Appearing next in Springfield?

What a strange and wonderfully complex world we live in! How exciting it is when people use their minds to understand this world instead of obfuscating it behind claims of ignorance and theological hocus-pocus.

Maybe the ID crowd should be challenged with discoveries such as this again and again. It may be time for 'science' to set the agenda in a proactive effort. (I know it's done and has been done exceptionally well by people from Loren Eiseley to Stephan Jay Gould to Cal Zimmer.)

How does the ID crowd explain arboreal traits in humans? Why does a habitual biped (Homo sap) display evidence of brachiation adaptation? Oh, the fun we could have . . . .!

How does the ID crowd explain arboreal traits in humans? Why does a habitual biped (Homo sap) display evidence of brachiation adaptation? Oh, the fun we could have . . . .!

That is the weirdest thing I've seen today, and that is saying something.

Tara,
These are the things that scientists do that makes my blood boil.

There is absolutely no empirical support for the statement "In lower vertebrates, the pineal organ had a visual role which got lost during evolution." It is nothing more than audacious speculation.

As Richard Feynman said:
"if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid--not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked--to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.

Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can--if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong--to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition."

They should just report their results or offer other possible explanations (of which I can think of several) instead of just letting the prevailing paradigm guide them. For shame!

Gee, Charlie, would it be too much to expect you to google the key terms of a statement before you jump in with your "audacious speculation" judgments?

The statement that the pineal gland had a photoreceptor role in lower vertebrates isn't even remotely controversial. Many studies going back to the early '80s (and probably much earlier) support this photoreceptor role for the pineal.

Even in "higher" vertebrates the pineal gland likely has a related and conserved role, serving to intergrate the light and sleep cycles.

They should just report their results or offer other possible explanations (of which I can think of several) instead of just letting the prevailing paradigm guide them. For shame!

These are the things that scientists do that makes my blood boil.

The statement that the pineal gland had a photoreceptor role in lower vertebrates isn't even remotely controversial.

— Stevie

Other explanations, let's hear um.

— Thrifty Gene

How does the ID crowd explain arboreal traits in humans? Why does a habitual biped (Homo sap) display evidence of brachiation adaptation? Oh, the fun we could have . . . .!

— a maine yankee

Nobody cares what you think, Charlie. (shrug)

There is absolutely no empirical support for the statement "In lower vertebrates, the pineal organ had a visual role which got lost during evolution." It is nothing more than audacious speculation.

I think a very easy explanation is at hand: in cells where phenotypic eye expression is normally suppressed, that suppression is now removed. But all the genetic "information" is present chromosomally in all the cells. Very simple, I think.

— Blast

There can be no doubt that the function of the pineal body in lower vertebrates is related to the function of the pineal body in higher vertebrates. The same genes are involved in both cases. In nature, the same genes are used over and over in many different applications across a wide range of species. This in no way supports the notion that a particular function in one form "evolved from" a similar function in a lower form or that the pineal body had a "function" in lower vertebrates that was "lost" through the process of evolution and that the pineal body is a vestigial eye.

I agree. You are 100% correct. Evolution is all about turning genes on and turning them off. Genetic "switches" are crucial components. Genes must turn on and off in specific combinations, in a specific sequence and at specific times. The question is, who programs the switches?

Charlie, you totally reject the idea of phylogenesis, am I correct? So it must follow that you reject abstractions such as kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and possibly species, as well as all their super- and sub-divisions, right? If not, then what do you base those abstract classifications on?

— Raven

Can we guess your answer?

— Arden

I don't know if I'm pleased or disappointed that Charlie W didn't invoke God in his discussion.

Playing God with frogs. Yes? Doesn't that niggle anybody?

How about this. It's all chemistry. OK, biochemistry, but chemistry nevertheless. And physics.

Yes, we, and I use the term "we" to mean humans, especially those humans who are engaged in science, are learning how to manipulate the chemistry of which we are made.

