Intelligent Design

An updated ( but not exhaustive) list of how to detect intelligent design

Spread the love

How to recognize the signature of (past) intelligent action

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2805-how-to-recognize-the-signature-of-past-intelligent-action

Claim: Herbert Spencer:  “Those who cavalierly reject the Theory of Evolution, as not adequately supported by facts, seem quite to forget that their own theory is supported by no facts at all.”

How to recognize the signature of (past) intelligent action Herber10

Reply: Contrasting and comparing “intended” versus “accidental” arrangements leads us to the notion of design. We have extensive experience-based knowledge of the kinds of strategies and systems that designing minds devise to solve various kinds of functional problems. We also know a lot about the kinds of phenomena that various natural causes produce. For this reason, we can observe the natural world, and living systems, and make informed inferences based on the unraveled and discovered evidence. 

A physical system is composed of a specific distribution of matter: a machine, a car, or a clock. When we describe it and quantify its size, structure, and motions, and annotate the materials used, that description contains information. When we arrange and distribute materials in a certain way for intended means, we can produce things for specific purposes and call them design. Thus, when we see a physical system and discern the arrangement of its parts having intentional functions, we call it designed.  The question thus is, when we see things in nature with purpose and appear designed, ARE they indeed the product of intentional design? 

How to recognize the signature of (past) intelligent action Leibni10

Leibniz gave a remarkable description 300 years ago, that science would come to confirm only about 70 years ago. He had a remarkably advanced understanding of how biological systems work, without knowing the inner workings of the cell.  Each living cell is full of machines, molecular machines, that operate fully autonomously like robots, but the organelles, organs, organ systems, and last not least, the entire body of a multicellular organism operate as machines, on different levels.

How can random, nonliving matter produce structures of mind-boggling organizational intricacies at the molecular level that leave us in awe,  so sophisticated that our most advanced technology seems pale by comparison? How can a rational, honest person analyze these systems, and say they emerged by chance? These organic structures present us with a degree of complexity that we cannot explain stochastically by unguided means. Everything we know tells us that machines, preprogrammed robotlike production lines, computers, and energy generating turbines, electric circuits, and transistors, are structures of intelligent design. The cooperation and interdependent action of proteins and co-factors in cells is stupendous and depends on very specific controlled and arranged mechanisms, precise allosteric binding sites, and finely-tuned forces. Accidents do not design machines. Intellect does.

We can recognize design and the requirement of an acting mind when we see:

1. Something new created based on no pre-existing physical conditions or state of affairs ( a concept, an idea, a plan, a project, a blueprint)
2. A specific functional state of affairs, based on and dependent on mathematical rules, that depend on specified values ( that are independent, nonconditional, and that have no deeper grounding)
3. A force/cause that secures, upholds, maintains, and stabilizes a state of affairs, avoiding stochastic chaos. Eliminating conditions that change unpredictably from instant to instant or preventing things from uncontrollably popping in and out of existence.
4. Fine-tuning or calibrating something to get the function of a (higher-order) system.
5. Selected specific materials, that have been sorted out, concentrated, and joined at a construction site. 
6. An information storage system ( paper, a computer hard disk, etc.)
7. A language, based on statistics,  semantics, syntax, pragmatics, and apobetics
8. A code system, where meaning is assigned to characters, symbols, words
9. Translation ( the assignment of the meaning of one word in one language to another of another language ) that has the same meaning
10. An information transmission system ( a radio signal, internet, email, post delivery service, etc.)
11. A plan, blueprint, architectural drawing, or scheme for accomplishing a goal, that contains instructional information, directing the making for example of a 3D artifact, 1:1 equivalent to the plan of the blueprint.
12. Conversion ( digital-analog conversion, modulators, amplifiers)
13. Overlapping codes ( where one string of information can have different meanings) 
14. Systems of interconnected software and hardware
15. A library index and fully automated information classification, storage, and retrieval program
16. A software program that directs the making, and governs the function or/and operation of devices with specific functions.
17. Energy turbines
18. To create, execute, or construct something precisely according to an instructional plan or blueprint
19. The specific complex arrangement and joint of elements, parts, or materials to create a machine or a device for specific functions
20. A machine, that is, a piece of equipment with several moving parts that uses power to do a particular type of work that achieves a specific goal
21. Repetition of a variety of complex actions with precision based on methods that obey instructions, governed by rules.
22. Preprogrammed production or assembly lines that employ a series of machines/robots in the right order that are adjusted to work in an interdependent fashion to produce a specific functional (sub) product. 
23. Factories, that operate autonomously in a preprogrammed manner, integrating information that directs functions working in a joint venture together.
24. Objects that exhibit “constrained optimization.” The optimal or best-designed laptop computer is the one that has the best balances and compromise of multiple competing factors. Any human designer knows that good design often means finding a way to meet multiple constraints. Consider airplanes. We want them to be strong, but weight is an issue, so lighter materials must be used. We want to preserve people’s hearing and keep the cabin warm, so soundproofing and insulation are needed, but they add weight. All of this together determines fuel usage, which translates into how far the airplane can fly.
25. Artifacts which use might be employed in different systems (a wheel is used in cars and airplanes)
26. Error monitoring, check, and repair systems, depending on recognizing when something is broken, identifying where exactly the object is broken, to know when and how to repair it (e.g. one has to stop/or put on hold some other ongoing processes; one needs to know lots of other things, one needs to know the whole system, otherwise one creates more damage…) to know how to repair it (to use the right tools, materials, energy, etc, etc, etc ) to make sure that the repair was performed correctly.
27. Defense systems based on data collection and storage to protect a system/house, factory, etc. from invaders, intruders, enemies, killers, and destroyers.
28. Sending specific objects from address A to address B based on the address provided on the object, which informs its specific target destination. 
29. Keeping an object in a specific functional state of affairs as long as possible through regulation, and extending the duration upon which it can perform its task, using monitoring, guaranteeing homeostasis, stability, robustness, and order.
30. Self-replication of a dynamical system that results in the construction of an identical or similar copy of itself. The entire process of self-replication is data-driven and based on a sequence of events that can only be instantiated by understanding and knowing the right sequence of events. There is an interdependence of data and function. The function is performed by machines that are constructed based on the data instructions. (Source: Wikipedia
31. Replacing machines, systems, etc. in a factory before they break down as a preventive measure to guarantee long-lasting functionality and stability of the system/factory as a whole.
32. Recycling, which is the process of converting waste materials into new materials and objects. The recovery of energy from waste materials is often included in this concept. The recyclability of a material depends on its ability to reacquire the properties it had in its original state. ( Source: Wikipedia
33. Instantiating waste management or waste disposal processes that include actions required to manage waste from its inception to its final disposal. This includes the collection, transport, treatment, and disposal of waste, together with monitoring and regulation of the waste management process. ( Source: Wikipedia
34. Electronic circuits are composed of various active functional components, such as resistors, transistors, capacitors, inductors, and diodes, connected by conductive wires through which electric current can flow. The combination of components and wires allows various simple and complex operations to be performed: signals can be amplified, computations can be performed, and data can be moved from one place to another. (Source: Wikipedia
35. Arrangement of materials and elements into details, colors, and forms to produce an object or work of art able to transmit the sense of beauty, and elegance, that pleases the aesthetic senses, especially sight.
36. Instantiating things on the nanoscale. Know-how is required in regard to quantum chemistry techniques, chemical stability, kinetic stability of metastable structures, the consideration of close dimensional tolerances, thermal tolerances, friction, and energy dissipation, the path of implementation, etc. See: Richard Jones: Six challenges for molecular nanotechnology December 18, 2005
37. Objects in nature very similar to human-made things

The (past) action or signature of an intelligent designer in the natural world can be deduced and inferred since :

