Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Natural Selection Bankrupt

Seems that the more we learn, the more there is to doubt.

Didn't know whether to post here or not quite science. Not sure if evolution is actually science or 'not quite science'. Has the study of evolution ever delivered any tangible benefits to the human race?

From Jerry Fodor's article:

"In fact, an appreciable number of perfectly reasonable biologists are coming to think that the theory of natural selection can no longer be taken for granted….The ironic upshot is that at a time when the theory of natural selection has become an article of pop culture, it is faced with what may be the most serious challenge it has had so far. Darwinists have been known to say that adaptationism is the best idea anybody has ever had. It would be a good joke if the best idea that anybody has ever had turned out not to be true."



Full article here:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n20/fodo01_.html


Has anyone read 'Darwinian Fairy Tales'? Now back in print.

I was a believer until I read it - now I'm a bit of a doubter.

"appreciable number of perfectly reasonable biologists "
A small number of mediocre biologists is more like it.

"I was a believer until I read it - now I'm a bit of a doubter. "
Uh ...yea. I hear that all the time.

Socrates2007. The author has no trouble at all with darwinian evolution, just that it's more complicated than simple natural selection. The idea that Darwin should have been able to explain exactly how evolution works is completely stupid, a stupidity that IDers and creationists usually suffer from. After all Darwin didn't even know how characters are inherited. But his basic idea has been consistently shown to be completely true.

Mediocre in relation to who? Mediocre in relation to you perhaps?

I see you also play the numbers game. Very easy, but we are lucky that this 'science retarding' attitude has not always won out. Can you imagine the following conversation:

"Darwin and a small number of mediocre scientists at the fringes are trying to push this new theory. Luckily we don't have to pay any attention and can discount everything they say without even having to engage our brain to consider it."

Your dismissal is arrogant.

Are you a teenager?

Why am I not surprised that you don't understand that ID and Creationism is entirely distinct? Apart from one denying evolution and the other recognising it. Creationism is solely religious, ID has proponents who are atheist and agnostic.

What is the main argument behind ID? Do you know?

ID pretends to be unreligious, but it is. Most of its adherents are very clear that they are religiously motivated when they are discussing things among their buds.

Aside from the fact that the VAST majority of IDers repeat the same arguments that creationists have already been making ...

Philip Johnson, the lawyer who started the current ID movement, has stated outright that the purpose for ID is to create a legal wedge for ramming God into the classroom.

When the icon of ID, J. Wells, for example, was speaking to the general public, he said that he approached his studies with an open mind and gradually became convinced that evolution had serious flaws. When he spoke to his own congretation, he said that he was speaking with Father (Rev. Moon) and they decided he need to refute evolution and that's the reason he went on for his two degrees. His book "Icons of Evolution" rehashing incorrect and well-refuted arguments that creationists have long been making.

The fact that there is a handful of agnostics and atheists in the ID movement, few of whom demonstrate a very clear understanding and a none a mastery of the subject is hardly evidence that it's not a religious movement.

Mediocre in relation to the number and quality of papers they are publishing. (Quality as judged partly by the number of citations they receive in the papers of others in their fields.)

It's not a 'numbers game.' It's a "where's the beef?" I'm aware of the claim of IDers and other creationists about the scads of well-respected scientists who reject evolution. I can't seem to find a lot of them - and their list of some 800 isn't very insightful.

There is a huge difference between what Darwin wrote and what his modern detractors are writing - not just in the opinion, but in the quality and depth of the writing.

tff: "I was a believer until I read it - now I'm a bit of a doubter. "

s: Uh ...yea. I hear that all the time.

I'm 47 and I have heard many times how some certain person was an evolutionist until he read such and such a book that convinced him otherwise.

So do you know the main thrust of IDs argument or not.

I suppose you could Google it.

I thought you were talking to the other fellow.

Yes. I know the 'thrust' of IDs bankrupt argument. That utterly unscientific argument is that there are certain things that are observed in Nature that cannot possibly be explained by natural causes and which therefore must have been designed.

An example of this is Michael Behe's assertion of the existence of irreducible complexity. You can get a feel for the overwhelming power of Behe's genius in his Kitzmiller testimony at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12pm.html

Socrates2007 wrote;

"Creationism is solely religious, ID has proponents who are atheist and agnostic."

