h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Why are we here? How did we get here? Where did we come from? Were we made like this, or did we start out with a mother that was an amoeba and a father that smelled of swampwater?

Someone once wrote that space, outer space, is big. "Really big. You just won't believe how vastly hugely mindboggingly big it is." It was Douglas Adams. Living cells are easily as complex, even something as "simple" as a single celled creature. I think that science and Darwinism fail to show how numerous, successive, slight modifications have brought forth the millions of different life forms present on this planet, much less a single living ancestral cell. This is not to say I am a creationist-quite the opposite as I don't believe in G-d, a god, any gods or beings or spirits at all. I am not an atheist for I don't deny that G-d, or a god [you get the idea] exists either. I don't see us being nothing and then everything in six days at the whim of some trifling, jealous being. I obviously don't have an answer, otherwise I'd be writing elsewhere and making a lot of money doing it.

Since the late 70s when I was in high school I have read quite a lot on both, or at least it seems like two, sides of the subject. Perhaps it was my biology teacher, who was raised in the town infamous for the Dracula legend, who sparked my curiosity. I was, and still am, looking for some clues to the origin of life, for solid factual pathways that irrevocably lead from position A to B on the "evolutionary ladder". I have read the bible, more versions than there are of Hichhiker's, and I find it a nice bedtime story. Be forewarned that one version will contradict another, and young minds will catch the snags with ease. I have read the Koran in several English translations. I have read the Torah, in Hebrew. I have perused countless articles, journals, books, papers, reviews of books, reviews of papers, internet postings, responses to reviews, replies to responses, responses to those replies and replies to those responses. These discussions have been made, papers written, books authored by current leaders in the fields of biology, evolutionary biology, molecular biology, biological this, evolutionary that. Reviews have come from all directions, some purportedly trusted and knowledgable sources such as a Supreme Court Justice and the Pope. Of course peers of the authors make for the most humorous ramblings that become pointedly sophomoriphic when the responder feels he has been insulted or his beliefs challanged.

I am amazed at one similarity that persists no matter the source: huge, gargantuan, leaps of faith. Leaps so big you just can't believe how vastly hugely mindboggingly big they are. Opinions so clouded by basic misunderstanding that even I laugh at the arguments posed, and moreso at the replies.

I am not highly educated in this field, nor are these doctors and professors even slightly educated in mine. This is an example of a flawed thought process, where the response to a book about Darwinism's failure to explain irreducible complexity appeared in a magazine. The article first posits that some of the parts of an irreducibly complex system might have evolved, step by step a la Darwin, for some unknown purpose [ok, this is the why but he fails to bother with the how part]. Then that these parts somehow could jump into other roles they were not part of and instantly become an integral, indispensible part of a wholly new irreducibly complex system [again bypassing the how he presumes nothing but the end result he desires]. Then that this is unlikely, and to illustrate just how unlikely he compares it to the likelihood that a part of the transmission in a car could somehow at a moments' notice become a card carrying member of the supplemental inflatable restraint (aka 'airbag') system. Well this is my area of expertise and clearly this is true- it cannot happen; the gearshift will never aid in the inflation of the airbags nor with the sensing of sudden deceleration and the deployment of said bags. Then this respondent says that things like this might happen very, very rarely and that the book's author is faulty for he rejects this line of thinking, which amazes him as the logic is simple. The "logic" is this: you have this thing here that may or may not do anything, then that thing there "later gets added...because it helps" this thing here. His next leap of faith, in what he claims is Darwinism, is that the progession from air bladders to lungs was "advantageous", all the while glazing over if not ignoring the need to point out the numerous, succesive, slight modifications that Darwin requires.

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, succesive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." -Charles Darwin

So, the gauntlet has been thrown with a few passing thoughts, let the chair tossing commence!

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, succesive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." -Charles Darwin

Fascinating quote that you have there. If you are, indeed, throwing down a gauntlet, you might be presuaded by Darwin's own answer to his own rhetorical question, some of which is reproduced below - and all of which was written well before you were born. (Do try to keep up.) It is easy to find online. You have clearly not bothered to read the original. I wonder why.

From The Origin of Species, Chapter VI
<>

Let the caber tossing commence!

