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

Dear Folks,

OK, I have run this past Josh the G, so now I am going to submit it for your review. This is an idea which I picked up while mowing the lawn (which is one of the best places in the world to get ideas; I think Einstein was mowing when he discovered relativity). It's a little thick and hard to follow, but I will trust that your purely scientific minds will adapt to handle a bit of philosophical lunatic rantings:

Quantum Multiverse, the definitive term for the idea that there are divergent universes for every possible reality that exists, is based on just that: reality. Now, in our own reality, we have one (and only one) guaranteed end to something, which is destruction. Matter can be annihilated by antimatter; this is the example that got me thinking.
If there ARE divergent universes, or realities, which spawn from our own reality (or at least interconnect), why can we not seem to access them? In the book Timeline, Crichton theorized that the gateway between universes was in quantum foam (subatomic fluctuations in space-time). But what I wonder is this: could it be that the gateway between realities is blocked, or destroyed, by an anti-reality?
What, you might ask, is an anti-reality? Well, a good example, in my mind, would be a paradox. There are all kinds of paradoxes. One popular one is used to refute time travel. The idea is that if you were to travel back in time and kill your father before you were born, you would never have been born, and thus would never have been able to travel back in time (which would preclude you from killing your dad...). The general idea is that this paradox idea prevents time travel. Personally, I don't believe time travel is possible, not because of the paradox, but because I don't think that time is a travelable dimension (a hypothesis on which I would gladly expound some other time).
OK, how is a paradox an anti-reality? Antimatter is exactly the same as its corresponding matter, but it has an opposite charge (as well as other opposites). Anti-reality would be the exact same as a reality, but would not in fact be real. Paradoxes don't happen, because there is no way for our universe to substantiate them. For example, one of the paintings of M.C. Escher, which presents the idea of water flowing up and down a building simultaneously, is a wonderful example of optical paradox. It couldn't happen in real life, yet it exists as an idea.
So, if paradoxes are anti-realities, then perhaps it is them (and their kind) which block the way between universes.

Then again, perhaps I have just been breathing too many lawnmower gas fumes. Whatever the case, I humbly submit the idea for your perusal and discussion.

Josh, MKOT

P.S. Pardon me if I have been at all unclear on any of this...

I am aware of the divergent multiverse thingy, but I didn't think that it was related to quantum stuff.

So then, what did you think of Josh the G's "disproving" of quantum theory in post 92?

Are you a literalist creationist too?

Ste

On my travels I found some interesting stuff:

1. The non-functioning eyes of cave-dwelling creatures which live in total darkness: hundreds of species, from fish (exempli gratia, Astyanax mexicanus) to insects (exempli gratia, the Hawaiian cave planthopper Oliarus polyphemus), spiders (exempli.... oh bugger this Neoleptoneta myopica), salamanders (eg Typhlomolge rathbuni) and crayfish (eg Cambarus setosus).

2. The aquatic embryos of land salamanders, which live on the land from hatching.

3. The lungs of snakes; one normal, one atrophied. Why waste material with the small one? More surface area could be available if the space the atrophied one's non-gaseous-exchange tubing takes up were given over to a larger volumed single main lung, and this is what is found in some snakes.

4. The pelvis remnants of pythons . . .



5. . . . and the pelvis and hind limb bone remnants of whales. Even if (as is sometimes claimed) they do have a function, why are the bones in question bits of pelvis and limb?

6. The phenomenal waste of life in nature, everywhere you look. Oak trees produce thousands of acorns, and fish thousands of eggs, in the hope that a few will survive, and tons of pollen are cast into the air; approximately a third of human pregnancies miscarry in the first trimester; male elephant seals battle so furiously for females that great numbers of them die of bloody wounds; when a male lion takes over a pride, it will usually kill the cubs of the previous top male; the boom and (catastrophic for the individuals) bust of lemming populations . . .

7. The fetal teeth of cows, anteaters and baleen whales, which are made, only to be reabsorbed.

8. The tails of peacocks, which are so long that the birds (which are a favorite food of tigers) can barely fly, just so they can attract females and ensure the survival of the species?

9. The diet of ruminants is composed largely of cellulose, so why do they have to rely on gut bacteria in order to digest it? Enzymes are readily apparent in animals to break down other foodstuffs. A good designer would surely have enabled them to break cellulose down for themselves. After all, mere bacteria can do it!

10. The non-functional pistils (female parts) in male flowers. Since most flowers have both sexes of reproductive organs (stamens and pistils), the pistil of a flower with only stamens that are functional is vestigial ¡V or a waste of materials.

