday, yet you want me to believe that non-intelligence creates even better things than we can? If that were the case I think we'd see a little more evidence of that principle at work in the world.

Humans have never built a Mt. Everest and couldn't even if they wanted to, but I have no doubt that it was formed by plate tectonics and not invisible gnomes. Some things are enormously complicated and take time that we can't replicate in experimental conditions. We can't mimic the sodium ion distribution in a glass of water and that happens countless times throughout the planet every day. You seem to be begging the question, as the natural world is filled with things that were not created by people that far exceed our ability to recreate. We can't replicate the formation of the sun, but the sun was formed by and consists of perfectly understandable forces that do not require any intelligent input. But what you do is classify things as "built by people" or "not built by people, and therefore, built by some other intelligence." Win/win it would seem.

A computer is an achievement of technology and theory that took thousands of years and many more people to build, by the way. Not that this is relevant.

[_Gadianton]

EA has settled the matter, but I feel like commenting on one thing:

yet you want me to believe that non-intelligence creates even better things than we can? If that were the case I think we'd see a little more evidence of that principle at work in the world.

Absolutely. You must believe that non-intelligence "creates better things" than we can. Consider our war with bacteria strains. Through random genetic mutations, bacteria arise with varying physiological characteristics as they feed on us. We take man-made antibiotics that exploit the differences between Prokaryote and Eukaryote cells, kill the bacteria; excepting perhaps a few of the many and varied mutants that just so happen to have been born without the physical property the drug exploits. With the mutants' brethren dying, the mutants have no competition for food and begin to grow their population within our bodies and we are now sick with an infection that science might not be able to kill. This is a war we are slowly losing, with some bugs that live in hospitals that non-intelligence appears to have created superior to the drugs we can create. Unless of course, you argue that the devil or God creates all the random mutations, or engineered precisely the mutation that "outsmarts" our medicine. But even this argument will fail, because even if God did do all of that, in principle, "random mutations" clearly could have done it.

You ought to do a little reading on cellular automata:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_automaton

Here is an exercise in letting "randomness" as guided by certain parameters accomplish tasks that human smartness in more direct ways would be hard pressed to accomplish. In other words, scientists and mathematicians look for ways to exploit the fact that "non-intelligence" can create better things than they can.

by the way, Hughes, I think you're a little different than many of the apologists in that your issues aren't as much self-honesty or stupidity, but ignorance. I don't mean that as a put-down. I was around 30 before I actually came to believe in evolution, even though I'd considered myself at least agnostic since around 25. I thought evolution was stupid for many of the reasons you do, and the entire lot of it was due to my own ignorance on the subject. I thought I understood it, but until I actually took the time to properly educate myself, I clearly did not. And I'm sorry, but you clearly do not understand evolution.

I recommend this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Remarka ... 0679642889

[_DrW]

So, given all that it takes for us to create one super awesome computer, and you want me to believe that our brains are just derived from non-living matter over millions of years? Please, I need actual hard evidence to believe such an bold claim. I mean, I can see that intelligence creates things everyday, yet you want me to believe that non-intelligence creates even better things than we can? If that were the case I think we'd see a little more evidence of that principle at work in the world.

Hughes,

One needs to recognize the "hard" data when one sees it. You are apparently unable to do so. The hard data I am referring to here is the fossil record.

Ask yourself what one would expect to find in this record if life came about from the interference an "intelligently designing" creator God, as compared to what one would find if life evolved naturally.

If life evolved naturally, we would expect the fossil record to show organisms (including related families of organisms) of increasing complexity distributed in the geological strata with the smallest and simplest being found in the oldest strata and the larger and more complex (especially with respect to higher brain mass to body mass ratio) in the newer strata. This is exactly what we find.

We would expect to find that that the vast majority of organisms that contributed to this record of life on Earth are now extinct, because they were unable to adapt to changing conditions on Earth over geologic time. Again, this is what we find. (Please note that if these animals were designed then designer was not all that intelligent because the designer failed).