How remarkable is that! And, although I can detect Charlie's blood boiling because he has this great fear of his Lord, while I have a great raport with mine, I'm pleased with "our" progress. Should we learn to actually control the process of evolution imagine what we could become!

Suppose we could engineer our species to live on Mars in a thin, cold carbon dioxide atmosphere. Suppose we could engineer our species to be photosynthetic and immune to vacuum of space. If that could be my legacy, what a legacy it could be. We could move into the universe.

Of course, while I'm cruising the stars old Charlie would be stuck on earth fighting school boards. Your choice, bro. My God kicks your god's ass.

Charlie Wagner wrote:

"I don't believe that random processes like mutation and selection have the power to create new, highly organized structures processes, systems and organisms."

Really? What has led you not to believe this? What piece of evidence? Can you give me some examples? Or do you simply look at organisms and get the gut feeling that they are so complicated and (apparently) finely-tuned that mutation and selection couldn't possibly have created them. If that is the case then I say your understanding of the power of evolution is what is limited as opposed to evolution itself.

"As for taxonomic relationships, clearly they are human conventions, but they have some basis in reality. On a molecular level, more similar genomes clearly implies a closer relationship and the various forms are grouped in a hierarchal structure, so these abstractions have some validity."

Taxonomy and its categories are (I think) a human creation. Species concepts might work well in simpler temperate northern hemisphere ecosystems where the distinction between species is typically clear cut. However when you start working in areas like south Western Australia, where I am from, the species concept starts to have trouble. South Western Australia has not experienced any mass extinctions from glaciers and marine inundation for hundreds of millions of years. As a result we have mega-biodiversity (a hundred 'species' per hundred square meters and a 60% turnover in species per kilometer) and very complicated evolutionary histories. For example, I am working on a group of plants spread over an area of land the size of England. The populations vary morphologically and are thought to represent different variants but these variants can be hard to tell apart. They are all considered to be one species. I have completed a molecular study that shows the genetic variation between groups of populations is higher than between different species in other parts of the world! So is it one species or several, or are they just subspecies? We see the same thing in many plant groups from Western Australia. We have a tangled mass of variants, subspecies, species, related species complexes and so forth. Are we seeing examples of populations within species genetically diversifying into variants, then into subspecies, and then into species in their own right? I think we are.

If your interested check out:

http://www.worldwidewattle.com/infogallery/utilisation/saligna.php

Charlie Wagner wrote:

"I don't believe that random processes like mutation and selection have the power to create new, highly organized structures processes, systems and organisms."

Really? What has led you not to believe this? What piece of evidence? Can you give me some examples? Or do you simply look at organisms and get the gut feeling that they are so complicated and (apparently) finely-tuned that mutation and selection couldn't possibly have created them. If that is the case then I say your understanding of the power of evolution is what is limited as opposed to evolution itself.

"As for taxonomic relationships, clearly they are human conventions, but they have some basis in reality. On a molecular level, more similar genomes clearly implies a closer relationship and the various forms are grouped in a hierarchal structure, so these abstractions have some validity."

Taxonomy and its categories are (I think) a human creation. Species concepts might work well in simpler temperate northern hemisphere ecosystems where the distinction between species is typically clear cut. However when you start working in areas like south Western Australia, where I am from, the species concept starts to have trouble. South Western Australia has not experienced any mass extinctions from glaciers and marine inundation for hundreds of millions of years. As a result we have mega-biodiversity (a hundred 'species' per hundred square meters and a 60% turnover in species per kilometer) and very complicated evolutionary histories. For example, I am working on a group of plants spread over an area of land the size of England. The populations vary morphologically and are thought to represent different variants but these variants can be hard to tell apart. They are all considered to be one species. I have completed a molecular study that shows the genetic variation between groups of populations is higher than between different species in other parts of the world! So is it one species or several, or are they just subspecies? We see the same thing in many plant groups from Western Australia. We have a tangled mass of variants, subspecies, species, related species complexes and so forth. Are we seeing examples of populations within species genetically diversifying into variants, then into subspecies, and then into species in their own right? I think we are.

