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
Peter, Regarding CSI and the explanatory filter, the following posts of mine might help: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-theres-no-such-thing-as-a-csi-scanner-or-reasonable-and-unreasonable-demands-relating-to-complex-specified-information/ https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/of-little-green-men-and-csi-lite/ I hope they convince you that CSI can be meaningfully calculated. See also this post by kairosfocus: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/is-the-csi-concept-well-founded-mathematically-and-can-it-be-applied-to-the-real-world-giving-real-and-useful-numbers/ I hope that helps.vjtorley
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT
Onlookers, observe the pattern of successive tangents that distract from a significant issue. To try to put this to bed, we may note that the Neo_darwinian synthesis views evolution as a cumulative process of descent with modification, based on chance variation [predominantly random mutastions] linked to differential reproductive success in niches. CV + DRS/"NS" so-called --> evo, cumulatively macro-evo. Various mechanisms of chance variation have b3en proposed, but all are non foresighted and all of them are supposed to create incremental advantages, at various levels of increment. In the actual empirical field, the observation has been fairly minor variations, assigned various taxonomic levels but up to say different beak sizes and shapes of finches, or circumpolar gulls, or red deer and north american elk. But, ask about say how the avian lung -- a body plan level change -- originated, we meet silence. But without this and similar explanations for other key organs, we do not have a cogent account of the origin of birds. And, this can be extended across the world of body plans, all the way back to the first ones, for cell based life. Where did the von Neumann self replicator with coded, stored string based information and algorithms with implementing machines, as well as metabolic machines for energy and components come from? Which BTW, also includes at some stage the ATP molecule and the synthase enzyme when we explain eukaryotes. No answer. Just, a priori materialism and just so stories with illustrations that do not substantiate the claims. And, coming back to focus, we have above a demo on just how we may distinguish agency and nature on empirical signs. So, do we see a serious response. No. As usual. KFkairosfocus
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT
Yup Behe accepts universal common descent. Unfortunately the same tests for it can be used to support a common design. 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. 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.Joe
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT
Hi OgreMk5, You set an interesting code challenge. I'm a bit busy at the moment, but here's what I've turned up. Conversion of binary to text yields the following: t6WPIczZTEVM5SDX. Qd4w sq8T1 SgbN zDpv0n iTLi3 AMS2Pk9te2T 4Ddc bj4 Tx L3Q52W7s 93t C8t9zRn AAZi 0KbLFnR kfBA N1u kG OyV8zT+p 4yo nr1RoDaK5R0. guPqUxM vItl 4+oHh he+nm8nNw fhxYsOtH6 9vUG1tIWY6TOb oZBo9 D4mn H/k cjyvK rZ7 HHxl rI1qVI/ A4V E6qH+WKmeh ftF'r/ DPR1Mn+ud1Q XpH Uq7rlHx, Ul5eB 8b+2 acKlD 6FUKETLRhCklu ecxqkCdF97 d6fEX 48VEBRe WfzWYKWy. 9wVd 34bj, ddH 8wuKzYBRiKv sXJI 2/S0S Nxh52v Icr Qu/vhD1 XXO1 Myjz9fp 8HZY 09Q2Q yOeGJQ 8Nk5zYBp mq0QpCbL4Q1, pbz M/W 1Mg/3SEUr4v E8R OxgY ddr/ Z6HYn6N bjO aqAGO H2uHS 1Hdl To3R3 Vc8sy hQM0 vX4Zg/ lb1 Rj5B 5Kj gYBcn1UHFU46 NHd Ti+G P3Y5Af. Text statistics: Friedman IC: 0.9891 Kappa-PT: 0.038 Words: 86 Upper Case: 197 Lower Case: 188 Numbers: 92 Spaces: 86 Newlines: 2 Symbols: 24 Other: 0 I went to http://smurfoncrack.com/pygenere/pygenere.php (Automatic Vigenère Decoder/Solver) This is what I got: I think the original codeword was "PCFQHMTZAZDRZVQX" I know very little about codes, so I'll let someone else run with the ball on this one.vjtorley
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT
Peter, The phrase "accumulations of random muations" includes all the ways they do so. It also includes all types of genetic changes. It is all inclusive. Ya see Peter, according to the theory of evolution all genetic changes are random in that they have no purpose and basically "just happen". OTOH Intelligent Design claims they are not and the bulk are most likely controlled by the cell's/ organism's internal program, much like programs control computers. Got that?Joe
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT
Peter, Natural selection is just one way mutations accumulate. And when I say "accumulations of random muations" that includes ALL of the ways they do so. Again, what is wrong with you? Muations are said to be random in that they are not planned and have no purpose in mind and don't even care if they kill their host. They just happen- and yes sometimes there are some things that make sure they happen (mutagens).Joe
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT
Peter:
Mutation, migration (gene flow), genetic drift.