11.Flowers on plants such as dandelions, which are self-pollinating, and so do not need to attract pollinating insects.

12. twisted skulls of bony flat fish, order Pleuronectiformes around 600 species including halibut, plaice, sole and turbot. If you are a fish and want to hug the contours of the seabed, there are two ways your body can be flattened. The most obvious is front to back, laying on your tummy, as rays and some sharks are. Sharks are generally already slightly flattened dorso-ventrally. Most bony fish, however, tend to be flattened in a vertical direction (higher than they are wide). No surprise to an evolutionist, then, that those bony flatfish that do swim at the bottom are flattened sideways, and lay on their side. The problem with this is that one eye would always be pointing at the seabed. They solve this by the skull contorting during development so that both eyes point up. You will notice though that their mouths are still sideways on. They are cartoon stereotypes of what a mutant should look like. How is this intelligent design, rather than design constrained by history, by the materials it started with?

13. human appendix. I'll leave aside the idea that it's vestigial, and simply wonder why, if it's part of an intelligent design, it apparently has no function other than to be a pocket for bacteria to get trapped in? It is common (7% of the US population, for instance) for it to become distended and blocked, so that the bacteria can invade the wall, leading, untreated (as it would have been for nearly all of our past), to potentially lethal perforation.

14. nerve wiring of the mammalian eye, where the photoreceptor cells are in backwards, so the cables are in the way of the incoming light, and have to exit the retina at the correctly-named blind spot (an excellent design feature in an eye, yet God got it the right way round in that pinnacle of His purpose, the squid?!) . . .

15. and of the African locusts (Locusta migratoria) wings, where the nerve cells that connect to the wings originate in the abdomen, even though the wings are on the thorax. Nerve signals from the brain have to travel down the ventral nerve cord past their target, then backtrack through the insect to where they are needed. Using more materials than necessary is not good design.

16. the opening of the human larynx (leading to the trachea) being from the pharynx, so that swallowing impedes breathing (and vice versa). Not only that, but with the wind-pipe coming from off the food-pipe, there is a constant risk of choking. Before the Heimlich maneuver was invented, choking was one of the leading causes of accidental death; even so, thousands still die worldwide each year from inhaling their food. Great design.

17. The plumbing of the urethra-a soft tube through the prostate, an organ prone to infection and subsequent swelling?!

18. The human spine. Bipedal vertebrates usually carry much of the spine roughly horizontal, and balance it with a tail. Equally, a string of cotton reels with spongy cushions between is a good cantilever bridge type design for flexible quadrupedal running, but a lousy thing to stand on its end and withstand the compression strains of vertical bipedalism. (And why thread so important a feature as the spinal cord through the middle of this, where disc damage can cause anything from pain to paralysis?) Compression strains are best absorbed by pillars. If you want the pillars to be flexible, you put joints in them. In biology, we have examples called legs. The spine's divine design thus results in back pain which causes over 80 million annual days off work in the UK alone, 80% of people being affected by back pain at some point in their lives, backache during pregnancy (extra weight pulling in an out-and-down direction it can't happily support), and why you find, if you've ever slipped a disc, that about the only comfortable position is on all fours.

19. Wings on flightless beetles. Numerous beetle species are flightless, such as darkling beetles (Eleodes species), the Kauai flightless stag beetle (Apterocyclus honoluluensis) , and many weevils. Darkling beetles, for instance, are ground-dwelling and feed on decaying vegetation such as dead leaves and rotting wood. Females lay their eggs in soil, the larvae hatch, mature and pupate in soil, finally to emerge as adult beetles. Like most beetles, they have wings . . . but these are sealed beneath fused wing covers (elytra), and so the beetles are flightless. For darklings, the fused elytra help conserve water; for others they are a better protection for the abdomen. Wings are obviously not needed for flight for ground-dwelling beetles. The question is, why is the shell on their backs made of wing covers, and why are there (often greatly reduced) wings beneath them?

20. The homosexual stabbing rape reproduction in the bedbug Xylocaris maculipennis. Some bedbug species make use of a mating plug, where once a male has mated with a female, the male seals her shut, preventing other males from mating with her. Some species have adapted around this by stabbing rape, where the male impales the female and bypasses the mating plug. In X maculipennis, this has been taken one step further, where the male impales and inseminates other males, and the rapist's genes enter the bloodstream to be carried to females by the victim. In this way, the rapist conceives by proxy. A convoluted and pointless piece of design.

