2
   

Intelligent Design? A Test Case

 
 
Greyfan
 
Reply Sat 22 Oct, 2005 04:09 pm
The hairworm, after being born in the water, finds a grasshopper and burrows into its body, feeding on the hopper's insides until it reaches adulthood, at which point it needs to return to the water to breed the next generation of hairworm. It accomplishes this by secreting proteins that mimic the grasshopper's brain chemicals, forcing the grasshopper to "decide" to commit suicide by hurling himself into the water. The hairworm then swims away, leaving behind a husk of a grasshopper that has, by this time, been reduced to nothing more than a head, legs, and exoskeleton, the hairworm having consumed all non-essential parts.

Now, its difficult, but not impossible, to imagine how this relationship might have evolved over time; but it is also difficult, if not impossible, to imagine taking any sort of comfort in the nature of the intelligence that might have designed it.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 2,331 • Replies: 48
No top replies

 
rhymer
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Oct, 2005 05:49 pm
What evidence was given to prove the 'jump' proteins came from the worm rather than the grasshopper?
The grasshopper may have been having its last fling!
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Oct, 2005 10:11 pm
Re: Intelligent Design? A Test Case
Greyfan wrote:
The hairworm, after being born in the water, finds a grasshopper and burrows into its body, feeding on the hopper's insides until it reaches adulthood, at which point it needs to return to the water to breed the next generation of hairworm. It accomplishes this by secreting proteins that mimic the grasshopper's brain chemicals, forcing the grasshopper to "decide" to commit suicide by hurling himself into the water. The hairworm then swims away, leaving behind a husk of a grasshopper that has, by this time, been reduced to nothing more than a head, legs, and exoskeleton, the hairworm having consumed all non-essential parts.

Now, its difficult, but not impossible, to imagine how this relationship might have evolved over time; but it is also difficult, if not impossible, to imagine taking any sort of comfort in the nature of the intelligence that might have designed it.


Interesting example, Greyfan. It is unlikely, to say the least, that this relationship developed thru evolution. Although I'm sure that some will think it did. Do you have links that tell more about it?

If the worm could evolve and develop it's dependency on the grasshopper, how come the grasshopper hasn't evolved to become resistant to the worm?

Perhaps the reason that an Intelligence designed this relationship was to illustrate the unlikelihood of Random Chance being the architect of all life, just as a clever artist will sometimes insert his identity into his artwork in an unusual way.
0 Replies
 
Terry
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Oct, 2005 10:22 pm
Re: Intelligent Design? A Test Case
real life wrote:
If the worm could evolve and develop it's dependency on the grasshopper, how come the grasshopper hasn't evolved to become resistant to the worm?

Perhaps the reason that an Intelligence designed this relationship was to illustrate the unlikelihood of Random Chance being the architect of all life, just as a clever artist will sometimes insert his identity into his artwork in an unusual way.

Evolution is hit-or-miss. None of the combinations of random mutations that would give the grasshopper resistance to invasion by the worm have happened yet (at least not that we have seen. Resistance could still be working its way into the genome.) They might never happen. Nature is wasteful, and as long as enough grasshoppers survive and reproduce to propetuate the species, it doesn't matter that some become worm food.

If this were an isolated case, your signature argument make have some validity. But it isn't Countless species survive by inflicting horrible and unnecessary agony on others. If their was an intelligent architect, he was a sadistic bastard with a sick sense of humor. I wouldn't trust my life to him.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Oct, 2005 09:04 am
Terry wrote:
real life wrote:
If the worm could evolve and develop it's dependency on the grasshopper, how come the grasshopper hasn't evolved to become resistant to the worm?

Perhaps the reason that an Intelligence designed this relationship was to illustrate the unlikelihood of Random Chance being the architect of all life, just as a clever artist will sometimes insert his identity into his artwork in an unusual way.

Evolution is hit-or-miss. None of the combinations of random mutations that would give the grasshopper resistance to invasion by the worm have happened yet (at least not that we have seen. Resistance could still be working its way into the genome.) They might never happen. Nature is wasteful, and as long as enough grasshoppers survive and reproduce to propetuate the species, it doesn't matter that some become worm food.

