Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Can we distinguish human v. natural excavations?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Large geometric shapes are being discovered beneath the Amazon forest. Have the discoverers evaluated their origins correctly? If so, why? Is there any way to distinguish between artifacts caused by human and extraterrestrial agents?
Once Hidden by Forest, Carvings in Land Attest to Amazon’s Lost World By SIMON ROMERO January 14, 2012

RIO BRANCO, Brazil — Edmar Araújo still remembers the awe.
As he cleared trees on his family’s land decades ago near Rio Branco, an outpost in the far western reaches of the Brazilian Amazon, a series of deep earthen avenues carved into the soil came into focus.
These lines were too perfect not to have been made by man,” said Mr. Araújo, a 62-year-old cattleman. . . .
The deforestation that has stripped the Amazon since the 1970s has also exposed a long-hidden secret lurking underneath thick rain forest: flawlessly designed geometric shapes spanning hundreds of yards in diameter.

Alceu Ranzi, a Brazilian scholar who helped discover the squares, octagons, circles, rectangles and ovals that make up the land carvings, said these geoglyphs found on deforested land were as significant as the famous Nazca lines, the enigmatic animal symbols visible from the air in southern Peru.

“What impressed me the most about these geoglyphs was their geometric precision, and how they emerged from forest we had all been taught was untouched except by a few nomadic tribes,” said Mr. Ranzi, a paleontologist who first saw the geoglyphs in the 1970s and, years later, surveyed them by plane.

Hundreds of Geoglifos Discovered in the Amazon 2010.01.20

Geoglifos is the term applied in Brazil to geometric earthworks discovered after recent deforestation. Geoglyphs are not new in South American archaeology, but these are different—massive earthworks of tropical forest soil rather than desert surface alterations. The Amazon Geoglifos present geometric forms; circles, squares, ellipses, octagons, and more, with individual forms up to several hundred meters across. Some are connected by parallel walls. Their distribution spans hundreds of kilometers, and much of the area remains forested jungle.

POSTCARDS FROM THE AMAZON: Massive clues of Amazon area’s past 2010

The geoglyphs in Acre were made by digging ditches into the earth to create shapes like circles, squares, and diamonds. They are outlined by ditches up to 20 feet deep and range from 300 to 1,000 feet in diameter.

