Could the 'eye' and other complex organs have evolved from random mutation?

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: ntdz
What does religion have to do with random mutations and the eye?

Nothing. Have I implied that it has any relevance? Don't think so.

You keep bringing up intelligent design in a thread that is about evolution, why?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: ntdz
You keep bringing up intelligent design in a thread that is about evolution, why?

ATPNID doesn't imply that a deity is the intelligent designer. It says nothing about what causes the design. Thus, it has no religious connotation. Besides, I didn't bring up ID, I just generalized it to ATPNID to avoid lumping all such theories into the same basket.

 

[DealMonkey]

The connection between ID and religion can be immediately seen when you look at the sort of people promoting ID. They are overwhelmingly Christians. Are they not?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
The connection between ID and religion can be immediately seen when you look at the sort of people promoting ID. They are overwhelmingly Christians. Are they not?

So? Does that have anything to do with the validity of the theory? There's no necessary linkage, as I'm sure there are people that believe aliens made everything.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
The connection between ID and religion can be immediately seen when you look at the sort of people promoting ID. They are overwhelmingly Christians. Are they not?

So? Does that have anything to do with the validity of the theory? There's no necessary linkage, as I'm sure there are people that believe aliens made everything.

since it seems the thread is hijacked already - ID does not meet the criteria for a scientific theory, it is more like a hypothesis. there is no reason to examine it as a scientific theory.

speaking of hijacking, ID has existed in various forms all the way back to Aquinas in 1225AD. only recently has the christian right hijacked it, and attempted to reformulate it to make it sound like a scientific theory. ID should remain in philosophy classes where it belongs, not in science classes.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: totalcommand
since it seems the thread is hijacked already - ID does not meet the criteria for a scientific theory, it is more like a hypothesis. there is no reason to examine it as a scientific theory.

speaking of hijacking, ID has existed in various forms all the way back to Aquinas in 1225AD. only recently has the christian right hijacked it, and attempted to reformulate it to make it sound like a scientific theory. ID should remain in philosophy classes where it belongs, not in science classes.

Not going to disagree with anything you said - it's definitely not a scientific theory. I'll just note that Aquinas was (Catholic) Christian.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
The connection between ID and religion can be immediately seen when you look at the sort of people promoting ID. They are overwhelmingly Christians. Are they not?

So? Does that have anything to do with the validity of the theory? There's no necessary linkage, as I'm sure there are people that believe aliens made everything.

Well, I think we'd be remiss not to consider the motives of a particular group of people pushing a particular agenda. Wouldn't we?

The theory itself, as has been pointed out repeatedly, is really no theory at all. Of course, believe what you want, by all means. But, it irks me (and IMO is unconstitutional) when those beliefs get pushed on the community at large. (e.g. trying to get ID taught in public schools - as science nonetheless.)

 

[glenn1]

To all the religious people out there...Who/what created God? Did he create himself? Did another higher being create him? Did he come from nothing? (if he did, then why couldn't life have come from non life?)

That's a question not even religion answers.

I'm not even religious and even I can answer this one. You obviously are confused on what defines "God." God is the end of the line, the alpha and omega and all that stuff you hear about in church. You can't reduce beyond God in the chain of events, by definition he's the first cause. Even if you don't believe in God, it's basically impossible to dispute this since this is the very concept of God in Western thought - the mental construct of God requires it to be so for God to meet the definition we've assigned him. If he wasn't the first cause, he wouldn't be God.

BTW, you likely believe in same cosmological argument that many thelogists use, only you call it the "Big Bang" rather than God. Check the Wikipedia articles for ontology, cosmological argument, and the Principle of Sufficient Reason if you need additional education.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Well, I think we'd be remiss not to consider the motives of a particular group of people pushing a particular agenda. Wouldn't we?

No. The motives of a group associated with any agenda have absolutely nothing to do with the validity of an agenda itself. For example, al Qaeda might have a good agenda (e.g. getting the US out of the Middle East), and say that their motives are the overthrow of ME governments so that they can seize control. There are legitimate concerns about the US being in the ME, so it's inappropriate to dismiss this agenda simply because its most vocal proponents are suicidal killers with an ulterior motive.

The theory itself, as has been pointed out repeatedly, is really no theory at all. Of course, believe what you want, by all means. But, it irks me (and IMO is unconstitutional) when those beliefs get pushed on the community at large. (e.g. trying to get ID taught in public schools - as science nonetheless.)