1. The universe had a beginning and was created apparently out of nothing physical. It can therefore only be the product of a powerful, intelligent mind that willed it, and decided to create it.
2. The universe obeys the laws and rules of mathematics and physics, a specific set of equations, upon which it can exist and operate. That includes Newtonian Gravity of point particles, General Relativity, and Quantum Field Theory. Everything in the universe is part of a mathematical structure. All matter is made up of particles, which have properties such as charge and spin, but these properties are purely mathematical.
3. Our universe remains orderly and predictable over huge periods of time. Atoms are stable because they are charge neutral. If it were not so, they would become ions, and annihilate in a fraction of a second. Our solar system, the trajectory of the earth surrounding the sun, and the moon surrounding the earth, are also stable, and that depends on a myriad of factors, that must be precisely adjusted and finely tuned. 
4. The Laws of physics and constants, the initial conditions of the universe, the expansion rate of the Big bang, atoms and the subatomic particles, the fundamental forces of the universe, stars, galaxies, the Solar System, the earth, the moon, the atmosphere, water, and even biochemistry on a molecular level, and the bonding forces of molecules like Watson-Crick base-pairing are finely tuned in an unimaginably narrow range to permit life.
5. Life uses a limited set of complex macro biomolecules, a universal convention, and unity which is composed of the four basic building blocks of life ( RNA and DNA, amino acids, phospholipids, and carbohydrates). They are of a very specific complex functional composition, that has to be selected and available in great quantity, and concentrated at the building site of cells. 
6. DNA is a molecule that stores assembly information through the specified complex sequence of nucleotides, which directs and instructs a functional sequence of amino acids to make molecular machines, in other words, proteins.
7. Perry Marshall (2015): Ji has identified 13 characteristics of human language. DNA shares 10 of them. Cells edit DNA. They also communicate with each other and literally speak a language he called “cellese,” described as “a self-organizing system of molecules, some of which encode, act as signs for, or trigger, gene-directed cell processes.” This comparison between cell language and human language is not a loosey-goosey analogy; it’s formal and literal.
8.L. Hood (2003): Hubert Yockey, the world’s foremost biophysicist and foremost authority on biological information: “Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) AND ARE NOT SYNONYMS, METAPHORS, OR ANALOGIES.”
9. The ribosome translates the words of the genetic language composed of 64 codon words to the language of proteins, composed of 20 amino acids.
10.Zuckerkandl and Pauling (1965): The organization of various biological forms and their interrelationships, vis-à-vis biochemical and molecular networks, is characterized by the interlinked processes of the flow of information between the information-bearing macromolecular semantides, namely DNA and RNA, and proteins.
11. Cells in our body make use of our DNA library to extract blueprints that contain the instructions to build structures and molecular machines, proteins.
12. DNA stores both, Digital and Analog Information 
13. Pelajar: There is growing evidence that much of the DNA in higher genomes is poly-functional, with the same nucleotide contributing to more than one type of code. DNA is read in terms of reading frames of “three letter words” (codons) for a specific amino acide building block for proteins. There are actually six reading frames possible. A.Abel (2008):  The codon redundancy (“degeneracy”) found in protein-coding regions of mRNA also prescribes Translational Pausing (TP). When coupled with the appropriate interpreters, multiple meanings and functions are programmed into the same sequence of configurable switch settings. This additional layer of prescriptive Information (PI) purposely slows or speeds up the translation-decoding process within the ribosome. 
14. Nicholson (2019): At its core was the idea of the computer, which, by introducing the conceptual distinction between ‘software’ and ‘hardware’, directed the attention of researchers to the nature and coding of the genetic instructions (the software) and to the mechanisms by which these are implemented by the cell’s macromolecular components (the hardware).
15. The gene regulatory network is a fully automated, pre-programmed, ultra-complex gene information extraction and expression orchestration system. 
16. Genetic and epigenetic information ( at least 33 variations of genetic codes, and 49 epigenetic codes ) and at least 5 signaling networks direct the making of complex multicellular organisms, biodiversity, form, and architecture
17. ATP synthase is a molecular energy-generating nano-turbine ( It produces energy in the form of Adenine triphosphate ATP. Once charged, ATP can be “plugged into” a wide variety of molecular machines to perform a wide variety of functions).
18. The ribosome constructs proteins based on the precise instructions from the information stored in the genome. T. Mukai et.al (2018):Accurate protein biosynthesis is an immensely complex process involving more than 100 discrete components that must come together to translate proteins with high speed, efficiency, and fidelity. 
19.M.Piazzi: (2019): Ribosome biogenesis is a highly dynamic process in which transcription of the runes, processing/modification of the runes, association of ribosomal proteins (RPs) to the pre-runes, proper folding of the pre-runes, and transport of the maturing ribosomal subunits to the cytoplasm are all combined. In addition to the ribosomal proteins RPs that represent the structural component of the ribosome, over 200 other non-ribosomal proteins and 75 snoRNAs are required for ribosome biogenesis. 
20. Mathias Grote (2019): Today’s science tells us that our bodies are filled with molecular machinery that orchestrates all sorts of life processes. When we think, microscopic “channels” open and close in our brain cell membranes; when we run, tiny “motors” spin in our muscle cell membranes; and when we see, light operates “molecular switches” in our eyes and nerves. A molecular-mechanical vision of life has become commonplace in both the halls of philosophy and the offices of drug companies, where researchers are developing “proton pump inhibitors” or medicines similar to Prozac.
21. A variety of biological events are performed in a repetitive manner, described in biomechanics, obeying complex biochemical and biomechanical signals. Those include, for example, cell migration, cell motility, traction force generation, protrusion forces, stress transmission, mechanosensing and mechanotransduction, mechanochemical coupling in biomolecular motors, synthesis, sorting, storage, and transport of biomolecules
22. Cells contain high information content that directs and controls integrated metabolic pathways which if altered are inevitably damaged or destroy their function. They also require regulation and are structured in a cascade manner, similar to electronic circuit boards.
23. Living Cells are information-driven factories. They store very complex epigenetic and genetic information through the genetic code, over forty epigenetic languages, translation systems, and signaling networks. These information systems prescribe and instruct the making and operation of cells and multicellular organisms.
24. It may well be that the designer chose to create an “OPTIMUM DESIGN” or a “ROBUST AND ADAPTABLE DESIGN” rather than a “perfect design.” Perhaps some animals or creatures behave exactly the way they do to enhance the ecology in ways that we don’t know about. Perhaps the “apparent” destructive behavior of some animals provides other animals with an advantage in order to maintain balance in nature or even to change the proportions of the animal population.
25. There are a variety of organisms, unrelated to each other, which encounter nearly identical convergent biological systems. This commonness makes little sense in light of evolutionary theory. If evolution is indeed responsible for the diversity of life, one would expect convergence to be extremely rare. Some convergent systems are bat echolocation in bats, oilbirds, and dolphins, cephalopod eye structure, similar to the vertebrate eye, an extraordinary similarity of the visual systems of sand lance (fish) and chameleon (reptile). Both the chameleon and the sand lance move their eyes independent of one another in a jerky manner, rather than in concert. Chameleons share their ballistic tongues with salamanders and sand lace fish.
26.L. DEMEESTER (2004):: Biological cells are preprogrammed to use quality-management techniques used in manufacturing today. The cell invests in defect prevention at various stages of its replication process, using 100% inspection processes, quality assurance procedures, and foolproofing techniques. An example of the cell inspecting each and every part of a product is DNA proofreading. As the DNA gets replicated, the enzyme DNA polymerase adds new nucleotides to the growing DNA strand, limiting the number of errors by removing incorrectly incorporated nucleotides with a proofreading function. Following is an impressive example:  Unbroken DNA conducts electricity, while an error blocks the current. Some repair enzymes exploit this. One pair of enzymes lock onto different parts of a DNA strand. One of them sends an electron down the strand. If the DNA is unbroken, the electron reaches the other enzyme and causes it to detach. I.e. this process scans the region of DNA between them, and if it’s clean, there is no need for repairs. But if there is a break, the electron doesn’t reach the second enzyme. This enzyme then moves along the strand until it reaches the error, and fixes it. This mechanism of repair seems to be present in all living things, from bacteria to man.
27. CRISPR-Cas is an immune system based on data storage and identity check systems. [url=by Marina V. Zaychikova]M. V. Zaychikova (2020)[/url]: CRISPR-Cas systems, widespread in bacteria and archaea, are mainly responsible for adaptive cellular immunity against exogenous DNA (plasmid and phage)
28.D.Akopian (2013): Proper localization of proteins to their correct cellular destinations is essential for sustaining the order and organization in all cells. Roughly 30% of the proteome is initially destined for the eukaryotic endoplasmic reticulum (ER), or the bacterial plasma membrane. Although the precise number of proteins remains to be determined, it is generally recognized that the majority of these proteins are delivered by the Signal Recognition Particle (SRP), a universally conserved protein targeting machine
29.Western Oregeon University: The hypothalamus is involved in the regulation of body temperature, heart rate, blood pressure, and circadian rhythms (which include wake/sleep cycles).
30. As a model of a self-replicating system, it has its counterpart in life where the computer is represented by the instructions contained in the genes, while the construction machines are represented by the cell and its machinery that transcribes, translates, and replicates the information stored in genes.  RNA polymerase transcribes, and the ribosome translates the information stored in DNA and produces a Fidel reproduction of the cell and all the machinery inside of the cell. Once done, the genome is replicated, and handed over to the descendant replicated cell, and the mother cell has produced a daughter cell. 
31.L. DEMEESTER (2004): Singapore Management UniversityThe cell does not even wait until the machine fails, but replaces it long before it has a chance to break down. And second, it completely recycles the machine that is taken out of production. The components derived from this recycling process can be used not only to create other machines of the same type, but also to create different machines if that is what is needed in the “plant.” This way of handling its machines has some clear advantages for the cell. New capacity can be installed quickly to meet current demand. At the same time, there are never idle machines around taking up space or hogging important building blocks. Maintenance is a positive “side effect” of the continuous machine renewal process, thereby guaranteeing the quality of output. Finally, the ability to quickly build new production lines from scratch has allowed the cell to take advantage of a big library of contingency plans in its DNA that allow it to quickly react to a wide range of circumstances.
32.J. A. Solinger (2020): About 70–80% of endocytosed material is recycled back from sorting endosomes to the plasma membrane through different pathways. Defects in recycling lead to a myriad of human diseases such as cancer, arthrogryposis–renal dysfunction–cholestasis syndrome, Bardet–Biedl syndrome or Alzheimer’s disease
33. Proteasomes are protein complexes which degrade unneeded or damaged proteins by proteolysis, a chemical reaction that breaks peptide bonds. Enzymes that help such reactions are called proteases. ( Source: WikipediaG. Premananda (2013): The disposal of protein “trash” in the cell is the job of a complex machine called the proteasome.  What could be more low than trash collection?  Here also, sophisticated mechanisms work together. Two different mechanisms are required to determine which targets to destroy.” The “recognition tag” and “initiator tag.” Both mechanisms have to be aligned properly to enter the machine’s disposal barrel.  “The proteasome can recognize different plugs1, but each one has to have the correct specific arrangement of prongs.
34.S. Balaji (2004): An electronic circuit has been designed to mimic glycolysis, the Citric Acid (TCA) cycle and the electron transport chain. Enzymes play a vital role in metabolic pathways; similarly transistors play a vital role in electronic circuits; the characteristics of enzymes in comparison with those of transistors suggests that the properties are analagous.
35.M.Larkin (2018): The animal kingdom is full of beauty. From their vibrant feathers to majestic fur coats, there’s no denying that some animals are just prettier than us humans.
36.David Goodsell (1996): Dozens of enzymes are needed to make the DNA bases cytosine and thymine from their component atoms. The first step is a “condensation” reaction, connecting two short molecules to form one longer chain, performed by aspartate carbamoyltransferase. The entire protein complex is composed of over 40,000 atoms, each of which plays a vital role. The handful of atoms that actually perform the chemical reaction are the central players. But they are not the only important atoms within the enzyme–every atom plays a supporting pan. The atoms lining the surfaces between subunits are chosen to complement one another exactly, to orchestrate the shifting regulatory motions. The atoms covering the surface are carefully picked to interact optimally with water, ensuring that the enzyme doesn’t form a pasty aggregate, but remains an individual, floating factory. And the thousands of interior atoms are chosen to fit like a jigsaw puzzle, interlocking into a sturdy framework. Aspartate carbamoyltransferase is fully as complex as any fine automobile in our familiar world.
37. R. Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, p. 1 “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” F. Crick, What Mad Pursuit,1988, p 138. “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” Richard Morris, The Fate of the Universe, 1982, 155.”It is almost as though the universe had been consciously designed.”

