All eyes evolved from a common ancestor!

Originally posted by KellyJay
I again, will leave it up to you to descrbe your designer, you want
to talk about one be specific. I intend to talk about the process,
if you want to change the subject to a designer, please do so.
Kelly

If you read it carefully, the objections I raised in my previous post apply to any designer. Your continual refusal to address simple comments and questions directly (or at all) leave me with very little confidence in your ability to form a defensible position, so maybe avoidance is your best strategy after all.

What exactly do you have to say about the process?

Originally posted by PBE6
If you read it carefully, the objections I raised in my previous post apply to any designer. Your continual refusal to address simple comments and questions directly (or at all) leave me with very little confidence in your ability to form a defensible position, so maybe avoidance is your best strategy after all.

What exactly do you have to say about the process?

I've read your objection carefully; again you want to discuss a designer
I suggest you describe the one you want to talk about, make
him/her/it the topic of discussion and discuss it. As I have pointed out
that the process is the topic I care about, I don't care who or what you
think could have do it, it doesn't matter, what does matter is can it be
done without some intelligent design working towards that end. If any
or all designers are required to be eternal so be it, again that is a
change of topic from the one I care about here!
Kelly

Originally posted by PBE6
Belief or FACT?

Belief or matter of faith.
Kelly

Originally posted by PBE6
Here's the skinny one more time:

You don't believe that evolution could account for all the variation and complexity you see around you because you think it's highly improbable. Your solution to the problem of the existence of this variation and complexity is to introduce the concept of "the designer", an entity able to act by any means necessary to achieve ...[text shortened]... ye is too improbable to have happened is a little like the pot calling the kettle black.

I disbelieve it because the process doesn't seem to be able to move
towards the complexity we see, and the only time that people attempt
to justify that belief is when they only look at a tiny piece of the puzzle
and focus on that with the verbage of, "If this happened, it could
make that happen!" The trouble with that is that it does not take the
whole process into account!
Kelly

Originally posted by DeepThought
I´m still thinking about what properties an early cell would have to have [hidden]maybe tomorrow[/hidden].

I assume that your position is evolution by design rather than one single creation event for all species? If we are talking about a process then the nature of a designer becomes important. Designer interventions could be at the cell bio-chemist ...[text shortened]... I think the modus operandi of the designer is relevant and therefore the nature of the designer.

I personally believe in a single event for creation; however, we are not
discussing creation we are looking at the process of evolution not
creation. We have to define our goal or problem statement and be
clear on what it is we are saying needed to occur, how, under what
conditions, and so on. If the only defence for a intent-less process of
evolution is just looking at some tiny small pieces of any complex
system and say if X,Y,Z were in place it would be possible to get this
problem solved. Problems could be blood clotting, eye sight, hearing,
stop and start processes within any system.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I don't care who or what you
think could have do it, it doesn't matter, what does matter is can it be
done without some intelligent design working towards that end. If any
or all designers are required to be eternal so be it, again that is a
change of topic from the one I care about here!
Kelly

You know what? I think we've actually reached a resolution! 🙂 Intelligent Design implies that God is the designer, otherwise it fails due to an infinite regression. However, this is a science forum, so technically we shouldn't be talking about ID anymore. Do you agree, KellyJay?

We can talk about the process however. Evolution actually does predict small changes over time in an iterative fashion (it doesn't rule out larger changes over short periods of time, but it does predict that large quick changes are unlikely and that small slow changes drive the process), so it's appropriate that examples of evolution involve evidence of change from a given starting point. What exactly is your objection to this process? Here are some ideas you may object to:

Evolution involves:

1. Reproduction - the ability to make copies and thereby produce descendants.
2. Heredity - the ability to pass traits to copies.
3. Variation - mutations cause differences in heritable traits that affect "fitness” or the ability to survive and reproduce leading to differential survival.
4. Extent - the difference between one generation and the next is (usually) small.
5. Speed - the rate of mutations is (usually) slow.

If, however, you object to evolution on the grounds that non-life can't beget life, then you are really objecting to the abiogenesis hypothesis, which is a separate issue.

So, to clarify, which of the following are we discussing?

(a) the process of evolution;
(b) the abiogenesis hypothesis.

Originally posted by PBE6
You know what? I think we've actually reached a resolution! 🙂 Intelligent Design implies that God is the designer, otherwise it fails due to an infinite regression. However, this is a science forum, so technically we shouldn't be talking about ID anymore. Do you agree, KellyJay?

We can talk about the process however. Evolution actually does predict sma owing are we discussing?

(a) the process of evolution;
(b) the abiogenesis hypothesis.

Feel free, run off to another subject, attempt to make me the subject
do whatever you want! I'm not at all compelled to worry about what
you think is true or false any more than you are what I think is true or
false.

You feel that intelligent design becomes a mute point due to the fact
of infinite regression, yet when I point out the same thing for the
universe as a whole I get people saying that it is simply not logical
to discuss such things. I will point out to you that all matter and
energy is either eternal or you have the same issues, you are getting
something from nothing, before the Big Band that singularity came
from where, what was there before it, what acted upon the singularity
to cause it to go “BIG BANG” on itself? Did something within it
change, did something act upon it outside of the singularity itself?

