The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Could the universe have been an act of an intelligent designer /chance  (Read 42752 times)

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
wolfekeeper

Quote
Even very crummy eyes are very useful to have, and better eyes are more useful, and there's known examples in the animal kingdom with higher and higher efficiencies. There's no mystery at all.

Oh yes there is a mystery how the eye evolved! Our human eye has been programmed by evolution or  an ID to observe only what we need to observe to survive. It is "now out of date" and we only perceive a tiny fraction of reality, like looking through a tiny straw our slit in the electro magnetic spectrum

Oh long a go when the eye "first happened", it found it was leaking water onto the face and getting blurred up with dust particles, so it invented a windscreen wiper (eyelids) But the problem of water overflowing onto the face remained.

So just like to channel tunnel  the eyes and the nose had a meeting, the nose was often very dry and the eye often too wet. So the nose began to drill a tunnel from its end and the eye did the same from its end. They met up in great exactitude and the eyeduct tunnel joint venture was successfully finished at great cost and over millions of years  ;D  ;D
 

Offline wolfekeeper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1092
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Um, yeah what you said, only... not.

Evolution doesn't have any aim, except survival. It tries stuff to boost survival. If that works, great, if not, it tries other stuff.

It's not trying to burrow holes or anything else except achieve short-term survival that eventually leads to long term survival. A tube that didn't lead anywhere is a complete waste of time, and would probably get infected and then they would die.

The human eye was built by random forces, and kept by reproduction- those eyes that worked better were kept, the others mostly died.
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile

Quote
Evolution doesn't have any aim, except survival. It tries stuff to boost survival. If that works, great, if not, it tries other stuff.

It's not trying to burrow holes or anything else except achieve short-term survival that eventually leads to long term survival. A tube that didn't lead anywhere is a complete waste of time, and would probably get infected and then they would die.

The human eye was built by random forces, and kept by reproduction- those eyes that worked better were kept, the others mostly died.

The best medical science simply cannot make a tear duct!!

Maybe evolution really has no aim but why would a mindless thing want to survive?, how can blind evolution have any aim? , that concepts beats me, something with an aim no matter how stupid suggests an intelligence of some sort!!

Life is said to have started about 3.5 billion years ago on earth. There was a primordial soup of some kind or the other, lightening flashing through methane and ammonia etc mixed with water and crashing boiling rocks and chemistry

But hey who made the rocks, the lightening, the earth the soup the earth and the universe ???

Maybe we are just very very lucky little puny entities stuck out here in a corner of an ordinary galaxy amongst a hundred billion others. And we are very lonely beings the only sentient intelligent life forms in this unimaginably huge vast cosmos.

"What a collosal waste of space"

Life has absolutely no meaning, our beloved children , parents , grandparents wife's just like us, are simply a meaningless accident of blind chance

Heck guys let us run and eat and sleep and do exactly what we like for tomorrow we die
« Last Edit: 09/03/2009 14:51:12 by Alan McDougall »
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile


Quote
Evolution doesn't have any aim, except survival. It tries stuff to boost survival. If that works, great, if not, it tries other stuff.

It's not trying to burrow holes or anything else except achieve short-term survival that eventually leads to long term survival. A tube that didn't lead anywhere is a complete waste of time, and would probably get infected and then they would die.

The human eye was built by random forces, and kept by reproduction- those eyes that worked better were kept, the others mostly died.

The best medical science simply cannot made a tear duct!!
But they have evolved several times over.

Quote
Maybe evolution really has no aim but why would a mindless thing want to survive?, how can blind evolution have any aim? , that concepts beats me, something with an aim no matter how stupid suggests an intelligence of some sort!!

This is a common misunderstanding.  Evolution has no aim. None whatsoever. It's a process by which the more sucessful organisms survive.  Over time, this may look like it has direction, but it doesn't.

Quote
Life is said to have started about 3.5 billion years ago on earth. There was a primordial soup of some kind or the other, lightening flashing through methane and ammonia etc mixed with water and crashing boiling rocks and chemistry

But hey who made the rocks, the lightening, the earth the soup the earth and the universe ???

