[atrox]

Lol...


Well, I don´t know how to make Honey myself...but I´m sure a bee wouldn´t know how to go fishing... []

Well yes, you went through the reference, which is ok.
But you completely ignore all things that won´t fit, right ^^

Once again: whats your opinion on these nice arguments with the fish for example?
I told you my evolutionary opinion on how bees evolved this form.
But I can get more specific if you want to:

Lets imagine there are two colonies of bees at one place... both have nearly the same size of their hives. But one colony uses round cells, where they cant use the whole space propperly, the other uses hexagonal cells and so they can stash a lot more honey in their hive.
Both colonies are ok with their amount of honey.. all is fine, as long as all the ecological terms stay the same.

But then, there comes the winter and the colonies have to stay in their hives for a long time. No problem at all...they have the honey to survive.
But maybe(e) this winter is longer than the other ones, food is getting short. What do you think, which colony has the best chance to survive, to reproduce in next spring, to spread?

Noone ever said, that the bees with round cells just go dieing because there bees which are a bit better adapted...thats where creationist allway try to mock evolutionist...but no evolutionist would ever use the word suddently.. and no, the other ones did not just die because they felt outbided...they died because when the terms changed, the other ones maybe where more patient.

Thats just no argument to prove the theorie of evolution wrong... give me a better one... you didn´t just base your view of the world on bees I guess...

[BenV]

Asyncritus, I'm afraid that rather than posting evidence against evolution, you're merely throwing light on your own lack of understanding of evolution.  There are a number of very good books that will explain it for you.  Failing that, why not try thinking of these sorts of issues without the initial assumption that everything was designed by some alien intelligence?  You will find that evolution is beautiful, natural, logical and wonderful.

I think that the simplicity of evolution, the sheer beauty of the process and it's results is far better than any god figure could ever be.  As someone else has said on this forum, and I am inclined to agree - lets look at the beauty of the garden without trying to see the fairies at the bottom.

[Asyncritus]

Asyncritus, I'm afraid that rather than posting evidence against evolution, you're merely throwing light on your own lack of understanding of evolution.  There are a number of very good books that will explain it for you.  Failing that, why not try thinking of these sorts of issues without the initial assumption that everything was designed by some alien intelligence?  You will find that evolution is beautiful, natural, logical and wonderful.

I think that the simplicity of evolution, the sheer beauty of the process and it's results is far better than any god figure could ever be.  As someone else has said on this forum, and I am inclined to agree - lets look at the beauty of the garden without trying to see the fairies at the bottom.

Isn't that marvellous! Here's a serious criticism of evolution, and all you can say is 'I don't understand it'! I didn't post evidence against evolution - atrox did, so don't blame me. I'm just asking what seems to be a set of sensible questions based on his facts.

I have read a fair number of books on the subject, including Origin, and I hold an honours degree in a biological science.

I am asking what seems to be a simple and logical question given the facts he raised in his reference.

How did the bees figure out how to do this marvellous thing?

Simple isn't it?

Let's look at the garden and think a bit about the bees that pollinate the flowers - and that raises another host of questions, which we won't go in to until we get some sensible answers to this one.

Atrox brought the subject up, and I'm simply asking the questions any sensible biologist would ask.

Now stop berating me, and focus on the question.

[Asyncritus]

Lol...


Well, I don´t know how to make Honey myself...but I´m sure a bee wouldn´t know how to go fishing... []

Well yes, you went through the reference, which is ok.
But you completely ignore all things that won´t fit, right ^^

Once again: whats your opinion on these nice arguments with the fish for example?
I told you my evolutionary opinion on how bees evolved this form.
But I can get more specific if you want to:

Lets imagine there are two colonies of bees at one place... both have nearly the same size of their hives. But one colony uses round cells, where they cant use the whole space propperly, the other uses hexagonal cells and so they can stash a lot more honey in their hive.
Both colonies are ok with their amount of honey.. all is fine, as long as all the ecological terms stay the same.

But then, there comes the winter and the colonies have to stay in their hives for a long time. No problem at all...they have the honey to survive.
But maybe(e) this winter is longer than the other ones, food is getting short. What do you think, which colony has the best chance to survive, to reproduce in next spring, to spread?

Noone ever said, that the bees with round cells just go dieing because there bees which are a bit better adapted...thats where creationist allway try to mock evolutionist...but no evolutionist would ever use the word suddently.. and no, the other ones did not just die because they felt outbided...they died because when the terms changed, the other ones maybe where more patient.

Thats just no argument to prove the theorie of evolution wrong... give me a better one... you didn´t just base your view of the world on bees I guess...

There's no mockery here. Somebody said 'natural selection did all this' I'm saying that if there WAS  a selective process, then it must have selected from some alternatives. That's the meaning of 'select'.