50 Replies to “An updated ( but not exhaustive) list of how to detect intelligent design

  1. 1
    martin_r says:

    when we look at any species, we engineers have WAY MORE proofs of design than biologists ever had for evolution …

    It makes no sense to debate species design with some biologist (natural science graduate) who never made anything … it is a time waste … moreover, these guys (biologists) they never listen to what engineers say … Biologists have they own fantasy world where ANYTHING is possible, where the most complex engineering challenges are easily solved ….

    BUT NO BIOLOGIST CAN WALK US ENGINEERS THROUGH HOW THIS WAS DONE :)))))))

    Moreover, these complex engineering challenges are solved over and over and over again … and always at the first attempt … in fossil record you only see perfectly designed, perfectly working species, YOU NEVER SEE “FAILED DESIGN” ATTEMPTS … every species in fossil record is fully developed …

    Biologists have no clue how species emerged, but they are 100% sure, that no engineer was involved :)))))) Biologists can’t reproduce the simplest features of living things, but they are 100% sure that no engineer was involved and attacking creationist-engineers and calling us names, claiming that we are the stupid ones :)))))))

    We are the stupid ones ? Really ? :)))))))

  2. 2
    martin_r says:

    all those points, nice summary … i as an engineer can only agree with those …
    but in general, it is like casting pearls to swine (especially on this forum)

    But let me make it very simple for all Darwinists, biologists, archeologists, paleontologists, Seversky, Chuck, JVL, Alan and company ….

    Forget about all those points above …

    You guys have to give us any example, where multiple parts work together in concern for a purpose and this system wasn’t engineered …

    So simple … go out, and give us 1 example …

  3. 3
    AndyClue says:

    @Martin_r:

    in fossil record you only see perfectly designed, perfectly working species

    What do you mean by “perfect” or “fully developed”? As an engineer I associate perfect design with a design that works as specified, took a minimum amount of resources to develop. But I don’t think that’s what you mean.

  4. 4
    Sir Giles says:

    Martin: in fossil record you only see perfectly designed, perfectly working species, YOU NEVER SEE “FAILED DESIGN” ATTEMPTS … every species in fossil record is fully developed …

    Thank you for making me laugh. I needed this.

  5. 5
    relatd says:

    AC at 3,

    There is nothing vague about it. Engineers make things with multiple parts that work as designed. The question is, can blind, unguided chance do the same? A single, detailed example would suffice.

  6. 6
    martin_r says:

    AlanClue @3
    Sir Giles @4

    what makes you so laugh ? I hate talking to people like you, but i am just curious …

    I as an engineer would like to see, how e.g. skeleton with all those joints evolved … because, when you look at fossil record, you only see perfectly evolved joints and skeletons … you don’t see any design failures in fossilized skeletons … do you believe that perfectly designed skeletons evolved at the first attempt or how should i imagine skeleton/joints evolution ?

    I am not sure you realize it, but skeleton and joints and bones in general have to withstand lots of stress … the bones/joints/skeletons have to have a very specific material properties and shapes/dimensions in order to withstand static and dynamic stress especially in case of dinosaurs (species weighting tens of tons).

    Sir Giles, do you have any idea what i am talking about ?

    Where is the evolution of dinosaur skeletons ? In fossil record i can only see perfectly/fully developed dinosaur skeletons … ( where in the fossil record is the evolution of any skeleton? )

  7. 7
    martin_r says:

    AlanClue @3
    Sir Giles @4

    i as an engineer i was also interested to learn, how a beak evolved (there are also joints)
    So i googled a little, and i found another “other than previously thought”-article :))))))
    Darwinists should register trademark: “Other than previous thought” :)))))
    Moreover, this discovery suggests, that similar beaks evolved multiple times independently :))))))))))
    This is insane ….

    Published 2020:

    A new fossil discovered on the ever-surprising island of Madagascar suggests ancient Mesozoic bird beaks and faces were more diverse and evolved differently than previously thought, scientists report in the journal Nature.

    Long and deep, the beak resembles that of modern crown birds such as toucans. It belongs to a previously unknown species named Falcatakely forsterae, referring to its sickle shape, from the late Cretaceous epoch around 70 to 68 million years ago.

    Although it appears quite unremarkable on the surface, the researchers say, a careful reconstruction revealed the bone structure is unlike those of any dinosaur – bird or otherwise. Its facial anatomy bears resemblance to modern birds but its cranium and upper jaw are similar to that of flightless theropods.

    The discovery upends what we know about bird evolution , as current species such as toucans and hornbills seem to have independently evolved similarly shaped beaks tens of millions of years later, according to lead author Patrick O’Connor from Ohio University, US.

    https://cosmosmagazine.com/history/theres-more-than-one-way-to-grow-a-beak/#:~:text=A%20new%20fossil%20discovered%20on,crown%20birds%20such%20as%20toucans.

  8. 8
    martin_r says:

    as to my previous post @6

    let me continue with this, i found the following mainstream article:

    How did Littlefoot’s Apatosaurus family and other massive sauropod dinosaurs carry their colossal weight on their feet?

    The largest like Dreadnoughtus and Argentinosaurus are estimated to have grown to 30 or 40 metres in length and weighed in at anywhere between 50-100 tonnes.

    The biomechanics of lugging all that weight around on land is no mean feat and palaeontologists have been scratching their heads about it for years.

    In fact, it has led many palaeontologists in the past to suggest that the only way sauropods could have carried their own weight around is if they were semi-aquatic animals with their weight supported by water. This theory was disproved in the mid-20th century by the discovery of fossilised sauropod tracks that were laid down on prehistoric land.

    https://cosmosmagazine.com/history/sauropod-feet-3d-model/

    Palaeontologists have been scratching their heads ? :)))))))

    I as an engineer, I can see why :))))))))))))))

    Palaeontologists, these naive romantics, natural science graduates who never made anything … they infested the whole world with their crazy absurd theories and ideas …

    Darwinism is a fake news….

  9. 9
    relatd says:

    “… upends what we know…”

    Get this man a book about Intelligent Design.