You imply that ID is not reigiously inspired. What designed the various species? Or do you accept that adaptation to the environment is responsible for the design?

You also say:

"ID and Creationism is entirely distinct".

They are so distinct that no two people who accept either can agree on exactly what the expressions mean. Certainly their beliefs vary much more than do evolutionists' beliefs. Creationists can't even agree on when the earth was created and IDers seem to accept varying levels of evolution. Are there any IDers who accept humans evolved from Australopithecus?

I am in total agreement with Terrytnewzealand.

Moreover, Natural Selection is hardly bankrupt, and Evolution is alive and Well

Peoples beliefs depend very much upon which part of the world you come from. What religion you adhere to, or what tribe you have sprung from come.

Whether you are a God fearing Biblical scholar, or a follower of Darwin, an Atheist, a Ufologist, a member of the Dagon tribe, or even a believer in Intelligent Design, it makes no difference any more.

Since we are now controlling our own human evolvement, actively compressing, and speeding up our own human evolvement of millions of years, especially in the last few years, and the future.

We are about to overtake and outdo Nature, and God.
The agreement that 20 countrys had agreeing to ban human embryo engineering, is slowly being overturned.

Genetic replacement of diseased genes is accelerating. Human pressure has become too great.
To be able to cure,and abolish forever, the more common diseases, such as Obesity, Cystic-Fibrosis, Sexual diseases, Diabetes, even Cancer, is just around the corner.

We are about to control our own evolution, faster and better than Darwin ever believed, or God ever could.

Our Evolutionary method of reproduction, exchanges our genetic material so efficiently that it might not even be neccesary for us to evolve any further. Think about it.
We are intelligent and resourceful, and can do what we like.

Due to our evolutionary mixing, some one somewhere, or some group of people have the neccesesary compliment of genes to be able to overcome anything that "anti-life" can throw at us, or infect us.

All the DNA, and all other macroscopic replications of life, that are in our Universe, depend utterly upon the known (and mostly unknown) combinations of the atomic surfaces of each and every chemical, ajacent or near to its neighbours.
Millions of substances can combine, millions more combinations, cannot.
These combinations are totally scientific and are dependant upon their macro-atomic-surfaces, as to how they combine and interact.
Its just that a few, prehaps 24, can combine, in fact they have done so, to produce that self replicating germ...we call life.

It wont be long before we produce our own simple "life germs" in the laboratorys. Then we will see Evolution before our eyes.
The shadow of God may still be around, for some.
But Intelligent Design won't.

Well said FF, terry and mike- especially that last post of Mike's which says it all so clearly.

The point is well made that the opinion depends on the belief. I doubt that 90% of Australians have heard of ID or a controversy about evolution. It's just not at all important. Obviously it is in America.

Sorry, but this is an incredibly foolish statement.

There is now no evolution in humans. There is no selective pressure. Anyone can breed. Intelligent people are far less likely to breed. Welfare States and charity ensure that the unfit are protected from selection.

In developed countries it is the unfit who breed more. Here in the UK, people with careers are far less likely to have children (thanks feminism) and the unemployed breed like rabbits. We are being overrun by idiots and we are spending massive amounts of resource servicing their needs and picking up the tab trying to police their behavior.

Talking about evolution in terms of the human race is pointless.

You say we can cure obesity and sexual disease. This means that we make it possible for people with no self control to stay in the gene pool. In different times, if you didn't control your eating you would have been too fat to run from a predator. If people cannot have the sense to wear a condom then how 'fit' are they.

I'm just saying that by the very terms of evolution, science is a problem.

In an overpopulated world, science is becoming more adept at keeping the unfit alive.

Science is far from humanity's savior as you believe. It is the enemy of the selfish gene.

The Welfare State is the enemy of evolution.

Charity is the enemy of evolution.

Compassion is the enemy of evolution.

Scientists are traitors to evolution

And yes Ellis - of course opinions depend on belief.

Why would the non religious accept that there may be some evidence of a designing influence in nature?

Of course they won't - as has been said 'we cannot allow a creationist foot in the door'.

You really think this goes only one way?

You really think there are fundamentalists on only one side of the debate.