21. All gastropod larvae do a 90 to 180 degree twist, so that the mantle, kidney opening and anus are sticking out over their heads. Which is an odd design. The really stupid design is the fact that slugs (subclass Pulmonata) and sea slugs (subclass Opisthobranchia) then do an untwist and straighten their bodies out again.

22. Mammalian testes form inside the body, and then have to pass out through the abdominal wall to the scrotum so they can be at a more conducive temperature for sperm formation. Not only is that odd (why can¡¦t sperm be made at body temperature?), but the process leaves a weak spot in the muscle wall. This inguinal ring is liable to herniate, which both obstructs or strangulates the bowel and stifles blood flow to the testicles.

23. The vast quantity of junk DNA: pseudogenes, introns, transposons, retroposons, etc. Junk DNA is just that-it does nothing for its owner except get itself copied. Pseudogenes, for instance, are chunks of DNA which have a resemblance to known genes that is too improbable to be coincidence, but which are not prefaced with a start codon. Thus the DNA-to-RNA transcription system doesn¡¦t know that here is a gene to be expressed¡¦. This is not just an idle observation: about 95% of human DNA is junk DNA, not coding for any protein. For example, there is a family of junk DNA called Alu sequences that are repeated some million or so times, and this one family alone accounts for about 5% of our DNA. Using more materials than are needed is not good design.

23. Normally non-functioning genes for making hen's teeth, horses' toes and hairy humans.

24. Sharks hunt, up close at least, by sight. Greenland sharks (Somniosus microcephalus), however, are nearly all blind, due to the presence of parasitic copepods (a subclass of crustaceans) that feed on the skin of their eyes. The sharks benefit because the copepods are bioluminous, and by their wriggling attract other fish which the sharks then snap up . But where is the intelligent design in such a complex set-up, and why does the shark need eyes if they are going to be parasitised to blindness as part of the design? There are other more straightforward ways to lure fish with a bait, as anglerfish (order Lophiiformes ¡V about 210 different species of them) show, rather than first having eyes, then having them go blind.

25. Goose bumps (cutis anserina). Since humans (especially women) generally have little body hair, it is pointless having the same system of muscles (the arrectores pilorum) and sympathetic nerves which in most mammals raises the hairs in response cold or fear. Come to that, if our skin is meant to be mostly bare, why do we have the tiny hairs (and separate muscles and nerves for them) that we do?

26. Wings on flightless birds. Maybe some species use them for something else, but kiwis barely have wings. Barely being the point.

27. The human jaw, which is too small for the number of teeth it holds, hence impacted wisdom teeth.

28. The hollowness of the bones of flightless birds, from dodo to ostrich and penguin. It is not critical for ground birds to reduce weight with hollow bones of the sort that flying birds have. If the hollowness has some other useful purpose, why is this not shared by other animals?

29. Fake sex in a parthenogenetic species: lizards of the genus Cnenidophorus have only females. Their fertility increases when another lizard engages in pseudomale behavior and attempts to copulate with the first lizard. These lizards' nearest relatives, oh, okay, the ones most similar to them in geography, genetics, anatomy and biochemistry are sexual species. The hormones for reproduction in these others are stimulated by sexual behavior. Now, although Cnenidophorus are parthenogenetic, simulated sexual behavior increases fertility.'

and on and on and on......

From: http://pub7.ezboard.com/fcbbbfrm14.showMessage?topicID=12.topic



So then, what is God doing with his designing? He seems two bricks short of a full load to me

Ste

OK, evolutionaries, I have a very simple question that must be asked. If there is no God, and evolution has occurred since, say, the Big Bang, WHERE did the matter, the very existance of existance itself, come from?
It seems like a very elementary, even an uneducated question, but in the end, it is a focal point, in my opinion, for determining the origins of the universe.
Of course, I believe the same thing about the Big Bang as Josh the G: God spoke and BANG! it happened; but I am curious to hear your views...

Josh, MKOT

P.S. Did I make any sense to anyone with my multiverse idea the other day?

Man, "evolutionaries" is so, so tantalisingly close to "revolutionaries".

Anyway, the BB. I haven't got a clue where the stuff came from. The BB, as Josh the G mentioned before I think, is perfectly compatible with the vast majority of christian faiths. As is evolution.

In the same way that most christians believe that "God spoke and BANG! it happened", the same people have no trouble believing that evolution is guided by a divine hand. This cannot be argued with by scientists because they are actaully agreeing with science. This is done whilst simultaneously giving it a spiritual twist that scientists also can't argue with because spirituality has nothing to do with them.

