Ken Miller on Intelligent Design

[gwprod12]

Wildcat: please indicate your source for the information that proves the Urey/Miller experiment false. Amino acids were produced spontaneously. You just dont like that fact, so you split any hair you can to "prove" it's wrong.

[wildcat69410]

No matter how much you spin the cat, the cat always remain the same. At the end, ID and creationism always fall back to this anti-scientific and really stupid idea (no offense please, the idea is not yours after all). No more interest into reading this post for me.

 

How is ID anti-scientific? Just because it contradicts an already existant scientific theory does not make it anti-scientific. It takes mathematical probability forumulas and combines them with biological sciences. Not exactly anti-scientific. The general opinion of most is that any theory that contradicts evolution is considered to be anti-scientific.

 

Wildcat: please indicate your source for the information that proves the Urey/Miller experiment false. Amino acids were produced spontaneously. You just dont like that fact, so you split any hair you can to "prove" it's wrong.

 

How about This? Any legitimate article of the Urey Miller experiment will mention the differential between the atmosphere they tested, and the atmsophere actually present during the early part of Earth's life. This differential is plainly enough to change the results of the experiment.

 

Some argue that this new article provides an even better birth ground for organic chemicals, however they fail to mention several things. First off, these "organic chemicals" are in fact things such as formaldehyde and cyanide, chemicals that are actually detrimental to life. Secondly, the amount of electricity used in the Miller Urey Experiment was too much for the amount of lightning that was actually present in this early time. No one denies that there was lightning on Earth at that time period, just not the amount used in the experiment.

 

Even still, the simplest formation of amino acids needs at least 70 amino acids, with the simplest protein requiring in upwards of 500. To assume that these amino acids came together in the way they did, in the short time period of 100 million years (which is short for the evolution of cells), is absoluetly ludicrous.

 

Nobody's splitting a hair, and trying to prove something false when it isn't. Just because they're scientific evidence that DOESN'T aid evolution, doesn't mean that it's fabricated and is just used in desperation.

[gwprod12]

Intelligent Design is antiscientific because it posits no hypotheses and gives no possibility of experimentation. That's unscientific. We've been over this a hundred times already.

 

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment

 

During recent years, studies have been made of the amino acid composition of the products of "old" areas in "old" genes, defined as those that are found to be common to organisms from several widely separated species, assumed to share only the last universal ancestor (LUA) of all extant species. These studies found that the products of these areas are enriched in those amino acids that are also most readily produced in the Miller-Urey experiment. This suggests that the original genetic code was based on a smaller number of amino acids -- only those available in prebiotic nature -- than the current one. (Brooks et al. 2002).

 

From http://news-info.wustl.edu/news/page/normal/5513.html

 

Sept. 7, 2005 -- Using primitive meteorites called chondrites as their models, earth and planetary scientists at Washington University in St. Louis have performed outgassing calculations and shown that the early Earth's atmosphere was a reducing one, chock full of methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water vapor.

 

In making this discovery Bruce Fegley, Ph.D., Washington University professor of earth and planetary sciences in Arts & Sciences, and Laura Schaefer, laboratory assistant, reinvigorate one of the most famous and controversial theories on the origins of life, the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment, which yielded organic compounds necessary to evolve organisms.

 

http://newsrelease.uwaterloo.ca/news.php?id=4348

 

Now. If you like, you may say that since the conditions of early earth are unknown, it is not reasonable to assume that the Miller-Urey experiment accurately depicts spontaneous formation of amino acids on earth. It does, however, depict the spontaneous formation of amino acids. You cant claim that it doesnt, because it does.

 

EDIT: perhaps calling Intelligent Design anti-scientific or unscientific is too strong. But it's definitely pre-scientific. It has not been disproven. However, I am pretty confident that there is no scientific evidence FOR Intelligent Design. All of the "evidence" you've come up with FOR intelligent design has, at the most, been potential evidence against organic evolution. Come up with a piece of evidence FOR Intelligent Design, then you'll have something.