Maybe we are just very very lucky little puny entities stuck out here in a corner of an ordinary galaxy amongst a hundred billion others. And we are very lonely beings the only sentient intelligent life forms in this unimaginably huge vast cosmos.

"What a collosal waste of space"

Life has absolutely no meaning, our beloved children , parents , grandparents wife's just like us, are simply a meaningless accident of blind chance
Evolution is also not blind chance.  Mutations may be random, but evolution is not.

Quote
Heck guys let us run and eat and sleep and do exactly what we like for tomorrow we die
And indeed, in a long enough timescale, chance of survival is reduced to zero.
 

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
    • View Profile
    • My Photobucket Album
Why does there need to be an "Aim" or "Purpose"? An entity doesn't need to want or be wanted to copy itself. If it can be replicated, it will.

In the biological world, the only purposes arise from the functions of structures. This does not imply design.

If you want meaning, make it yourself. This universe is amazing - delight in it!

Please, please, please learn more about the evolution of life of earth, and of the formation of the universe, before you make comments about these topics.
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
stefan_ 


Quote
Please, please, please learn more about the evolution of life of earth, and of the formation of the universe, before you make comments about these topics.

Please indicate to to the person whom your posts are directed

I happen to know a great deal about physics, science, astronomy and evolution so your suggestion that I must learn about them is meaningless to me

How on earth can you make an assumption about the knowledge or lack of knowledge about a person who you know absolutely nothing?


Lets use as an analogy the history and development of the motorcar. An alien made out of a metallic compound arrives from a very different world than ours, in the late 1890 and takes a primitive prototype car to its home world to dissect. The tiny engine sputters, blows out smoke and breaks down all the time. Ten years later (an enormous time span for the alien)the alien comes back and finds the cars are a little better, due to some process of evolution.

Life for them can only exist in a metallic chain helix, and biological carbon bases life is considered as non- conscious, driven by instinct

Then the alien continues to return to earth on ten year cycles and each times find this strange self propelled metallic life form more advanced. Evolution is at work here, evolution is nudging this species in a direction of greater efficiency

Of course it is silly to any thinking mind in the alien culture. To think these changes over the huge time scales are anything but an evolutionary process. And to suggestion that some kind of an intelligence was behind the evolution of the animal called car, is blasted out of their scientific order





Alan[/color]
« Last Edit: 09/03/2009 15:44:04 by Alan McDougall »
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Lets go back and debate the eye and its origin during the late Cambrian epoch

I've got an idea, let's not do that.  There are plenty of other threads debating biological evolution vs design.

Unfortunately Alan, with comments about blind chance and irreducible complexity, you have not demonstrated a very good understanding of evolution, so I can see why Stefan might question it.

Regardless, the original topic of this one is the larger question about creation of the universe, so lets stick to that.

My personal viewpoint on this is:

I don't know if the universe was created by an intelligent designer, but there are lots of things that we do not know, and I do not feel that postulating a designer to explain things we can't explain is useful.  I do not assume the existence of any such being, and so this explanation would, in fact, create more questions for me than it answers.  So I choose to accept that the universe was almost certainly not created by an intelligent designer, and resign myself to the fact that I may never know the details of the origin of the universe.
« Last Edit: 09/03/2009 15:23:51 by BenV »
 

lyner

  • Guest
AMcD
Quote
Maybe evolution really has no aim but why would a mindless thing want to survive?, how can blind evolution have any aim? , that concepts beats me, something with an aim no matter how stupid suggests an intelligence of some sort!!
Why do you require something to have an 'aim'?
Why should it? You may as well say that an apple 'wants' to fall to Earth. 'Aim' is an unnecessary concept and only used as a short cut in accounting for things which have already happened.
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Lets use as an analogy the history and development of the motorcar. An alien made out of a metallic compound arrives from a very different world than ours, in the late 1890 and takes a primitive prototype car to its home world to dissect. The tiny engine sputters, blows out smoke and breaks down all the time. Ten years later (an enormous time span for the alien)the alien comes back and finds the cars are a little better, due to some process of evolution.