Starting with:-
Sorry, but this is an incredibly foolish statement.

Its OK, there's nothing to be sorry about. Just ensure that those individual statements that you do pick up-on, remain in the context of my original posting reply.

When you say "there is now no evolution in humans, There is no selective pressure. Anyone can breed".

One ought to clarify exactly what type of Human Evolution you are talking about.
There are a number different types of Evolution, that in my opinion, should be actively classified.
Prehaps there is no natural "Physical Evolution", going on that we can discern. For are we not perfectly made in Gods image? To quote from the bible.

But you are wrong when you say there is no selective (breeding?) pressure.
Just to choose a mate, takes up far more of your time than it ever did, a few hundred years ago. All you had access to then, was the local village girl.

And as you say, -and you should know, since you wrote that "Intelligent people are far less likely to breed"
Far less likely?
Or should you be saying , 'take far longer to choose?' Your 'Intelligent evolution' is already making you aware of the protection of the Welfare State and Charity. Obviously, they both come into your personal equation, when making a choice.
And so they should, along with hundreds of other far less subtle choices that you may not even be aware of.
Ranging from physical type, to similar thinking methods, even pherenomes come into play. We are more careful these days than before. Thats how "Intelligent Evolution" comes about. Intelligence begets intelligence, begets Intelligent People thru our own more careful natural selection these days.

Do you really believe the Welfare State is the enemy of Evolution?

At the very least it makes you aware of others prehaps less fortunate than your-self. Your "Intelligent Evolution of Reasoning" now allows you to further make up your mind as to what, who, and how, you accept those that make up the Welfare State.
The Welfare state is almost like a separate protected outpost within a bustling busy country. So we must not forget the thousands of workers, Doctors, Lawyers, organisers, cleaners, staff, and Charitys that your real life neighbours, have opted to work for.
You might say that their particular "Mental Evolution" has given them the foresight to live a life that is organised for the long term, allbeit with a small gain at the end of the road.
Lots of us, prehaps most of us, would be happy to work, under such circumstances.

Yes we are 'keeping them' in a sense, but that is because we, our Goverments, and Scientists, are producing monetary value, to enable this particular outpost to survive. its a form of Living Evolution and similar, that suits many of us.

Yes, you are absolutely right when you say:- "In an overpopulated world, science is becoming more adept at keeping the unfit alive"
But lets not forget ourselves. We are the fit majority, in our overpopulated world, we all rely upon the Sciences to live the way we have Evolved to live

Be aware that the whole of Society is becoming more and more dependent upon the Sciences.
Look at the items around you. Your cycle, car, TV, your printed books of learning, your E-mails via your computer. All science enabled......or would you rather stand naked and hungry in a jungle? I dont think so.

You are saying:- by the very terms of evolution, science is a problem?
Well, I am saying:-by the very terms of evolution, science is keeping us alive. All of us the Good, the Bad and the Lazy.
You never know when those genes will be wanted, one day in the future.
We have Evolved since Adam and Eve, and continue to do so.

Socrates- The belief in a god creates the supposition that humans were created in the image of that god and thus are the summit of the destiny of this planet. It then becomes possible to excuse the greater and stupider excesses of humanity as being literally their god-given right to stuff up the world. Some even believe that god will rescue them on December the (I think) 21st 2012 by coming again and being nice to them because they said their prayers.

This handy way out is not available to people who give credence to evolution as a possible explanation for the existence of humanity. They do not BELIEVE in Evolution. It just so happens that at the moment evolution provides the starting point for an observable, and possibly in some areas, proveable theory for the reason for the starting point of life on this earth.

And just who said evolution only improves. Maybe we are evolving downwards----oh no! STOP! can't do that!---it's that pesky made in the image of god thing again!!!

Ah yes, belief does influence one's outlook.

Mike,

Good post & some very good points. Just don't see how we can say evolution is still occurring in any sense.

Yesterday I heard that by 2015 almost half of Britain will be obese. They reason: our biology is not adapting fast enough to our new diets and sedentary lifestyles. Well it would do if we didn't keep all the obese people who get diabetes & heart disease alive. They would be bred out of the population and high metabolism people would would become more prominent.