Caber one: "...rhetorical question". This was not composed as a question, but as a statement.
Caber two: " You have clearly not bothered to read the original."
A presumption on your part as you have no way of knowing what I have, or have not, read. I read this for the first time in high school, and had long drawn out sessions on the lack of information in it with the two biology teachers. I also recall, from my chemistry class, a theory about combustion that had something to do with "phlogiston" that was equally incorrect. The difference is that nobody believes in the mysterious substance now because we know about oxygen and it's role in combustion.
Caber three: "The illustration of the swim-bladder in fishes is a good one...". No, it's not, it's only an example of Chuckie dodging the bullet. He does much the same thing with light sensitive spots and eyes, skirting any mention of any "...numerous, succesive, slight modifications...".
Caber four: "...it shows us clearly the highly important fact that an organ originally constructed for one purpose, namely flotation, may be converted into one for a widely different purpose, namely respiration." YOU have assumed that this is a fact, it is not. You have sidestepped, in classic Chuckie fashion, any "...numerous, succesive, slight modifications...", with the simple "...may be converted into..." phrase.
Caber five: "All physiologists admit that the swim-bladder is homologous, or "ideally similar" in position and structure with the lungs of the higher vertebrate animals...". Name one and the paper he had published/book he wrote that contains such a statement verbatim. Perhaps you need to review these organs yourself.
Caber six: "... hence there is no reason to doubt that the swim- bladder has actually been converted into lungs, or an organ used exclusively for respiration." Actually there is great reason to doubt. I could only agree to this if someone could show how "...numerous, succesive, slight modifications..." of a swim bladder could have evolved into the fantastically, mindbogglingly complicated and interconnected structure of the lung. Are there any cilia in swim bladders? Can any of your physiologists [remember, YOU said ALL physiologists; are YOU a physiologist?] explain where cilia came from? What they evolved from? I didn't think so.
The gauntlet has been dropped again.

Well this is a dead end I guess. C'est la vie.

interesting

"Well this is a dead end I guess. C'est la vie."

Are you talking to me?

Sorry, I thought you just spent a big long rant arguing with the Darwin quote that I posted.

I congratulate you on your perceptiveness, "Doc", but you are going to have to justify the case for intelligent design before you start rambling about how important it is.

Try re-reading Darwin, by the way, you seem to be slightly confused on the basics: the mechanism for one.

The wean.

That reply was done in April, it's now August and I wait for nobody. I don't have to re-read Darwin, nor are these thoughts mine-an assumption on your part- they're just here to prompt discussion and since there was none I don't consider this thread worth my time.

"I don't consider this thread worth my time"

That's really very funny Doc.

After all those paragraphs you wrote arguing with a Darwin quote from a book that you claim to have read and that you quoted from, out of context, as though I (I!) had written it.

A man is entitled to post a stack of lies all through h2g2 if he wants. He is also entitled to be confused, and to refuse to discuss it.

The wean.

A man must also consider the integrity of the source of comments and queries when choosing to reply.

"A man must also consider the integrity of the source of comments and queries when choosing to reply."

Fortunately, it is easy to check if Darwin actually said what I said he did, or whether the partial quote that you used out or context accurately represents his meaning, for the book is available online.

What's stopping you?

The integrity issue is a good one though. If you want to misrepresent a dead man in your argument, you should be prepared to be corrected.

The wean.

If you say I've misquoted someone or something then ypu can provide the correction.

What's stopping you besides your OCD?

"If you say I've misquoted someone or something then ypu can provide the correction."

Re-read the thread.

If you need any help with your shoelaces, be sure to post.........

I don't guarantee not to expire of boredom while you get your head together..................

The wean.

Mindless rhetoric will get you nowhere.

DocJ wrote:

"Mindless rhetoric will get you nowhere."

Considering that what I have done here is simply present an extract from a book that DocJ quoted from out of context. I really do think that is a bit rich.

The sequence of events was that DocJ presented a quote from Darwin taken completely out of context.

I then posted the quote within its following paragraphs.

DocJ then wrote a big long attack on Darwin's text (written about 150 years ago) as though I had written it this year.

It's all in the above thread for all to see.

Clearly DocJ has problems with comprehension, current science, and courtesy.

The wean.

Well I guess the dust has had time to settle.

Of course Darwin was right. The alternative is intelligent design, but that's a complete nonstarter.

Life forms are way too complex to have been designed and contain far too much redundency. If you were a superbeing that could create stuff out of thin air, like a tree, why would you need it to have roots, capilliaries, leaves, and produce seed? Why not stick a big chunk of brown stuff in the ground and stick some green things on it. The green things wouldn't even have to be attached, they could just form a cloud of green things and wave in a breeze you don't really need. Why would you create a tree anyway? If you can create a tree out of nothing then it can continue to exist on nothing.

Most man made things go through an evolutionary cycle having been based on an earlier item or an artefact of some other item.