So what alternatives are there? Circle triangle ....

Since all bees and other insects that build nests and make honey use this hexagonal formation, then how did it arise? How did making honey arise? How did manufacturing wax arise? How did bees figure out that flowers had nectar? And pollen? And that they could use them in making honey? After all it isn't just a simple solution of sugar in water. It's a very complex chemical substance with some wonderful properties.

And it's prepared in a most remarkable way.

As I said, I don't think I could have figured all that out by myself, and then somehow stuck the info in my genes. I'm pretty sure the bees couldn't either. So who or what did?

[BenV]

I'll be honest with you, I don't know the biochemistry involved -  if I get chance, I'll look it up.

For now - Wax - a great many insects produce wax as a protective coating - humans produce a waxy substance (in the ear) as to many other animals.  So the genetic precursor for producing wax is definitely there.  It only takes a small mutation to produce lots of it, and if this produced an advantage (keeping larvae safe, food storage, better protection from predators) it would be selected for.  So that's the wax angle covered.

As atrox has already explained, it's not that animals 'work it out' and then evolve.  The animals with specific mutations that lead to advantageous behaviour are more likely to breed, and so these mutations will become more prominant in the population.

If you actually understood evolution, you wouldn't need to ask for the specific details.

Feel free to bring up your questions about the flowers.


Edit - In fact, you have a point.  We should stop berating you.  Please could you explain fully your understanding of evolution, so we can see where the root of our disagreements stems from.

[atrox]

I didn't post evidence against evolution - atrox did, so don't blame me.

Sorry, but where did I post evidence? I posted a link to a side, which was trying to get arguments against evolution...but most of the arguments are everything else but evidence for a creator or against evolution..

You picked one out, you ignore my questions completely, you seem to ignore my answers to your question completely.
I asked you about the fish-thing, I asked you for other arguments, I gave you an possible explanation from the view of evolutionist how the bees evolved...but you just stick with nearly the same words again and again... thats not a discussion.
A bee never thought of "Yeah, I´m bored...maybe I try to make honey...and if it works, I will give that knowledge to my descentants" ...thats just not how evolution works. So it just doesn´t make any sence, to compare it to you, who maybe don´t know how to make honey and don´t know how to put that information in your genes...you dont have to know suchthings...
By the way, I don´t know how to built a car or how to sing...but other people do...unbelieveable, isn´t it?

[Asyncritus]

Sorry, but where did I post evidence? I posted a link to a side, which was trying to get arguments against evolution...but most of the arguments are everything else but evidence for a creator or against evolution..

Here you are atrox, your words:

lol...I read some very convincing articles and homepages and arguments of creationists... they convinced me, that I will never believe in ID.

My favourite: http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/ grin

I followed your link, read the stuff you're mocking, asked some intelligent questions - and hey presto, everybody's down my throat.

If you didn't want any discussions, then why did you post the link?

I asked first about the bees. Let's settle that point first, then move on to the others. There's plenty to go on, but one at a time.

Now, how did the bees figure out that the hexagon is the best way to do this, and then pass the info on to their offspring?

.

[Asyncritus]

I'll be honest with you, I don't know the biochemistry involved -  if I get chance, I'll look it up.

OK. You'll be amazed that a bee with a brain the size of a pinhead can figure out that much biochemistry.

For now - Wax - a great many insects produce wax as a protective coating - humans produce a waxy substance (in the ear) as to many other animals.  So the genetic precursor for producing wax is definitely there. 

I know that many insects (and plants) and humans produce wax, or waxy substances. That's not the point. HOW did that ability evolve? From what? Every organism that produces wax does so for a reason. We produce wax in our ears to trap small insects and prevent them from reaching thw eardrum and damaging it. Bees and other hymenoptera produce wax to store honey. Plants produce wax to prevent dessication.

You notice, every one does so for a purpose. There is no chance involved here. And purpose indicates design - which is what you're trying to get away from, isn't it?

It only takes a small mutation to produce lots of it, and if this produced an advantage (keeping larvae safe, food storage, better protection from predators) it would be selected for.  So that's the wax angle covered.

Sorry, no. It is most certainly NOT a small mutation.

To go from a wax-less insect to one that produces wax AND KNOWS HOW TO USE IT, is a gigantic step forward, and is a huge contributor to the success of those insects.

Consider: Bee which doesn't know how to make wax, all of a sudden, mutation, can. What does it say to its little self? Bzz bzz - now what the hell do I do with this gunge? It's making my wings stick together. I know, I'll use it to make some of these nice hexagonal cells - and what the hell do I put in 'em?

Oh yeah, honey! Damn, I gotta go collect nectar, swallow it, and puke it up again. That'll be honey! That'll do the trick.