We can look at other types of evolution, say the evolution of society. Looking at the UK we are experiencing social breakdown (I could list the issues in detail with stats). If one generation can reverse social cohesion by such a degree, how can we talk about progressive social evolution? (I know you may say evolution does not imply progress, but in societal terms it can mean nothing else).

Furthering evolution by gene manipulation helps to keep the unfit alive. Real advances where we actually remodel humans will be for the rich only and most of the six billion inhabitants of the earth will scramble along as before.

Technological evolution is responsible for ruining society and feeding into the very basest aspects of our nature (resource gathering regardless of cost). Sense you won't agree but I'm happy to debate it.

Evolution stopped happening as soon as religion said 'put your neighbors needs before your own'.

Evolution does not have anything to do with a starting point for life. Surprised you would say it. Science has not proven abiogenesis yet, but it will have nothing to do with evolution.

And how is it that you think you can tell religious people what they believe without really understanding it?

Made in God's image is nothing about our physical bodies. It is about our moral sense, our desire to create, the ability to truly love and buck the requirements of our selfish genes. It is a biblical responsibility to use the earth's resources wisely cos we will be called to account for our actions. We are also expected to use our God given minds to understand the universe and improve things (that accounts for the amount of religious scientists).

What you say has no basis and is a logical extrapolation often made by atheists without really understanding the checks and balances in religion. To talk about anyone believing and a GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO STUFF UP THE WORLD is preposterous.

In fact if you believe solely in evolution then you know you will never be called to account for your actions. So although you have tried to twist it around the other way and blame the religious for wrecking the planet, the evidence doesn't stand up. Its funny that kicking the crap out of religion is the one area that rational, scientifically minded people feel they don't need to have any objective facts or evidence to draw their conclusions. Dawkins is a prime example.

As for 2012: we're told 'no man knows the day or the hour' and even so we have been told how we should conduct ourselves and it is not in conflict with the planet's interests.

When will people stop swallowing all of the rubbish that anti-theists propagate about religion and actually look at what the four billion religious people do (and not focus on the extremes of fundamentalism)?

And by the way, I'm an IDer. I believe in evolution but can't accept its a blind undriven process. The phenomenal accomplishments of evolution can best be explained by a guiding intelligence. I once didn't need the intelligence to explain it but do now for many reasons. Random mutation is on the backfoot for one.

The whole point is that everything is part of a blind undriven process. We come from choas as does the whole universe. And before you rip into me for being unscientific in my point of view let me say once again on this site(!) I am not a scientist in any way at all ever. I just enjoy reading this stuff.

Why do you not think that evolution could not be continuing? I think one reason why many people do not feel that it could be is because they feel god's purpose is done. Or they feel evolution is not an adequate theory. Or they couldn't care less. Why are you so adamant?

Socrates2007 wrote:

"When will people stop swallowing all of the rubbish that anti-theists propagate about religion and actually look at what the four billion religious people do (and not focus on the extremes of fundamentalism)?"

Socrates. It's very hard not to focus on what religious people have done historically. The proof of the pudding etc. Some good, yes, but many good people have been sacrificed in an effort to maintain religious orthodoxy too.

I note you claim to be an IDer. Do you accept that modern humans can easily trace their origin back to Australopithecus?

"When will people stop swallowing all of the rubbish that anti-theists propagate about religion and actually look at what the four billion religious people do (and not focus on the extremes of fundamentalism)?"

1) IDers very often repeat the same arguments used by the other extremists. J. Wells' "Icons of Evolution" is a case in point.

2) Phillip Johnson, the founder of the modern, ID movement has stated explicitly that the purpose for ID is to serve as a wedge for getting religious instruction back in the classroom.

3) IDers are attempting to redefine what science is. Almost all misrepresent how it works. Some of them have admitted this in court. Afterwards, their blogulites write articles saying, "Those damned evolutionists are lying when they say we're trying to redefine science."