Pushing it is very constitutional. However, allowing it to actually be taught in a science would be ridiculous.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
The connection between ID and religion can be immediately seen when you look at the sort of people promoting ID. They are overwhelmingly Christians. Are they not?

So? Does that have anything to do with the validity of the theory? There's no necessary linkage, as I'm sure there are people that believe aliens made everything.

since it seems the thread is hijacked already - ID does not meet the criteria for a scientific theory, it is more like a hypothesis. there is no reason to examine it as a scientific theory.

speaking of hijacking, ID has existed in various forms all the way back to Aquinas in 1225AD. only recently has the christian right hijacked it, and attempted to reformulate it to make it sound like a scientific theory. ID should remain in philosophy classes where it belongs, not in science classes.

Curious, how come ID has suddenly sprung into exsistance again all of the sudden? I don't ever remember ID being such a large issuse until recently, how did it suddenly take the spotlight? Is their some large fundamentalist christian group promoting ID or what?

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
The connection between ID and religion can be immediately seen when you look at the sort of people promoting ID. They are overwhelmingly Christians. Are they not?

So? Does that have anything to do with the validity of the theory? There's no necessary linkage, as I'm sure there are people that believe aliens made everything.

since it seems the thread is hijacked already - ID does not meet the criteria for a scientific theory, it is more like a hypothesis. there is no reason to examine it as a scientific theory.

speaking of hijacking, ID has existed in various forms all the way back to Aquinas in 1225AD. only recently has the christian right hijacked it, and attempted to reformulate it to make it sound like a scientific theory. ID should remain in philosophy classes where it belongs, not in science classes.

Curious, how come ID has suddenly sprung into exsistance again all of the sudden? I don't ever remember ID being such a large issuse until recently, how did it suddenly take the spotlight? Is their some large fundamentalist christian group promoting ID or what?

I think it started sometime in the 1980s, as a response to the mounting evidence for evolution. i'll post a link here if i can find it.

Though unrelated to the current use of the term, the phrase "intelligent design" can be found in an 1847 issue of Scientific American, in an 1868 book, and in an address to the 1873 annual meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science by Paleyite botanist George James Allman:

No physical hypothesis founded on any indisputable fact has yet explained the origin of the primordial protoplasm, and, above all, of its marvellous properties, which render evolution possible?in heredity and in adaptability, for these properties are the cause and not the effect of evolution. For the cause of this cause we have sought in vain among the physical forces which surround us, until we are at last compelled to rest upon an independent volition, a far-seeing intelligent design.[11]

The phrase was coined again in Humanism, a 1903 book by Ferdinand Canning Scott Schiller: "It will not be possible to rule out the supposition that the process of evolution may be guided by an intelligent design," and was resurrected in the early 1980s by Sir Fred Hoyle as part of his promotion of panspermia.[12]

The term was again resurrected when the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Edwards v. Aguillard, ruled out creationism in public school science curricula in 1987. Stephen C. Meyer, cofounder of the Discovery Institute and vice president of the Center for Science and Culture, reports that the term came up in 1988 at a conference he attended in Tacoma, Washington, called Sources of Information Content in DNA.[13] He attributes the phrase to Charles Thaxton, editor of Of Pandas and People. In drafts of the book Of Pandas and People, the word 'creationism' was subsequently changed, almost without exception to intelligent design. The book was published in 1989 and is considered to be the first intelligent design book.[14] The term was promoted more broadly by the retired legal scholar Phillip E. Johnson following his 1991 book Darwin on Trial which advocated redefining science to allow claims of supernatural creation. Johnson went on to work with Meyers, becoming the program advisor of the Center for Science and Culture, and is considered the "father" of the intelligent design movement, as a part of its wedge strategy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design#Origins_of_the_concept

 

[Tab]

Interesting, thanks TC.

 

[blahblah99]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
The connection between ID and religion can be immediately seen when you look at the sort of people promoting ID. They are overwhelmingly Christians. Are they not?