  10. 10
    Alan Fox says:

    …a book about Intelligent Design.

    I’d be interested in such a book. Does one exist that sets out how “Intelligent Design” theory works? Recommendations please. Anyone can answer.

  11. 11
    JVL says:

    Martin_r: you don’t see any design failures in fossilized skeletons … do you believe that perfectly designed skeletons evolved at the first attempt or how should i imagine skeleton/joints evolution ?

    What a strange question.

    First of all: what percentage of individuals do you think got fossilised? Probably a small percentage.

    Which of those fossils have we found? Just a portion.

    IF there was an individual that had really bad joints or other skeletal problems would you assume that they had generated enough offspring to get recorded in the fossil record?

    I think you haven’t really thought this through. Clearly the fossil record is going to favour successful and numerous variations.

    So, what’s the surprise?

  12. 12
    Alan Fox says:

    First of all: what percentage of individuals do you think got fossilised? Probably a small percentage.

    Indeed. There’s a whole biological industry evolved in the disposal and recycling of corpses. Hyenas, vultures, flies and ants, it’s a wonder land fossils are found at all.

  13. 13
    Otangelo says:

    Alan Fox:What’s the Mechanism of Intelligent Design?

    https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1794-how-exactly-did-god-create-the-universe-and-the-world-what-process-was-involved

    An intelligent designer creates by actualizing potential power at his disposition, information input ( words ), wisdom, and will. But how exactly does this work?

    We don’t know how exactly a mind might act in the world to cause change. Your mind, mediated by your brain, sends signals to your arm, hand, and fingers, and writes a text through the keyboard of the computer I sit here typing. I cannot explain to you how exactly this process functions, but we know, it happens. Consciousness can interact with the physical world and cause change. But how exactly that happens, we don’t know. Why then should we expect to know how God created the universe? The theory of intelligent design proposes an intelligent mental cause as the origin of the physical world. Nothing else.

    In genesis it says God spoke and things came into existence. God is a potent cause with power ( energy ) and his spoken word indicates information. Because we do not understand and in a detailled manner how he created the physical universe, and life, does not mean God does not understand or can’t. Mystery to us is not mystery to God, but we do know that God is not limited to His spiritual realm, as he shown with his becoming of flesh in Jesus Christ.
    Looking at the account of Genesis 1:1 for just a brief moment, the words in that first verse are quite remarkable. They are indicative of the incredible mind of God. God says in that first verse everything that could have been said about creation and He says it in such few terms. The statement is precise and concise almost beyond human composition. A well-known scientist named Herbert Spencer died in 1903. He discovered that all reality, all reality, all that exists in the universe can be contained in five categories…time, force, action, space and matter. Herbert Spencer said everything that exists, exists in one of those categories…time, force, action, space and matter. Now think about that. Time, force, action, space and matter. That is a logical sequence. And then with that in your mind, listen to Genesis 1:1. “In the beginning,” that’s time…”God,” that’s force, “created,” that’s action, “the heavens,” that’s space, “and the earth,” that’s matter. Everything that could be said about everything that exists is said in that first verse. Now either you believe that or you don’t. You either believe that that verse is accurate and God is the force or you believe that God is not the force that created everything. And then you’re left with chance or randomness or coincidence.
    http://theoryofid.blogspot.com.br/

    W.L.Craig : First, in order to recognize an explanation as the best, one needn’t have an explanation of the explanation. This is an elementary point concerning inference to the best explanation as practiced in the philosophy of science. If archaeologists digging in the earth were to discover things looking like arrowheads and hatchet heads and pottery shards, they would be justified in inferring that these artifacts are not the chance result of sedimentation and metamorphosis, but products of some unknown group of people, even though they had no explanation of who these people were or where they came from. Similarly, if astronauts were to come upon a pile of machinery on the backside of the moon, they would be justified in inferring that it was the product of intelligent, extra-terrestrial agents, even if they had no idea whatsoever who these extra-terrestrial agents were or how they got there. In order to recognize an explanation as the best, one needn’t be able to explain the explanation. In fact, so requiring would lead to an infinite regress of explanations, so that nothing could ever be explained and science would be destroyed. So in the case at hand, in order to recognize that intelligent design is the best explanation of the appearance of design in the universe, one needn’t be able to explain the designer.

    The best explanation of the origin and life and biodiversity is: intelligence. Conscious activity. The deliberate choice of a rational agent. Indeed, we have abundant experience in the present of intelligent agents generating specified information. Our experience of the causal powers of intelligent agents — of “conscious activity” as “a cause now in operation”– provides a basis for making inferences about the best explanation of the origin of biological organisms in the past. In other words, our experience of the cause-and-effect structure of the world — specifically the cause known to produce large amounts of specified information in the present — provides a basis for understanding what likely caused large increases in specified information in living systems in the past. It is precisely my reliance on such experience that makes possible an understanding of the type of causes at work in the history of life.

    Ann Gauger : It’s still worth considering how a mind might act in the world to cause change. The answer is we don’t know. I sit here typing. My mind, mediated by my brain, is putting words into a computer program (designed by other minds, by the way), using my fingers to type. But how does it happen, really? Where does the impulse to press one key instead of another come from? And how do these words, products of my mind, communicate to others through their computer screens? We can’t really say how our own minds work to interact with the world, yet we know they do. It is our universal, repeated, personal experience that shows us that our consciousness interacts with our bodies to produce information, but exactly how it works is not known. So why should we expect to know how the agent(s) responsible for the design of life or the universe may have worked? The theory of intelligent design does not propose a mechanism (a strictly or necessarily materialistic cause) for the origin of biological information. Rather, it proposes an intelligent or mental cause. In so doing, it does exactly what we want a good historical scientific theory to do. It proposes a cause that is known from our uniform and repeated experience (to borrow a phrase) to have the power to produce the effect in question, which in this case, is functional information in living systems.

  14. 14
    PyrrhoManiac1 says:

    @13

    We don’t know how exactly a mind might act in the world to cause change. Your mind, mediated by your brain, sends signals to your arm, hand, and fingers, and writes a text through the keyboard of the computer I sit here typing. I cannot explain to you how exactly this process functions, but we know, it happens. Consciousness can interact with the physical world and cause change. But how exactly that happens, we don’t know. Why then should we expect to know how God created the universe? The theory of intelligent design proposes an intelligent mental cause as the origin of the physical world. Nothing else.

    This makes it sound as if intelligent design presupposes mind-body dualism. If there’s no such thing as “consciousness” as a separate entity that somehow affects physical matter, then it’s even less plausible to imagine that God could affect reality by a sheer act of His will.

    I will grant, however, that the two ideas are deeply connected, historically as well as logically. For Rene Descartes, we are created in the image of God not just by virtue of our reason but also by virtue of our will: when we will, we affect the causal nexus of the world (including our brains and bodies) just as God did when He created the world ex nihilo and sustains it from instant to instant through His will, understanding, and love.

  15. 15
    Sir Giles says:

    Martin: what makes you so laugh ? I hate talking to people like you, but i am just curious …

    The fact that anyone would make a statement like you did is hilarious. A 1st year biology student would understand the absurdity of your comment.

  16. 16
    martin_r says:

    Sir Giles @15

    to see a Darwinist calling something absurd makes ME laugh :)))))

    So you can’t show me any design failures ?

  17. 17
    martin_r says:

    JVL,
    Alan Fox

    it’s a wonder land fossils are found at all.

    but it is not a wonder to find a transitional fossil, right ?

  18. 18
    kairosfocus says:

    SG, you have failed to substantiate accusations of irrational, failed arguments in general. I have answered for record https://uncommondescent.com/off-topic/what-must-we-do-when-the-foundations-are-being-destroyed/#comment-769169 KF

  19. 19
    Alan Fox says:

    …but it is not a wonder to find a transitional fossil, right ?

    Well, all fossils are transitional if you accept the idea of common descent rather than special creation, as I do. Here’s a definition from Berkeley University’s Understanding Evolution website:

    A fossil that shows an intermediate state between an ancestral trait and that of its later descendants is said to bear a transitional feature. The fossil record includes many examples of transitional features, providing an abundance of evidence for evolutionary change over time.

    My iconic example of a transitional fossil is Ardipithecus ramidus. They are, in my view, a plausible candidate for being the chronospecies leading to Homo sapiens.

  20. 20
    JVL says:

    Martin_r: but it is not a wonder to find a transitional fossil, right ?

    As Alan Fox said: all fossils are transitional between what came before and what came after along a particular line of development. There is no transitional fossil between a duck and a human although they do have a common ancestor.

    I cannot believe, after decades of trying to explain this, some people still don’t understand. They say they’ve read all the books but clearly they didn’t grasp any of what was said. Incredible. Unless, perhaps, they don’t want to understand. Maybe they are only interested in taking down an idea they find a threat to their beliefs. That would make sense; you can’t give an inch ’cause you might lose the whole shebang.

