Trouble with intelligent design is it falls foul of recursion. If we decide that something complex must be designed then it must have been designed by something more complex. So thus this complex thing must have been designed by something even more complex, rinse and repeat until you realise its not a reasonable explanation of how things ended up the way they are in the world.

“You cant kid me young man. Its Turtles all the way down!”

What bits of evolution do you find unconvincing ?

All of it. Variation within a species, fine. Change into another species? Nothing that’s been presented as 100% absolute & unchallengeable.

Can you explain this in an evidence based scientific way ?

No. Scientists do a pretty good job of that. I’m just your average idiot 🙂 … I’m just unconvinced that a series of accidents could result in what we observe around us.

I’m just unconvinced that a series of accidents could result in what we observe around us.

Evolution is not a series of accidents.

Not so intelligent design:
The human appendix
Hind leg bones in whales
The laryngeal nerve in giraffes
Nipples on men

Are these just cock-ups or deliberately daft? Either way, sack the design team.

All of it. Variation within a species, fine. Change into another species? Nothing that’s been presented as 100% absolute & unchallengeable.

Have you been paying attention to any of this? There are several intelligent comments above about what a theory is, how science works etc.

Are you aware that over 99% of species that have ever existed are extinct? was this all just practice?

I think us on the pro evolution/Natural selection side are still waiting for one scrap of evidence that the theory is even slightly shaky let alone has holes in it big enough to drive a bus through.

Its one of the most incredible bits of science ever. Remember Darwin never new about DNA when he wrote the The Origin of Species. Would be amazing to show him the results of the human genome project and show him the mechanism his theory depends on. Say look old chap you were right 🙂

shmuk – Member

@ahwiles

this is what I don’t get about ‘evolution’ – just because two things look similar then the conclusion is they must be directly related?

now you’re thinking skeptically – good.

we can look at the fused chromosomes above, and we look at the shared mutations, and we look at the mutations unique to each species.

the rate of mutations is known, and can be used as a sort of clock, using this clock we can date the fusion event.

we have 2 clocks; humans and chimps – they both agree with each other.

and we can look at and date the fossil record – which agrees with the chromosome mutation clocks.

so now we have 3 chains of evidence that all support each other – there are many, many, more.

we’re yet to find one that doesn’t fit.

if you can, you will win a nobel prize.

Alice knocked the spots off the genome woman.

Have you been paying attention to any of this?

Not entirely, I’m at work.

There are several intelligent comments above about what a theory is, how science works etc

Which is another reason why I don’t give the theory of evolution much credit. It’s just explanation of how something might work. Which means it isn’t necessarily correct.

I also like the idea that the whole massive evolution movement is actually completely wrong and we’ve spent all this time barking up the wrong tree.

Mankind doesn’t like the idea of intelligent design because he can’t then stride around saying “see that, I used my enormous brain to understand that; gaze upon me, aren’t I magnificent and clever and all that”

hmm not sure about that, what was her name ? The genome woman that is. Just out of interest of course, might read a bit of her research

you will win a nobel prize

Another one. Great. I’ll need a bigger cabinet.
My cleaner’s going to love me – more junk to polish.

(Is the nobel prize even a trophy thing? … probably not. cancel the order for the cabinet)

No. Scientists do a pretty good job of that. I’m just your average idiot … I’m just unconvinced that a series of accidents could result in what we observe around us.

So basically choosing a hunch vs experimental observation based science. As long we know where your coming from thats fine 🙂

Would I be correct in thinking that the main reason you dismiss evolution is it does not fit well with a doctrine you believe in rather than you have analysed the facts and decided they don’t make sense.

Read “The Blind Watchmaker” and see if it answers some of your questions. I know Dawkins can be a bit annoying but he does set out a very persuasive case for evolution.

Give yourself a chance to look for the truth 🙂

Change into another species? Nothing that’s been presented as 100% absolute & unchallengeable

You don’t just have dogs giving birth to seals, you know.

It all happens very very slowly and incrementally. Some species are very close, some not. Some of the close ones can interbreed. There are lots of species so similar that taxonomists can’t decide if they are different or not.

Have you actually looked to see if there are species that’ve evolved into slightly different species based on their environment, say? Cos that’s exactly what Darwin did.

Have you read his book btw?

Give yourself a chance to look for the truth

I have found it.

But, as someone pointed out earlier, this thread is about evolution vs ?, not God/faith/religion/

I also like the idea that the whole massive evolution movement is actually completely wrong and we’ve spent all this time barking up the wrong tree.