So? Does that have anything to do with the validity of the theory? There's no necessary linkage, as I'm sure there are people that believe aliens made everything.

since it seems the thread is hijacked already - ID does not meet the criteria for a scientific theory, it is more like a hypothesis. there is no reason to examine it as a scientific theory.

speaking of hijacking, ID has existed in various forms all the way back to Aquinas in 1225AD. only recently has the christian right hijacked it, and attempted to reformulate it to make it sound like a scientific theory. ID should remain in philosophy classes where it belongs, not in science classes.

Curious, how come ID has suddenly sprung into exsistance again all of the sudden? I don't ever remember ID being such a large issuse until recently, how did it suddenly take the spotlight? Is their some large fundamentalist christian group promoting ID or what?

Because in a country that is predominantly Christians, ID will always be a topic. It's just that as more scientific evidence is discovered, some feel the need to remind the public of ID as another form of theory.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
The connection between ID and religion can be immediately seen when you look at the sort of people promoting ID. They are overwhelmingly Christians. Are they not?

So? Does that have anything to do with the validity of the theory? There's no necessary linkage, as I'm sure there are people that believe aliens made everything.

Although your point is valid, you then have to question what made the aliens. Sooner or later it will inevitably lead to an "ultimate" creator (a god).

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Well, I think we'd be remiss not to consider the motives of a particular group of people pushing a particular agenda. Wouldn't we?

No. The motives of a group associated with any agenda have absolutely nothing to do with the validity of an agenda itself. For example, al Qaeda might have a good agenda (e.g. getting the US out of the Middle East), and say that their motives are the overthrow of ME governments so that they can seize control. There are legitimate concerns about the US being in the ME, so it's inappropriate to dismiss this agenda simply because its most vocal proponents are suicidal killers with an ulterior motive.

It's already been shown that the "agenda" or ID itself lacks scientific validity. You can believe in it all you want, it can make you feel good about yourself and your beliefs, but it's not science.

Furthermore, you can't act like ID and Christianity aren't tied at the hip. Some may try and pass ID off as secular, but the overwhelming impetus to get ID into our public schools is based on Christians and their agenda. It's like saying al Qaeda exists in a religious vacuum. I mean it could, but it very clearly does not. You'd only be examining half the story if you did not study the Islamic underpinnings of the group and its demands on the world.

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
The theory itself, as has been pointed out repeatedly, is really no theory at all. Of course, believe what you want, by all means. But, it irks me (and IMO is unconstitutional) when those beliefs get pushed on the community at large. (e.g. trying to get ID taught in public schools - as science nonetheless.)

Pushing it is very constitutional. However, allowing it to actually be taught in a science would be ridiculous.

Certainly, they can try, no doubt about it. But if the ID proponents get their wish -- meaning, the actually get a district to teach ID as science -- then there is legal precedent to guide future decisions. I mean just look at the recent smack down of the Dover Area School Board by a U.S. District Judge who sayed the concept (ID) is "creationism in disguise" ... "violates the constitutional separation of church and state" ... here's a snippet from MSNBC:

six-week trial over the issue yielded ?overwhelming evidence? establishing that intelligent design ?is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory,? said Jones, a Republican and a churchgoer appointed to the federal bench three years ago.

So in the end, everyone eventually understands what the ID movement is trying to do. Honestly, they're not fooling anyone.

 

[imported_Baloo]

In Response to the OP's Query, the answer is no. But then, that is not what evolution is. Eyes evolved from the process of NATURAL SELECTION, with random mutations mixed in.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Baloo
In Response to the OP's Query, the answer is no. But then, that is not what evolution is. Eyes evolved from the process of NATURAL SELECTION, with random mutations mixed in.

Not a very good beginning here. Natural selection is nature's way of filtering out which random mutations are beneficial, neutral, or damaging to a living thing. You can't say that eyes evolved from the process of natural selection and say they didn't evole from random mutation, they are the same thing.

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Baloo
In Response to the OP's Query, the answer is no. But then, that is not what evolution is. Eyes evolved from the process of NATURAL SELECTION, with random mutations mixed in.

Not a very good beginning here. Natural selection is nature's way of filtering out which random mutations are beneficial, neutral, or damaging to a living thing. You can't say that eyes evolved from the process of natural selection and say they didn't evole from random mutation, they are the same thing.

i think a better way to say "nature's way" is to say , what happens to live or die in a given area for whatever reason has a direct effect on who or what reproduces and survives

when i look at it like that, it seems like common sense

 

[imported_Baloo]

Yes, ntdz, you can't say that, which is why I did not. It takes both, just as I said. In other words, Natural selection selects features that are benificial to survival, removes features the are detrimental, random mutation introdues new features.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
It's already been shown that the "agenda" or ID itself lacks scientific validity. You can believe in it all you want, it can make you feel good about yourself and your beliefs, but it's not science.