Just to remind you Josh MTOK, that this has been my stance all along. I have never said that evolution proves God doesn't exist or that science is superior to religion or anything like that. All I am saying is that evolution and the biblical creation myth are not mutually exclusive. With a tiny bit of interpretation and intelligence it is simple to believe both are true at once. Same with the BB.

The multiverse thing did make sense by the way, but I can't remember what point you were making.

Ste

Oh, no particular point on the multiverse thing, Ste. The thought just occurred to me, and I had to get it out somehow, to somebody out there who would understand it and be able to argue it.
The danger, I fear, with combining the field of evolution with religion, is that it takes away the very essence of Christianity. Christianity is faith-based, and to begin "interpreting" things as we want to see them is hitting the foundation of the faith with a big hammer. If one wanted to, one could "interpret" just about anything one wanted to from the Bible. It is our faith that, while it may not look correct, it IS correct, keeps us going.
Ironically, evolution is, at least in part, faith-based as well. While the scietific world would seem to have a lot of substantial evidence (and I won't lie, some of it is very compelling), the whole theory is essentially still faith-based. But, as you stated, science and spirituality rarely mix. The scientist doesn't mess with something that he can't see or detect. What about an afterlife? When we die, will we just become inanimate matter, never to think or live or exist again. Can we really separate what we call solid fact from philosophy?
Personally, I don't think we can. But then, that's just my opinion...

Josh, MKOT

Oh, no particular point on the multiverse thing, Ste. The thought just occurred to me, and I had to get it out somehow, to somebody out there who would understand it and be able to argue it.
The danger, I fear, with combining the field of evolution with religion, is that it takes away the very essence of Christianity. Christianity is faith-based, and to begin "interpreting" things as we want to see them is hitting the foundation of the faith with a big hammer. If one wanted to, one could "interpret" just about anything one wanted to from the Bible. It is our faith that, while it may not look correct, it IS correct, keeps us going.
Ironically, evolution is, at least in part, faith-based as well. While the scietific world would seem to have a lot of substantial evidence (and I won't lie, some of it is very compelling), the whole theory is essentially still faith-based. But, as you stated, science and spirituality rarely mix. The scientist doesn't mess with something that he can't see or detect. What about an afterlife? When we die, will we just become inanimate matter, never to think or live or exist again. Can we really separate what we call solid fact from philosophy?
Personally, I don't think we can. But then, that's just my opinion...

Josh, MKOT

Hi Josh Mk2

The multiverse thing; fair enough just wanted to get that one off your chest huh? I understand. It does make sense to me but I don't think I'd really know enough to effectively argue either way on it. It sounds dead interesting though. You'd like "Hyperspace" by the author and theoretical physicist Michio Kaku (apologies if I have mentioned this book before, my memory is awful).

Why are you so confident that you do not already interpret? Where does it say that you must treat every single sentance as the literal truth (I'm half expecting you to get back to me with a biblical quote, but that should be interesting anyway )?

"The foolish believeth every word" Proverbs 14:15. Surely that bible passage requires no interpretation?

The authors of the bible did not think like we do, science is a modern phenomenon (we've been through this on this thread in detail so I won't drag on). Do you realise that you cannot think outside of the current dominant mindset, i.e., science? We agree that science and religion don't mix, *and that is where YOUR conflict between science and your faith comes from*, the whle evolution thing, the whole age of the earth thing. I cannot overstate the importance of that last sentence, it is the crux of it all! Joshes (), please try and think outside of science, not everything is meant to be taken literally .

I would strongly suggest evolution is not "faith-based". Take a look at numerous scientific disciplines, genetics, genomics, palaeontology, comparative anatomy, evolutionary development ("evo-devo) geology, biochemistry, etc.: They all converge and give the same result. It only takes a leap of *logic*, not faith, to come to the conclusion that evolution is responsible the living world. It's the *convergence of evidence* from so many different areas that convinces, no number of anectodal rebuttles of evolution will shift that current scientific consensus.

On the subject of the afterlife; Science is a philosophy, a way of thinking, as you mention of you can't see it or evidence of it or a good reason for it to exist then science don't deal with it. Try theology or something (don't ask me I'm just a ). I have a distinct feeling that the idea of an afterlife exists because people cannot imagine what it's like to not be alive. Death is an unknown and people are afraid of it, the idea that you'll live forever is comforting, but when you think about it carefully it's a bloody bizarre idea really.