If this were an isolated case, your signature argument make have some validity. But it isn't Countless species survive by inflicting horrible and unnecessary agony on others. If their was an intelligent architect, he was a sadistic bastard with a sick sense of humor. I wouldn't trust my life to him.
Think about what you just said regarding unnecessary agony and sadism the next time you defend the practice of slicing an unborn into small pieces in a D&C abortion, Terry.
0 Replies
 
Chai
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Oct, 2005 09:52 am
Is this another one of those if you believe in God you can't believe in evolution, or vice versa threads?

Is it so impossible to y'all that you can very easily believe in both.....

"why hasn't the grasshopper evolved to resist the worm"?

Because it's evolution sir. The process does not go out with a particular goal in mind....as a matter of fact, the way I see it, your argument goes against intelligent design, as you're saying the grasshopper someone should trying to evolve in such a way. The fact that it doesn't shows the randomness.

I don't understand how it's hard for some to not accept this roll of the dice, yes something can be incredibly unlikely, but still, there is some liklihood.

Serious inquiry....

Is it not possible there was an "initial spark" that set the ball rolling, so to speak, but from that point, just observed where the ball rolls?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Oct, 2005 09:53 am
Re: Intelligent Design? A Test Case
real life wrote:
Interesting example, Greyfan. It is unlikely, to say the least, that this relationship developed thru evolution.

How do you know it's unlikely? May I ask how you assessed the probablility?
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Oct, 2005 03:31 pm
Chai Tea wrote:
Is this another one of those if you believe in God you can't believe in evolution, or vice versa threads?

Is it so impossible to y'all that you can very easily believe in both.....

"why hasn't the grasshopper evolved to resist the worm"?

Because it's evolution sir. The process does not go out with a particular goal in mind....as a matter of fact, the way I see it, your argument goes against intelligent design, as you're saying the grasshopper someone should trying to evolve in such a way. The fact that it doesn't shows the randomness.

I don't understand how it's hard for some to not accept this roll of the dice, yes something can be incredibly unlikely, but still, there is some liklihood.

Serious inquiry....

Is it not possible there was an "initial spark" that set the ball rolling, so to speak, but from that point, just observed where the ball rolls?


Hi Chai Tea,

A large percentage of scientists do hold precisely the ID view that you are describing. They believe that God guides the process of evolution because they do not see naturalistic forces alone as sufficient to explain the origin of man, the complexity of living organisms, etc. But this would not be a "roll of the dice" view.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Oct, 2005 03:40 pm
Re: Intelligent Design? A Test Case
Thomas wrote:
real life wrote:
Interesting example, Greyfan. It is unlikely, to say the least, that this relationship developed thru evolution.

How do you know it's unlikely? May I ask how you assessed the probablility?


Well as I understand the evolutionary idea, a mutation/genetic change must convey some sort of benefit.

If the first of these worms to develop one of these mutations had developed the "burrowing into the grasshopper" first, it benefits him nothing if the grasshopper does not follow up with the needed plunge into the water. It has to reach the water to reproduce, and failure means the end of this line of worms so the mutation is lost.

If the first of these worms to develop one of these mutations had developed the "secreting protein" first, it benefits him nothing if he is not inside the grasshopper.

These traits must work together or what good are they separate?
0 Replies
 
Chai
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Oct, 2005 03:58 pm
evolutuion is not the idea that a mutation/genetic change must convey some sort of benefit.

it's not conveying anything, it's just a mutation/genetic change.

-------

A large percentage of scientists?
How large?
Can you site where you optained this information?

I did not describe a process of guidance at all, I said "Is it not there is an initial spark that got the ball rolling, and just observed where the ball goes..."

There's nothing at all about guidance in that statement.

I question what you call a large percentage of scientists and personallly do not agree with those particular scientists.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Oct, 2005 04:01 pm
Any percentage ~= Large percentage for real life's purposes.
0 Replies
 
Piffka
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Oct, 2005 04:21 pm
real life wrote:
A large percentage of scientists do hold precisely the ID view that you are describing. They believe that God guides the process of evolution because they do not see naturalistic forces alone as sufficient to explain the origin of man, the complexity of living organisms, etc.