Squares

Circles

Ranzi geoglyphs Google search

—————————————-

For a serious discussion see Kairosfocus’ comment

Comments
Joe, selection is highly stochastic. You might have perfect camouflage yet be stepped on by a blind man. You might have terrible camouflage, but the luck of the Irish. "Selection", or as you rightly call it "differential reproduction" is a highly stochastic process, and can only be described in terms of probability distributions (just as with mutations). In other words both variant generation and heritable differential distribution are highly stochastic. But neither have flat probability distributions. Genetic ariants - at least viable variants) that do something similar to the original are much more likely that variants that do something radically different (including nothing) and phenotypes that inherit certain variants are slightly more likely to breed successfully than phenotypes that inherit others. But the whole thing is highly stochastic.Elizabeth Liddle
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PST
Petrushka,
What kinds of mechanisms would be needed that have not been observed?
Needed? There is no need. Perhaps the observed mechanisms are sufficient. But an adequate case has not been made.ScottAndrews2
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PST
Have you read the Koonin and Shapario books (the ones promoted by this website, and which were offered free)? What kinds of mechanisms would be needed that have not been observed?Petrushka
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PST
Peter,
Tell me, can you give me an example of what would satisfy you in this regard? Would it be a list of single mutations and the effect on the organism? Would it be a complete DNA sequence from one type of lung to another? What sort of evidence would you accept as an explanation?
That's a fair question. Obviously the first one would do the trick. But even if that's exactly what happened it wouldn't be reasonable to ask for such a reproduction. Here's my position: It's not my hypothesis, so I have no need to formulate a test to determine whether or not it's correct. Does that preclude me from weighing proposed evidence and finding it inadequate? Not at all. What a convenient situation that would be! Accept this inadequate evidence or devise my own tests. I choose neither. (Yes, that's convenient, too.) I am reasonable. I'm not going to point out any particular baffling phenomenon in nature and demand the evolutionary blow-by-blow. The trouble is that the evidence offered to support the capability of evolutionary mechanisms is always missing the evolutionary mechanisms. I've seen what many accept as evidence, and they are plainly making allowances for what is not there. I can demand better evidence, but I don't have any reason to think that anyone is withholding anything. Why would they? Perhaps it's just a stalemate. I don't think that you can make a case for the causative effects of variation and selection with evidence that omits both. Whether it's too difficult has nothing to do with it. You seem to accept such evidence. We can point fingers and insist that I have other reasons for ignoring the evidence or that you have reasons for not critically analyzing it. But that's only relevant if we make it relevant, and I'd rather not. The evidence succeeds or fails on its own merits.ScottAndrews2
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PST
Joe,
I don’t know- what’s your point? Or are you admitting tat your position is based on ignorance…
From our interactions it seem that you are describing yourself there. To deny the role of selection in evolution is like claiming black is white. You cannot seriously critique evolution (Darwinism, neo-Darwinism etc) without actually understanding it first.Peter Griffin
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PST
Scott
This is certainly not the case. I asked countless times for an explanation of any such thing, even something simpler, using evolutionary mechanisms, and nothing was offered.
I have offered one. Mechanism used are within the capabilities of evolution, incremental change in a working system.
Dig up any one of the so-called explanations and you will certainly find that the evolutionary mechanisms are precisely what are missing from each of them. The mechanisms of evolution are variation (which may include many things) and selection.
What, specifically, in the outline I gave is missing?
The mechanisms of evolution are variation (which may include many things) and selection. What we are offered are speculative narratives of several phenotypic changes with the assertion that these evolutionary mechanisms would be the underlying causes. Prove me wrong.
Not going to. We'll never know in detail many things about how some structures came to be. Yet that does not mean we cannot gain a good understanding of possible pathways. Tell me, can you give me an example of what would satisfy you in this regard? Would it be a list of single mutations and the effect on the organism? Would it be a complete DNA sequence from one type of lung to another? What sort of evidence would you accept as an explanation?Peter Griffin
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PST
GCU,
They illustrate how you can get from one lung to another by known evolutionary mechanisms
This is certainly not the case. I asked countless times for an explanation of any such thing, even something simpler, using evolutionary mechanisms, and nothing was offered. Dig up any one of the so-called explanations and you will certainly find that the evolutionary mechanisms are precisely what are missing from each of them. The mechanisms of evolution are variation (which may include many things) and selection. What we are offered are speculative narratives of several phenotypic changes with the assertion that these evolutionary mechanisms would be the underlying causes. Prove me wrong.ScottAndrews2
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PST
Joe,
How can universal common descent be tested? ight now it is just small change plus eons of untestable time.
You said earlier that common design has passed all the same tests that common descent has. Now you are claiming there are no tests? Make up your mind!
ID is not anti-evolution Peter. The paper says nothing about how random mutations accumualted and produced it.