Genetic drift is one way mutations accumulate. As is gene flow.
Variation, differential reproduction, and heredity result in evolution by natural selection.
That is another way mutations accumulate. Thank you for agreeing with what I said even though it is obvious that you think you refuted it somehow. And BTW I reject the theory of evolution due to a lack of scientifically verifiable evidence.Joe
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT
Onlookers, how this man and his ilk would love to be able to dismiss the well-warranted facts and figures in front of their eyes; in the teeth of the evident meaning of these, they wish to see meaninglessness. And, he should know that regardless of what others may do, two wrongs have never yet made a right. If Joe did something wrong to him, that does not excuse his doing something wrong to me, oreven back to Joe. That resistance to correction on basic civility is telling. Good day. KFkairosfocus
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT
Peter It appears you have failed your test. You appear unable to discover, understand or apply principles that are well known to those who study and photograph natural bridges and those who design and photograph engineered bridges. Here is a clue Natural bridges are formed by fluid erosion. Engineered bridges apply design methods that are detectable. Now lets see if you can apply high school physics. Alternatively, can you apply elementary school observation? e.g. take one hundred pairs of photos one each from "natural bridges" and from "engineered bridges." Then take a survey of one hundred elementary school children and ask them on each photo if it was natural or man made. Then compile the statistics. If elementary school children can do it, that may give a clue that you could learn to do it as well. Take the test and come back with the results. You might be surprised at the results!DLH
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT
Joe, Earlier you referenced "the theory of evolution" but now you are giving me quotes from all over the place. Could this mean that in fact there is no centralized "The book of the theory of evolution" at all? And it's sweet that your try and explain to me, via those quotes, how mutations come about and how they are really random, but that just provides yet more evidence for my contention that you are fixated on "random mutations" to the exclusion of anything else. There is much more to the theory of evolution then random mutations. There are many more mechanisms for change then random mutation. But I guess it's simpler just to concentrate on a single, relatively understandable, idea and hang onto that whatever comes. Yet you've been saying the same things over and over for years, and the world has moved on. In Darwin's day you would have been the worlds greatest expert on DNA, as nothing was known at all. Today? Not so much...Peter Griffin
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PDT
Joe,
Please reference the quote that says the authors believe it arose via accumulations of random mutations.
This is good evidence that in your mind the only mechanism of evolution that exists is "accumulations of random mutations" otherwise why insist on having that reference? Why mention it at all unless it's the only thing you really know? You simply don't understand what it is you think you understand about evolution. If you think that people are going round looking at biology and thinking "now how do I account for this solely in terms of random mutations" then you are sorely confused.Peter Griffin
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT
Joe, I'm not sure what you think you are proving. You've in fact just destroyed your own argument.
Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.
Your original claim was that the mechanism of evolution is random mutation. Now you are providing quotes that talk about selection? Why? You never mention selection at all, ever, except to say it's a tautology. Yet the scientist you've just quoted does not agree! So once again you use quotes from others to support your argument but ignore the fact that the quotes really undercut your argument. So Joe, for clarity, can you please provide a citation that shows that random mutations are the only mechanism of evolution.
IOW once again it appears that some/ most of the inernet poseurs don’t even understand their own position.
Yet it's not me making the claim that the be all and end all of evolution is random mutation. That would be you.Peter Griffin
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT
Joe, We both know there is more to it then that. Mutation, migration (gene flow), genetic drift. The random nature of genetic drift and the effects of a reduction in genetic variation; Variation, differential reproduction, and heredity result in evolution by natural selection. Different species can affect each other’s evolution through coevolution. To name just a few. I believe Allen MacNeill has a list of around 50.
Why was ID supplanted? Obviously it wasn’t in the minds of the majority…
No, only in the minds of those who make the effort to understand it without rejecting it out of hand because of religious reasons. Quite telling that...Peter Griffin
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT
Peter, There isn't anything in peer-review that demonstrates ATP synthase is reducible to matter, energy, chance and necessity. Nothing. There isn't anything in your citation that says "accumulations of random mutations didit"- there isn't even a testable hypothesis for the claim. -------------- {Joe see {snip} above - take a break - cool off - learn to control your language - stop abusive and ad hominem language DLH}Joe
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT
Joe, So when I ask how you've ruled out chance and necessity with regard to the origin of ATP you say:
Biologists have- just read the peer-review- or lack thereof, duh.