This is tripe and nonsense -- just another bit of propaganda coming from the ID Movement's Workshop, The Discovery Institute, an organization which I am ashamed to say, comes from Seattle. <God knows, I hope they built on the earthquake faultline.>


Nov-Dec 2005 New Scientist Online wrote:
scheme that floods the public with academic-sounding conferencesPhilosopher Barbara Forrest of Southeast Louisiana University, who has written extensively about the rise of the movement, searched the peer-reviewed scientific literature exhaustively and failed to find a single published paper in which scientific data support Intelligent Design.

...on August 5, President George W. Bush endorsed the teaching of intelligent design in science classes so that students learn "both sides of the debate." (Piffka note: showing once again just what he is.)

In response, John H. Marburger, III, director of the federal Office of Science and Technology Policy, flatly stated, "Intelligent Design is not a scientific concept."

...If ID is accepted as a credible science, then the most basic definition of a scientific theory and the fundamental principles of the scientific method are not being taught.

Science education is already in trouble in the United States... On international tests, (when) U.S. students reach the end of high school, they have slipped to 19th out of 21 nations in science and math, according to the most recent data for each age group. As the scientific preparedness of American students falls, others fill the gap.

ID is an insidious attempt by a religious caucus to impose its views on the whole country... Inevitably, young people will suffer most. ... science training will be a fundamental necessity in the technological world of the future.

...we must expose Intelligent Design for what it really is: religious prejudice masked as intellectual freedom.


More so than any Muslim fundamentalists, the ID people are the real enemies of this country. The results of their avowed goal will be the ultimate fall of the United States to a third-world status. Science (real science) is necessary to maintain any edge in our world. If the Discovery Institute wins, our children will languish in religious-based biology classes while the rest of the world gladly steps over them and into the future.

Do you really want American scientists educated in the half-baked world of Intelligent Design?
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Oct, 2005 09:51 pm
Piffka wrote:
real life wrote:
A large percentage of scientists do hold precisely the ID view that you are describing. They believe that God guides the process of evolution because they do not see naturalistic forces alone as sufficient to explain the origin of man, the complexity of living organisms, etc.


This is tripe and nonsense -- just another bit of propaganda coming from the ID Movement's Workshop, The Discovery Institute, an organization which I am ashamed to say, comes from Seattle. <God knows, I hope they built on the earthquake faultline.>


Nov-Dec 2005 New Scientist Online wrote:
scheme that floods the public with academic-sounding conferencesPhilosopher Barbara Forrest of Southeast Louisiana University, who has written extensively about the rise of the movement, searched the peer-reviewed scientific literature exhaustively and failed to find a single published paper in which scientific data support Intelligent Design.

...on August 5, President George W. Bush endorsed the teaching of intelligent design in science classes so that students learn "both sides of the debate." (Piffka note: showing once again just what he is.)

In response, John H. Marburger, III, director of the federal Office of Science and Technology Policy, flatly stated, "Intelligent Design is not a scientific concept."

...If ID is accepted as a credible science, then the most basic definition of a scientific theory and the fundamental principles of the scientific method are not being taught.

Science education is already in trouble in the United States... On international tests, (when) U.S. students reach the end of high school, they have slipped to 19th out of 21 nations in science and math, according to the most recent data for each age group. As the scientific preparedness of American students falls, others fill the gap.

ID is an insidious attempt by a religious caucus to impose its views on the whole country... Inevitably, young people will suffer most. ... science training will be a fundamental necessity in the technological world of the future.

...we must expose Intelligent Design for what it really is: religious prejudice masked as intellectual freedom.


More so than any Muslim fundamentalists, the ID people are the real enemies of this country. The results of their avowed goal will be the ultimate fall of the United States to a third-world status. Science (real science) is necessary to maintain any edge in our world. If the Discovery Institute wins, our children will languish in religious-based biology classes while the rest of the world gladly steps over them and into the future.

Do you really want American scientists educated in the half-baked world of Intelligent Design?


40% is the figure they cite. Not a majority, but a large percentage, I think, by almost any standard.

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol17/5319_many_scientists_see_god39s__12_30_1899.asp

Yeah these folks are staunch IDers. Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Oct, 2005 03:23 am
Re: Intelligent Design? A Test Case
real life wrote:
These traits must work together or what good are they separate?