Ste

There once was a blind man named Species who lived in Kansas. He had not cane, no one to lead him. He could walk, but only randomly. Because of this, he stayed still most of the time. Then, one day, he took one step west. "Ah ha," said Evolutionist, one of the people observing him, "this is proof that he is going to California. Furthermore, it is proof that he came from New England." Species would sometimes wander a great deal, but always completely random in where he went. Sometimes he would end up miles from where he started, but, as another observer, Creationist noted, to get to California or to come from New England, he would require, not only a plane or car, but a pilot or driver.

I'm trying to hone my allegorical skills. Anyway, on a more applicable note, I'd like to know what you think about a phenomenon noticable in sports. Let's take figure skating as an example. Fifty years ago, someone who could jump, spin twice in the air and land was a contender. Then someone introduced the triple jump. Now a select few can spin four times. If I were an evolutionist, I'd say that in another fifty years, skaters will be spinning six times. Small changes do certainly occur, but creatures have limits. There is only so much variation that they can handle. This is why all your examples of changes within species do not necessarily indicate evolution.

As for the for the appendix, it does have a use. It can cause people to die. Granted, that's not a very nice reason, but we don't necesarily need to assume that it's the only reason either. Just because we don't see any use for it yet doesn't mean it has none.

Nice story Josh .

However, you still seem to think that evolution is random. It is not. The pilot is the non-random evolutionary forces, natural selection for example.

If I may borrow your story Josh the G: What if the blind man had a suitcase with labels covering it giving a clear guide to where he has been? This would be a pretty good analogy of what we see in the DNA of the highly-evolved creatures alive today. No "evolutionist" would state confidently that they are "going to California" (though it would make sense if they were in Texas or somewhere close ) because evolution is so complex you cannot predict such systems.

"This is why all your examples of changes within species do not necessarily indicate evolution."
That's like saying that you see stuff being held down and falling towards the ground all the time, but that's no reason to think that planets revolve around the sun for the same reason. In my last post I mentioned a leap of *logic* Josh, it doesn't take much .

I'd be interested to hear some comments on your scientific mode of thought, and how you could think outside of it.

Out of all those examples gives, could you only criticise the appendix? What about the pelvis of whales??? Why would a designer put a pelvis in a whale? Come on. In the rat, for example, the appendix is a useful organ. The bacteria contained within the organ helps break down cellulose (plant material) which we cannot do. It has reduced in size to become a merely useless vestigial organ. More than useless, it is harmful. Great design there .



Ste

First of all, Josh the G, wonderful analogy. I am always thinking of analogies, and I doubt that I could have come up with a better one (even if it was simple enough to be questioned).
I'd like to point out something about all of these supposedly "useless" and/or "harmful" items in creation. Ste, if you have read or will read in the very first part of the Book of Genesis, you will find that what God created and what we see today are, at times, vastly different from one another. For example, after the "fall of man" (i.e. the first sin), one noticeable change is that everything dies. Plus, we are told that things like weeds and thorns did not exist before this, but they are common now. So, from that we can clearly and safely assume that there are certain things in life that no longer have any purpose at all, or that have a negative purpose. I will write more on this, but at the moment the constraints of time will not allow it.