If you are interested in what I am talking about check out:

http://www.worldwidewattle.com/infogallery/utilisation/saligna.php

Ah crud! I apologize for the multi post.

Charlie Wagner wrote, "The question is, who programs the switches?"

Why in the f*&k do people who invoke (or suggest) an "intelligent designer" not realize that this only begs the question, "Where did the goddam designer come from?"? Crap, that's irritating! (Did you ever notice that all curse words are related to either sex/women, religion, or bodily functions? For fun, I used one of each category in this post.)

But all the genetic "information" is present chromosomally in all the cells. Very simple, I think. How does the Darwinist crowd explain this?

I don't believe that random processes like mutation and selection have the power to create new, highly organized structures processes, systems and organisms. I think that at some level, intelligent input is a requirement. Not every level perhaps, but at some level.

— CW

C'mon, folks, get with the times! It's "Divine Design (DD)" now. The term "Intelligent Design" is so last year.

Thrifty Gene asks: "So (Charlie) what are your "other possible explanations"?"

Thank you, Charlie, for once again re-affirming that IDers have nothing beyond an argument from incredulity. I know you just can't put your finger on where or at what point evolution becomes "impossible," but dag nabbit, you just can't fathom how it could operate in toto.

As others have pointed out, your personal lack of imagination is not a flaw of the theory itself.

"Who programs the switches?"

The Tralfamadorians. (As in "Greetings from Tralfamadore" in Sirens .....etc etc.)

Next question.

Evolution is all about turning genes on and turning them off. Genetic "switches" are crucial components. Genes must turn on and off in specific combinations, in a specific sequence and at specific times. The question is, who programs the switches?

Charlie writes:"That wasn't what I was objecting to. It was the conclusion that this "got lost due to evolution".

Ahhh yess... The designer giveth and the designer taketh away.

CW: "These are the things that scientists do that makes my blood boil."

I couldn't avoid reading this, but it's so stupid, even for CW, that I'll deign to toss out a hope: maybe he'll explode and leave us free of his utterly unfunny idiocy.

I think that at some level, intelligent input is a requirement. Not every level perhaps, but at some level.

I think...

That depends on what you mean by phylogeny. It is clear that all living forms are closely related and probably had a common origin. It is clear that the same genes are used over and over in a wide variety of applications across a broad range of forms. What this means, I just don't know. It may mean that some forms "evolved" from others, but we shouldn't be too quick to make that claim based solely on the relatedness of the forms on a morphological and/or molecular level. My main issue is not that evolution has not occurred, it has. Changes have occurred in the frequencies of alleles in populations due to selection pressure. That's one definition of evolution. In addition, the forms we see today are different from those of the past, so change has occurred over time. This is another definition of evolution. What I question is the mechanism. I don't believe that random processes like mutation and selection have the power to create new, highly organized structures processes, systems and organisms. I think that at some level, intelligent input is a requirement. Not every level perhaps, but at some level. As for taxonomic relationships, clearly they are human conventions, but they have some basis in reality. On a molecular level, more similar genomes clearly implies a closer relationship and the various forms are grouped in a hierarchal structure, so these abstractions have some validity. I have no objection to the term "vertebrates" since they all share a distinct morphological similarity, which has a basis in reality. I think the classification is valid.

"To be fair, there are those within the ID group that accept common descent."

Is this something to do with common ancestor?

I guess that the journey out of darkness must begin somewhere.

The question is, who operates the thunder machine?

— Deep

Really? What has led you not to believe this? What piece of evidence? Can you give me some examples?

— Nic

Why in the f*&k do people who invoke (or suggest) an "intelligent designer" not realize that this only begs the question, "Where did the goddam designer come from?"? Crap, that's irritating!