Mankind doesn’t like the idea of intelligent design because he can’t then stride around saying “see that, I used my enormous brain to understand that; gaze upon me, aren’t I magnificent and clever and all that”

You and ahwiles are nt really playing by the same rules so this argument is pointless.

Im not anti religious at all but you could say the same about intelligent design. “Look at me Im a man Im so great and perfect I must have been designed !”

If your not going to stake a claim to an alternative position this argument is pointless.

I mean everyone could be wrong about everything and you know what I sometimes “feel” the chances of this are probably higher than anything else. I also “feel” that really there should be nothing at all and the fact there is a blip.

But I have no evidence for these views and to live in the real world and take a position on something you need evidence.

The one thing I do agree with you on is its always worth keeping it mind that your viewpoint might be totally totally wrong, but as stated evolution is currently the best explanation for the variety of life on earth.

But there are still more things in the Universe (and beyond maybe) than we do not understand, than we do understand.

to take a position on something you need evidence

To take an OBJECTIVE position on something you need evidence.

true, which is what I mean by not playing to the same rules.

Mankind doesn’t like the idea of intelligent design because he can’t then stride around saying “see that, I used my enormous brain to understand that; gaze upon me, aren’t I magnificent and clever and all that”

No, mankind doesn’t like the idea of intelligent design becasue it’s a lazy cop out for the hard of thinking.

No-one has ever claimed that the theory of evolution is set in stone, however if you are going to reject that theory in because it’s not perfect, then there are a fair few other things that you better get ready to ditch like electronic devices for example. They rely on quantum theory to work, a theory far less well developed than evolution. That of course is one the easier ones, quite how you are going deny gravity is beyond me.

Mankind doesn’t like the idea of intelligent design

I think a very large section of it does, actually. And almost all of it did for thousands of years.

Mankind doesn’t like the idea of intelligent design

Mankind INVENTED the idea of intelligent design to explain what it couldn’t explain. We’ve since seen further and deeper and are starting to question why we bothered with the invention.

The whole point of science and theories of things like evolution is they are not set in stone, they need to be constantly re-evaluated. And they are until fault is found.

Tim Minchin does it again…
http://tinyurl.com/672gtuq

I’m just unconvinced that a series of accidents could result in what we observe around us.

Evolution is not a series of accidents.

Actually it is …… nothing is “planned”.

If God created all the animals on the sixth day, why then, did he make all the mammals throughout the world in a certain way except in Australia ? Did he get a little bored towards the end of the day and when it came to Australia he said to himself “I know, I’ll do this one a bit different, I’ll give all the mammals in this part of the world pouches to keep their youngsters in” ?

The reason mammals in Australia are all without exception, marsupials, is purely down to “accident”. There is no logical reason whatsoever why mammals in Australia should have evolved to become marsupials – mammals in the rest of the world manage perfectly ok without being marsupial.

The evolution of marsupials is nothing more than a random accident …….. a very effect accident which works of course.

All evolution is a series of random accidents……some more successful than others.

As far as I was aware, evolution proceeds by the aggregation of changes, not by one single animal changing and becoming the ideal. I presume there must be a tendency among many animals of the same species toward a certain variation and that giving them an advantage in the environment they’re in means that variation wins out.

So it’s not an accident, it’s the result of the statistical summation of many variations within the specific environment. It’s not planned, but it’s far from a one-off accident.

I think I might be using a different definition of “accident”, I used it in the context of : anything that occurs unintentionally or by chance.

I doubt very much that there is “a tendency among many animals of the same species toward a certain variation”. It just happens, unintentionally, by chance.

a nobel prize is worth about a million quid.

if you’re not convinced by evolution, right down your reasons why, check it for spelling, and send it off to Nature, or some such well respected publication, and sit back waiting for the cash.

it really is that easy.

Have you ever known two people to have a kid that grows up say freakishly tall?

If we lived in the jungle, that kid might be handy to have around to pick fruit and so on.

So his tribe do well and get more fruit, he has a family and has more freakishly tall kids. Lots of tall kids in that tribe, and the tribe gets taller and also larger cos there’s more fruit around. Cos everyone’s better fed the lady folk get pregnant more readily and have more stronger healthier kids.. and so on. So there are loads of these tall strong people – too many for that corner of the forest so some strike out and set up shop somewhere else, perhaps beating up a tribe of smaller folk who lived there previously. More big strong tall people, and so it goes on. Before you know it, there are fewer and fewer short people and more tall people, to the point where the short people are hard to find. Ultimately, there’ll be no more short people.