Josh, MKOT

OK, I am back. Now, I will grant you that it seems mighty convenient to say that because of what Christians call "the Curse" (i.e. the crossover from a perfect world to an imperfect world), everything can be explained. It can't. Whale hipbones may not ever be completely understood. Then again, there are always things that science will not understand. That's why science lives on: it is a constant quest to find something out.
Back to things that change over time.
The theory that I am about to propose is not my own. I can't tell you whose it is, but when I heard it, it made sense. It deals with the extinction, or lack thereof, of a species.
Dinosaurs.
Sixty-five million years ago (unless science has changed it again), dinosaurs began, inexplicably, to die out. Nobody seems to know exactly why, but there are some very general theories: meteors, volcanic emissions, etc...
But what if they didn't die out at all?
It sounds ludicrous, but hear (read) this out. Dinosaurs have been found to be most closely related to the reptiles of today. The idea that they were more closely related to birds is popular, but is as yet fairly unsubstantiated. So, we will for now assume that they were in fact reptiles.
Reptiles of today, as you may or may not know, can live (depending on the species) a very long time. Certain sea turtles can, at times, have a lifespan of over 100 years. But there is an interesting thing about reptiles: from the time that they are concieved until the time that they die, they NEVER stop growing. Their bodies are in a constant state of growth.
OK, you say, big deal. So what? Well, if one looks at the geneological records in the Bible, one finds that, up until the time of the Great Flood, humans were living hundreds and hundreds of years. The oldest man ever recorded, Methuselah, lived to be 969 years of age! And there were many more who live into the 900's. Now science states that this is impossible. Someone has screwed up the translations, or you can't take those ages literally. Perhaps none of these people existed at all. But if it did happen to humans, it would have happened to animals as well. Imagine how large a 1000 year-old Guila Monster would be!
So what caused it? Well, many scientists believe that before the Great Flood, there was an ice canopy around the Earth. This would have regulated Earth's climate, blocking out harmful aspects of sunlight (point one in longevity's favor). It also could very easily have affected the air pressure of the atmosphere on Earth. This is very important, because strong air pressure has been proven to have regenerative properties. For example, when a person in an ambulance or in the ER, and has to be put on oxygen, there is now a substantially higher pressure behind that oxygen, because it was found that the survival rate in emergencies was much higher, the higher the pressure.
So, if the air pressure was much greater before the flood, and there were few to no pollutants, AND there was little to fear from harmful solar radiation, everything would naturally live a lot longer. Seemingly as proof of this, we find that after the Flood, mankind lost that longevity over a period of generations, and eventually became what it is today. Likewise, animals would have slowly begun to die off faster, until they reached their standard of today. This solves the problem of how Noah would have fit dinosaurs on the Ark: he just got young ones.
Lastly, how does all of this tie in with evolution's tendancy to jump to conclusions? Well, I think that this theory is just as plausible as any other I've ever heard, and it certainly has more substance to back it up. We can't be sure of our techniques when we are examining how something lived and died long before us, but we can read historical accounts that correlate to another theory, that were written far closer to the subject than ours are.
Now, I am not necessarily saying that this theory is correct. I am merely saying that occasionally, if one thinks outside the box (as you claim we never do), one might find a more probable explanation.

Josh, MKOT

Hello

Whale hipbones are perfectly well explained.

The dinosaurs didn't "inexplicably start to die out".

The only reason science may not understand anything will not be due to some technical problem, but that it is out of it's philosophical boundaries.

This theory would only make sense if you believe the bible is the literal truth and you think that bending science about horrifically into some unrecognisable and wierd form to conveniently fit your beliefs is a good idea.

If I commented on this "theory" (though I have not read it in any scientific journals, for some mysterious reason) I would be here all day. It's safe to say that it is ludicrous and if you want people to take what you say seriously, I'd take a few steps back and think about how other people percieve you after saying such things.

"This solves the problem of how Noah would have fit dinosaurs on the Ark: he just got young ones."
And that is supposed to be a more probable explaination than evolution?, oh please.

Ste

Forgive me if I preach a bit here:

This is your problem. It is one of simplicity; you think that if it superficially appears designed, then it must be designed (even though when you look at life carefully it looks anything but designed), simple. That if something appears to be an accurate historical document, then it must be an accurate historical document (even though
the document in question is made up of stories, parables, mythology and symbols).

There is *no attempt* to look any deeper than the surface, and it is so depressing. It must be because you and your predecessors know that, with your way of thinking, your particular fragile brand of faith would be shaken to pieces.

Sorry for any offense,

Ste

No offense taken, Ste, but I'm afraid that you may have misunderstood my intentions. I was not saying that the theory was correct. I was merely saying that it seemed just as probable as a lot of evolutionary theories that I have heard, which try to explain the same thing. I consider myself to have an open mind, so if there is any theory about the extinction that is MORE believable, I would welcome it.
I am not even saying that I necessarily believe the pressure theory. I'm not sure whether I do or not. But I must say that it is compelling.
And how can you say that life does not look designed? Talk about ludicrous! I could waste a few hours of my time scratching the surface about the complexity of design, but I think that I would be wasting my time. Really, Ste, how can you say such a thing? Honestly, humans are the most advanced animals in the world and can design far more ingenious things than any other animal, yet our own attempts at manufacturing life fall pitifully short of the real world. Undesigned? I think not. The complexity of life, in my opinion, rules out any thought of a lack of design.
With that in mind, for evolution to work, it has to have a design pattern built in to it. I just can't see that. Now I grant you that I do not believe evolution occurs, and I do take the Bible literally, but that doesn't mean that I don't or won't consider other things. Challenge me, Ste. Tell me just how it is that evolution can put that design in life.
That, or explain just how the heck it is that you DON'T see any design to life (if you can).

Josh, MKOT

Yeah, it looks like I did misunderstand . But I still don't think it is as probable as the current main theories. Why do you think that theory is in any scientific journals that are peer reviewed?