 

Imagine for the moment that intelligent design's basic premise is true, and organic evolution's basic premise is false. Let's connect organic evolution to the round earth theory, and say that there is reams of evidence that indicates that the earth is, in fact, round. Someone comes along, and because they dont buy that the earth is round, decides to state that the earth is flat. Poking holes in the evidence for a round earth wont discredit that theory. Only finding evidence that the earth is flat will do so. How does one determine that the earth is flat? Or that Intelligent Design is the correct explanation for the origin of organic life? I'm not equating Intelligent Design with flat earth theory, I'm just using flat earth theory as an example. (and before you say how rediculous and nonsensical a flat earth would be. It's not impossible that the earth is flat, but because of spacial transform, appears to be round)

 

Let's use stargate sg-1 for an example. In stargate SG-1, most life forms were imported to the earth by the Ancients, who, with their technology, set about to produce a planet that was amenable to their life style. Assuming this is, in fact, the case, how would you go about proving that the Ancients seeded the earth with life, or that the Ancients existed at all?

 

Things I would look for: A stargate (just kidding)

 

Technology. Evidence for a civilization that predates a period of enhanced species formation.

 

As far as I can see, these are the only pieces of evidence that would support a theory of intelligent design of life on the earth.

 

The Panspermia hypothesis actually has more basis than Intelligent Design, because evidence of amino acids and other organic compounds has been discovered in extra-terestrial bodies such as comets and meteorites.

 

Were I a believer in intelligent design, the first part of developing a testable hypothesis would be to make a prediction on how life originally was created. Unless the original intelligent designer is God, it must be some other form of life (not necessarily organic life), which would require it to have come from somewhere.

[markav28]

At a certain level, life is too complex to have come about randomly, but rather must have been created by an intelligent being.

 

Ahha. There is your problem. Evolution is guided by two main forces: random mutation and natural selection. Random mutation is of course random, but natural selection is a very non-random process. Saying that 'life is too complex to have come about randomly' is a red herring. Of course life did not come about randomly. Once we had a self-replicating molecule, the (non-random) forces of evolution are free to take over. You may then ask, 'well where did those self-replicating molecules come from?' Some research into abiogenesis may help you out there.

 

I also wanted to address the issue of why ID is not scientific. One requirement of a scientific theory is that it is falsifiable. This means that we can, even in principal, set up an experiment that would falsify that theory. ID is not falsifiable because there is no experiment we can do that could prove it to be wrong. (This is the same reason that fairies and leprechauns are not accepted as scientific explanations for things). Evolution on the other hand is falsifiable. One thing that comes to mind would be finding human remains in the same geological layer as, say, dinosaur remains. Another thing that would falsify evolution is for this ID being to come out and tell us he did it

[gwprod12]

markav: while I applaud your attempt to explain why Intelligent Design is nonscientific (it's solipsistic), this has all been stated a million times. Some specific people are incapable of wrapping their head around the fact that science requires that it is possible for it to be incorrect. As you've stated, all observations or experiments that can be made or performed would be consistent with the idea that life was designed by intelligent beings.

 

EDIT: A better example of evidence being inconsistent with origin of life on earth theories would be finding extraterestrial lifeforms that share a common ancestor with earth life, thus giving credence to Panspermia.

[markav28]

oh i know its been stated a million times. I thought maybe hearing it a million and one times, or at least phrased a different way might make it easier for some people to understand.

[gwprod12]

A good Intelligent Design hypothesis is: Tom Cruise, with a time machine, traveled into the primordial past, injected the seas of the earth with his demon seed, and that is what produced life on earth. That's a perfectly scientific hypothesis, because it's easy to think of evidence which would cause that statement to be untrue. (Though it's hard to think of evidence that would cause that statement to not be untrue)

[dark4181]

markav: while I applaud your attempt to explain why Intelligent Design is nonscientific (it's solipsistic), this has all been stated a million times. Some specific people are incapable of wrapping their head around the fact that science requires that it is possible for it to be incorrect. As you've stated, all observations or experiments that can be made or performed would be consistent with the idea that life was designed by intelligent beings.