The clue is in your own words. The accumulated randomly. And then selection filtered them. How can ID not be anti-evolution when you claim that evolution is impotent? selection is irrelevant, the right mutations are so unlikely as to be impossible etc etc? And *your version* of ID is not anti-evolution? Hardly. According to you the designer is everywhere all the time making slight changes - none too big however or outside of what evolution could accomplish (if it was not so impotent). When you take papers that actual working scientists have created and say "I agree with everything here except their conclusion" then you are really just making yourself into a joke Joe. You can't take others work and snip out the parts that you disagree with. You can't say that the work is fine but the foundational premise it's all based on is worthless! Well, you can. But then who is going to take you seriously?Peter Griffin
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PST
Joe, So as selection is impotent what other mechanisms exist? What else is there to evolution other then mutations Joe? Please, enlighten me. You've never mentioned anything else so it's a reasonable assumption.Peter Griffin
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PST
Joe,
Peter, Selection is just a result- it is differential reproduction due to heritable random variation. There isn’t anything non-random about it as whatever works good enough will do.
Laughable. Does the environment not provide a non-random playing field? Is the environment totally random then? Whatever works will do, whatever works better will come to dominate, whatever does not work will be out reproduced until it is gone. Yeah, nothing to see here, move along.
And those 47 sources of variation are all stochastic, according to evolutionary biologists. Yet they say that without any evidence.
We can examine mutation rates statistically. They *are* random. What eveidence do you have that they are not? Perhaps I should read "not by chance"? That well known scientific peer reviewed book that has failed to set the world alight.
BTW I never said mutations are all there is YOU are a LIAR and a coward.
No, what else is there then? According to you selection is meaningless, so what other component of evolution is there that you know about?
DLH I am sick of false accusations
...Peter Griffin
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PST
They are indeed. They illustrate how you can get from one lung to another by known evolutionary mechanisms, and in doing so addresses the claim 'it cannot evolve' by exploring how it could. Now hows about we try the same speculation about how the designer designed these things - Oh, wait, I forgot, it is forbidden.GCUGreyArea
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PST
{snip}Peter Griffin
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PST
vjtorley, Thanks for the links. However currently I'm specifically only concentrating on gpuccios claim that dFSCI can be calculated exactly for an arbitrary text (e.g. Hamlet). However I did find this of interest
First, as I explained earlier in part (vi), CSI is not a purely physical property. It is a mixed property – partly semiotic and partly physical.
So it seems that in order to make a design determination via CSI you need to know additional information about the artifact in question. So in this case you cannot take some text and determine if it was written by a computer or not soley based on on the text. Which is what I'm interested in. So let's put it another way. Is there a general case for the calculation of CSI for example texts, as gpuccio claims?Peter Griffin
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PST
Peter the strawman humper:
JOE: Mutations are all there is to evolution. ME: NO, there is more to it then that? Joe: So Mutations are not random then? Prove it?
No Peter. I have never said, implied nor thought that mutations were all there is to evolution. You are obvioulsy a loser.Joe
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PST
Peter, Selection is just a result- it is differential reproduction due to heritable random variation. There isn't anything non-random about it as whatever works good enough will do. And those 47 sources of variation are all stochastic, according to evolutionary biologists. Yet they say that without any evidence. BTW I never said mutations are all there is YOU are a LIAR and a coward. DLH I am sick of false accusationsJoe
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PST
{snip}Joe
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PST
Joe,
Why do I have to go there? I need to look up close, for signs of counterflow. However I am sure that is all in good hands.
So perhaps you can share with me the details of the counterflow you discovered when you determined that ATP was designed?Peter Griffin
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PST
Joe,
So have at it- show us this reference that says genetic change is not random, not an accident, not an error nor a mistake.
Why should I? It's your claim that mutations are not random (think targetted search). Mutations are random with respect to fitness. JOE: Mutations are all there is to evolution. ME: NO, there is more to it then that? Joe: So Mutations are not random then? Prove it?
So have at it- show us this reference that says genetic change is not random, not an accident, not an error nor a mistake.
It's simple. Selection. Selection is not random. Mutations are, selection is not. As Allen MacNeill notes:
So, next time you hear or read a creationist or IDer cite "RM & NS" as the sole explanation for evolutionary change, point out to them and everyone else that there are at least 47 different sources of variation (including "random mutations"), and at least three different processes that result from them: natural selection, sexual selection, and random genetic drift.
47 sources of variation, and counting. So it seems that your version of evolution is naught but a strawman created from your own misunderstandings.Peter Griffin
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PST
How can universal common descent be tested? ight now it is just small change plus eons of untestable time. ID is not anti-evolution Peter. The paper says nothing about how random mutations accumualted and produced it.Joe
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PST