Life for them can only exist in a metallic chain helix, and biological carbon bases life is considered as non- conscious, driven by instinct

Then the alien continues to return to earth on ten year cycles and each times find this strange self propelled metallic life form more advanced. Evolution is at work here, evolution is nudging this species in a direction of greater efficiency

Of course it is silly to any thinking mind in the alien culture. To think these changes over the huge time scales are anything but an evolutionary process. And to suggestion that some kind of an intelligence was behind the evolution of the animal called car, is blasted out of their scientific order

Are you serious? This is a joke, surely. There is no comparison whatsoever here to the real world and the real science of evolution.

Quote
I happen to know a great deal about physics, science, astronomy and evolution so your suggestion that I must learn about them is meaningless to me
We now know that at least one part of this sentance is a lie.
« Last Edit: 09/03/2009 15:47:32 by BenV »
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Quote
Why do you require something to have an 'aim'?
Why should it? You may as well say that an apple 'wants' to fall to Earth. 'Aim' is an unnecessary concept and only used as a short cut in accounting for things which have already happened.


wolfkeeper said that, not me his quote below 

Quote
Evolution doesn't have any aim, "except survival". It tries stuff to boost survival. If that works, great, if not, it tries other stuff.



Evolution doesn't have any aim, except survival. It tries stuff to boost survival. If that works, great, if not, it tries other stuff.


Quote
Evolution doesn't have any aim, except survival. It tries stuff to boost survival. If that works, great, if not, it tries other stuff
.

BenV

Quote
We now know that at least one part of this "sentance is a lie"


Remark removed

The little story about the evolution of the motor vehicle was a joke man a joke!!

Alan



« Last Edit: 09/03/2009 21:03:09 by Alan McDougall »
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
I will not tolerate that type of comment by anyone especially from a person who  ""man you can not even spell correctly""

The little story about the evolution of the motor vehicle was a joke man a joke!!

Alan

Fair enough.  I apologise for my spelling, (I'm guessing it's sentance you're referring to?  Should it have been sentence? - actually spelled correctly, merely the wrong word).  I also apologise for accusing you of lying.

I'm glad it was a joke, sadly, it's often difficult to communicate subtleties like sarcasm in plain text.  I still think that your comments about irreducible complexity and "blind chance" expose a lack of understanding about evolution. 
 

lyner

  • Guest
Quote "Evolution doesn't have any aim, except survival. It tries stuff to boost survival. If that works, great, if not, it tries other stuff"

I'm not sure what that's supposed  to mean. Evolution works that way because that's how it turned out. The statement of what takes place does not imply an 'aim' any more than the die which comes up 6 on ten occasions.

It seems to me that many evolutionists are creationists underneath; they still use emotional methods in their arguments and replace God with the 'God Evolution'.
The word "blind" seems to be used as some sort of quality judgement in so many posts. Why should it not be a 'blind' process if all that is meant is 'random'?

And why does poor old Darwin get all the stick? He only wrote "I think .. .". It's all the subsequent work which, over 150 years, has underpinned and expanded on his original 'thought' and which has provided ever increasing amounts of evidence and explanation. We now 'think' with a lot more justification than he ever did.

Anyone who disagreed with the present state of QM would not use arguments against the original Bohr Model of 100 yrs ago and expect to get taken seriously. Why do 'anti creationists not address the more modern evidence and ideas? It must be either too hard or too compelling.
« Last Edit: 09/03/2009 18:26:39 by sophiecentaur »
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Just a quick point which should be obvoious to anyone schooled in physics and chemistry.
Re "Our human eye has been programmed by evolution or  an ID to observe only what we need to observe to survive. It is "now out of date" and we only perceive a tiny fraction of reality, like looking through a tiny straw our slit in the electro magnetic spectrum".
The body is mainly water and protein. They eye is made from those materials an in particular the cornea is made from them. It is, therefore, impossible for a human sized eye to "see" in the UV or IR regions because (for a layer that thick) the cornea is opaque.
For an insect, with a much smaller eye and so a much smaller pathlength, it's possible to see further into the UV.
 