So please provide a quote that supports your claim! There is plenty of research into the evolutionary origins of ATP, for example:
Heterotrophic organisms generally face a trade-off between rate and yield of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) production. This trade-off may result in an evolutionary dilemma, because cells with a higher rate but lower yield of ATP production may gain a selective advantage when competing for shared energy resources. Using an analysis of model simulations and biochemical observations, we show that ATP production with a low rate and high yield can be viewed as a form of cooperative resource use and may evolve in spatially structured environments. Furthermore, we argue that the high ATP yield of respiration may have facilitated the evolutionary transition from unicellular to undifferentiated multicellular organisms.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/292/5516/504.abstract I'm sure you'll have some spurious reason, without even reading the paper itself, as to why it's invalid or why it in fact supports design (despite the fact it's unambiguously about the evolution of ATP). But the 400 odd citations to that paper would appear to undercut that particular response. Got any similar published papers regarding the Intelligent Design of ATP?Peter Griffin
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT
What Causes Mutations?:
Mutations in DNA sequences generally occur through one of two processes: 1. DNA damage from environmental agents such as ultraviolet light (sunshine), nuclear radiation or certain chemicals 2. Mistakes that occur when a cell copies its DNA in preparation for cell division.
Causes of Mutations:
1. DNA fails to copy accurately Most of the mutations that we think matter to evolution are "naturally-occurring." For example, when a cell divides, it makes a copy of its DNA — and sometimes the copy is not quite perfect. That small difference from the original DNA sequence is a mutation. 2. External influences can create mutations Mutations can also be caused by exposure to specific chemicals or radiation. These agents cause the DNA to break down. This is not necessarily unnatural — even in the most isolated and pristine environments, DNA breaks down. Nevertheless, when the cell repairs the DNA, it might not do a perfect job of the repair. So the cell would end up with DNA slightly different than the original DNA and hence, a mutation.
DNA Replication and Causes of Mutation:
DNA replication is a truly amazing biological phenomenon. Consider the countless number of times that your cells divide to make you who you are—not just during development, but even now, as a fully mature adult. Then consider that every time a human cell divides and its DNA replicates, it has to copy and transmit the exact same sequence of 3 billion nucleotides to its daughter cells. Finally, consider the fact that in life (literally), nothing is perfect. While most DNA replicates with fairly high fidelity, mistakes do happen, with polymerase enzymes sometimes inserting the wrong nucleotide or too many or too few nucleotides into a sequence. Fortunately, most of these mistakes are fixed through various DNA repair processes. Repair enzymes recognize structural imperfections between improperly paired nucleotides, cutting out the wrong ones and putting the right ones in their place. But some replication errors make it past these mechanisms, thus becoming permanent mutations. These altered nucleotide sequences can then be passed down from one cellular generation to the next, and if they occur in cells that give rise to gametes, they can even be transmitted to subsequent organismal generations. Moreover, when the genes for the DNA repair enzymes themselves become mutated, mistakes begin accumulating at a much higher rate. In eukaryotes, such mutations can lead to cancer. (bold added)
? And finally: The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity- Nobel Laureates Iinitiative September 9, 2005
Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.
IOW once again it appears that some/ most of the inernet poseurs don't even understand their own position. It looks like IU teaches a strawman version:
Biological Evolution is essentially the process whereby new species arise from earlier species by accumulated changes. IU
Joe
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT
Peter, Stop with your false accusations. You cannot produce anything taht says the theory of evolution has other mechanisms besides accumulations of random mutations. Why was ID supplanted? Obviously it wasn't in the minds of the majority...Joe
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
05:46 AM
5
05
46
AM
PDT
Peter:
Not according to the authors, who I suspect know a bit more about it then you.
Please reference the quote that says the authors believe it arose via accumulations of random mutations.
As your understanding of what evolution actually proposes seems to both start and end with that concept then I guess you need to study some more, nothing I can say will matter if your actual knowledge is so diminutive.
Seeing that you cannot produce anything that refutes my claim and I have produced support for my claim, it is clear you are lying/ bluffing. And those biologists cannot support their claims. Go figure...Joe
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
05:44 AM
5
05
44
AM
PDT
Joe,
Your position doesn’t have any evidence for its claims. So stuff it.
That's because the "claims" you think are being made are in fact figments of your imagination (such as it is). So let's get this straight. ID was the default worldview for thousands of years and then an idea comes along with no evidential support whatsoever (according to you) and promptly supplants ID as the default. Why?Peter Griffin
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT
It’s your own words! You’ve said quite plainly that knocking down Darwinism supports ID!