That's tripe, and you know it. That bee had to a. know how to make wax b. know how to shape it c. know how to make honey d. know that honey was good for its babies and its pals e. would be useful over winter

How did all that lot arise in one go? Because the chain is no stronger than its weakest link - and if any of those is missing, then kaput. It's all over.

Here's a pic of a fossil bee:
and here's a modern one. Not too different, I would say:

As atrox has already explained, it's not that animals 'work it out' and then evolve.  The animals with specific mutations that lead to advantageous behaviour are more likely to breed, and so these mutations will become more prominant in the population.

The facts are that mutations are almost invariably damaging or neutral. Rarely beneficial. So how many mutations did it take to get this far, and what were the 'bees' doing in the meantime while waiting for the know-how? And just as important, what were the PLANTS  doing which needed the bees to pollinate them?

If you actually understood evolution, you wouldn't need to ask for the specific details.

If you mean by 'understand evolution' that I'm prepared to swallow any old garbage that sounds good, then no, I don't understand evolution. I'm not prepared to swallow junk, however learned it may sound. If the 'explanations' don't cover the facts, then a a scientist, I feel entitled to ask all the nasty questions I can think of.

"Flowering plants are very important in the evolution of life," Poinar said. "They can reproduce more quickly, develop more genetic diversity, spread more easily and move into new habitats. But prior to the evolution of bees they didn't have any strong mechanism to spread their pollen, only a few flies and beetles that didn't go very far."

Poinar can't figure out the very simple point that without the bees angiosperm pollen isn't of much use!

Prior to the evolution of bees, angiosperms were dead ducks! No pollination, you see. So where did the angiosperms come from?

Did you know that there is absolutely NO explanation anywhere of the origin of flowering plants, the angiosperms?

Here's Arnold:

It has long been hoped that extinct plants will ultimately reveal some of the stages through which existing groups have passed during the course of their development, but it must be freely admitted that this aspiration has been fulfilled to a very slight extent, even though paleobotanical research has been in progress for more than one hundred years.

and again:

"[W]e have not been able to track the phylogenetic history of a single group of modern plants from its beginning to the present."

and Axelrod:

The ancestral group that gave rise to angiosperms has not yet been identified in the fossil record, and no living angiosperm points to such an ancestral alliance.

[Moron]

I too believe in ID, but then again, I am a moron!

[atrox]

Here you are atrox, your words: [...]

I know my words...thank you...again...where exactly did I post proof? I just see a side posting more than porous arguments.. there is just no proof there...

If you didn't want any discussions, then why did you post the link?

I´m very ok with discussions...but this ist just no one... you seem to avoid my answers and my questions all the time (no, I won´t repeat them AGAIN..)...thats no discussion at all

I asked first about the bees.

no, you didn´t ...I asked first abaout the fish...but you don´t seem to want to talk about that...why?

Now, how did the bees figure out that the hexagon is the best way to do this, and then pass the info on to their offspring?

You know, what´s the best?
They didn´t even have to figure that out, because the wax figured it out itself.
The hexagon has a high energy efficiency... many atoms try to reach these form...snowflakes have this form as well...
if you heat a pad of round waxcells to 40°C (sorry, dont know what that is in F) it will float automatically into the héxagonal form...amazing, isn´t it?.. but this is a pretty young theory...
Even if this one isn´t true, the hexagonal form yould beperfectly explained by evolution (no I won´t do this again...I did it earlier, just read it...)

[atrox]

Sorry, no. It is most certainly NOT a small mutation.

I agree...not just a small mutation...but a lot of them..

Consider: Bee which doesn't know how to make wax, all of a sudden, mutation, can. What does it say to its little self? Bzz bzz - now what the hell do I do with this gunge? It's making my wings stick together. I know, I'll use it to make some of these nice hexagonal cells - and what the hell do I put in 'em?

again...why do you always use the word „sudden/suddenly...“ ... no evolutionist would do!!
And also again: evolution is no intentional process! The bee didnt ever have to think anything!

How did all that lot arise in one go? Because the chain is no stronger than its weakest link - and if any of those is missing, then kaput. It's all over.

and yet another missunderstanding! It didn´t have to evolve in one step...and it surely didn´t do!
It´s like the example with the fish... creationists say., it´s impossible for the fish, to go suddenly out of the water an climb up the trees...well, we evolutionists agree...and all the living expamples of intermediates I listed above, too.
A bee didnt have to evolve honey out of a sudden or else die. More likely, the bees (or their former ancestors) got there step by step. .. the first ancestors maybe only ate green parts of the plants...later they went on to the flowers, the pollen, nectar ... and they still ate these things when they discovered honey, before the started to focus on the honey.
Also the wax-thing... bee were not damned to die, when they couldn´t produce wax... in fact, many wild bees still cant produce wax (or honey). Most likely they „invented“ wax as a waste product of the production of honey... not because they thought „Oh I need wax to build forms“. But because bees use many products (like wood, plants clay..) to built a nest, one bee maybe realised, that this waste product was very useful.....and so on... the rest is normal evolution everyone should understand (even if he/she doesn´t believe it) who ever really dealt with that subject.