    Guess what guys? Those gaps are getting smaller all the time.

  21. 21
    Sir Giles says:

    Martin: So you can’t show me any design failures ?

    Only millions of extinct plants and animals.

  22. 22
    Sir Giles says:

    KF: SG, you have failed to substantiate accusations of irrational, failed arguments in general. I have answered for record

    Please refrain from toxic distractors.

  23. 23
    asauber says:

    “all fossils are transitional if you accept…”

    AF,

    Well, that’s the trick isn’t it. Just believe our stories and we’ll pretend to like you. lol

    Andrew

  24. 24
    martin_r says:

    Alan Fox @19

    my bad … what i meant was “missing link”-fossils.

    You said “it’s a wonder land fossils are found at all.”, therefore, you can’t show me any design failures, but to find so called “missing links” is not a problem, right ?

  25. 25
    martin_r says:

    JVL @20

    I cannot believe, after decades of trying to explain this, some people still don’t understand. They say they’ve read all the books but clearly they didn’t grasp any of what was said.

    Let me correct myself – what i meant was “missing links”-fossils.

    like i replied to Alan:

    “it’s a wonder land fossils are found at all.”, therefore, you can’t show me any “design failures”-fossils, but to find so called “missing links” is not a problem, right ?

    JVL, i perfectly understand your common descent concept. I understand that according to your theory and common decent concept, there can’t be a “crocoduck”…

    So you don’t have to be frustrated that you have explained this for decades.

    PS:
    Of course, this common descent concept is as wrong as the whole theory of evolution … (hint: convergent/repeated evolution … or, viruses … )

  26. 26
    martin_r says:

    Sir Giles @21

    Martin: So you can’t show me any design failures ?

    Only millions of extinct plants and animals.

    Dear Sir, how do you know, that these plants and animals died out because of design failure ?
    Could you clarify ?

  27. 27
    Sir Giles says:

    Martin: Dear Sir, how do you know, that these plants and animals died out because of design failure ?
    Could you clarify ?

    My view is that they were not designed. But if I accept your premise that they were designed, the fact that they no longer exist strongly suggests that the design was incapable of adapting to changing conditions.

  28. 28
    bornagain77 says:

    as to, “Only millions of extinct plants and animals.”

    “Stasis in the Fossil Record: 40-80% of living forms today are represented (fairly deep) in the fossil record (as ‘living fossils’), despite being told in many text books that only about 0.1% are in this category. The rocks testify that no macro-evolutionary change has ever occurred. With the Cambrian Explosion complex fish, trilobites and other creatures appear suddenly without any precursors. Evidence of any transitional forms in the fossil record is highly contentious.”
    – Paul James-Griffiths via Dr. Arthur Jones

    Fish, Fossils and Evolution Dr. Arthur Jones – The Myth Of +99.9% Extinct Species – 22:06 minute mark – Dr. Arthur Jones – video
    https://youtu.be/v_642XFeLW0?t=1326

    Fossils Without Evolution – June 201)
    Excerpt: New fossils continue to turn up around the world. Many of them have an amazing characteristic in common: they look almost exactly like their living counterparts, despite being millions of years old,,,
    ?https://crev.info/2010/06/fossils_without_evolution/

    Researchers: Biodiversity Today Is Not Higher Than In The Past – February 19, 2019
    According to a new study led by researchers at the University of Birmingham and involving an international team of collaborators, the number of species within ecological communities on land has increased only sporadically through geological time, with rapid increases in diversity being followed by plateaus lasting tens of millions of years.
    Previously, many scientists have argued that diversity increased steadily through geological time, which would mean that biodiversity today is much greater than it was tens of millions of years ago. But building an accurate picture of how land diversity was assembled is challenging because the fossil record generally becomes less complete further back in time. By using modern computing techniques, capable of analysing hundreds of thousands of fossils, patterns are starting to emerge that challenge this view…
    The team focused on data from land vertebrates dating back to the very earliest appearance of this group nearly 400 million years ago.
    They found that the average number of species within ecological communities of land vertebrates have not increased for tens of millions of years,,,
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/researchers-biodiversity-today-is-not-higher-than-in-the-past/

    Darwin on the rocks – Sept. 19, 2014
    Q&A | DNA and Cambrian fossils, says Stephen Meyer, make macroevolutionary theory increasingly untenable
    Excerpt: What you found in the Cambrian was 23 distinct body plans, and fully 20 of those first appeared in the Cambrian. There are only about 27 body plans that have been preserved in the fossil records, total. So you can see this is a big event in the history of life.
    http://www.worldmag.com/2014/0....._the_rocks

    The Cambrian Explosion Has Just Gone Nuclear – Günter Bechly – April 8, 2021
    Evolution’s Big Bang
    Charles Darwin was quite aware that the sudden appearance of animals in the fossil record poses a major problem for his theory, but he hoped that this problem was due only to our insufficient knowledge of an incomplete fossil record, and therefore will dissolve over time with future research. However, 150 years of paleontological exploration after Darwin has made the problem far worse: not for nothing is it called the Cambrian Explosion. All attempts to explain this problem away have failed (Meyer 2013), including the still beloved artifact hypothesis (Bechly 2020).
    Recently, I stumbled upon a paper from 2018 that I had previously overlooked, and it proved to be dynamite. It is a study by a research group from the University of Zurich about the transition from the Ediacaran organisms to the Cambrian animal phyla in the Nama Basin of Namibia (Linnemann et al. 2018). What they found is truly mind-blowing. The window of time between the latest appearance date (LAD) of the alien Ediacaran biota and the first appearance date (FAD) of the complex Cambrian biota was only 410,000 years. You read that correctly, just 410 thousand years! This is not an educated guess but based on very precise radiometric U-Pb dating with an error margin of only plus-minus 200 thousand years. This precision is truly a remarkable achievement of modern science considering that we are talking about events 538 million years ago.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2021/04/the-cambrian-explosion-has-just-gone-nuclear/

    July 2021 – With the ‘collector’s curve’, we find that the more fossils that we collect, the more they fall into preexisting groups, and the less they ‘surprise’ us. Thus strongly suggesting that we have a fairly complete picture of the fossil record, since the discovery of outliers are now few and far between
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/asked-at-reason-magazine-how-much-science-research-is-fraudulent/#comment-734451

  29. 29
    Alan Fox says:

    You said “it’s a wonder land fossils are found at all.”, therefore, you can’t show me any design failures, but to find so-called “missing links” is not a problem, right ?

    Your “therefore” makes no sense. All fossils are surviving evidence of plants or animals that were once living and then died. In some cases, where an animal has wandered into a tar-pit, for instance, it is reasonable to surmise the immediate cause of death. I don’t know what you mean by “design failure”. Very often, populations become extinct, lineages vanish. The figure often given is 99%. But why a particular lineage dies out is often due to environmental change that is too rapid for a population to be able to adapt. We see this happening today. Sometimes mass extinction happens due to some catastrophic event such as the arrival of the Chicxulub bolide which saw off the dinosaurs.

    “Missing link” is a phrase usually associated with hominid ancestors of humans, though I guess you might call Tiktaalik a missing link, in the sense that the evolutionary path from fish to reptile lacked a transitional fossil till Neil Shubin found it.

  30. 30
    relatd says:

    SG at 27,

    A cheap shot. All life is designed. Here is the dividing line:

    Richard Dawkins: Life only looks designed. It is not designed.

    Catholic Church: Life is actually designed.

    So, here at least, those on the Richard Dawkins side have made their commitment. Those who see the evidence as the Church does have made theirs.

    That’s all.

  31. 31
  32. 32
    bornagain77 says:

    Oh goody, AF pulls Tiktaalik out of hibernation as proof for the ‘millions of extinct (transitional) plants and animals” that he needs to prove that Darwinian evolution happened in the history of life on earth..

    The Evolution of the Darwin Fish – February 17, 2018 – David F. Coppedge
    Excerpt: Darwinians believe that fish crawled out onto land—their fins becoming pentadactyl limbs—then returned back to the sea multiple times in the form of ichthyosaurs, pinnipeds and whales.,,,
    After Darwin, various ‘transitional’ fish with bony fins were subsequently proposed and deposed (see sign, above), but Darwinians didn’t become excited until Neil Shubin’s Tiktaalik fossil (6 April 2006), though some disagreed (4 December 2008).,,,
    Subsequently, though, tetrapod tracks were found a full 10 million Darwin Years earlier (6 January 2010), undermining Shubin’s claim to have found a transitional form.
    Darwinians are still hunting.,,,
    “It has generally been thought that the ability to walk is something that evolved as vertebrates transitioned from sea to land,” says senior author Jeremy Dasen, a developmental neurobiologist in the Department of Neuroscience and Physiology at the New York University School of Medicine. “We were surprised to learn that certain species of fish also can walk. In addition, they use a neural and genetic developmental program that is almost identical to the one used by higher vertebrates, including humans.“
    https://crev.info/2018/02/evolution-darwin-fish/

    Attenborough, read your mail: Evolution is messier than TV – February 2014 – with video
    Excerpt: The Polish trackways establish that Tiktaalik wasn’t anywhere near the first tetrapod, so the most important information about the transition to land doesn’t even include Tiktaalik at present.,,
    Some fish today routinely spend time out of the water, using a variety of mechanisms. But there is no particular reason to believe that they are on their way to becoming full time tetrapods or land dwellers. So we would need to be cautious about assuming that specific mechanisms that might be useful on land are definitive evidence of a definite, permanent move to full-time land dwelling.
    A friend writes to point out a modern-day examples that illustrates this, the walking shark:
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....r-than-tv/?