Take the aeroplane. If the aeroplane had been "designed", Mark I would have flown perfectly, first time wouldn't it? It didn't and was modified by "stepwise refinement". Some modifications were advantageous. The next improvement was built on previous advantageous improvements and so on.

Having cracked the problem, all aircraft that followed were based on the first aircraft that flew, and diversification happened when it was realised that some aircraft were required to fight other aircraft, some to attack ground targets, some to carry goods and some to carry passengers. The first jet aircraft were based on piston engined aircraft and then diversified to take advantage of the jet engine and the requirement for higher speeds and varied theatres of operation.

There was a BBC documentary many moons ago where a group of engineers had the task of designing an air channelling system that would channel the inflow of air into a wind powered generator in the most efficient way possible. Paper designs and prototypes proved to be very expensive and time consuming until it was suggested that the engineers adopt an evolutionary approach. A prototype was built with input vanes that had flexible joints every few inches. Each joint carried a pointer that rotated with the vane around a circular scale.

They started off with a best guess and then made slight adjustments and measured the result. If the adjustment improved airflow, further adjustments were made at the same joint until a point was reached where no improvement was made or a detremental effect was produced. Once a joint was at its optimum setting, the next joint was manipulated and so on. Once the whole system had been adjusted for maximum performance, the process was repeated until the best system evolved. Each step took fewer adjustments. That process took a few days to complete whereas the "intelligent design" system was taking months.

Take Edison's light bulb. The quickest way for him to get a working model was to have asked Mr. Swan who had already done the job.

But Edison didn't "design" or "invent" the lightbulb, he spent months trying out hundreds of different materials to act as filaments after realising they needed to be suspended in an oxygen free environment. This too was an evolutionary procedure, but the difference in both examples is that the people involved knew what they were trying to achieve and wanted to use the minimum amount of time and materials to achieve it.

Nature, on the other hand, has no design criterea. Nature isn't looking for better designs, nature follows easy paths that are presented to it by the ever changing environment.

A river evolves when the source finds a way through obstacles that prevent it from getting to the centre of the earth. It is opportunistic. If a rock falls from a cliff and removes an obstruction creating access to an area of the earth's surface that is closer to the centre of the earth, then the river will flow into that area. This process will continue until the river reaches the sea or ends up in a dead end.

If a river carries plant seeds with it, they may get stuck where the soil is favourable to them and grow. If, after several generations, the seed mutates because of replication errors that might be owing to external physical influences like radiation, temperature, chemicals in the soil etc, it may be carried away by the river to an area where the soil conditions are more suitable and become a new species. On the other hand, it may end up in an unfavourable location and fail to thrive. If the change comes quickly, the original form of the plant may become extinct. If it hasn't been around for that long, it may never show up in the fossil record. There is no godly "hand" guiding this process.

"Survival of the Fittest", is often misinterpretted as survival of the most phyically fit, the strongest, the most intelligent etc, but that is not what it means. It means survival of those that most fit the conditions of the local environment. Since environments are under constant change, owing to climatic, geological, and astronomical factors, some species survive and others die out because the no longer fit.

Another misinterpretation is that of "adaptation". Adaptation is a misleading word to use in this context. Species to not knowingly adapt themselves in response to a change (teleology). The circumstances that causes a species to survive or to die out doesn't cause the species to adapt, it doesn't trigger the adaptation. The species doesn't say to itself. "Ay up, to survive this change in environment I must alter myself to survive." A surviving species already has sufficient variation or diversity amongst its population to enable "some" of its population to be unaffected by the change in environment. In other words, the changes have already been made.

If a fatal virus appears on the planet that kills every human that doesn't have blue eyes, then the human race would survive, but the surviving reduced population would all have blue eyes. Any offspring that haven't got blue eyes wouldn't survive, and after a few generations, non [blue eye] genes would be eradicated, though they could appear from time to time by mutation and thrive if the original threat had gone.

From a historical viewpoint, it might appear that the human race had "adapted", but it didn't, it just happened to be varied enough to not be 100% affected by what attacked it. That's how evolution works.

Way back in the beginning of the twentieth century, the peppered moth was a dark dingey brown colour. Today, it is pale grey. Any guesses as to why?

Incidentally, did you know that you can hang a new born baby on a washing line just by the grip of its hands? If you stroke the middle of its feet, the toes curl downwards. If you stroke the middle of an adult's foot, the toe reflex is upwards. You can really confuse your doctor if you practice curling you toes downwards in response to the stimulation.