I know about the complexity of life; I have a degree in Genetics, I am currently employed as a molecular biologist and I hope to embark on a PhD in a few years. Everything I have learned or worked with has not convinced me that it is conciously designed, in fact through all of biology the concept of evolution can be clearly seen to be at work. But me saying all of this won't convince *you* will it?

As for signs that life is not designed, what about that huge list of stuff that I posted earlier? How do you explain that? You cannot, only evolution can. I won't go over them, I'll just be repeating myself.

"I could waste a few hours of my time scratching the surface about the complexity of design, but I think that I would be wasting my time." Please, try and waste my time I would welcome it

Life would only appear intelligently designed to those who have been taught that god made everything as it is and have not questioned this, or indeed much at all. Complexity does not automatically confer consciousness, I shall use the example of fractals (again): Fractals are "a geometric pattern that is repeated to produce irregular shapes and surfaces that cannot be represented by classical geometry. Fractals are used especially in computer modeling of irregular patterns and structures in nature". So you have a simple thing that is repeated (e.g., inheritance) and it gives rise to infinite complexity. Isn't it strange how the branching tree is found everywhere in nature? A river tributary, a tree itself, lungs, evolutionary trees. This is one of the most basic fractal forms. Which is that best way to describe this phenomenon? A God put it there, or a simple thing was repeated (grossly oversimplifying of course)? Which is the most likely?

In the same way, evolution started off with simple building blocks, purines, pyrimidines, amino acids, sugars, phosphates, which all occur naturally. Once these accidentally formed into a self-catalysing (i.e., no need for proteins yet), self-replicating molecules (the precursor to DNA) the fractal pattern was set.

Do you see where I'm coming from?, I'm trying to take a different angle for you here. I know you're into quantum stuff, and I hope you are familiar with fractal geometry too.

Why does evolution have to have "a design pattern" built into it for it to work? What is your thinking behind this, I could do with some more explaination please

All the best,

Ste

You requested wasted time, and you will have some, though I do not think that I can at the moment spare so much as hours. I will try, however, to type fast and get in as much as possible.

First of all, the things that you listed prove nothing. Why? Well, it sort of goes back to the basic premise behind science. Science is the conquering of the unknown. It is the search for knowledge about something, anything. But science has one major flaw, a drawback that unfortunately cannot be overlooked. It can never succeed entirely. We will NEVER know everything that there is to know about anything. Try to argue it, but I don't really think that you can. Even in the simplest of things, there is always something that we don't really know for sure. So, the items that you listed do not disprove creation, they merely point out the fact that mankind does not, and cannot, know everything, even through the tool of science. I won't pretend that my faith automatically allows me to know the secrets behind every unexplainable thing (as you thought the extinction theory was supposed to do). I simply take by faith what I cannot understand, and use science to find what I can understand. Some day, science may find a use for some of those items. If not, I guess we'll never know in this lifetime.
Complexity of life is a subject on which you really surprise me, Ste. I would think that you of all people would recognize the inherent design complexity behind all matter. Yes, there would appear to be a similarity between simple and complex systems (i.e. complex systems seem to just branch off of simple ones, and be essentially the same thing), but even if that is true, let us examine the simple systems. Then, I will try to clarify how complexity DOES tie in with design, though I will confess that when put to the test, it is somewhat difficult to adequately explain something that I have known for a long time.
Beginning with the smallest known complete matter form, we should note the complexity of the atom. Far more than simply a lump of matter, the atom conists of active protons, neutrons, and electrons, spatially organized to form the atom's element. Every element has a different type of atom. Thus, every atom of a particular element is essentially the same. This certainly seems like a design. But perhaps not, so we will continue.
Molecular levels are even more complex. So complex, in fact, that I could ONLY scratch the surface, as I myself do not understand the greater picture of it. Fortunately, I know that you do understand it (at least as well as "science" will allow), and as I am merely pointing out the picture, and not its details, I will trust that you can figure a lot of it out on your own.
To say that the transition from seemingly simple systems to complex ones is like inheritance, in that it is basically the same thing, just repeated and enhanced, is correct. But that's the design! Imagine a chess game between someone who has just learned to play the game, and Russian champion Gary Kasparov (this is just an example). It is the same game, played the same way, but one system (player) is far more complex than the other. Does the fact that they are both playing by the same rules preclude their uniqueness as players? Furthermore, does it take away the design behind the game? Can we say that because a complex system looks a heck of a lot like a beefed-up simple system, that it must not be designed? Or even CANNOT be designed?