Not necessarily, depending on the history of the mutations in question. For example, the worm could have started out reproducing outside the water, in which case the "burrow the grasshopper" mutation would have been beneficial. After that, it could have developed the "make the grasshopper jump in the water" mutation and discovered that reproducing in the water has its advantages.

I have no idea if this is what actually happened. My point is that history is not constrained by our lack of phantasy. Just because we cannot imagine something happening in a particular way, that doesn't mean it's improbable.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Oct, 2005 03:29 am
DrewDad wrote:
Any percentage ~= Large percentage for real life's purposes.

In one of the other "evolution vs. ID" threads, BBB posted an article which quotes a poll of scientists. As I remember it, they got 5% "god created all species pretty much in their current form a few thousand years ago", and about 40% each for "evolution happened, guided by god" and "evolution happened, god had nothing to do with it." I agree that even 5% is a surprisingly high number. Then again, the article didn't say how many of those 5% were active biologists, or working in a field related to it.

Edit: "real life"'s source gives 55% "evolution happened, god had nothing to do with it", 5% "god created the earth and its species a few thousand years ago", and 40% "evolution happened, guided by god". The latter is consistent with ID, but does not necessarily mean "precisely the ID position", which is his claim.
0 Replies
 
Piffka
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Oct, 2005 08:22 am
real life wrote:
40% is the figure they cite. Not a majority, but a large percentage, I think, by almost any standard.

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol17/5319_many_scientists_see_god39s__12_30_1899.asp

Yeah these folks are staunch IDers. Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing
Quote:
Do not mistake my objection. If my neighbors and their children wish to believe in Intelligent Design as a matter of faith that is fine with me. What I object to most strenuously is the presentation of a religious belief as a scientific theory in a science class.

Nearly everyone educated in science agrees that there is neither controversy nor debate over the fundamental premise of evolutionary theory: Species evolve over time through the mechanism of natural selection (differential survival and reproduction) acting on variability produced by genetic diversity and mutation. Evolutionary theory is the unifying theme of all of modern biology, witness statements from many groups, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Association of University Professors, the American Geophysical Union, the American Chemical Society, the American Institute of Biological Sciences, the American Physical Society, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Center for Science Education, and the National Science Teachers Association. As the late, great geneticist and evolutionary theorist Theodosius Dobzhansky, a devout Christian, explained in the title of his famous paper, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." Others agree that evolutionary theory is compatible with a belief in God, such as the Bishop of Oxford, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Presbyterian Church (USA) and the late Pope John Paul II (despite one cardinal's recent reinterpretation of his writings).



Quote:
The Intelligent Design movement is a deliberate campaign to undermine the teaching of science in America, and the evidence of this intent is brazenly posted on ID Web sites. The movement's founder and chief theorist, lawyer Phillip Johnson, and most of its advocates are fellows of the Center for Science and Culture at a conservative think tank called the Discovery Institute. The Center's publicly stated aims include:

challenging various aspects of neo-Darwinian theory; ... developing the scientific theory known as intelligent design; ... [and] encouraging schools to improve science education by teaching students more fully about the theory of evolution, including the theory's scientific weaknesses as well strengths [sic].

With these statements, the Center hides its true agenda behind a false claim that it is promoting intellectual freedom when, in fact, it is doing the opposite: stunting intellectual growth by encouraging students to believe that a scientific theory is the same as a philosophical assertion.




It is a great evil that the Intelligent Design forces are doing in trying to teach religious beliefs into science and make a pretense that it is science. It is a lie, it is wicked to be so underhanded and it will get you nowhere. Even if you succeed, you will still be wrong and you will pull our science culture into a foolish miasma of religious dogma.

-- -- --

The earth is round like a ball. I have seen pictures of it. I don't have time to argue about it.

PS - And it revolves around the sun, not the other way around.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Oct, 2005 10:45 pm
Piffka wrote:
real life wrote:
40% is the figure they cite. Not a majority, but a large percentage, I think, by almost any standard.

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol17/5319_many_scientists_see_god39s__12_30_1899.asp

Yeah these folks are staunch IDers. Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing
Quote:
Do not mistake my objection. If my neighbors and their children wish to believe in Intelligent Design as a matter of faith that is fine with me. What I object to most strenuously is the presentation of a religious belief as a scientific theory in a science class.