I said it is key to the design inference and explained why. What is wrong with you?
And how have you ruled out chance and necessity with regard to ATP?
Biologists have- just read the peer-review- or lack thereof, duh.Joe
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT
Joe,
The evidence points to design, Peter. The EVIDENCE in those papers.
Not according to the authors, who I suspect know a bit more about it then you.
Notice there isn’t anything in any peer-reviewed paper taht supports accumulations of random mutations didit.
As your understanding of what evolution actually proposes seems to both start and end with that concept then I guess you need to study some more, nothing I can say will matter if your actual knowledge is so diminutive.
So by your “logic” your position has absolutely nothing.
Except the suport of 99.9% of all working biologists and a few dozen peer reviewed papers a day.Peter Griffin
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT
Joe,
If that is what you infer then you are a dolt.
It's your own words! You've said quite plainly that knocking down Darwinism supports ID! What did you mean then, if I've misunderstood you?
Newton’s First Rule MANDATES that chance and/ or necessity be ruled out before even considering a design inference. And seeing taht your position is nothing but chance and/ or necessity it fits in with what I said.
And how have you ruled out chance and necessity with regard to ATP? Show your working!Peter Griffin
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT
Stonehenge- no one knew humans did it until after many, many years of investigation. And we still don’t know for sure.
Really? Citation please.
Really, Google Stonehenge and start reading
“We have determined that agency was involved in the murder, but it’s a particular type of agency that is immune to further investigation so we’ll just leave it at that”.
Nice strawman.
It’s no strawman. In an arson investigation when a suspect is identified that suspect is investigated.
Not every murder or arson has a supect that can be investigated. You have to first determine murder or arson BEFORE looking for a suspect, duh.Joe
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT
Peter:
Your delusion that lack of support for A provides support for B is, as ever, vastly amusing.
{snip} Newton's First Rule MANDATES that chance and/ or necessity be ruled out before even considering a design inference. And seeing taht your position is nothing but chance and/ or necessity it fits in with what I said. ------------------ Joe - exercise patience or take a break. DLHJoe
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
05:34 AM
5
05
34
AM
PDT
Joe,
Stonehenge- no one knew humans did it until after many, many years of investigation. And we still don’t know for sure.
Really? Citation please.
Nice strawman.
It's no strawman. In an arson investigation when a suspect is identified that suspect is investigated. You can't do that with ID can you? So how it is a strawman?Peter Griffin
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT
Peter, Your position doesn't have any evidence for its claims. {snip Lay off the abuse DLH} Joe
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
05:31 AM
5
05
31
AM
PDT
Joe,
The design inference does NOT prevent anyone from trying to determine who, how, when or where. Dembski says this in “No Free Lunch”.
And what have you discovered so far?
The same stuff I have already told you- namely that chance and/ or necessity cannot produce it and it meets the design criteria.
So presumably you have a complete knowledge of physics in order to be able to make this determination? What is gravity Joe?
IOW the lack of evidence for your position is key in the design inference and that bothers you. Good.
Your delusion that lack of support for A provides support for B is, as ever, vastly amusing. Tell me Joe, why is B special? Why cant B provide it's own positive evidence?Peter Griffin
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PDT
Peter, I posted the evidence on my blog.
That’s not from “the theory of evolution”, that’s quote from a single person.
A claim of an expert. And you are absolutely nothing.
Please provide evidence that “evolution” mandates that the sole mechanism of evolution is “accumulations of random mutations”.
Ask dawkins. Ask Coyne. Ask any evolutionary biologist. So what else isd there Peter? Please provide any citation that refutes my claim.Joe
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
05:29 AM
5
05
29
AM
PDT
Joe, You don't *get* published unless you provide evidence for your claims. That's kinda the whole point of it. It's also why ID supporters write so many books. Books don't have to pass peer review. You don't have to allow others to examine your evidence in a book.Peter Griffin
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PDT
And Christian de Duve must also be pushing a strawman:
A majority of biologists subscribe in one form or another to the main tenets of the theory, first proposed by Charles Darwin, that biological evolution is the outcome of accidentally arising genetic variations passively screened by natural selection according to the ability of the variants to survive and reproduce progeny under prevailing environmental conditions.- Christian de Duve in Mysteries of Life: Is there “Something Else”?
Joe
January 18, 2012
January
01
Jan
18
18
2012
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 6 8

Leave a Reply