— Greenman

Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument of the First Cause. It is maintained that everything we see in this world has a cause, and as you go back in the chain of causes further and further you must come to a First Cause, and to that First Cause you give the name of God. That argument, I suppose, does not carry very much weight nowadays, because, in the first place, cause is not quite what it used to be. The philosophers and the men of science have got going on cause, and it has not anything like the vitality that it used to have; but apart from that, you can see that the argument that there must be a First Cause is one that cannot have any validity. I may say that when I was a young man, and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day, at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill's Autobiography, and I there found this sentence: "My father taught me that the question, Who made me? cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question, Who made God?" That very simple sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant, and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The argument is really no better than that. There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the argument about the First Cause.

I think you all are too hard on poor Charlie. After all he's further along in his acceptance of evolutionary theory than many. I.e. the gaps he sqeezes God into are quite small compared to a lot of "anti-darwinists".

They should just report their results or offer other possible explanations (of which I can think of several) instead of just letting the prevailing paradigm guide them. For shame!

— Charlie Wagner

The question is, who programs the switches?

— Charlie Wagner

Charlie and other creationist, admit microevolution and then immediately turn around and deny macroevolution for no more reason as that admission would collapse all their religious views as to the origin of life, and in particular humans. I know. I was raised this way myself and later saw the illogic and denial involved in this type of "thinking".

Why does anyone have to "program" them?

— Tara Smith

So your "designer" must have "programmed" them differently, eh? Seems like a lot of busy work if he's out programming all these species and sub-species and strains with a thousand different switches, working differently even within a species.

— Tara Smith

Interesting question. Maybe there are two levels of programming working together.

— Charlie Wagner

There is the Evo-Devo program, which controls the development of the organism. If anything goes wrong in this program, everything gets fouled up and the organism doesn't develop the way it should.

I also suspect that there is a second level of control that responds to the environment.

It dynamically interacts with the various "triggers" in the local environment and modifies the responses of the switches. I think this might be what happens in such effects as antibiotic or pesticide resistance. The environment modifies the switches, turns the genes on or off, producing the "mutations" that allow the population to adapt to the new environment.

The idea of a static genome which passively reacts to challenges is gradually being replaced by a picture of a more dynamic and adaptive genome which is responsive and can adapt to different stresses. This ability appears to have been built into the genome to give it wide latitude to act as a universal automaton. The "intelligence" may already be there.

That's exactly the point. All of the programming doesn't have to be there from the beginning. There may be an evolutionary program, one which controls what we call "evolution" (which apparently is over)

and a "developmental" program, one which acts on individual development and a third program, one that allows modifications to the other programs as a result of environmental changes.

1. Those that are the product of intelligent design: washing machine, computer, an airplane. 2. Those that are not the product of intelligent design and can be explained by random processes or known laws of physics: a waterfall, a mountain, the Grand Canyon, a tornado and an ice crystal. 3. Those that cannot be determined as above: pear tree, dog and my daughter Leslie.

Not being a scientist and having nothing more than a desire as a parent who wishes his child to get the correct information/education in school...what seems clear it that ID'rs, Creationist and YEC seem to want to end the topic quickly.

By that I mean, whenever there is an information gap or something yet to be explained scientifically, the stock answer is "Designer!" It's almost as though they think we will all just go, "hhhmmmm....ok!" and we'll just pack our bags and stop researching or looking for the real reason.

Would they have felt the same way when medical science, confronted with a disease, just shrugged its shoulders and said, "hhhhmmm . . . .must be the will of the designer" and just stopped trying to find a cause and cure???

I believe they fear the final outcome. Ignore the man behind the curtain . . . ..

I believe they fear the final outcome. Ignore the man behind the curtain . . . ..

I'm sure this has been asked before:

Why did the "intelligent" designer design extinct species? What we have is a clear case of a not so intelligent designer. Although, who am I to argue with mysterious forces?