    Repeated evolution: A fish living on land is NOT an extraordinary thing but a common phenomenon – January 6, 2020
    Excerpt: Fish have evolved the ability to live on land many times, challenging the perception that this extreme lifestyle shift was likely to have been a rare occurrence in ancient times. New research shows 33 different families of fish have at least one species that demonstrates some terrestrial activity and, in many cases, these behaviors are likely to have evolved independently in the different families.
    A fish out of water might seem an extraordinary thing, but in fact it is quite a common phenomenon,” says study first author and UNSW evolutionary ecologist Dr Terry Ord,,,
    https://stuffhappens.info/repeated-evolution-a-fish-out-of-water-is-not-an-extraordinary-thing-but-a-common-phenomenon/

  33. 33
    relatd says:

    There are some ‘flying fish’ as well. Unless fish that emerge from water can quickly find something to eat, their water environment would definitely be preferable from a survival standpoint.

  34. 34
    JVL says:

    Martin_r: i perfectly understand your common descent concept. I understand that according to your theory and common decent concept, there can’t be a “crocoduck”…

    Well, what do you mean by ‘missing link’ then? Please be specific.

    Of course, this common descent concept is as wrong as the whole theory of evolution … (hint: convergent/repeated evolution … or, viruses … )

    So your alternative hypothesis is . . . the designer made some plants and some animals and, after a while thought: huh, maybe it would be better if they had more legs so POOF he made animals with more legs. And then he thought: huh, I’m bored now, let’s try adding fins so they can swim. POOF! And it was so. And then he thought: done that . . . what if they could breathe air instead of filtering oxygen out the water, that might be interesting. POOF!! Etc, etc, etc? Some of the ‘tweaks’ would have had to be pretty minor considering how similar some fossils are to each other. Something like that?

  35. 35
    JVL says:

    Relatd: Catholic Church: Life is actually designed.

    Designed when exactly? Front loaded or constant tweaking? Apparently the Catholic Church has a more theistic approach:

    Catholic schools in the United States and other countries teach evolution as part of their science curriculum. They teach that evolution occurs and the modern evolutionary synthesis, which is the scientific theory that explains how evolution proceeds. This is the same evolution curriculum that secular schools teach. Bishop Francis X. DiLorenzo of Richmond, chair of the Committee on Science and Human Values, wrote in a letter sent to all U.S. bishops in December 2004: “Catholic schools should continue teaching evolution as a scientific theory backed by convincing evidence. At the same time, Catholic parents whose children are in public schools should ensure that their children are also receiving appropriate catechesis at home and in the parish on God as Creator. Students should be able to leave their biology classes, and their courses in religious instruction, with an integrated understanding of the means God chose to make us who we are.”

    A survey of principals and teachers of science and of religion at Catholic high schools in the United States indicates some attitudes toward the teaching of evolution and the results of that teaching. 86% of principals reported their schools took an integrated approach to science and religion, in which “evolution, the Big Bang, and the Book of Genesis” were addressed together in classes. On specific topics, 95% of science teachers and 79% of religion teachers agreed that “evolution by natural selection” explains “the diversity of life on earth”. Only 21% of science teachers and 32% of religion teachers believed that “Adam and Eve were real historical people”. A companion survey of Catholic adults found that 65% of those who had attended a Catholic high school believed in evolution compared to 53% of those who did not attend.

    There are some ‘flying fish’ as well. Unless fish that emerge from water can quickly find something to eat, their water environment would definitely be preferable from a survival standpoint.

    Momentarily flying (which is what they do) does help them escape predators which is definitely preferable from a survival standpoint.

  36. 36
    relatd says:

    JVL at 35,

    Your knowledge of what the Catholic Church teaches appears to be minimal. Years ago, Pope John Paul II made a favorable comment about evolution. Atheists rejoiced online, saying the Church “accepts” evolution. I mean, there’s only “one” theory, right? In his address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the Pope referred to theories, plural. This was elaborated upon in a document produced
    by the International Theological Commission titled Communion and Stewardship – Human Persons Created in the Image of God. In the following excerpt, the writers use precise language, which may need to be read more than once to gain full comprehension.

    “64. Pope John Paul II stated some years ago that “new knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge”(“Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution”1996). In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis ), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. Mainly concerned with evolution as it “involves the question of man,” however, Pope John Paul’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms. The Church’s interest in evolution thus focuses particularly on “the conception of man” who, as created in the image of God, “cannot be subordinated as a pure means or instrument either to the species or to society.” As a person created in the image of God, he is capable of forming relationships of communion with other persons and with the triune God, as well as of exercising sovereignty and stewardship in the created universe. The implication of these remarks is that theories of evolution and of the origin of the universe possess particular theological interest when they touch on the doctrines of the creation ex nihilo and the creation of man in the image of God.”

    I need to emphasize the reference to Humani Generis by Pope Pius XII, 1950.

    He is very critical of various errors being promulgated at the time, including claims that evolution is already somehow proven. He then gives permission to those competent to examine the theory and present arguments for and against, subject to final review by the Church who has the authority to properly interpret Scripture. Polygenism was right out.

    https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

    I went to Catholic school and was taught evolution along with everybody else. However, I accepted only on the basis of my teacher telling me this was true. I do not have my original science books to reference. Since that time, considerable evidence has emerged that shows evolution, as originally advertised, is highly deficient to explain much of anything.

    In an Op-Ed published in the New York Times titled Finding Design in Nature (2005), Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn went into some detail about actual design in nature. This so concerned a few scientists that they sent a letter to the Vatican that expressed their desire to not see the Church on “the wrong side of history” with this development.

    For those with a New York Times subscription:
    https://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/07/opinion/finding-design-in-nature.html

    Some excerpts:

    • ‘The Church “proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things.”

    • “Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.”

    • ‘Quoting our late Holy Father John Paul II: “The evolution of living beings, of which science seeks to determine the stages and to discern the mechanism, presents an internal finality which arouses admiration. This finality, which directs beings in a direction for which they are not responsible or in charge, obliges one to suppose a Mind which is its inventor, its creator.”

    So, wherever these earlier textbooks came from, the Church has since moved on. Living things are actually designed. The Richard Dawkins version that says they are not will not do – at all.

  37. 37
    JVL says:

    Pope Pius XII’s encyclical of 1950, Humani generis, was the first encyclical to specifically refer to evolution and took up a neutral position, again concentrating on human evolution:

    The Church does not forbid that … research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter.

    Pope Pius XII’s teaching can be summarized as follows:

    The question of the origin of man’s body from pre-existing and living matter is a legitimate matter of inquiry for natural science. Catholics are free to form their own opinions, but they should do so cautiously; they should not confuse fact with conjecture, and they should respect the Church’s right to define matters touching on Revelation.

    Catholics must believe, however, that humans have souls created immediately by God. Since the soul is a spiritual substance it is not brought into being through transformation of matter, but directly by God, whence the special uniqueness of each person.

    All men have descended from an individual, Adam, who has transmitted original sin to all mankind. Catholics may not, therefore, believe in “polygenism”, the scientific hypothesis that mankind descended from a group of original humans (that there were many Adams and Eves).
    Some theologians believe Pius XII explicitly excludes belief in polygenism as licit. Another interpretation might be this: As we have nowadays in fact models of thinking of how to reconcile polygenism with the original sin, it need not be condemned. The relevant sentence is this:

    Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion (polygenism) can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.

    —?Pius XII, Humani generis, 37 and footnote refers to Romans 5:12–19; Council of Trent, Session V, Canons 1–4

    In an October 22, 1996, address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope John Paul II updated the Church’s position to accept evolution of the human body:

    In his encyclical Humani generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points. … Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.

    In the same address, Pope John Paul II rejected any theory of evolution that provides a materialistic explanation for the human soul:

    Theories of evolution which, because of the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man.