The facts are that mutations are almost invariably damaging or neutral. Rarely beneficial.

Thats right. Mutations can be destructive, neutral...but also constructive. And if you don´t believe that the world is only a few thousand years old, there is a lot of space for neutral an constructive mutations...
We can see a lot of neutral and constructive mutations by looking at our economic plants and animals. ...of course in nature, this evolution takes much longer, because the individuals wont be selected that acurate there...but it´s the same principle...

So how many mutations did it take to get this far, and what were the 'bees' doing in the meantime while waiting for the know-how?

They didn´t wait for the evolution to happen...so there was never any „meantime“.
Look at wild bees, how they breed their offspring...thats what honeybees maybe did a long time ago, when they were no honeybees yet.. they used holes to lay their eggs in it and to store food in it.. and they used different materials to close it.

And just as important, what were the PLANTS  doing which needed the bees to pollinate them?

And again...there is no such as a meantime. First plants used wind-pollination... than they coevoluted with the insects, which are collecting pollen and nectar. Getting pollinated by insects has some advantages... so it did make sence, to get more attractive for these insects, so that they would visit them more often... but step by step... they didn´t just switch the button and stopped using wind-pollination as well (in fact, there are still a lot of plants, spreading their pollen through wind and through insects!)

Poinar can't figure out the very simple point that without the bees angiosperm pollen isn't of much use!

as I wrote...coevolution...

[BenV]

You'll be amazed that a bee with a brain the size of a pinhead can figure out that much biochemistry.

I don't know how to produce bile.  I don't know how to metabolise energy from food. I don't know how to store energy as fat.  I don't know how to make eggs, or sperm, or how to combine them in the right way to produce a child.  My genes do.  It has nothing to do with my understanding, I just let the programming in my genes do it, as do you, and everything else on earth.

I know that many insects (and plants) and humans produce wax, or waxy substances. That's not the point. HOW did that ability evolve? From what? Every organism that produces wax does so for a reason.

Okay, that's a good base to go on.  The ancestor of bees produced wax for a reason that was beneficial to it, perhaps to prevent dessication. A small mutation, or series of them, could have led to this ancestor producing more wax than it needed for this purpose.  If the extra wax was advantageous, as a place to store food or a protective casing for it's larvae for example, then this mutation would be selected for.

You don't seem to understand that the changes in the ancestor are the important ones, and instead think that a bee needs to come fully formed.  This is why I think you don't understand evolution.

You notice, every one does so for a purpose. There is no chance involved here. And purpose indicates design - which is what you're trying to get away from, isn't it?

Another misunderstanding.  'Purpose' can change, as stated above.

That bee had to a. know how to make wax b. know how to shape it c. know how to make honey d. know that honey was good for its babies and its pals e. would be useful over winter

How did all that lot arise in one go? Because the chain is no stronger than its weakest link - and if any of those is missing, then kaput. It's all over.

And another misunderstanding.  If the ancestor of bees produced wax, then a is invalid (also, as above, it doesn't need to know anything about it, just as you don't need to know how to convince your stomach to produce acid.

For point b - if it produced wax, and formed it into any shape that protected it's larvae, it would be an advantage.  So the precursor to shaping it in hexagonal chambers was there.  Those that produced the most efficent shape (unbeknownst to them) gave their larvae a greater chance of developing, and so those genes became more represented in the genepool of the population.  So the genes which control wax-shaping behaviour were subject to selection.

For point c - again, no knowledge required.  If you eat too much, your body produces fat in which to store the excess energy.  You don't need to know how, as the bee didn't need to know how to make honey.

For point d - those mutants that produced honey and used it to feed their offspring, gave their offspring a better chance at life. hence these mutant genes becoming more abundant in the genepool.

And finally e - You really don't understand evolution if you feel this is a point worth making.  If there was honey there, and it helped in surviving over winter, then the ones which produced honey are more likely to breed in the next season.

So as you can see, not a single weak point in what you think of as a chain.  These didn't all have to happen in one generation.

Finally, there's no timeline implicated in any of this - perhaps an insect started producing honey, which it used as a food source for it's larvae.  These larvae did well, so in the next generation there are more honey producing insects.  One of these produced more wax than it required to keep itself waterproof, so left some wax with it's offspring as it fed it the honey.  These ones did even better, so now honey producing, wax producing insects are more common in the population.  Any mutation from then that improved the amount of honey/wax without overspending was then an advantage.  This insect starts storing honey for a future larvae, again, increasing it's chances of survival.  Over time, the most efficient way to store honey and protect larvae with the wax resources will be selected for.