I know. They became extinct because that was in The Designer's Plan (TM). Why do we ask ANY questions if everything was designed? Where is the line drawn between designed and natural?

If one believes in Intelligent Design, just what is the definition of intelligent? I am sorry that people who advocate ID are not capable of understanding (willing?) evolution . . . last time I checked, I am just as human as they yet I have the ability to understand evolution. Why was I designed differently?

Charlie,

"Evolutionists continually disparage intelligent design, saying that it's not science and chiding ID theorists for not publishing their work in "peer-reviewed" scientific journals. This is not true. There are hundreds, if not thousands of peer-reviewed articles that appear each year in highly regarded scientific journals that support intelligent design. "

Name one article supporting an ID theory that has been proved valid.

"Evolutionists continually disparage intelligent design, saying that it's not science and chiding ID theorists for not publishing their work in "peer-reviewed" scientific journals. This is not true. There are hundreds, if not thousands of peer-reviewed articles that appear each year in highly regarded scientific journals that support intelligent design. "

Are you familiar with the work of Luria and Delbruck?

— Tara Smith

Surely you aren't saying that organisms aren't still evolving?

Why couldn't they have evolved these abilities?

I couldn't avoid reading this, but it's so stupid, even for CW, that I'll deign to toss out a hope: maybe he'll explode and leave us free of his utterly unfunny idiocy.

— Darwinfinch

Hi Charlie!
I don't share your viewpoints but I think you're entering the debate in the right manner.

You write:

"That depends on what you mean by evolution. I think for the most part it's over. I see no new structures, processes, systems or organisms emerging in the future. I do, however, see modifications occurring to existing systems. If you want to call that evolution I guess you can."

Ironically, future humans will be "intelligently designed" by there predecessors. Homo-excelsior will be optimally and intelligently designed. We might even migrate off this organic substrate into something a little more durable . . .

Ironically, future humans will be "intelligently designed" by there predecessors. Homo-excelsior will be optimally and intelligently designed. We might even migrate off this organic substrate into something a little more durable . . .

— Rich

Sure. I never met Luria but I didn't care much for Delbruck. I was put off by his condescending attitude towards the work of Barbara McClintock, who I held in high regard. Anyway, they proved that it was mutations that were responsible for resistance in bacteria, rather than contact with virus. But it certainly could have been some sort of "directed" mutation resulting from a pre-existing potntial for resistance plus an environmental trigger.

— Charlie Wagner

My goodness, that was a year before I was born! (1943)

That depends on what you mean by evolution. I think for the most part it's over. I see no new structures, processes, systems or organisms emerging in the future. I do, however, see modifications occurring to existing systems. If you want to call that evolution I guess you can.

By what mechanism? Magic? A miracle?

How come machines don't bootstrap themselves into existence from the raw materials in their environment?

Hi Charlie,

The hurdle remains, as it always has. There is an unfounded leap from intentionally designed non-biological objects known to have been conceived and designed by humans, to the claim of intentional design of biological organisms by an unknown "other" intelligence.

To call a bacterial flagellum a "motor" does not establish its kinship with an Evinrude, in anything beyond similar function.

You make the flat statement that it absolutely could not have happened without intelligent input, and at the same time you admit to having no actual evidence - beyond your opinion - to support that claim, or any idea who or what.

How much of what is now commonplace scientific knowledge was absolutely unknown 100, 50, 10 years ago? The Intelligent Design argument depends entirely on pointing to missing pieces in the current body of Scientific knowledge. That body of knowledge grows with every passing day.

On a personal note, it's good to have you back in full form.

Bob

Hey, Charlie, I see you've recycled the whole rotor-ring quote-mining thing from previous posts. Don't I seem to remember that you were going to have to go off and "think" about the homologues to the flagellar proteins?

Has that "thought" process taken you no further than this spinning in place?
Evolution may not be dead, but the ol' "thinking" cap seems to have gone well beyond its last scheduled maintenance. Isn't the propellor on top of the beany supposed to be rotated at least once a year?

