Man-ape chasm of differences

_{Caspian
November 24, 2022

Intelligent Design

2}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Michael Egnor, Professor of Neurosurgery, writes:

Sumatran_Orangutan_at_the_Toronto_Zoo (1).jpg — *Image credit: John Vetterli (originally posted to Flickr as Sumatran Orangutan) [CC BY-SA 2.0], via Wikimedia Commons.*

Human beings have mental powers that include the material mental powers of animals but in addition entail a profoundly different kind of thinking. Human beings think abstractly, and nonhuman animals do not. Human beings have the power to contemplate universals, which are concepts that have no material instantiation. Human beings think about mathematics, literature, art, language, justice, mercy, and an endless library of abstract concepts. Human beings are rational animals.

Human rationality is not merely a highly evolved kind of animal perception. Human rationality is qualitatively different — ontologically different — from animal perception. Human rationality is different because it is immaterial. Contemplation of universals cannot have material instantiation, because universals themselves are not material and cannot be instantiated in matter.,,,
It is a radical difference — an immeasurable qualitative difference, not a quantitative difference.

We are more different from apes than apes are from viruses. Our difference is a metaphysical chasm.,,, Systems of taxonomy that emphasize physical and genetic similarities and ignore the fact that human beings are partly immaterial beings who are capable of abstract thought and contemplation of moral law and eternity are pitifully inadequate to describe man.
The assertion that man is an ape is self-refuting. We could not express such a concept, misguided as it is, if we were apes and not men.
See full article at Evolution News.

Thanks to “bornagain77” for referencing this article.

Comments

@ KF You omitted a couple of pivotal facts. 1. The process of selection. Evolution is more than blind chance. 2. Evolution is not a search. Organisms can function with adequate systems. Variation that happens to have improved function in a particular niche can be selected for. "One in a gazillion" is not a realistic model of evolution.Alan Fox_{November 28, 2022
November
11
Nov
28
28
2022
11:17 PM
11
11
17
PM
PDT}

Alan Fox, first of all, i found out, that it is not entirely true that Dawkins does not say much these day. He is repeating the same "bad design" claims to these days. So lets start with this classic one it is 3 minutes long (from 2021) "The Laryngeal Nerve is obviously bad design" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OptJMRj8z-E And another classic - backwardly wired retina, 3 minutes video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pE_jHzmj3kQ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ----> But the following video is the best one i have ever seen with Dawkins ... it is only 5 minutes, and it is a sum up of various Dawkins claims on design in biology. If you look at this video, and if you would not know who Dawkins is, you may think, that he is a creationists/ID proponent. 2 Top claims (from the video, you have to see it with your own eyes to believe): R. Dawkins
An organism is a survival MACHINE for self-replicating coded information
R. Dawkins
Biology has turned into computer science
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prFZTMIKOi4 PS1: Alan, you said, you don't like the organism-machine analogy. You must be something special ... Even Dawkins sees the analogy ... PS2: and now Alan, it is time to get back to D-K effect ....martin_r_{November 28, 2022
November
11
Nov
28
28
2022
11:12 PM
11
11
12
PM
PDT}

Q, a very good approach to science is, that it is reverse engineering nature, identifying how it was put together so how it works. It's not just ID. KFkairosfocus_{November 28, 2022
November
11
Nov
28
28
2022
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT}

SG [attn AF], gaslighting on a turnabout projection. We do routinely observe intelligently directed configuration producing FSCO/I beyond 500 - 1,000 bits; many comments in this thread are cases in point, i.e. ASCII text beyond 72 - 143 characters. By contrast, as you evade constantly, blind chance and/or mechanical necessity have never been observed doing same. Also, molecular nanotech labs doing engineering of DNA, per Venter et al are observed facts. Further to this the search challenge of FSCO/I is not touched by appealing to the ocean. Take the low end, a sol system of 10^57 atoms, 10^17 s, give each a tray of 500 coins, or equivalently a paramagnetic substance with that many cells. Toss 10^14 times/s. That gives 5*10^90 samples for the space of 500 bits, which has 3.27*10^150 possibilities. Negligible sample to space. For 10^80 atoms and 1,000 bits, it is much worse. It remains, that there is no plausible blind mechanism to generate FSCO/I of relevant complexity and appeals to an imagined earlier architecture of life simply compound the speculations. You are already challenged to acknowledge the common fact that just right components have to be present, arranged and coupled on a correct wiring diagram with relatively small wiggle room to work, i.e. fine tuning and islands of function in seas of non function are observed realities. That's before we notice how readily degraded or subject to cross reactions etc such energetic molecules are. But then, the point is to see just how strained the OoL proposals on the table are, not to expect admission of same. KFkairosfocus_{November 28, 2022
November
11
Nov
28
28
2022
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT}