The baby thing is left over from the time when our ancestors had long thick body hair and the infant had to cling on to that hair whilst mum moved about her environment. Normal grown ups can't hang on for long because it's a power to weight ratio thing, but those light framed spidery types that climb rockfaces by finger tip, have similar power to weight ratios as babies.

If I were....well, in order for the creatures to survive they will need something to constantly clean the atmosphere of CO2, trees and other plants do this with amazing efficiency. Algae needs no root mechanism, but trees must somehow move nutrient bearing water up to it's extremities, thus the need to 'design in' the pumping system. FYI they do not have capillaries, the proper terms are xylem for water and phloem for food. Sticking some green things on a chunk of brown stuff might be aesthetically pleasing to the female human but it's just something else for the male human to step in and track all over the garden.


No it does not, it shall never be anything else but a river. It's shape or path may change, but it will never become anything else.



Perhaps, until the virus mutates into one that evicerates those with green eyes, and then hazel and brown - OR until humans develop a resistance to the virus.

While Darwin had a great idea, and even though many 'impossible' processes or complex biomechanical routines have been given possible rise from various evolutionary theories, there is far more that needs explaining. Until there is irrefutable proof that there cannot possibly have been any influence by some type of 'intelligent design' whatsoever, it MUST remain a possibility. This should also include the completely ignored possibility of accidental intelligent design, for example: consider the effects of an interstellar cruiser or garbage truck stopping by a planet that has no life, absolutely pure air and water and lifeless dirt and rocks. Just for a look. Then, just before leaving, they dump their sewage or garbage into the water; sewage loaded with trillions of fantastically varied life forms, virii, and bacteria. What would happen in a few million years if this planet were to remain untouched? Hmmm.

Hi, With what the Dr. just said i agree, both the theory of evolution and the theory of intelligent design are just that... theories. (neither is impossible). Im not sure about the details but i think there is a 1000000 dollar award for the first person to prove the theory of evolution. making the point that the theory of evolution in its entirety is not a sure thing. To me however it doesn't matter whether something can be empiraclly proven for it to be meaningful. I base my life on the understanding the sun will rise everyday, without ever having seen any proof that it will continue to do so. My point is it doesn't matter if what darwin wrote was "right" or not, it only matters that his idea has helped people make a little more sense of the world.

Hi Doc,

Interesting point you make here:

"Until there is irrefutable proof that there cannot possibly have been any influence by some type of 'intelligent design' whatsoever, it MUST remain a possibility."

I would ask you to consider this: is this something you believe only for evolution, or does it apply to all knowledge? Would you believe in 'Intelligent Falling' rather than gravity until there is categorical proof that God cannot move things? More generally, would you believe in fairies or a giant chocolate teapot orbiting Mars until there is complete proof otherwise?

What we have here is an argument concerning unneccesary multiplication of explanations, or 'Ockham's Razor', the idea that to belive in something without evidence is almost certainly to believe in fiction. There are an infinite number of theories that can be made by adding extra ideas for which there are no evidence (such as invisible fairies, orbital confectionary where we can't see it, gods of assorted sorts). Thus the probabilty of any specific one being correct is roughly infinity to one, or as close to zero as makes no difference (to paraphrase Douglas Adams again).

When Newton proposed his law of gravity, he did not include phrases such as 'except objects of a particular shade of purple' or 'except after 29th August 2007'. Although he did not test these things, it would have been unreasonable for him to make those exceptions without some reason to do so. He would have been adding unneeded complexity to his explanations, in just the way that 'Intelligent Design' does.

Natural selection can be observed in action, and has been many times. No-one has yet found anything that could not have been formed solely by natural selection (at least by a broad definition, i.e. including sexual selection, random genetic drift and occasional cataclysms) despite many people looking very hard. Thus, we have no need to introduce God into it, any more than we do in explaining the functioning of the computer on which I am typing this. To do so makes no sense, and is as certainly wrong as we can be certain about anything.

Pacmarac - there was indeed a 250,000 dollar reward. However, it was a fraud, and the man who offered it ('Doctor' Kent Hovind) is currently serving a 10-year sentence on (unrelated) charges of fraud. Many attempts were made to claim it, and were met with a simple 'No' from Hovind - no explanation of why any given claim failed, or what would be accepted as proof.

Gif

I am constantly amazed at creationism's success. How so many people can believe there is no empirical evidence is support of evolution beggars belief. You read it all the time. You have to hand it to the creationists - their campaign of propaganda, misinformation and downright lies in their fight against evolution is pretty effective.

Ste

"is support" == "in support"