So we have an ancestral insect which evolved to produce honey and wax, and store excess honey in the same wax hexagons that it protects it's larvae.  It evolved to become a bee.



But enough of this.  Until you explain your understanding of evolution, we're not even on the same page, and this will just go back and forth.  It should be obvious that to my mind, the questions you ask and objections you put forward suggest you do not understand evolution.  So once again, please could you explain fully your understanding of evolution, so we can see where the root of our disagreement stems from.

[Asyncritus]

I don't know how to produce bile.  I don't know how to metabolise energy from food. I don't know how to store energy as fat.  I don't know how to make eggs, or sperm, or how to combine them in the right way to produce a child.  My genes do.  It has nothing to do with my understanding, I just let the programming in my genes do it, as do you, and everything else on earth.

You're being deliberately obtuse.

I know you don't 'know' these things  - just as the bee didn't. But these are highly efficient, and greatly beneficial processes, just like the bees themselves. Now if you're saying that highly efficient processes such as these, with the incredibly complex biochemistry involved, 'just happened', then I fear that you don't know a great deal about the world in which we live.

They do NOT just happen. They are in every case you can point to - in say the biochemical manufacturing industry extracting and modifying penicillin just as an example - highly complex processes REQUIRING intelligence and very critical design.

How then can you, or Dawkins, or anyone else for that matter, say that such processes are the product of blind, random mutation processes? Dawkins, for example, named his book the highly insulting term 'Blind Watchmaker'. It simply isn't possible on any evolutionary supposition anyone can make - and certainly there is no evidence to base such suppositions on. The fossil bee I posted a picture of looks very little different to modern ones - so there's no reason to suppose that they couldn't make honey, even then all those millions of years ago. They've actually found beehives 3000 years old:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20588417/

You are willing to suppose that the 'programming in your genes' performs all these almost miraculous processes - not one of which could possibly occur outside the body in a chemistry lab without highly intelligently designed experiments requiring any number of highly complex chemicals.

I am totally unwilling to make such a crass supposition. It's simply impossible. Therefore, Intelligent Design is an absolute necessity in order to make sense of the evidence before us, and dismissing the possibility with a sneer is not a reasonable thing to do.

You don't seem to understand that the changes in the ancestor are the important ones, and instead think that a bee needs to come fully formed.  This is why I think you don't understand evolution.

I understand that SUPPOSED changes, un-evidenced changes, in the ancestors are absolutely, desperately important to the survival of any evolutionary theory of the origin of the phenomena we are discussing. You have no evidence. And more to the point, you cannot produce even a viable GUESS as to how and why those hexagonal shapes originated.

The ID supporter, on the other hand has no such problems. Intelligence is abundantly displayed in the whole series and sequence of processes in which the bees are involved. Without the bees, the angiosperms which depend on them for pollination would perish speedily. Without the angiosperms which produce the nectar and pollen on which the bees depend, the bees would perish. So they arose, or were created together, or not at all.

What are you going to make of this I wonder? The angiosperms have no evolutionary history in the fossils, and neither do the bees. One without the other would perish. So what then?

Look at how feeble your case really is, and how you beg the questions I am asking:

Okay, that's a good base to go on.  The ancestor of bees produced wax for a reason that was beneficial to it, perhaps to prevent dessication.

You note how you can't escape the word 'reason'in your exposition. That alone puts your case out of court - because evolution is a random process depending on random mutations occurring and being selected from. 'Reason' is inadmissible for that very cause. So why did wax-production arise? As said before, it is a complex process requiring complex chemicals arranged and combined in a complex manner using complex enzymes to catalyse a complex series of biochemical reactions. The statistical improbability you are invoking beggars the imagination. And that is even without thinking about the construction of the enzyme proteins - which can't happen without other enzymes which are themselves proteins!

A small mutation, or series of them, could have led to this ancestor producing more wax than it needed for this purpose.  If the extra wax was advantageous, as a place to store food or a protective casing for it's larvae for example, then this mutation would be selected for.

You cannot escape that easily, I fear. As I also said before, and you can verify this any time you like, mutations are either neutral or deleterious. How then can a mutation happen which results in so many beneficial effects? A mutation, in case you don't know, represents damage of various kinds to the plans for constructing an organism.

If the plans for a car were torn up, or rearranged randomly in some accident or something similar, then we wouldn't be too surprised to find the engine on the roof, and the steering wheel up the exhaust pipe! Not too good for the manufacturer.

So how can you possibly suppose that a 'mutation' would result in so many beneficial alterations in a bee's behaviour and biochemistry? I can't see it myself, because the improbability is too great.