    In July 2007 at a meeting with clergy Pope Benedict XVI noted that the conflict between “creationism” and evolution (as a finding of science) is “absurd:” [55]

    Currently, I see in Germany, but also in the United States, a somewhat fierce debate raging between so-called “creationism” and evolutionism, presented as though they were mutually exclusive alternatives: those who believe in the Creator would not be able to conceive of evolution, and those who instead support evolution would have to exclude God. This antithesis is absurd because, on the one hand, there are so many scientific proofs in favour of evolution which appears to be a reality we can see and which enriches our knowledge of life and being as such. But on the other, the doctrine of evolution does not answer every query, especially the great philosophical question: where does everything come from? And how did everything start which ultimately led to man? I believe this is of the utmost importance.

    On October 27, 2014, Pope Francis issued a statement at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences that “Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation,” warning against thinking of God’s act of creation as “God [being] a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything.”

    The Pope also expressed in the same statement the view that scientific explanations such as the Big Bang and evolution in fact require God’s creation:

    [God] created beings and allowed them to develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one, so that they were able to develop and to arrive at their fullness of being. He gave autonomy to the beings of the universe at the same time at which he assured them of his continuous presence, giving being to every reality. And so creation continued for centuries and centuries, millennia and millennia, until it became what we know today, precisely because God is not a demiurge or a magician, but the creator who gives being to all things. …The Big Bang, which nowadays is posited as the origin of the world, does not contradict the divine act of creating, but rather requires it. The evolution of nature does not contrast with the notion of creation, as evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve.

    “God is not… a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life,” Francis said. “Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.”

    Maybe Relatd knows more about the Catholic Church’s stand on evolution that the Popes. Maybe.

  38. 38
    relatd says:

    JVL at 37,

    I do hope readers actually read the documents I referenced as opposed to relying on the “JVL Filter,” which is highly imprecise and quotes only what he wants to quote. “Beings that evolve,” yes. I am aware of all of this.

    The Church uses softer language than some who prefer a harsher tone. However, here a louder tone is required to get people’s attention.

    From Communion and Stewardship, and you can look for references to God in your Biology textbook and not find any, it is vitally important to note the following:

    “… incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.”

    That’s right folks. Any “theory” that does not give God a truly causal role in the development of life is right out, or “incompatible with the Catholic faith.” The Biology textbook is approved by atheists, but not so much by the Church. As I wrote, recent research, and statements by the Church, state that living things are designed and the designer is God.

    I know that won’t fly with atheists.

  39. 39
    JVL says:

    Relatd: as opposed to relying on the “JVL Filter,” which is highly imprecise and quotes only what he wants to quote

    I’m not the one who picked those excerpts.

    AND it doesn’t really matter to me if even Catholics can’t agree on a unified position regarding evolution. But it does mean that some fellow Catholics appear to disagree with you. Too bad the Holy Scriptures weren’t clearer eh? Perhaps you guys (and all the other Christians and People of the Book) should spend more time coming up with a consistent view and stop arguing with people who don’t share your faith. It’s pretty amazing how divergent the views are of those who consider the Old Testament from God. Almost like you’re reading different books.

  40. 40
    relatd says:

    JVL at 39,

    Perhaps I should say – Quit bringing it up then?

    Yeah, some Catholics have not studied evolution in some depth. So what? The Holy Scriptures are very clear: God Created. Not some nonsense idea that nothing – literally – made you and everybody else. NASA, among others, get excited with “WATER FOUND ON MARS!” Which means what? Random chemicals randomly got together and randomly produced life and went on its random way until it produced human beings – by accident?

    You – and others who think like that – literally have nothing.

  41. 41
    JVL says:

    Relatd: The Holy Scriptures are very clear: God Created. Not some nonsense idea that nothing – literally – made you and everybody else.

    Okay.

    Random chemicals randomly got together and randomly produced life and went on its random way until it produced human beings – by accident?

    Depends on your exact view of evolution. I know what the science says. What your faith says is something only you can deal with. You seem to think that if you weren’t planned at some level your existence has less meaning. I don’t believe that. If you do then you do have a problem.

  42. 42
    relatd says:

    JVL at 41,

    Tonight on JVL, Pop Psychologist…

    JVL also appears on Life According to JVL..

    “You seem to think that if you weren’t planned at some level your existence has less meaning.”

    Did I say that? Where? Quit assuming stuff.

  43. 43
    JVL says:

    Relatd: Tonight on JVL, Pop Psychologist…

    If I got it wrong I apologise. But I do think you and your fellow Catholics and Christians have to work some conflicts out. If you want to be coherent. Maybe you don’t care about that. I would.

  44. 44
    whistler says:

    Sir Giles

    Martin: So you can’t show me any design failures ?

    Only millions of extinct plants and animals.

    Another darwinian nonsense-checked! Today are more livings species than the species found in fossil record and the majority of species found in fossil record are still living today on earth. Today estimated living species 8,700,000 . How many species are found in fossil record? 250,000?

  45. 45
    relatd says:

    JVL at 43,

    What conflicts are these? Coherent? Coherent about what?

    It appears to me that the atheist feels just fine with his life.
    It also appears to me that Catholics and other Christians feel just fine about their lives.

    Unless you’re suggesting that atheists have less conflicts among themselves or are somehow better than Christians. Or are you saying that atheists live ‘better’ lives in general?

  46. 46
    JVL says:

    Relatd: What conflicts are these? Coherent? Coherent about what?

    The conflicts about the views of unguided evolution.

    It appears to me that the atheist feels just fine with his life.
    It also appears to me that Catholics and other Christians feel just fine about their lives.

    Okay.

    Unless you’re suggesting that atheists have less conflicts among themselves or are somehow better than Christians. Or are you saying that atheists live ‘better’ lives in general?

    No, I’m not saying that at all. I am suggesting that there’s a lot of people on this planet who seem to treat with reverence certain written texts but they can’t agree with what those texts ‘say’ in terms of our modern world. So, I’m suggesting, you guys first get your views in order. It’s up to you. It’s not a competition. You always want to make it some kind of conflict.

  47. 47
    martin_r says:

    Sir Giles

    Martin: Dear Sir, how do you know, that [millions of] plants and animals died out because of design failure ?
    Could you clarify ?

    My view is that they were not designed. But if I accept your premise that they were designed, the fact that they no longer exist strongly suggests that the design was incapable of adapting to changing conditions.

    First of all, like other debaters pointed out, YOU DARWINISTS HAVE NO IDEA HAVE MANY SPECIES LIVED ON EARTH IN THE PAST ….it is just another Darwinian conjecture/just-so story …. but we are used to Darwinian conjectures/just-so stories….

    Second, as to “the design was incapable of adopting to changing conditions….”

    How do you imagine a design capable of adopting to e.g. mountain-sized tsunami waves (to become an instant fish?? ) ? Is it a design failure when you are a mammal and you will drown during a worldwide tsunami flood ?

    So my question once again, how do you know that species died out because of their bad design or other design failures ?

    PS:

    Published October 2022 (… sounds like Great flood)

    “Dinosaur-Killing Asteroid Triggered Global Tsunami With Mountain-Sized Waves”

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidbressan/2022/10/05/dinosaur-killing-asteroid-triggered-global-tsunami-with-mountain-sized-waves/?sh=145f955f44d0

  48. 48
    kairosfocus says:

    SG, as in refrain from pointing out evasions and refusal to be accountable over loaded and now demonstrably false accusations, shown by the parallel thread? KF

  49. 49
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: When topics like the above come up, I find it important to point to Paley in ch 2, 50 years before Darwin:

    Suppose, in the next place, that the person who found the watch [in a field and stumbled on the stone in Ch 1 just past, where this is 50 years before Darwin in Ch 2 of a work Darwin full well knew about] should after some time discover that, in addition to

    [–> here cf encapsulated, gated, metabolising automaton, and note, “stickiness” of molecules raises a major issue of interfering cross reactions thus very carefully controlled organised reactions are at work in life . . . ]

    all the properties [= specific, organised, information-rich functionality] which he had hitherto observed in it, it possessed the unexpected property of producing in the course of its movement another watch like itself [–> i.e. self replication, cf here the code using von Neumann kinematic self replicator that is relevant to first cell based life] — the thing is conceivable [= this is a gedankenexperiment, a thought exercise to focus relevant principles and issues]; that it contained within it a mechanism, a system of parts — a mold, for instance, or a complex adjustment of lathes, baffles, and other tools — evidently and separately calculated for this purpose [–> it exhibits functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information; where, in mid-late C19, cell based life was typically thought to be a simple jelly-like affair, something molecular biology has long since taken off the table but few have bothered to pay attention to Paley since Darwin] . . . .