Not being a scientist and having nothing more than a desire as a parent who wishes his child to get the correct information/education in school . . . what seems clear it that ID'rs, Creationist and YEC seem to want to end the topic quickly.

If anyone believes that these systems can arise without intelligent input I would be interested in hearing alternative explanations.

— Charlie Wagner

That depends on what you mean by evolution. I think for the most part it's over. I see no new structures, processes, systems or organisms emerging in the future. I do, however, see modifications occurring to existing systems. If you want to call that evolution I guess you can.

I used to deny the obvious truths of ID. But then came that flagellar motor. What about it convinced me? On the side, in little tiny letters, the plate which says "© 4004 BC - GodCo ID Systems"

that's what I call Evidence For Design.

I think a very easy explanation is at hand: in cells where phenotypic eye expression is normally suppressed, that suppression is now removed. But all the genetic "information" is present chromosomally in all the cells. Very simple, I think. How does the Darwinist crowd explain this?

— Blastfromthepast

So The Simpsons has more predictive value in biology than ID. That's pretty sweet.

Vitamin A my ass. The little froggie just wished very very hard for another eye. Seems like that's how it works, according to PZ's Kreationist Komix.

The most ridiculous thing about all of this is that ID advocates seem to think that every paper that comes out has to specifically test evolution and provide evidence for or against it. Mainstream biologists agree that evolution is supported by the evidence, but they also use it as an explanatory paradigm without questioning first principles in every single paper.

This is true of every scientific field - in physics, each paper that invokes quantum theory as an explanatory paradigm does not go on about how their specific paper is support for or against quantum theory.

Charlie's blood boiled over the fact that the authors of the paper took evolution for granted and invoked it as a possible explanation for what they observed. This is normal science - just because ID advocates have issues with the first principles of evolutionary theory doesn't mean every scientific paper invoking evolution has to argue for those first principles.

How much of what is now commonplace scientific knowledge was absolutely unknown 100, 50, 10 years ago? The Intelligent Design argument depends entirely on pointing to missing pieces in the current body of Scientific knowledge. That body of knowledge grows with every passing day.

— Bob

If you mean by that, do I believe in a supernatural explanation for life, the answer is no, although I do not rule it out. Gods are invented to explain those things that we do not understand. As we learn more about the world and how it works, there are fewer mysteries to explain, and therefore less of a need for gods. I think that as time goes on, we will learn more and more about the universe and the life in it. Whether we will ever be able to completely understand it is not known at this time. For now, I will accept that there is a natural, knowable explanation for the universe and for the existence of life.

We're on a voyage to somewhere, that seems certain.

But if this is just a matter of every cell being able to turn into an eye, why did only the pineal gland do so and not the whole frog? Is it just coincidence that the the pineal gland did?

— Paul

Charlie,

You said, "If you mean by that, do I believe in a supernatural explanation for life, the answer is no, although I do not rule it out."

Fair enough - I don't rule it out either. But, having said that, where to go with the insistence on intelligent input? As I've said to you in at least one earlier post, I'd personally be quite happy to find out that I was the result of extra-terrestrial tinkering, but that doesn't do anything to define the root cause. It just delays the search, which starts all over again with "who designed the extra-terrestrial Tinkerer"? Remember the Blish short story, "Surface Tension"?

So, if not BibleGod, or some other god - who, or what? It seems to me there can be no other candidate. That's the downside of postulating an Intelligent agent/input.

Guess I'm going to have to spend some more time on your website. Check mine out - www.bobmaurusdotcom Sorry about that - I was getting a wierd error message.

But, having said that, where to go with the insistence on intelligent input?

— Bob

Intelligent input does not automatically mean a supernatural god. It just means "an intelligence greater than human." I don't see any incompatibility between intelligent input and scientific naturalism.