 

likewise, some people are incapable of wrapping their heads around the fact that science requires that it is possible for evolution to be incorrect.. like some of the people in this thread

 

here's a good read about a the ID/creator vs evolution debate... it's not entirely unbiased, but it does tear into the main points of evolution rather nicely. it interview 13 widely acknowledged scientists with impressive credentials...

 

a case for a creator

 

yes, that's the title of the book. some people should "try reading books instead of 'burning' them"

[killbot1000]

Its also impossible for people to wrap their head around that religion is probably always wrong...Just thought id throw that one in there for kicks.

[wildcat69410]

Its also impossible for people to wrap their head around that religion is probably always wrong...Just thought id throw that one in there for kicks.

 

Or perhaps its because their heads are too big, and they can't imagine anyone other than themselves at the center of the universe. Just thought I'd throw that one in there for kicks.

[killbot1000]

are you talking about religious people? Or non religious people? Since youre religious (or you seem to be) im going to assume you were talking about non religious people, and to tell you the truth I absolutely think its exactly the opposite, its religious people who think were special, that we deserve special reverence, as if were the only sentient life in the universe, and that were created in gods image? If you ask me, that seems awfully big headed, just thought id throw THAT one in there for kicks

[dark4181]

are you talking about religious people? Or non religious people? Since youre religious (or you seem to be) im going to assume you were talking about non religious people, and to tell you the truth I absolutely think its exactly the opposite, its religious people who think were special, that we deserve special reverence, as if were the only sentient life in the universe, and that were created in gods image? If you ask me, that seems awfully big headed, just thought id throw THAT one in there for kicks

 

so you've met other forms of sentient life out in the galaxy? wow man, that's great, you should invite them by for tea sometime so we can all get to know them

 

just like it's impossible to prove the existance of god, it's also impossible to prove the existance of life from other planets... unless, as someone said earlier in the thread, they decide to show up and say hi

 

how's that for kicks

[wildcat69410]

so you've met other forms of sentient life out in the galaxy? wow man, that's great, you should invite them by for tea sometime so we can all get to know them

 

just like it's impossible to prove the existance of god, it's also impossible to prove the existance of life from other planets... unless, as someone said earlier in the thread, they decide to show up and say hi

 

how's that for kicks smile.gif

 

Haha, .

 

are you talking about religious people? Or non religious people? Since youre religious (or you seem to be) im going to assume you were talking about non religious people, and to tell you the truth I absolutely think its exactly the opposite, its religious people who think were special, that we deserve special reverence, as if were the only sentient life in the universe, and that were created in gods image? If you ask me, that seems awfully big headed, just thought id throw THAT one in there for kicks

 

Hmm, how about that large part in the Bible that focuses on humility. Maybe you should try reading it, or if you already have, reread it again...

 

Just for kicks...

[killbot1000]

So you really think that there is not ONE other kind of intelligent life in the universe? There are literally more stars than grains of sand on all the beaches and deserts of Earth, the mathematical probability totally has to be there, it has nothing to do with humility.

[dark4181]

So you really think that there is not ONE other kind of intelligent life in the universe? There are literally more stars than grains of sand on all the beaches and deserts of Earth, the mathematical probability totally has to be there, it has nothing to do with humility.

 

well, the mathematical probabilty for our universe forming EXACTLY THE WAY IT DID BY PURE RANDOM CHANCE OR ACCIDENT is a 1 followed by 93 zeros to 1

 

get that? 1+ 93 zeroes:1

[consolation]

well, the mathematical probabilty for our universe forming EXACTLY THE WAY IT DID BY PURE RANDOM CHANCE OR ACCIDENT is a 1 followed by 93 zeros to 1

 

get that? 1+ 93 zeroes:1

 

So what? The odds of it forming any OTHER way are just as unlikely; and since it had to form in SOME way it means that there is nothing special about our universe. Just because something is unlikely doesn't mean it's special. If you roll a dice it's unlikely that you will get any specific number say "3" but that doesn't mean that rolling a 3 is a special "magickal" feat or evidence for god....