I won't dissect the rest of your post, but do you see how many 'perhaps-es' and 'maybe-s' you've had to use in your 'explanation' of the impossible? Isn't that just what Professor Thompson said? '...fragile towers of hypotheses built upon hypotheses'? All completely un-evidenced, and the merest speculative guesswork.

Like the whole of evolution theory  itself.

[atrox]

wow...pretty impressive that you now managed to ignore my post not just only in parts, but in whole...

a lot of the question you ask in your latest post, are answered there....but not a single question I asked is answered somewhere in your posts...

Ok, at this point I have to admit, that I was right all the time...that is not a discussion... don´t know what I expected..

sorry about that, I think I will swallow my answers, you wont notice anyways and leave this pointless conversation now...

have fun with your creator (who ever created him...)

bye
aj

[BenV]

Asyncritus, your little rant has not really addressed any of the points I made, and I notice you are still refusing to give us an  explanation of your understanding of evolution.  As you think there must be an intelligent designer involved somewhere (of which there never has been, never will be and never can be any evidence) then you clearly do not understand evolution.

As this is a topic you do not understand, and are unwilling to show any understanding of, why do you bother posting?  Until you post an explanation of what you understand as evolution, so that together we can discuss where our differences arise, I, like atrox, see no point in continuing this discussion.

[Asyncritus]

Atrox

I'm sorry not to have replied to your post. Time - but I promise I will, but the truth is that all you've offered is guesswork, but I will detail that accusation as soon as I can.

Ben my understanding of what evolution is, and how it proceeds is as follows:

1 All the modern species are the result of gradually increasing complexity which began with some ancestor in the dim and distant past

2 The modern species have accumulated small changes over the millennia which changed them to what we see now

3 Those small changes are caused by natural selection acting on mutations which occur from time to time and are beneficial in one way or the other. If they are not beneficial in some way,they will be selected out.

4 Since those variations must be heritable, they must occur in the chromosomes or genes.

5 There is no other mechanism of evolution possible or available.

I'm sure you'll be able to pick holes in that ad hoc statement, but it's the best I can do in a hurry.

As you think there must be an intelligent designer involved somewhere (of which there never has been, never will be and never can be any evidence) then you clearly do not understand evolution.

Intelligence demonstrates the existence of an Intelligent Designer. After all, you don't need to meet the designer to know beyond any doubt that a Mercedes was intelligently designed, do you? How can you prove that it was intelligently designed? That's the proof of the pudding.

Now if you are totally unable to see intelligence in nature, then you must necessarily deny the existence of a Designer.

On the other hand, intelligence is everywhere demonstrated. Dawkins brain, for example, is an exhibition of intelligent construction - being misused for foolish ends, to be sure, but proof of intelligent design nonetheless.

Which raises Darwin's greatest bugbear.

If our minds are the product of the random movements of molecules etc etc, then the products of those minds must also be the products of the random movements of molecules,and cannot be depended upon.

Therefore evolution itself, which is the product of the random movements of molecules,is a nonsense.

Would you trust the scientific pronouncements of a donkey? I doubt it. But you listen to Dawkins - who is a product of the random movements of molecules, just like the donkey!!!!

You're being inconsistent, illogical and irrational if you deny that point.

[BenV]

Asyncritus, thank you for finally explaining your understanding of evolution.

I shall not pick holes in your statement, as it's a pretty good summary of evolution.

I will pick holes in the rest of your post, however.

Intelligence itself is not evidence of a designer - many species are intelligent to a degree, and intelligence can clearly be seen as an advantageous adaptation to a challenging environment.  In fact, as a very intelligent species, we have been able to adapt our environment to suit ourselves in such a way that we no longer rely on our wits for pure survival, and are able to think about philosophy as well.

You miss a huge point when you say:

If our minds are the product of the random movements of molecules etc etc, then the products of those minds must also be the products of the random movements of molecules,and cannot be depended upon.

As the brain evolved through several stages, as you pointed out with increasing complexity, the final product is not random.  It has been shaped by millions of years of evolution.  Therefore the actions prescribed by this organ are not random.

If a monkey was able to communicate a scientific idea to me, a testable hypothesis with experimental data, then yes, of course I would trust it, as I can apply my own logic to test the hypothesis.  As it happens, apes and monkeys do not have the communicative skills to do so, but apes can be seen in the wild to adapt sticks into tools through a process of trail and error, and then pass info on to fellow apes - clearly the precursor to modern man's ability to make tools and share this knowledge.

I'm afraid that by describing evolution, and then by making the sudden and inexplicable jump to an intelligent creator, it is you who is being inconsistent and illogical.

Surely if you acknowledge that species evolve, your creator is merely filling in the gaps?  And as we find more examples of evolution in action, and sequence more genomes, your creator shrinks and becomes irrelevant?