Intelligent Design is identifying complex biological engineering.
If true, this should be headline news. Tell me more. Which ID researcher is doing this important work? Is there a published paper I can read?Alan Fox_{November 28, 2022
November
11
Nov
28
28
2022
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT}

Notice how he ignored my challenge to explain how dyneins “musta” evolved?
*chuckles* I didn't know anything about dyneins and kinesins and their role in mitosis till glancing at Wikipedia. Seems there is still much that is unknown. How did Querius learn of dyneins, I wonder. I bet it wasn't from ID research papers.Alan Fox_{November 28, 2022
November
11
Nov
28
28
2022
02:38 PM
2
02
38
PM
PDT}

PM1 at 134, Forget about the ism's. Intelligent Design is identifying complex biological engineering. That's what ID is all about. And this level of engineering cannot be created by blind, unguided chance.relatd_{November 28, 2022
November
11
Nov
28
28
2022
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT}

Thanks, Asauber, but his meaning is obviously obfuscation and evasion. I can't pry his hands off his eyes when he claims he can't see. Of course YouTube videos are actually videos rather than chemistry, but the models are reasonable facsimiles of what the molecules look like and how they behave in real time. They are extremely advanced chemical machinery, called nanomachines. Yes, machines. Engineers know about machines, machine code, and machine design. Notice how he ignored my challenge to explain how dyneins "musta" evolved? And considering the role of DNA in biological organisms, when do you suppose the dyneins first evolved and from what? Random chance maybe? -QQuerius_{November 28, 2022
November
11
Nov
28
28
2022
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT}

@ Andrew No. My position is that regarding the chemistry in biological systems as akin to engineered design is a misleadingly poor analogy.Alan Fox_{November 28, 2022
November
11
Nov
28
28
2022
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT}

AF, I thought your meaning was that there is either chemistry or engineering. Andrewasauber_{November 28, 2022
November
11
Nov
28
28
2022
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT}

“Chemical engineering is applied chemistry. It is the branch of engineering concerned with the design, construction, and operation of machines and plants that perform chemical reactions to solve practical problems or make useful products.”
And the relevance is what exactly, Andrew?Alan Fox_{November 28, 2022
November
11
Nov
28
28
2022
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT}

AF, "Chemical engineering is applied chemistry. It is the branch of engineering concerned with the design, construction, and operation of machines and plants that perform chemical reactions to solve practical problems or make useful products." Andrewasauber_{November 28, 2022
November
11
Nov
28
28
2022
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT}

As to Lents, here is a 2021 lecture, from the video description...
In what way is the passage you quote a comment on design/engineering? I don't see itAlan Fox_{November 28, 2022
November
11
Nov
28
28
2022
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT}

He [Dawkins] did comment on design/engineering in the past.
Give me an example, then, if you prefer.Alan Fox_{November 28, 2022
November
11
Nov
28
28
2022
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT}

Have to ask, Querius, where the basic facts are coming from? The results of research of mainstream science, I suggest. You seem to want to spin those facts to tell an engineering story. I don't think it's warranted and I don't think you succeed.Alan Fox_{November 28, 2022
November
11
Nov
28
28
2022
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT}

Alan Fox, Dawkins doesn't say much these days, but he did say lots of things in the past and published several books. He did comment on design/engineering in the past. I don't get what you are trying to say... As to Lents, here is a 2021 lecture, from the video description:
We humans like to think of ourselves as highly evolved creatures, but if we are supposedly evolution’s greatest creation, why do we have such bad knees? Why do we catch head colds so often—two hundred times more often than a dog does? How come our wrists have so many useless bones? Why is the vast majority of our genetic code pointless? And are we really supposed to swallow and breathe through the same narrow tube? Surely there’s been some kind of mistake. As professor of biology, Nathan H. Lents explains how our evolutionary history is nothing if not a litany of mistakes, a big pile of compromises. But that's also a testament to our greatness -- humans have so many design flaws precisely because we are very, very good at getting around them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chdXO_Bxdf8martin_r_{November 28, 2022
November
11
Nov
28
28
2022
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT}

Looks like engineering to me!
:) It's chemistry, in reality. Whilst Veritasium make very good videos, these are pitched at a popular audience. The animations are models, not reality.Alan Fox_{November 28, 2022
November
11
Nov
28
28
2022
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT}

Alan Fox @141,
My position that evolutionary theory is the only credible, consilient set of overlapping explanations for the biological reality that we see? I don’t need to reinvent the wheel. There’s a mountain of evidence and libraries full of literature.
So how did dynein motors evolve? (https://youtu.be/X_tYrnv_o6A?t=275) Functions and mechanics of dynein motor proteins https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3972880/ But there's some good news. You don't have to answer the question for free. You can receive a US $10,000,000 prize! https://www.herox.com/evolution2.0 I highly enjoyed Perry Marshall's book, Evolution 2.0. You might, too. https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-2-0-Breaking-Deadlock-Between/dp/1944648755/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1669666999&sr=8-2 -QQuerius_{November 28, 2022
November
11
Nov
28
28
2022
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT}