[gwprod12]

Everything that happens in daily life is statistically improbable.

[wildcat69410]

So what? The odds of it forming any OTHER way are just as unlikely; and since it had to form in SOME way it means that there is nothing special about our universe. Just because something is unlikely doesn't mean it's special. If you roll a dice it's unlikely that you will get any specific number say "3" but that doesn't mean that rolling a 3 is a special "magickal" feat or evidence for god....

 

There is one hell of a difference between rolling a "3" and getting our universe in order. When you examine the scope of it all, and the cosmic accuracy to which everything was created, you really start to doubt that this all could have come about by random chance. And actually, your assumption that the universe HAD to be formed isn't necessarily true. Although the Universe is assumed to be a constant (correct me if I am wrong), its creation wasn't a technical necessity. It just happened. How it happened is what is important. The Universe could have been formed billiions of ways, yet there is only one way for it to form how it is now. One simple mistake, and the universe is in cosmic dissarray.

 

It's not that it's unlikely, it's that it's virtually impossible that makes it special.

 

Everything that happens in daily life is statistically improbable.

 

Like what?

[gwprod12]

Today I poured a cup of coffee. What is the likelihood of pouring 123,000,000,000,000,000,001 molecules vs 123,000,000,000,000,000,002 molecules?

[killbot1000]

Wildcat/Dark 4181, You only think the universe is supposed to be the way it is because THATS the way it turned out, if it had turned out a different way, you would be saying thats the way its supposed to be, its kind of irrelevant

[wildcat69410]

Wildcat/Dark 4181, You only think the universe is supposed to be the way it is because THATS the way it turned out, if it had turned out a different way, you would be saying thats the way its supposed to be, its kind of irrelevant

 

No, because that's the only way it truly could have turned out, and the only way we'd actually be alive. Any other cosmic disturbance would have sent Earth to a completely different location, with conditions completely inhospitable to life.

 

Today I poured a cup of coffee. What is the likelihood of pouring 123,000,000,000,000,000,001 molecules vs 123,000,000,000,000,000,002 molecules?

 

Big difference between the two improbabilities. There are very very very few things that could actually affect the number of molecules poured into a cup of coffee, and even still, those differences don't turn out to create any difference in the coffee. The creation of the universe is WAY more complex, and could have turned out billions of other ways, none of which would have left earth hospitable.

[gwprod12]

As far as the universe turning out a million other ways:

One, you dont know that at all. You arent trained in the hard sciences, and even if you were, it's a question up for debate.

Two, had the universe turned out any other way, we'd still be having this conversation, with you saying that three beaked snazzlepus' (alternate us) and a magenta sky, silicon life and whatever else could only have been generated by some deity, because the idea that the universe could have built itself entirely by physical law is rediculous.

 

The universe didnt emerge randomly. That's the failure in what you're saying.

 

Also, if one used all the variables in the universe, of which there are many, and took 10 seconds, one would find the probability that any given 10 seconds turned out as they did to be smaller (less likely) than 1 to 1*10^93.

 

(the 1 to 1 * 10^93 is a {censored} number pulled out of dark's bony butt, and doesnt mean anything actually, but assuming that it was the probability of the universe turning out as it did, that improbability isnt that high comparatively)

[dark4181]

actually, the number came from steven hawking... not my bony butt

 

gonna call the smartest man on earth names now?

[killbot1000]

just because the odds are low doesnt mean some diety made the universe.

[gwprod12]

Stephen Hawking said that the odds of the universe being formed naturally were 1 to 10^93? Please indicate a reference for that statement.