So there are multiple ways mutations accumulate.
Yup.
Tell me Joe, have we discovered all the ways that mutations interact or just some of them?
I don't know- what's your point? Or are you admitting tat your position is based on ignorance...Joe
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PST
I believe that there is a thread of ID thought that holds the view that ALL papers about evolution, if looked at in the correct way, support intelligent design.Bydand
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PST
Joe,
Yup Behe accepts universal common descent. Unfortunately the same tests for it can be used to support a common design.
Then it's odd that Behe explicitly said "common descent" and not "common design". Why do you suppose that is Joe?
And I don’t know who the designer is and who the designer is is irrelevant to whether or not design exists. Also if those alleged 99.9% could support their claims I would still be an evolutionist.
They have supported their claims sufficiently to convince Behe of the reality of common descent.
Evidence Peter. The evidence points to design. The scientists who wrote the paper may disagree with that but unfortunately they cannot demonstrate that stochastic processes (all inclusive Peter) didit.
What evidence is that? The evidence in that paper, where "intelligent design" was not mentioned once, Or some other secret, hidden evidence? That paper was about the evolution, not the creation, of ATP. The entire paper supported the idea that it all evolved. That was what it was about Joe! How it evolved (the one I linked to anyway). Yet somehow in your mind that supports design? Whatever...Peter Griffin
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PST
Yup Behe accepts universal common descent. Unfortunately the same tests for it can be used to support a common design.
Aye, you say this a lot. An awful lot. Unfortunately, at the molecular level, this disintegrates. Commonality in every nook and cranny, in the hundreds of inversions and deletions and silent substitutions and synonymous sequences and untranscribed, unbound, phenotypically silent DNA? All there because it contributes to functional design in all the compared organisms? And yet resolves to a tree of phylogeny, as if to fool us? Do you actually think there is such a thing as nonfunctional DNA? Anywhere? Molecular systematists worldwide are crapping themselves that they've been rumbled by this bloke on the internet.Chas D
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PST
So there are multiple ways mutations accumulate. Tell me Joe, have we discovered all the ways that mutations interact or just some of them?Peter Griffin
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PST
I'm hesitant to point this out because I'm not a particularly qualified defender of ID. But ID is not cryptography. Design can be deliberately obscured to look like non-design, which may or may not be the case in your example. Yes, the purpose of ID is to distinguish between design and non-design. If your intent is to "fool" it by showing that it cannot distinguish between the two, then fool it into producing a false positive. I read earlier that ID is about "cause and effect." I'd hate to be the person defending that. Any implementation of intelligent design can have any number of causes. ID involves only one aspect of the cause, intelligent agency. If we say that ID is "cause and effect" then one could rightly ask what the cause for a given effect is. "Intelligence" is not a sufficient answer. ID identifies an ingredient, not the recipe. The counterargument is that one cannot identify a single ingredient without knowing the recipe or the source of the ingredient. In this case the ingredient in question, intelligence, is abstract. One could determine that a given alloy contains lead without first determining the source of the lead. It's not so simple when the ingredient is an abstract concept. (Am I wrong to say that? I hope not. But ID allows for intelligence while leaving its implementation unknown, which seems like the definition of abstract.) What is the issue? Is is whether "intelligence" is sufficiently well-defined that it carries weight even as an abstraction? What precedents exist? Is it not reasonable to say that identifying an instance of an abstraction is not the same as identifying its implementation? Isn't that solid reasoning for accepting the one and leaving the other as unknown/TBD? I'm not claiming to know the answer - just thinking aloud and putting my thoughts into words.ScottAndrews2
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PST
Helps what? ;) "When I was younger, so much younger than today-a-a I never needed anybody's help in any way"Joe
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PST
With respect to the OP and the artifacts: Why do I have to go there? I need to look up close, for signs of counterflow. However I am sure that is all in good hands. Peter:
On what specifically do you base that? Is blind belief that it is good enough for you? Personally I require a little more then that if I’m going to go around trying to sell that line to people.
Read the article linked in the OP. There are scientists investigating the site. - points and laughs-Joe
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PST
What you have seen are speculations based on the assumption. The "silence" refers to actual scientifically verifiable evidence.Joe
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PST
Perhaps you can find a reference to non-random mutations, which BTW, would support Dr Spetner's "non-random evolutionary hypothesis" put forth in his book "Not By Chance". So have at it- show us this reference that says genetic change is not random, not an accident, not an error nor a mistake. No one is going to believe you until you do. I provided my references and I can always get more.Joe
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PST
But, ask about say how the avian lung — a body plan level change — originated, we meet silence.
umm, I've seen replies to that question on this site, so that claim is demonstrably untrue - the record that contradicts you is right here, on this site ... simply ignoring, or refusing to look at things does not cause them to stop existing.GCUGreyArea
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PST
1 2 3 4 5 8

Leave a Reply