Um, I've stated as much in this thread. Maybe if you'd discuss the issue instead of trying to make me look like some ignorant hillbilly, we'd be moving the discussion forward instead of spinning our wheels. But that's not what you're interested in doing, is it?

Furthermore, you can't act like ID and Christianity aren't tied at the hip. Some may try and pass ID off as secular, but the overwhelming impetus to get ID into our public schools is based on Christians and their agenda. It's like saying al Qaeda exists in a religious vacuum. I mean it could, but it very clearly does not. You'd only be examining half the story if you did not study the Islamic underpinnings of the group and its demands on the world.

Nice strawman. I never implied that they're not related. I simply stated that the link between ID and Christianity tells us nothing about the validity of the theory and, therefore, is completely irrelevant. Of course, I've also stated this at least 2-3 times already, but you continue to ignore it. This tells me that you're in the market to attack Christianity rather than debate the topic at hand.

Certainly, they can try, no doubt about it. But if the ID proponents get their wish -- meaning, the actually get a district to teach ID as science -- then there is legal precedent to guide future decisions. I mean just look at the recent smack down of the Dover Area School Board by a U.S. District Judge who sayed the concept (ID) is "creationism in disguise" ... "violates the constitutional separation of church and state" ... here's a snippet from MSNBC:

So what? What does this have to do with anything? Do you enjoy just creating diversion after diversion after diversion? Try actually discussing the issue for a change - you might find it refreshing.

 

[Todd33]

Cyclo don't pretend ID isn't just Christian agenda, nothing but anti-evolution. They have been at it for 100+ years now, no use denying it. In fact the text book the ID folks tried to pass off was one where they basically replaced "creationism" with "ID" and got caught in court. I have no clue why you would support this trash, other than your Christian upbringing that you can't seem to shake off despite it's conflict with reality. I guess thing we are force fed as kids is harder to dismiss than the stuff we learn voluntarily as adults.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Todd33
Cyclo don't pretend ID isn't just Christian agenda, nothing but anti-evolution. They have been at it for 100+ years now, no use denying it. In fact the text book the ID folks tried to pass off was one where they basically replaced "creationism" with "ID" and got caught in court.

I never did. I just stated that its most outspoken backers are irrelevant when gauging the validity of the theory. Of course, you alreay knew that, since I've stated it very clearly dozens of times now in this thread. You just thought you'd stop by to spew some anti-religious hate in my direction. Good for you. :thumbsup:

I have no clue why you would support this trash, other than your Christian upbringing that you can't seem to shake off despite it's conflict with reality. I guess thing we are force fed as kids is harder to dismiss than the stuff we learn voluntarily as adults.

You'll also note that nowhere have I supported ID in any thread on this forum. Now you're just coming at me directly, not wasting time with bashing religion in general. It pains you that someone more educated than yourself might be so susceptible to 'brainwashing' at the hands of religion. If only all engineers could see the light that you, in your infinite wisdom, have seen and preached for years! Sorry that I can't share in your cynicism. :thumbsdown:

 

[slash196]

I haven't read the debate thus far, I would just like to interject that anyone who claims evolution is a random process deserves to be smacked smartly across the face.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Todd33
Cyclo don't pretend ID isn't just Christian agenda, nothing but anti-evolution. They have been at it for 100+ years now, no use denying it. In fact the text book the ID folks tried to pass off was one where they basically replaced "creationism" with "ID" and got caught in court.

I never did. I just stated that its most outspoken backers are irrelevant when gauging the validity of the theory. Of course, you alreay knew that, since I've stated it very clearly dozens of times now in this thread. You just thought you'd stop by to spew some anti-religious hate in my direction. Good for you. :thumbsup:

I'm looking hard for my "anti-religious hate". Nope, don't see it. I guess you reply with canned responses, but put little thought in where to use them? You have spent this whole thread defending ID, just in coy way, like someone who is embarrassed to admit something outright. Come out of the closet, it's alright.

 

[0roo0roo]

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/