4) Their fundamental argument is the same as that of the creationists - claim that they have "proven evolution can't POSSIBLY account for X and that therefore a designer must exist.
a) How well their claims are received tends to be related to how well-educated the receiver is in the area they are making the claim. If the person is knowledgeable, they are usually met with a chuckle or a condemnation. If the person is not very knowledgeable - and particularly if the person has a religious bent to start with - he is usually wowwed.

b) Typically, their claims are very extreme, and they do a lot of handwaving about mathematics and so forth, but when you try to follow the equations, you find that they're much better at talking about the math than in producing it. An example of this is Dembski's book "No Free Lunch." Dembski has no credentials in the field of information theory, but he has taken the theorems developed by Macready and Wolpert and used them to justify his notions. What do the actually discoverers of the NFL theorems think of Dembski's expansion of their work? Wolpert wrote an article titled "William Dembski's Treatment of the No Free Lunch Theorems is Written in Jello." Check it out at http://www.talkreason.org/articles/jello.cfm

Ironically, some IDers are claiming this guy is the Galileo of Information Theory, as if they had any background themselves to judge the issues.

c) They're very coy, of course, about this 'designer'. In public they say it's not based on religion, but Wells for example has given a very different story to his fellow Moonies. What's more disturbing is the fact that some of the greatest luminaries of the ID movement have far more publications in religious journals than they do in scientific journals.

This is not anti-theist propaganda. Evolution doesn't say anything about the existence or non-existence of God.

I think that the ID 'thing' (ie the designer) has to be supernatural doesn't it? Or are we talking Dr Who or Q in Star Trek? So why not have the courage to say it is god and have done with it?

There's nothing wrong with god, lots of people get great comfort from belief in him/her, and if you believe in a designer of everything then it seems to me to be nit-picking in the extreme to say that this entity is not god. It's certainly an explanation that is very adaptable---all those annoyingly difficult bits can be lumped together under the heading of 'god's/the designer's business' and, we are told, one day we will understand its purpose.

Why are IDers anti-god?

Natural selection is and will always be a fairytale. The problem for ToE is that variation arises from within each creature as a response to ecological and social changes. Natural selection never created anything because individuals creatures are in themselves creative. Can't be both ways. This is why natural selection has never been validated in the field by way of controlled exeriments -- because it doesn't happen, and science knows it. The only game they have left is to keep the general public in the dark. Times are changing though.

Sergio wrote:

"variation arises from within each creature as a response to ecological and social changes."

The variation arises through mutations in the DNA which can then be selected for or against.

There is a huge problem with ID that its supporters constantly refuse to face up to. Just take the example of ducks, geese and swans. IDers usually accept that evolution has given rise to the various species of dabbling ducks for example. Some even accept all ducks may derive from a single original species (on Noah's Ark perhaps?). What about geese? many species are intermediate between ducks and geese, shelducks for example. So much for the supposed lack of intermediates. Did ducks and geese both evolve from this single species? You can see where this is heading but no supporter of ID has ever attempted to explain where it ends. A species classified in the same family as ducks, geese and swans doesn't even have webbed feet at which point we begin to see connections between this group and Galliformes, common chickens.

Sergio, want to have a go at explaining where evolution stops and ID begins? And we still haven't resolved the problem of whether or not humans evolved from Australopithecus.

Sergio,
I can't find a single correct sentence in your response. Do you get any information about evolution from non-creationist sites?

ok then please give me one of these examples of mutations that has added a new, selectable, morphological feature to the observable phenotype. I don't think you can even name me one.

Sergio wrote:

"give me one of these examples of mutations that has added a new, selectable, morphological feature to the observable phenotype."

Sergio, heaps of mutations that lead to different production values are continually being used in animal and plant breeding. That's how it works. The scientists are not usually interested in changing the appearance but that is just as easy to select for. Witness the huge variation in the look of breeds of dog for example. And don't change the subject by pointing out they are still dogs, cows etc. That's not what you asked for.

Now, there are a growing number of points various of us have raised you are yet to respond to.

please answer my question/challenge. I don't think you can.

Sergio, I just did but if you choose to deliberately misunderstand my answer there is nothing I can do about that.

um...no you did not. I'm looking for a scientifically-validated example of a mutation that adds a new, selectable feature to the observable phenotype. You have shown no such thing. The dogs of the world vary, but not because of mutations....in fact, they all have the same basic set of genes:

http://www.news24.com/News24/Technology/News/0,6119,2-13-1443_1846880,00.html

Now try again.