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
    • View Profile
Alan, you seem to think selectively taking a few of Einstein's quotes should convice people of something. Einstein has me convinced about relativity and all that because of all the evidence behind it, but biology just wasn't his field.

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=18520.0
Check number 3.
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
BennV

Hey guys take note this post reveals who I really am namely the Beast post 666


Quote
Fair enough.  I apologise for my spelling, (I'm guessing it's sentance you're referring to?  Should it have been sentence? - actually spelled correctly, merely the wrong word).  I also apologise for accusing you of lying.

I'm glad it was a joke, sadly, it's often difficult to communicate subtleties like sarcasm in plain text.  I still think that your comments about irreducible complexity and "blind chance" expose a lack of understanding about evolution.


Thank you Ben!!  :) We should make more use of the smileys a quote that is meant to be a joke can be taken seriously

I will remove my uncalled for remark about your creative spelling  :)

I think it was Benjamin Franklin a notoriously bad speller said "Anyone can spell correctly but only a person with a highly creative mind like mine can come up with spelling I put onto paper every day"  ;D

Madidus_Scientia

That was a realy good link thanks I always quote Einstein and others of like intellects from memory. I used to sometimes use a link to another site and post verbatim from there. I have learned my lesson because I have been wrongly accused for plagiarisation

I do take quotes from my own private librarary, but always indicate the source
« Last Edit: 09/03/2009 21:00:48 by Alan McDougall »
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Just a quick point which should be obvoious to anyone schooled in physics and chemistry.
Re "Our human eye has been programmed by evolution or  an ID to observe only what we need to observe to survive. It is "now out of date" and we only perceive a tiny fraction of reality, like looking through a tiny straw our slit in the electro magnetic spectrum".
The body is mainly water and protein. They eye is made from those materials an in particular the cornea is made from them. It is, therefore, impossible for a human sized eye to "see" in the UV or IR regions because (for a layer that thick) the cornea is opaque.
For an insect, with a much smaller eye and so a much smaller pathlength, it's possible to see further into the UV.
This reminds me of an article I saw awhile ago about the human eye. The light sensing cells are on the wrong side of the retina. Light has to penetrate the retina skin cells to be sensed. The light sensing cells of birds eyes evolved with the light sensing cells on the forward side of the retina. The article was about evolutionary mistakes of nature. 

Edit: Maybe this is not quite right. A quick Google turned up a lot of references that attribute the backwards condition to all vertebrates, with the other condition being prevalent in invertebrates. So poor birds.
« Last Edit: 09/03/2009 21:30:10 by Vern »
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Vern


Quote
This reminds me of an article I saw awhile ago about the human eye. The light sensing cells are on the wrong side of the retina. Light has to penetrate the retina skin cells to be sensed. The light sensing cells of birds eyes evolved with the light sensing cells on the forward side of the retina. The article was about evolutionary mistakes of nature

I am not sure if it is birs who have light sensing cells on the forward side of the retina. Birds of prey like the eagle have many more retina cells than we humans and  see things in three dimension from a distance that would be invisible to the human eye

Nocturnal animals like the cat family , have eyes that absorb light at the back of the retina, which are then reflected to the front of the retina  given them five times the ability to see in the dark than we do.

The cats eyes glowing white and seeming to be beaming back at its prey in the dark are due to their eyes reflecting light to the front of the retina

Alan
 

lyner

  • Guest
But the inverted retina is also thought NOT to be a 'mistake' because the conditions under the surface are better for the performance of the actual sensors - more oxygen from the blood, for instance. It's another compromise, in fact.
 

lyner

  • Guest
Not only Darwin but Einstein, too, has his views quoted as gospel. He was very bright, of course, but he didn't know everything and had several flaws, His taste in hairdos was pretty poor, for a start! Just because he didn't have the whole story doesn't mean what has developed since is as incorrect as some of his mistaken ideas.
« Last Edit: 10/03/2009 13:13:09 by sophiecentaur »
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
HERE ARE A FEW MORE FACTORS THAT SUGGEST THAT THE UNIVERSE WAS DESIGNED


The mass and size of this planet are just right. If it was 10% larger or smaller, life would not be possible upon this planet. It is just the right distance from the sun for heat and cold. Farther and we would freeze, closer and we would be baked.