That is all I have time for today. Tune in next time, though, for the rest of my...um...lecture.

Josh, MKOT

P.S. I'm rather proud of my chess analogy. Just thought I'd let you know that.

The list proves that those examples given are unlikely to have come about by design. Evolution easily explains every aspect of the list. To go about saying "science will never know eveything" is irrelevant. In these cases science has seen many phenomenon in a huge number of disciplines (that list being only a *few* in *one* subject) and come up with an elegant and simple theory that fits. And works.

It's like you're pretending that there is no feasible explanation of life and that this oh-so strange subject will be shrouded in mystery for all time. Crap. That hasn't been the case for about 150 years. It just happens that your faith-based view of the world does not fit all the facts in front of you and you have to make some garbage up about science to reconcile this.

Science has no guarantees, no certainties, as a scientists I will happily admit that. But that has nothing do to with theorising. "We will NEVER know everything that there is to know about anything"; How do you know this? Will we have found *every* gene in the human genome within the next year? Yes. That statement is subjective and therefore shouldn't be applied to science.

"I would think that you of all people would recognize the inherent design complexity behind all matter." I see complexity, but not "design complexity". Why should I recognise this?, my world is not bent and warped to fit a literal description of creation as found in genesis.

Molecules:
- Is a salt (NaCl) molecule "designed"? Is the perfect cubic/geometric form of the Sodium and Chlorine atoms a plan, an example of a perfect flawless design from a higher being? Or is it just the way the happen to bond together?
- Is an amino acid or a nucleotide designed? Is the simple molecule made up of a few atoms, sometimes arranged slightly different, a sign that God was present? Or do they occur naturally on earth, in space, in comets?
- Is a protein designed?

Where does the natural occurences stop and "design" start? For me it starts nowhere.

"To say that the transition from seemingly simple systems to complex ones is like inheritance, in that it is basically the same thing, just repeated and enhanced, is correct. But that's the design!"
Thank you. So, you are admitting that evolution occurs, albeit guided by the hand of a designer. Congratualtions! You are no longer a biblical literalist. Welcome to the modern world

Apologies, I don't quite get your chess analogy, it's early and I haven't had my cup of

All the best,

Ste

Hi guys.

Just popped in and found that the conversation has moved on a long way. Wow. Anyway here's a few things to mull over.

Josh MKoT has raised the issue of design complexity. As I understand it the basic premise is that the universe, life and specifically humanity are believed to be so utterably complex that for their existence to be the result of random chance is unacceptable.

Well, Ste, I have to say that it might have been a good point, but only up to a point. The problems with this argument though are many. Just off the cuff, a couple that spring to mind are infinity and time.

Infinity

The universe is understood by science to be pretty big. Very big. Bigger than the biggest thing and then some. (That might be a quote but where from escapes me.) Within that vast space is a vast amount of material, of which the majority exists in the simplest form possible (Hydrogen) floating between stars and galaxies. Now it seems reasonable to me that given a large volume and large amount of material contained within that volume that there would be some variations in the density of that material.

In other words, some parts of the universe contain a bit more matter than others. Does this mean that there is a design to the variation in density? Nope. It just is. Nothing is entirely uniform. Uniformity requires a great deal of energy to create. It is the highest form of order and our understanding of entropy indicates that this doesn't happen by chance.

Instead things tend towards the lowest form of order. Like your sock draw. (How many odd socks do you have?)

Time

How old is the universe? Well according to science, we understand that is roughly, what, 15 billion years old? That's a long time. the old analogy comparing mans duration on earth to two minutes before midnight, doesn't really do the age of the earth justice, does it? And that's only 4 or 5 billion years old (at least according to science).

So what?

Well we have an awfully large amount of matter, swirling around in an awfully large place, over a very long period of time. A lot can happen. You don't need a degree in astronomy to comprehend that the formation of a few galaxies is actually quite probable. When the amount of matter contained in a galaxy is compared to its volume, they aren't really all that much more dense that the "empty" space between galaxies.

Obviously this doesn't disprove the design complexity idea, but it starts to explains the scientific approach.

You see we live in a pretty random sort of place, with lots of opportunities for the random events required to bring about our existence to have occurred.

However, we have yet to establish whether we are the only planet with life on it. If and when we finally encounter an ETI, would this be sufficient to demonstrate the lack of reasonableness in the biblical creation story?

Admittedly, we may never do so, but if we don't open our eyes and minds to the possibility that our existence is the product of a sequence of entirely random events, then we may be extinguished by the next cosmic random event.

Madent