I understand you may feel the need to believe in a god, and that is fine by me.  However you cannot use perceived gaps in evolution as an excuse to fit your god in - there is no evidence of intelligent design.  If you wish to believe in the biblical creation myth, again, that's fine by me.  But by doing so you opt out of rational discussion of evolution, having rejected reason in favour of an old story.

Furthermore - as many living things have throwbacks, such as vestigial organs, and that all species are prone to disease and parasitism, it would appear that your designer is actually not very good at designing anything.

[Asyncritus]

Intelligence itself is not evidence of a designer - many species are intelligent to a degree, and intelligence can clearly be seen as an advantageous adaptation to a challenging environment.  In fact, as a very intelligent species, we have been able to adapt our environment to suit ourselves in such a way that we no longer rely on our wits for pure survival, and are able to think about philosophy as well.

So we're back to the question begging with a vengeance.

If intelligence is not evidence of a designer, then what is it evidence of?

It is an 'advantageous adaptation' you say. But it is not an adaptation.

We are struggling to create 'artificial intelligence' in computers. I don't know how far they've gone, but let's say pretty far. There is no adaptation involved. Computers have to be intelligently invented and constructed, intelligent programs written, huge memories created by intelligence,and that's just the beginning. Any number of intelligent researchers have to exist, intelligent people I might add, and one day they'll have an intelligent computer. Created by intelligent Designers and implementers.

We look at ourselves, and see the intelligence that can design and produce artificial intelligence. That is an inordinately higher degree of intelligence that the computers won't be able to mimic. Nor can they mimic the emotions, the feelings, and most important of all, life, and reproductive capacity.

Yet, say you, that is an advantageous adaptation. I say that is nonsense. The word 'adaptation' is a loaded term, which begs the question of whether evolution did or did not take place. Intelligence is not an adaptation, it is a cause of design and change.

I wonder if I can ask you: look at the cliff swallow for a moment. Let's leave out the questions of the origin of flight for a moment.

Those birds migrate from Goya in Argentina to Capistrano in southern California, a distance of about 7500 miles. The arrive there on March the 18th every year, give or take in a leap year. They fly up, on the 23rd October and make the return flight. Another 7500 miles. Those are specific dates, every year. Time has newsreel footage of it happening, and thousands of tourists go every year to watch.

I need a GPS to get me from London to Birmingham. Airline pilots have extremely complicated navigation systems to get them the same distances safely and correctly.

Now, are those GPS systems the products of intelligence, or not? Are those timing devices aboard the products of intelligence or not? Be careful what you say - they'll probably lock you up for libel if you say 'no'.

Now those things are relatively recent inventions. But birds have been doing those journeys for presumably millions of years.

How did they get the equipment to do so? And pack it all in a brain the size of a peanut? And not only that but the mechanisms which run all their life processes are in there too. This is microminiaturisation gone mad.

Any genius who could microminiaturise to that extent would receive a dozen Nobel prizes - yet here is a little bird having successfully done so millions of years ago. How? Without intelligent direction and design? Nonsense.

If a monkey was able to communicate a scientific idea to me, a testable hypothesis with experimental data, then yes, of course I would trust it, as I can apply my own logic to test the hypothesis.  As it happens, apes and monkeys do not have the communicative skills to do so, but apes can be seen in the wild to adapt sticks into tools through a process of trail and error, and then pass info on to fellow apes - clearly the precursor to modern man's ability to make tools and share this knowledge.

Do you really believe that monkeys handing sticks on to one another is the precursor of producing the theory of relativity and Beethoven's Seventh? They've been passing sticks for millennia - where's the monkey music? Or physics?

And this illustrates another point which you will not be able to explain. Music. Now for music to be appreciated, the neural connections etc etc have to be present BEFORE music could ever be invented - otherwise the uncultured brutes across the river would pulverise the composers and players for disturbing their slumbers! The connections etc were obviously there BEFORE the need arose: if there ever was a need.

Those things were divinely implanted in us. Evolution is helpless to answer the problems of the origins of abstract thought. There's no need for it. Billions of animals live and die without it. So where did it come from? And why?

As the brain evolved through several stages, as you pointed out with increasing complexity, the final product is not random.  It has been shaped by millions of years of evolution.  Therefore the actions prescribed by this organ are not random.

Here you are begging questions galore again.

We are discussing whether or not evolution did or could have taken place. You may not therefore say that 'the brain evolved'. It quite obviously didn't. And to be fair, I shouldn't say that either. So that leaves us with the facts, and not the assertions, your or mine.

My logic cannot be faulted: Darwin himself saw this point:

"... But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"
http://brainwagon.org/2006/01/16/intelligent-design-isnt-the-future/

Whether Dawkins can see it is a moot point.