"The dogs of the world vary, but not because of mutations"
Note: You've mentioned at least two different things. 1) whether mutations cause morphological changes and 2) whether they can introduce new morphological features.

An important question is "what constitutes a 'new' morphological feature?" Teosinte doesn't look at all like maize. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4sIU8DgFOM Does the development of a stalk not count as a new morphological feature? I'm guessing that no matter what is pointed out, you're going to assert blindly that it's not a new morphological feature. swim bladder to lungs? that's not a new morphological feature!

Moreover this misses the point - however we define 'new' in this context, there is a LOT of variation (due to mutation) that doesn't result in 'new' morphological features.

"At the DNA level, two randomly chosen dogs differ by only about as much as two randomly chosen people do..."

This is not surprising given that all dogs are of the same species and all humans are of the same species. Nor does this mean that mutations don't occur.

The article you cite is a public release, not a scientific paper. No telling how much the author's intent is accurately reflected.
Clearly not all animals have the 'same' genes. We can get a flavor for this possibility in an article on the same subject published at mit: http://www.broad.mit.edu/cgi-bin/news/display_news.cgi?id=203

This article includes the phrase "...together with a catalog of 2.5 million specific genetic differences across several dog breeds" tells us the dogs' genes are not identical. My guess is this: you find some headline that you think supports what you want to say and then you don't bother looking into it to see if it makes sense. Moreover, this article makes it more clear that the actual authors of the study clearly accept evolution. In fact, as modern dogs didn't exist 200K years ago, their genes didn't exist either. Those genes have come about through mutation.

Scientists refer to this kind of selective use of articles to make it seem as if a study supports a case exactly the opposite of what they're actually saying as 'pub-jacking'.

Teosinte is genetically the same as Maize...there are no mutations involved. Gould made that abundantly clear in one of his books -- will have to look it up.

Are you saying there is no genetic differences between the two, can you please explain to me then why they look different....

Sergio, from your link:

"all dogs emerge from the same basic set of genes".

Now that is totally different to saying they are genetically identical. As Fallible says, of course they have the same BASIC set of genes, otherwise they wouldn't all be dogs. But if different genes are not responsible for the diference between breeds what is? And if there have been no mutations in humans how can the police use genetic difference to identify the criminal they're lookig for?

You wrote:

"I'm looking for a scientifically-validated example of a mutation that adds a new, selectable feature to the observable phenotype."

How about speckled hens? A mutation has been selected for so some breeds are now speckled. Hornless (polled) cattle and sheep? Been bred from individuals carrying a mutation.

If you're looking for an example of a gross mutation you show an unbelievable ignorance of basic genetics. Genetic change in a population has to be gradual. Individuals with any mutation have to be able to breed with other individuals of the species otherwise the mutation will be very short-lived.

I know the Bible says all species have arisen from the expansion of just a pair of survivors on Noah's ark but that's complete nonsense.

Nothing to do with religion. I thought I had explained why evolution is not happening anymore. There is NO selective mechanism to ensure that any changes become prominent in any population. And what changes could give a survival advantage in the modern world? Only something such as an increased resistance to cancer, but this is hardly a move from Human 1.0 to 1.1.

Terry,

I'm simply saying (when answering the charge by scientists that religion is a danger to the human race) that there are 3 billion religious people on the planet and most of those religious people are following their writings that keep them conscious of the fact that the reason they are here is to help their fellow humans. And they quietly get on with it.

Studies have shown that the religious give more to charity than others. Christianity, in particular, gives a moral framework that has helped societies. You only need to look at post-Christian Britain to look at how a deteriorating moral framework harms a culture.
Simply put, if those 3 billion religious people were the bloodthirsty zealots that the scientific community (and the Evolutionary community in particular) portrays them as then the world would be a very different place and the USA would be a very bloody land.

You talk about history - I could talk about the role of the Eugenicists in attrocities, but it wouldn't be fair to paint the whole of science with the same brush (even though the improvers of human stock have not yet had their day).


As for Australopithecus. I have no problem with it (apart from the fact that it may not be true). If its true then its true. But there is obviously doubt.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1176152801536&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Socrates: "As for Australopithecus. I have no problem with it (apart from the fact that it may not be true). If its true then its true. But there is obviously doubt."