Nearly everyone educated in science agrees that there is neither controversy nor debate over the fundamental premise of evolutionary theory: Species evolve over time through the mechanism of natural selection (differential survival and reproduction) acting on variability produced by genetic diversity and mutation. Evolutionary theory is the unifying theme of all of modern biology, witness statements from many groups, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Association of University Professors, the American Geophysical Union, the American Chemical Society, the American Institute of Biological Sciences, the American Physical Society, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Center for Science Education, and the National Science Teachers Association. As the late, great geneticist and evolutionary theorist Theodosius Dobzhansky, a devout Christian, explained in the title of his famous paper, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." Others agree that evolutionary theory is compatible with a belief in God, such as the Bishop of Oxford, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Presbyterian Church (USA) and the late Pope John Paul II (despite one cardinal's recent reinterpretation of his writings).



Quote:
The Intelligent Design movement is a deliberate campaign to undermine the teaching of science in America, and the evidence of this intent is brazenly posted on ID Web sites. The movement's founder and chief theorist, lawyer Phillip Johnson, and most of its advocates are fellows of the Center for Science and Culture at a conservative think tank called the Discovery Institute. The Center's publicly stated aims include:

challenging various aspects of neo-Darwinian theory; ... developing the scientific theory known as intelligent design; ... [and] encouraging schools to improve science education by teaching students more fully about the theory of evolution, including the theory's scientific weaknesses as well strengths [sic].

With these statements, the Center hides its true agenda behind a false claim that it is promoting intellectual freedom when, in fact, it is doing the opposite: stunting intellectual growth by encouraging students to believe that a scientific theory is the same as a philosophical assertion.




It is a great evil that the Intelligent Design forces are doing in trying to teach religious beliefs into science and make a pretense that it is science. It is a lie, it is wicked to be so underhanded and it will get you nowhere. Even if you succeed, you will still be wrong and you will pull our science culture into a foolish miasma of religious dogma.

-- -- --

The earth is round like a ball. I have seen pictures of it. I don't have time to argue about it.

PS - And it revolves around the sun, not the other way around.


What is your opinion of the science and mathematics teacher who stated, "God created everything by number, weight and measure." Should he have been retained to continue to teach, in your opinion?
0 Replies
 
Piffka
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2005 09:54 am
I know nothing of this fella. I don't really care about this statement either because I assume his students already "knew" what sort of person he was -- a little out there with his religion IMHO. I imagine the rest of the teachers also knew this as did his administration. I don't like the current witchhunts on either side of the aisle. Firing for silly statements and frivolous lawsuits are not my style.


If that doctrine were taught in the text books... even mentioned in them... THEN I'd have a problem.


I don't even care if ID is taught in a philosophy class... sociology... history... and certainly no problem if it is taught where it should be, in a religion class. I used to teach religious classes. I just don't think unsubstantiated philosophy should be taught as factual science and particularly NOT in a public-funded school that is supported by Federal Mandate.

It is true there is a large conundrum about what we are, why we are here... etc. Please see, for example, my topic on the One, the Movie.

Science circumvents those questions by dealing with the small bits we do know and being very careful to try (not always succeeding but recovering from their mistakes and then continuing to try) to be objective and as honest as possible.

Having gross assumptions flavoring science and based on current religious doctrine of the "majority" is a mis-use of public education. Just let science be science is my opinion.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2005 09:22 pm
Piffka wrote:
I know nothing of this fella. I don't really care about this statement either because I assume his students already "knew" what sort of person he was -- a little out there with his religion IMHO. I imagine the rest of the teachers also knew this as did his administration.


Yeah they "knew" alright what sort of person he was. He was Sir Isaac Newton.
0 Replies
 
Piffka
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2005 11:09 pm
Brilliant. You have to fall all the way back to the 17th century to find a scientist who agrees with you.

You have an agenda, buddy. If you were HONEST as you ought to be according to your self-professed religion, then one would think you'd bother to be honest about that.

You have no real interest in science. Your beliefs, your arguments, your agenda is based on forcing your beliefs to fit what people are trying to work out in science. It is a pretense, A LIE, to call it science.

And worse... it's small ball. You are making your god a whole lot smaller than you ought. Wake up.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Intelligent Design? A Test Case
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/22/2021 at 04:56:10