Intelligent input does not automatically mean a supernatural god. It just means "an intelligence greater than human." I don't see any incompatibility between intelligent input and scientific naturalism.

Charlie,

Glad you enjoyed my website.

You said, "Intelligent input does not automatically mean a supernatural god. It just means "an intelligence greater than human." I don't see any incompatibility between intelligent input and scientific naturalism."

But that still doesn't address, "I'd personally be quite happy to find out that I was the result of extra-terrestrial tinkering, but that...just delays the search, which starts all over again with "who designed the extra-terrestrial Tinkerer"?...So, if not BibleGod, or some other god - who, or what? It seems to me there can be no other candidate. That's the downside of postulating an Intelligent agent/input."

An endless pushing back of root cause avoids the issue.

Bob

But hey, I suggested a solution to this problem. All we need is a simple time machine.

Flint,

The I'mMyOwnGrandpa Theory of Evolution? Track down "Surface Tension." It's a decent Golden Age read, as I recall.

Bob,

Yep, that's a classic. Blish wrote some interesting stuff. But it's not a time machine story, only a story of how some dying spacefolk re-engineered their offspring to survive in a new environment. But no doubt they were intelligently designed.

But that still doesn't address, "I'd personally be quite happy to find out that I was the result of extra-terrestrial tinkering, but that . . . just delays the search, which starts all over again with "who designed the extra-terrestrial Tinkerer"? . . . An endless pushing back of root cause avoids the issue.

— Bob Maurus

Probably an old essay, but one to cherish and forward.

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

We keep going in circles, Charlie

CW writes the same basic stuff...

The basic point is that we know from experience that random processes cannot result in organization, no matter how much we want to believe it. Any evolutionary mechanism that relies only on random processes and rejects intelligent input is doomed to failure no matter what clever debating tricks are used to make it seem possible.[/blockquote]

Well, a simple computer program has proved the first absolute assertion off.

The second is actually disproved by the discussion of one of the (minor) flaws of that program: evolution is not "random". It is a sequence of causal events, driven by the very laws of physics we have known for the last hundred+ years. The only thing that makes it seem random is that there are so many variables involved that we can not calculate them all. Nobody calls Natural Selection a random process. Nobody considers the mutations (whether they increase or decrease in usefulness or "complexity") a random process.

We know that energy in a molecular bond can break down or split due to other chemicals or radiation; we know that DNA sequences can reassemble themselves "incorrectly" to produce imperfect copies; we know that energy added to a system can increase the complexity of molecular bonds (proved when amino acids were once packed together in a lead shell and then quickly compressed by a gunshot -- rather than breakdown in the heat, the heat and pressure joined them into more complex peptide molecules); we know that such energy enters our world on a consistent basis (the sun) as well as an inconsistent one (meteor impacts, geothermal sources).

All of these events are perfectly natural, and can affect the life impacted by them in ways that scientists hope to be able to predict.

By saying that at point "X" such an event was not natural, but supernaturally triggered, done specifically to *cause* a particular mutation to happen, does nothing for science except say "give it up." It also goes to show that you don't *believe* that the universe exists without some particular purpose. This is not a view science can prove or disprove (as such, its irrelevant here), and also is not a view shared philosophically by most Christians (including myself).

I see no new structures, processes, systems or organisms emerging in the future.

Joe, here's what they're going to say about Avida: An intelligent human wrote the program, an intelligent human built the computer, therefore intelligent design was required to get these interesting, novel 'evolutions'.

Is that not the biggest misunderstanding you've ever seen?

They'll also say that Avida has nothing in common with biological evolution, but that's a less shocking misunderstanding.

Yeah, I'm well aware of how they disregard those results entirely, but what I'm speaking about in my post has already happened in real nature, with real bugs and is continuing to happen :)

Re "what I'm speaking about in my post has already happened in real nature, with real bugs and is continuing to happen"

Wonder if that's what "bugs" them?

:)