We would expect that the genetic sequences of the more sophisticated animals (including humans) could be shown to have been derived from those of the simpler / older animals that were their ancestors. Yet again, this is exactly what we see.

Why, if there is an intelligent designer, is there absolutely no evidence whatsoever for intelligent design in the variety of lifeforms that we see on Earth today?

Why would an intelligent designer, who had the goal of creating humans in his own image, waste hundreds of millions or billions of years messing around with single cell bacteria, and simple multi-cell creatures, and finally make it all the way up to the dinosaurs, and then wipe the terrestrial slate clean and start over again with mammals?

Once this creating entity had the right design for an eye, say, why would this well designed eye be given to an octopus while leaving the supposed crowning achievement of creation (humans) with eyes that were put together backwards?

Why is it that the best hypothesis we have for the existence of the variety of life seen on Earth, the one that best fits data from geology, genetics, archeology, paleontology, astronomy, physics, biology, and every other relevant discipline in science, is evolution based on natural selection (including abiogenesis)?

[_Hughes]

So, given all that it takes for us to create one super awesome computer, and you want me to believe that our brains are just derived from non-living matter over millions of years? Please, I need actual hard evidence to believe such an bold claim. I mean, I can see that intelligence creates things everyday, yet you want me to believe that non-intelligence creates even better things than we can? If that were the case I think we'd see a little more evidence of that principle at work in the world.

Humans have never built a Mt. Everest and couldn't even if they wanted to, but I have no doubt that it was formed by plate tectonics and not invisible gnomes. Some things are enormously complicated and take time that we can't replicate in experimental conditions. We can't mimic the sodium ion distribution in a glass of water and that happens countless times throughout the planet every day. You seem to be begging the question, as the natural world is filled with things that were not created by people that far exceed our ability to recreate. We can't replicate the formation of the sun, but the sun was formed by and consists of perfectly understandable forces that do not require any intelligent input. But what you do is classify things as "built by people" or "not built by people, and therefore, built by some other intelligence." Win/win it would seem.

A computer is an achievement of technology and theory that took thousands of years and many more people to build, by the way. Not that this is relevant.

I understand that we can't recreate many things that we can observe in nature, as you mentioned. Yet, the claim is that our DNA and our Human brian is the result of this supposed natural process. A claim that is not observed in nature, and my point is that nothing of the sort is ever observed. That we never see non-intelligence create highly intelligent things such as language (DNA) or extremely complex things on the order of our brains. The closest thing I can think of are computers, as they are highly complex and use language, but they weren't derived from the plastic, silicone and electronics, rather from intelligent sources.

I was trying to break things down into simple concepts. Where do things such as language originate in our experience? Intelligent sources or non-intelligent?

Seems to me the claim that they are sourced from non-intelligent sources isn't supported by our experience or experimental evidence.

[_Hughes]

EA has settled the matter, but I feel like commenting on one thing:

yet you want me to believe that non-intelligence creates even better things than we can? If that were the case I think we'd see a little more evidence of that principle at work in the world.

Absolutely. You must believe that non-intelligence "creates better things" than we can. Consider our war with bacteria strains. Through random genetic mutations, bacteria arise with varying physiological characteristics as they feed on us. We take man-made antibiotics that exploit the differences between Prokaryote and Eukaryote cells, kill the bacteria; excepting perhaps a few of the many and varied mutants that just so happen to have been born without the physical property the drug exploits. With the mutants' brethren dying, the mutants have no competition for food and begin to grow their population within our bodies and we are now sick with an infection that science might not be able to kill. This is a war we are slowly losing, with some bugs that live in hospitals that non-intelligence appears to have created superior to the drugs we can create. Unless of course, you argue that the devil or God creates all the random mutations, or engineered precisely the mutation that "outsmarts" our medicine. But even this argument will fail, because even if God did do all of that, in principle, "random mutations" clearly could have done it.