Consider the tilt of the axis of the earth. No other planet has our 23 degree tilt.

This enables all parts of the surface to have sun light. Without this, the poles would build up enormous ice and the equator would become intensely hot.


Consider the moon. Without the tides created by the moon, all our harbors and shores would become one stench pool of garbage.

The tides and waves based upon the moon's movement and gravitational pull aerate the oceans and provide oxygen for the plankton, which is the very foundation of the food chain of our world.

Without plankton, there would not be oxygen and man would not be able to live on the earth. The moon is the right size and the right distance from the earth.

Reduced
« Last Edit: 11/03/2009 05:10:16 by Alan McDougall »
 

lyner

  • Guest
AMcD
Bite sized chunks would be easier to read. I tend to give up after about a page and I think many others do too - particularly when there are too many purple passages and not enough hard fact.
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Hey sophiecentaur

I took your advice and reduced lenghth of my previous post  ;D

Sorry for that, I agree long rambling posts are hard to respond to

Alan
 

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
    • View Profile
With the vastness of the universe, there's bound to be plenty of planets with the conditions you speak of Alan. And here we are
 

Offline echochartruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 395
    • View Profile
Hi all I'm new

I would like to add my bit.

It seems like science has a limited opinion of INTELLIGENCE when it comes to the universe.

I've heard science explain that the universe just happened with a big bang - so what was the reaction or action that caused that big bang, I asked, answer 'it just happened'.

That doesn't sound so scientific to me. :-\

Now "intelligent Design" well the scientist said "Who" was the designer and if there was a designer there must have been a "CREATOR" as a scientist would think, supposedly [:I]

As science progresses I've been told that DARWINISM is being rewritten, not the same as it was first published, Hummmm.

Recently I heard a scientist on TV state that "Intelligent Engineered Stem cell" grew into...... without being engineered by a scientist 'it just knew what to do itself'.

So now science has accepted that stem cells are intelligent and engineered 8)

In my opinion if we keep the human factor of GOD out of it and think of the intelligence as something that is in every living thing,with our stem cell research we could be on the way to finding the intelligent we are looking for. In the future we may just find it.

I cant understand why this theory is so unacceptable to science. Are they so limited in their imagination or do they feel the need to control or is it that they think nothing non manlike/god like/alien like is intelligent.

 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
I've heard science explain that the universe just happened with a big bang - so what was the reaction or action that caused that big bang, I asked, answer 'it just happened'.

That doesn't sound so scientific to me. :-\
That's because that's not the scientific answer.  The scientific answer is that we don't know yet.  There are some theories (for example, we could be the result of different dimensional 'branes' passing through one another) but we're not sure yet.  That's a very different answer to 'it just happened'.

Quote
As science progresses I've been told that DARWINISM is being rewritten, not the same as it was first published, Hummmm.

Science is pragmatic, it changes with time as we find more evidence and test hypotheses repeatedly.  Darwin got the basics right, and laid the foundations for the modern science of evolution - we should expect it to have changed.

Quote
Recently I heard a scientist on TV state that "Intelligent Engineered Stem cell" grew into...... without being engineered by a scientist 'it just knew what to do itself'.

So now science has accepted that stem cells are intelligent and engineered

If a stem cell knows what to do it's because of it's genetic programming - it doesn't know anything - it's just a machine.

Quote
In my opinion if we keep the human factor of GOD out of it and think of the intelligence as something that is in every living thing,with our stem cell research we could be on the way to finding the intelligent we are looking for. In the future we may just find it.

I cant understand why this theory is so unacceptable to science. Are they so limited in their imagination or do they feel the need to control or is it that they think nothing non manlike/god like/alien like is intelligent.

I'm not sure what theory you mean - if you mean the idea of intelligent design, it's hard to accept scientifically as it's based on non-falsifiable assumptions and cannot be tested.  That means it's not science.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length