No part of the article claims that there is doubt that Lucy is 'true'. No part of the article hints that Lucy is not a relative of humans. The article says these particular researchers conclude that Lucy is not DIRECTLY in the human lineage. What they are doing is rearranging the lineage - slightly. This is a bigger deal for paleontologists than it is for the layman. Why? Because in general we should not be assuming that transitional fossils are ever directly linked. (That's not saying they aren't or that scientists don't know otherwise in specific cases.) The idea of a 'missing link' is based on a severely flawed understanding of evolution.

I will not take you to Plato, Socrates, Decartes or others; but only I say this example:
If you see a house with a door, windows, a kitchen, a store, a bath room, w.c. and many other rooms, and with furniture, electric power, water pipes, and ventilation; can you say this has spontaneouly been built without any builder or owner? And in the court if the judge ask you this question, will you say to him: "All this house is part of undriven process, and all this furniture, electricity and water supply has come from choas!" ?

The universe and creatures including man are more complex than this house even.

eanassir
http://universeandquran.741.com
http://man-after-death.741.com

Houses are not known to be living systems which evolve. Evolution is known to create complexity; however, it's important to understand the complexity is not well-defined in science. "We know it when we see it" is not sufficient.

We also know that order can arise from disorder.

do you have any back up for these statements or did you just make them up on the spot? Link?

"do you have any back up for these statements or did you just make them up on the spot? Link? "

Since your statements were supported by copious references, I guess I should do likewise.

Statement 1:
"complexity is not well-defined"

Support from
http://www.santafe.edu/education/csss/csss05/papers/anastasiadis_et_al._cssssf05.pdf
"The first section discusses the ill-defined notion of complexity and describes the quantitative tools that we will use in an attempt to tie it down."

This is one quote among dozens (perhaps hundreds I could use). Why should you agree with SFI (santa fe institute): they are among the pre-eminent experts in the world on the subject of complexity. They are very highly networked and have access to thousands of people who don't actively work there INCLUDING every other place of note that also works on complexity. Conclusion: if the world's experts say that it's ill-defined, I think we can admit that it's ill-defined.

(Other source:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/l152t928842k5052/
Bar-yam is a world expert at NECCSI and wrote 'complex dynamic systems')


Statement 2:
"Evolution is known to create complexity"
Support:
http://www.ulinkx.com/video/3997287

Support: genetic algorithms.

Statement 3:
"order can arise from disorder"

Support:
Stuart Kauffman, one of the leading researchers in the field, wrote a book called "The Origins of Order" that discusses some of these issues. It's important to understand that order like complexity is not precisely defined - and can mean different things in different contexts.
Unlike creationists who, in fact, look at an unknown situation and then start making a bunch of utterly asinine statements about what couldn't possible be true, Stuart K has actually researched the topic - intense review of the work of others AND his own biological and computer sim research.

Here is a review of the book that summarizes it nicely:
http://www.us.oup.com/us/catalog/general...i=9780195079517

TFF,

Even though I disagree with you, I like your measured responses.

William Paley's "watchmaker analogy":

(a) The complex inner-workings of a Watch necessitates an intelligent designer.
(b) As with a Watch, the complexity of X (a particular organ or organism, the structure of the solar system, life, the entire universe) necessitates a designer.

Richard Dawkins (from the Blind Watchmaker):

"All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics... "
"A deity capable of engineering all the organised complexity in the world, either instantaneously or by guiding evolution,... must already have been vastly complex in the first place... [which is] postulating organised complexity without offering an explanation."

This philosophical claim by a scientist who is known to be very poor at philosophy has been refuted. I will look for the link.

Once again, a scientist steps into a region he does not understand and makes a fool of himself. Many atheist scientists are embarrassed by Dawkins amateur armchair philosophy.

"Once again, a scientist steps into a region he does not understand and makes a fool of himself."
Can we say the same thing about a philosopher who tries to speak about reality?

"A deity capable of engineering all the organised complexity in the world, either instantaneously or by guiding evolution,... must already have been vastly complex in the first place... [which is] postulating organised complexity without offering an explanation."

What is wrong with his comment? From the standpoint of science, positing the existence of a god adds nothing to our understanding.