You ought to do a little reading on cellular automata:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_automaton

Here is an exercise in letting "randomness" as guided by certain parameters accomplish tasks that human smartness in more direct ways would be hard pressed to accomplish. In other words, scientists and mathematicians look for ways to exploit the fact that "non-intelligence" can create better things than they can.

by the way, Hughes, I think you're a little different than many of the apologists in that your issues aren't as much self-honesty or stupidity, but ignorance. I don't mean that as a put-down. I was around 30 before I actually came to believe in evolution, even though I'd considered myself at least agnostic since around 25. I thought evolution was stupid for many of the reasons you do, and the entire lot of it was due to my own ignorance on the subject. I thought I understood it, but until I actually took the time to properly educate myself, I clearly did not. And I'm sorry, but you clearly do not understand evolution.

I recommend this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Remarka ... 0679642889

Since my point was that DNA is an example of intelligence, then no your examples only show that the intelligence behind the DNA code is very high.

And further, since you didn't post any evidence that demonstrates language (such as the DNA) coming from non-intelligent sources, I'm forced to conclude that it doesn't.

[_Hughes]

So, given all that it takes for us to create one super awesome computer, and you want me to believe that our brains are just derived from non-living matter over millions of years? Please, I need actual hard evidence to believe such an bold claim. I mean, I can see that intelligence creates things everyday, yet you want me to believe that non-intelligence creates even better things than we can? If that were the case I think we'd see a little more evidence of that principle at work in the world.

Hughes,

One needs to recognize the "hard" data when one sees it. You are apparently unable to do so. The hard data I am referring to here is the fossil record.

Ask yourself what one would expect to find in this record if life came about from the interference an "intelligently designing" creator God, as compared to what one would find if life evolved naturally.

If life evolved naturally, we would expect the fossil record to show organisms (including related families of organisms) of increasing complexity distributed in the geological strata with the smallest and simplest being found in the oldest strata and the larger and more complex (especially with respect to higher brain mass to body mass ratio) in the newer strata. This is exactly what we find.

We would expect to find that that the vast majority of organisms that contributed to this record of life on Earth are now extinct, because they were unable to adapt to changing conditions on Earth over geologic time. Again, this is what we find. (Please note that if these animals were designed then designer was not all that intelligent because the designer failed).

We would expect that the genetic sequences of the more sophisticated animals (including humans) could be shown to have been derived from those of the simpler / older animals that were their ancestors. Yet again, this is exactly what we see.

Why, if there is an intelligent designer, is there absolutely no evidence whatsoever for intelligent design in the variety of lifeforms that we see on Earth today?

Why would an intelligent designer, who had the goal of creating humans in his own image, waste hundreds of millions or billions of years messing around with single cell bacteria, and simple multi-cell creatures, and finally make it all the way up to the dinosaurs, and then wipe the terrestrial slate clean and start over again with mammals?

Once this creating entity had the right design for an eye, say, why would this well designed eye be given to an octopus while leaving the supposed crowning achievement of creation (humans) with eyes that were put together backwards?

Why is it that the best hypothesis we have for the existence of the variety of life seen on Earth, the one that best fits data from geology, genetics, archeology, paleontology, astronomy, physics, biology, and every other relevant discipline in science, is evolution based on natural selection (including abiogenesis)?

I agree it's the best hypothesis if the popular models for how the fossil record were formed are accurate. I don't think they are.

About abiogenesis, and the point was made that this particular scientist simulated the actual conditions on the earth. Now if that were the case, why is it that he had to add each element in a specific order to make his experiment work? It seems to me that the conditions of the earth aren't ever perfect, and more than often are violent and not friendly at all to life, let alone a fragile beginning of life.

And as Stephen Meyer points out the bigger issue is, "Nevertheless, this work does nothing to address the much more acute problem of explaining how the nucleotide bases in DNA or RNA acquired their specific information-rich arrangements..."