"I understand you may feel the need to believe in a god, and that is fine by me.  However you cannot use perceived gaps in evolution as an excuse to fit your god in - there is no evidence of intelligent design.  If you wish to believe in the biblical creation myth, again, that's fine by me.  But by doing so you opt out of rational discussion of evolution, having rejected reason in favour of an old story."

Logic tells me that intelligence cannot originate from muck and mire. Life can't either, as Pasteur proved irrevocably.

Whether I believe in a God or not, does not invalidate the facts. As as someone with a scientific frame of mind, I don't think you should hide behind such statements as 'having rejected reason'. That is an extremely unjust and irrational statement, reeking highly of prejudice and recognition of the weakness of evolution's case.

As the old saying goes, if you can't beat the case, beat the guy who's presenting it over the head. Nothing changes.

[Flyberius]

We are struggling to create 'artificial intelligence' in computers. I don't know how far they've gone, but let's say pretty far. There is no adaptation involved. Computers have to be intelligently invented and constructed, intelligent programs written, huge memories created by intelligence,and that's just the beginning. Any number of intelligent researchers have to exist, intelligent people I might add, and one day they'll have an intelligent computer. Created by intelligent Designers and implementers.

So I take it you have heard nothing of the many AI projects in the making.  Including the countless ones developing "learning computers".

Several question: 
1.What benefit to mankind does this Intelligent Design theory hold?
2.What designed the designer?
3.Can we use Intelligent Design to suggest theories of a God and keep up this appauling sharade?

I think you will find all the answers to the above questions here:
1.None.
2.Um, another designer, it evolved.
3.Of course, why its already happening.

All I can see it doing is starting wars. 

Personally I feel you are terrified of death and seek further meaning in your life.  Why not discover something real, or do some charity work.

[BenV]

<To everyone else on the forum, I apologise for the coming rant.  I dearly hope this will be the last correspondence I have on this topic>

Asyncritus,

To boil down your arguement above - "Mankind isn't intelligent enough to design these things, so they couldn't possibly have evolved."  You also suggest "Mankind has had to develop technology to copy the natural world, so it couldn't have evolved"

Evolution has had many millions of years to work on many billions of possible permutations - simply put, evolution is happening and producing some wonderful things, none of which require an intelligent designer.

I notice that once again you are bringing up tenuous examples that you feel show a weakness in evolution - everyone who understands evolution and thinks rationally about these things see them as a strength - It's amazing that cliff swallows have evolved to do what they do, but evolve they did.

I'm afraid each and every example you give is based on a simple logical failing - there is no evidence for your god, and no mechanism through which it can act.  As I have stated before, evolution has been witnessed in the wild and in the lab, and predictions made by evolutionary theory happen.

I'm really sorry to inform you, but Darwin's Origin of the Species was written well over 100 years ago.  That's 100 years of scientific development - so it doesn't matter which gaps Darwin couldn't fill.  You are very unlikely to find a modern scientific book or paper on evolution that will cast any doubt on any aspect of evolution.  It's accepted by the scientific world and a great deal of the world at large.  You like to pick on Richard Dawkins, but I hope you realise he's not alone in his thoughts, merely more vociferous than many, who do not see this as a discussion worth having.  Might I suggest you read his books, which are very good at explaining how evolution really works, and will answer some of your criticisms.

Logic tells me that intelligence cannot originate from muck and mire.

Then your logic is failed and wrong.  Please tell me where intelligence can arise from, without referring to the god that there is no evidence of.  There's lots of evidence for evolution, and we can follow a logical progression to the evolution of intelligence.

When you choose to believe in creationism, you opt out of reasoned debate on evolution - you have chosen belief over logic and evidence - there is no evidence for your god, yet you choose to believe in it.  That's fine, but you can't then try to argue with the logic of, and evidence for, evolution, and expect to be taken seriously. 

If I were to say that my garden was created by a fairy and a dragon, that would be my prerogative.  However, this line of argument would not be applicable in a scientific debate.  The only difference between this and your intelligent design is that more people have been dogmatised into believing in your god.

As the old saying goes, if you can't beat the case, beat the guy who's presenting it over the head. Nothing changes.

We've beaten the case - in fact, there is no case.  You continue to return with poorly reasoned arguments and so we try to explain why you are wrong.  This feels to me like banging my head against a brick wall, and I find your lack of ability to address the questions we put to you very frustrating.  I shall repeat myself - a lack of specific evidence for a certain aspect of evolution is not evidence for an intelligent designer.  You will find as much evidence for intelligent design as I could for my garden dragon.

On that note, I would prefer not to continue this conversation.  I have every confidence that you will continue to evade the questions put to you by myself and atrox, and you will consistently fail to show any evidence for intelligent design.

I hope one day you will come to understand how evolution works, reject the ridiculous creationism notion and share in the wonder of the natural world - which never has, and never will need your designer.