    The first effect would be to increase his admiration of the contrivance, and his conviction of the consummate skill of the contriver. Whether he regarded the object of the contrivance, the distinct apparatus, the intricate, yet in many parts intelligible mechanism by which it was carried on, he would perceive in this new observation nothing but an additional reason for doing what he had already done — for referring the construction of the watch to design and to supreme art

    [–> directly echoes Plato in The Laws Bk X on the ART-ificial (as opposed to the strawman tactic “supernatural”) vs the natural in the sense of blind chance and/or mechanical necessity as serious alternative causal explanatory candidates; where also the only actually observed cause of FSCO/I is intelligently configured configuration, i.e. contrivance or design]

    . . . . He would reflect, that though the watch before him were, in some sense, the maker of the watch, which, was fabricated in the course of its movements, yet it was in a very different sense from that in which a carpenter, for instance, is the maker of a chair — the author of its contrivance, the cause of the relation of its parts to their use [–> i.e. design].

    . . . . We might possibly say, but with great latitude of expression, that a stream of water ground corn ; but no latitude of expression would allow us to say, no stretch
    cf conjecture could lead us to think, that the stream of water built the mill, though it were too ancient for us to know who the builder was.
    What the stream of water does in the affair is neither more nor less than this: by the application of an unintelligent impulse to a mechanism previously arranged, arranged independently of it and arranged by intelligence, an effect is produced, namely, the corn is ground. But the effect results from the arrangement. [–> points to intelligently directed configuration as the observed and reasonably inferred source of FSCO/I] The force of the stream cannot be said to be the cause or the author of the effect, still less of the arrangement. Understanding and plan in the formation of the mill were not the less necessary for any share which the water has in grinding the corn; yet is this share the same as that which the watch would have contributed to the production of the new watch . . . .

    Though it be now no longer probable that the individual watch which our observer had found was made immediately by the hand of an artificer, yet doth not this alteration in anywise affect the inference, that an artificer had been originally employed and concerned in the production. The argument from design remains as it was.

    Marks of design and contrivance are no more accounted for now than they were before. In the same thing, we may ask for the cause of different properties. We may ask for the cause of the color of a body, of its hardness, of its heat ; and these causes may be all different. We are now asking for the cause of that subserviency to a use, that relation to an end, which we have remarked in the watch before us. No answer is given to this question, by telling us that a preceding watch produced it. There cannot be design without a designer; contrivance, without a contriver; order [–> better, functionally specific organisation], without choice; arrangement, without any thing capable of arranging; subserviency and relation to a purpose, without that which could intend a purpose; means suitable to an end, and executing their office in accomplishing that end, without the end ever having been contemplated, or the means accommodated to it. Arrangement, disposition of parts, subserviency of means to an end, relation of instruments to a use, imply the presence of intelligence and mind. No one, therefore, can rationally believe that the insensible, inanimate watch, from which the watch before us issued, was the proper cause of the mechanism we so much admire m it — could be truly said to have constructed the instrument, disposed its parts, assigned their office, determined their order, action, and mutual dependency, combined their several motions into one result, and that also a result connected with the utilities of other beings. All these properties, therefore, are as much unaccounted for as they were before.

    Nor is any thing gained by running the difficulty farther back, that is, by supposing the watch before us to have been produced from another watch, that from a former, and so on indefinitely. Our going back ever so far brings us no nearer to the least degree of satisfaction upon the subject. Contrivance is still unaccounted for. We still want a contriver. A designing mind is neither supplied by this supposition nor dispensed with. If the difficulty were diminished the farther we went back, by going back indefinitely we might exhaust it. And this is the only case to which this sort of reasoning applies. “Where there is a tendency, or, as we increase the number of terms, a continual approach towards a limit, there, by supposing the number of terms to be what is called infinite, we may conceive the limit to be attained; but where there is no such tendency or approach, nothing is effected by lengthening the series . . . ,

    And the question which irresistibly presses upon our thoughts is. Whence this contrivance and design ? The thing required is the intending mind, the adapted hand, the intelligence by which that hand was directed. This question, this demand, is not shaken off by increasing a number or succession of substances destitute of these properties; nor the more, by increasing that number to infinity. If it be said, that upon the supposition of one watch being produced from another in the course of that other’s movements, and by means of the mechanism within it, we have a cause for the watch in my hand, namely, the watch from which it proceeded — I deny, that for the design, the contrivance, the suitableness of means to an end, the adaptation of instruments to a use, all of which we discover in the watch, we have any cause whatever. It is in vain, therefore, to assign a series of such causes, or to allege that a series may be carried back to infinity; for I do not admit that we have yet any cause at all for the phenomena, still less any series of causes either finite or infinite. Here is contrivance, but no contriver; proofs of design, but no designer. [Paley, Nat Theol, Ch 2]

    KF

    PS, quite the lists there OT, I find these particularly interesting, given attempts to sideline Orgel-Wicken functionally specific, complex organisation and/or associated information:

    3. A force/cause that secures, upholds, maintains, and stabilizes a state of affairs, avoiding stochastic chaos. Eliminating conditions that change unpredictably from instant to instant or preventing things from uncontrollably popping in and out of existence. [–> encapsulation and smart gating in the cell]
    4. Fine-tuning or calibrating something to get the function of a (higher-order) system. [–> fine tuning of the cosmos and the linked functionally specific complex organisation and/or associated information, FSCO/I in the cell and wider world of life]
    5. Selected specific materials, that have been sorted out, concentrated, and joined at a construction site. [–> and specific configured well matched parts]
    6. An information storage system ( paper, a computer hard disk, etc.) [==> D/RNA]
    7. A language, based on statistics, semantics, syntax, pragmatics, and apobetics
    8. A code system, where meaning is assigned to characters, symbols, words [–> application of language]
    9. Translation ( the assignment of the meaning of one word in one language to another of another language ) that has the same meaning [–> a language related function cf transcription, editing, execution of algorithms in mRNA]
    10. An information transmission system ( a radio signal, internet, email, post delivery service, etc.) [–> from DNA to mRNA in the Ribosome, the Golgi system, cellular walking trucks}
    11. A plan, blueprint, architectural drawing, or scheme for accomplishing a goal, that contains instructional information, directing the making for example of a 3D artifact, 1:1 equivalent to the plan of the blueprint. [–> what of a complex blueprint or framework or program that can be reconstructed through analysis of a functional object, eg the cell’s process-flow metabolic network, the coded algorithms in D/RNA] . . .

    14. Systems of interconnected software and hardware [–> D/RNA and protein synthesis]
    15. A library index and fully automated information classification, storage, and retrieval program [–> automated use of D/RNA in protein synthesis as required]
    16. A software program that directs the making, and governs the function or/and operation of devices with specific functions. [–> Ribosome, mRNA and tRNA action]
    17. Energy turbines
    18. To create, execute, or construct something precisely according to an instructional plan or blueprint [–> protein synthesis]
    19. The specific complex [–> and tightly constrained] arrangement and joint of elements, parts, or materials to create a machine or a device for specific functions [–> island of function issue, a manifestation of fine tuned operating points in large configuration spaces]

  50. 50
    Querius says:

    Splitting a Stone, Splitting a Cell

    You find a stone that’s split in half. It’s not an unusual stone that’s split in half, but it does have several flakes broken off that could indicate an intelligent agent acting on it for a specified purpose. Perhaps this is an artifact of an ancient human who had crafted a sharp hand axe.

    But is it?

    Couldn’t the stone have rolled off a steep cliff, split, and then bounced off of other stones at the bottom in a rhythm dictated by its kinetic energy, angular momentum, and axis of rotation? Millions of stones have fallen from high places onto other stones. There’s a chance that this stone is entirely natural. However, there are other, similar stones that have been used as hand axes discovered in a context that makes them likely to have been designed for a specific purpose. Maybe this one is also intelligently designed by a human. It’s hard to tell in some cases because of its simplicity.

    Copper and tin ore are collected and melted together into an alloy of a specified range of proportions. The molten bronze is poured into a mold that has a shape optimized for utility, and there is no doubt that this was the work of Homo sapiens because the tool falls well within the range of other tools created by humans and there’s no natural processes that could account for the greater complexity and obvious purpose.

    A geographically isolated aboriginal finds debris from the space shuttle Challenger—a ceramic heat tile. The aboriginal might conclude incorrectly that it’s a rare natural mineral that’s been split at cleavage planes into a rectangular prism and notices that the object displays desert varnish on the side that must have been facing the sun for millions of years.

    A team of researchers discover how epigenetic reprogramming of polycomb group proteins (PcGs) in developing mammalian zygotes is accomplished by erasing methylation marks from the parental gametes by demethylation, a process resets the genes in DNA for the next generation.

    The biochemical complexity for this last process, taken in context, is billions and billions of times more complex than the rock, the axe, or the heat tile. But, in this case, an ideologically blinded evolutionist throws the magician’s cape of deep time over the process, and adamantly asserts that the phenomenal complexity of this and many other interrelated chemical cycles is entirely due to a natural, common, and even inevitable cascade of evolutionary development.

    Unlike the rock, the axe, and the heat tile, the evolutionist claims there’s no trace of intelligent design.

    -Q

Leave a Reply