All because of a random variation which can be passed on.

Very simplistically put but you get the idea.

you having a dig at the Welsh again i am telling Don Simon on you 😉

Everyone is entitled to have an opinion without needing the approval of the Nobel Prize Committee…….including those who question evolution.

The Nobel Prize Committee is not the font of all truth. And I certainly don’t need to a bunch of Norwegian politicians to tell me what to believe in. They awarded Henry Kissinger the Noble Peace Prize ffs.

Do angels have mums and dads?

Here’s a question… (for the purposes of this question when I say “god” please assume I mean whatever the equivalent deity in your chosen religion as this question is posed to people of all religions, not just christians).

If the pope or whatever equivalent in your chosen religion went on TV saying that:

Ghad spoken directly to them admitting that evolution is an undeniable fact. That the creation of the world (earth) was a by-product of the “big bang” as our earth scientists call it (in fact he’s quite impressed by our earth scientists having worked it out), god had nothing to do with it and has just sat back since and let things evolve out of curiosity.

Meanwhile the god that earth humans have been worshipping has been working hard looking after his chosen beings that were created in his image in another dimension (he’s not that bothered about our universe as he had nothing to do with it)… the real story being that god is nothing to do with humans, and in fact he’s a little miffed at us humans being so self-important that we’ve assumed he’s like us and have made up all these stories about being created in his image and bibles and such) … would you then believe it then?

Do angels have mums and dads?

No

The laryngeal nerve in giraffes

Had the pleasure of getting up close to one of these recently! abolutely beautiful!

I certainly don’t need to a bunch of Norwegian politicians to tell me what to believe in

only done for the peace prize the others are chosen by other sceintific /econiomic etc institutions. It is a pretty prestigous list for other fields but the Peace one is quite political

Then who takes them to pin head dancing classes? Hmmm?

if the pope …….. went on TV saying god (or your chosen equivalent) had spoken directly to them admitting that evolution is an undeniable fact……….. would you then believe it then?

The Pope supports the theory of evolution and all catholic schools teach evolution in their science classes. Sorry to be pedantic, but such sloppiness mildly irritates me …….if you are going to attack people for opposing the theory of evolution, then at least attack the right people 💡

The Pope supports the theory of evolution and all catholic schools teach evolution in their science classes. Sorry to be pedantic, but such sloppiness mildly irritates me …….if you are going to attack people for opposing the theory of evolution, then at least attack the right people

Officially the Vatican has at last accepted evolution, but some of the things Pope Benedict XVI has said would indicate he thinks otherwise. So not entirely cut and dry.

Ernie… i’m not attacking anyone, i’m asking a question… a hypothetical one at that 🙂 no need to apologise about pedantry!

just curious as to whether the faith that causes some to believe evolution can’t be true cos its all too perfect and there must be a god could be changed if the leaders of that faith said so?

Officially the Vatican has at last accepted evolution, but some of the things Pope Benedict XVI has said would indicate he thinks otherwise. So not entirely cut and dry.

😕 What do you mean “at last” ? And it is perfectly “cut and dry” ……the catholic church fully supports the theory of evolution. That’s how I learnt about theory of evolution …….in science classes in catholic schools. It’s pretty clear cut to me.

EDIT : And as I recall, when discussing the theory of evolution in our biology lessons, we were taught of the pioneering work of Gregor Mendel. Gregor Mendel studied genetics in relation to evolution ….. particularly plant evolution. He lived in the 19th century and happened to be a catholic monk.

I doubt very much that there is “a tendency among many animals of the same species toward a certain variation”. It just happens, unintentionally, by chance.

Erm, you can’t doubt it really. Things like certain genetic variations (i.e. tendencies towards a variation) that occur in a percentage of the population. If that genetic variation is helpful it gets kept by natural selection. That IS evolution. What I’m saying in the first post is that it’s not just a random accident with one animal, it’s a structured and repeated variation that occurs and wins out over the old version.

What do you mean “at last” ? And it is perfectly “cut and dry” ……the catholic church fully supports the theory of evolution. That’s how I learnt about theory of evolution …….in science classes in catholic schools. It’s pretty clear cut to me

Was it not Pope John Paul II in 1996 that clarified the position ? Thats what I meant when I said about time. I could be wrong though I am not a Vatican historian.

(So maybe I should stick to the science bit 🙂 )