I say you do not actually apply the same level of scrutiny upon your
beliefs as you bring to ID, so blow off the process debate if you
wish, again up to you.
Kelly

Originally posted by PBE6
You know what? I think we've actually reached a resolution! 🙂 Intelligent Design implies that God is the designer, otherwise it fails due to an infinite regression. However, this is a science forum, so technically we shouldn't be talking about ID anymore. Do you agree, KellyJay?

We can talk about the process however. Evolution actually does predict sma ...[text shortened]... owing are we discussing?

(a) the process of evolution;
(b) the abiogenesis hypothesis.

If you want to discuss the process of evolution know that its beginning
is still part of the process. You can have a process ongoing, unless you
want to go to the eternal process, it would have a beginning.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I will point out to you that all matter and
energy is either eternal or you have the same issues, you are getting
something from nothing, before the Big Band that singularity came
from where, what was there before it, what acted upon the singularity
to cause it to go “BIG BANG” on itself?

Don't go off-topic, KJ, don't go off-topic!

Originally posted by KellyJay
I will point out to you that all matter and
energy is either eternal or you have the same issues, you are getting
something from nothing, before the Big Band that singularity came
from where, what was there before it, what acted upon the singularity
to cause it to go “BIG BANG” on itself? Did something within it
change, did something act upon it outside of the singularity itself?

This is a subject for a different thread really, but the theory is that the universe started as a quantum fluctuation. There wasn´t automatically a singularity, quantum gravity effects allow the initial incredibly small hot universe to pop into existence. It is not meaningful to talk about before the big bang as there wasn´t a before. The initial universe expanded and cooled. Due to the cooling a process called cosmic inflation generated a considerable amount of energy to all intents and purposes for free, to compensate for the positive energy liberated negative (field) energy is sort of frozen into the vacuum.

The particle horizon, which is the furthest we can see, is about 43 billion light years away. The universe is around 13 billion years old, the reason light can get to us from that far is the expansion in the mean time. If you believe that the universe was created by a deity, I assume at the same time as the earth, then we should only be able to see things up to about 10,000 light years away. not even as far as the galactic core - never mind Andromeda which is 2.54 million light years away. You cannot explain that without having your god produce a carbon copy of a universe which has been expanding for around 13 billion years.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Don't go off-topic, KJ, don't go off-topic!

I been very clear about the topic, it is the process. Now if you are
done bringing God into this we can get back to it.
Kelly

Originally posted by DeepThought
This is a subject for a different thread really, but the theory is that the universe started as a quantum fluctuation. There wasn´t automatically a singularity, quantum gravity effects allow the initial incredibly small hot universe to pop into existence. It is not meaningful to talk about before the big bang as there wasn´t a before. The initial univ ...[text shortened]... ur god produce a carbon copy of a universe which has been expanding for around 13 billion years.

My point, you claim there wasn't a before with the singularity, yet you
demand one for the designer, it is a double standard.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You feel that intelligent design becomes a mute point due to the fact
of infinite regression, yet when I point out the same thing for the
universe as a whole I get people saying that it is simply not logical
to discuss such things.

You misunderstand. My argument is focused solely on defeating your objection that the results of evolution are improbable. Adherents of Intelligent Design claim that ID offers a much more likely explanation, however they seem to miss the fact that the probability of a designer springing into existence fully formed is far more improbable, and thus self-defeating.

My argument does not show that Intelligent Design cannot be true, or that God doesn't exist. However, it does shed light on the fact that probability is not on ID's side, and if adherent continue to provide nothing in the way of evidence to recommend it, ID is reduced to a claim of faith. Fine for some, but not science.

Originally posted by KellyJay
If you want to discuss the process of evolution know that its beginning
is still part of the process. You can have a process ongoing, unless you
want to go to the eternal process, it would have a beginning.
Kelly

Abiogenesis and evolution are two different subject that describe two different processes, and make different predictions.

Give us your objections in point form, and we can deal with them one at a time. If one objection focuses on abiogenesis, we can discuss that. If another focuses on evolution, we can discuss that as well, separately.

Originally posted by PBE6
You misunderstand. My argument is focused solely on defeating your objection that the results of evolution are improbable. Adherents of Intelligent Design claim that ID offers a much more likely explanation, however they seem to miss the fact that the probability of a designer springing into existence fully formed is far more improbable, and thus self-defeati evidence to recommend it, ID is reduced to a claim of faith. Fine for some, but not science.

I believe in evolution, just not the one you do.
I believe in several of the points people here bring up with respect to
change over time.
I am not an Intelligent Design person; I don't believe at all that
anyone or thing started molding life from non-life beginning at the
most simplest life form and through time and genetic manipulation
altered it to give us the vast variety we see today. I am a creationist,
but as I have pointed out several times over, creation cannot be
shown true or false by science/man it is either accepted or rejected
and those that do either will do so on faith.

As I pointed out to you and others here, there is no escaping the
notion that at one point there was ‘nothing then something’ unless
you buy into something being eternal, or a reset function for all of the
universe that just loops through all time. Now either one of those two
fairy tales are just as likely as an eternal X in my opinion.
Kelly