Looks like engineering to me!
:) It's chemistry, in reality.Alan Fox_{November 28, 2022
November
11
Nov
28
28
2022
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT}

But you must remember how DNA works and mRNA synthesizes proteins, right?
It's the ribosome that brings everything together.
No, there aren’t any tiny workers on a production line, but there is a line of amino acids.
Well no there isn't a line of amino acids either. Assembly of proteins depends on collisions between aminoacyl RNA transferases and the ribosome active site.Alan Fox_{November 28, 2022
November
11
Nov
28
28
2022
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT}

Alan Fox @139,
…in an aqueous medium.
Yes, and chemical reactions also occur in gaseous and solid media.
But there’s no production line, no assembly process.
But you must remember how DNA works and mRNA synthesizes proteins, right? No, there aren't any tiny workers on a production line, but there is a line of amino acids. A lot of new insights have been discovered since you studied biochemistry many years ago! Take a look at this terrific video: Your Body's Molecular Machines (6:20 minutes) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_tYrnv_o6A Looks like engineering to me! -QQuerius_{November 28, 2022
November
11
Nov
28
28
2022
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT}

...biologists Dawkins and Lents commenting on design/engineering...
Dawkins doesn't say much publicly these days. Give me an example of Nathan Lents commenting on "design/engineering" so I'm clear on what you mean.Alan Fox_{November 28, 2022
November
11
Nov
28
28
2022
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT}

What’s the point of your posts if you are unwilling or unable to support your position?
I am a long-time lurker here and former contributor. I even wrote a guest post here once. Random variation in moderation policy has at times prevented me from posting and allowed me to contribute at other times including currently. I was prompted to reregister here on seeing JVL being stalked by Upright Biped and thinking JVL needed a bit of support. Why I stick around now? Amusement? Inertia? Ego? I've given up on anyone presenting a convincing case for "Intelligent Design". Regarding my position? My position that evolutionary theory is the only credible, consilient set of overlapping explanations for the biological reality that we see? I don't need to reinvent the wheel. There's a mountain of evidence and libraries full of literature. Though the basic concept of evolution is so simple, anyone should be able to grasp it. I do pick up on the straw man misrepresentations that keep popping up in comments here but it is a bit of a thankless task. I feel like Sisyphus sometimes.Alan Fox_{November 28, 2022
November
11
Nov
28
28
2022
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT}

Alan Fox i am trying to understand (but it is really hard), what has yours:
I don’t accept the equivalence between biological systems and machinery. It’s a very poor analogy,
to do with the fact, that biologists Dawkins and Lents commenting on design/engineering. Could you clarify ?martin_r_{November 28, 2022
November
11
Nov
28
28
2022
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT}

Each of these chemical pathways involve physical interaction between molecules.
...in an aqueous medium. And biochemical reactions happen when molecules collide. Enzymes act as marriage brokers, introducing reactants to each other, which results in faster reactions. But there's no production line, no assembly process. What drives reactions in, say, the Krebs (citric acid) cycle is removal of products, preventing a reaction from reaching equilibrium. I spent three years a long while ago studying biochemistry at undergraduate level.Alan Fox_{November 28, 2022
November
11
Nov
28
28
2022
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT}

PyrrhoManiac1 @134,
The job of theoretical biology is to explore the conceptual foundations of biology, which is what we’re talking about here. The question is whether reductionism or organicism is a better conceptual framework in which to do biology and biomedical science. I think ID is mistaken because it assumes reductionism.
Sadly, though perhaps mercifully, the paper is behind a $20 paywall. Reading the abstract leaves me with some concerns. The science of physics starts from a reductionist base rather than some organic emergence reminiscent of Greek philosophy that perfection in circularity is intrinsic to the (emergent organic) nature of celestial objects. While reductionism must always adapt to increasingly finer adjustments (the orbit of Mercury being a "stellar" example), emergent organic explanations are immune from scientific experimentation and are reminiscent of Von Helmont's celebrated experiment. You might argue along with Michael Behe that some systems are irreducibly complex. This might indeed be the case, but I'd imagine you'd hardly be an advocate for Dr. Behe. Right? -QQuerius_{November 28, 2022
November
11
Nov
28
28
2022
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT}

Alan Fox @135, Sorry about the link not working in the UK. Here's an excerpt to make my point:
Now there are approximately 1300 enzymes found in the human cell and each of these enzymes are coded by a different gene. Metabolism takes place when these enzymes work synchronously resulting in chemical reactions taking place at the rate of 37 thousand billion times billion per second in the human body. Enzymes play a critical role as they are the only ones who are capable of making small minute changes to a molecular layer by either breaking a bond or making a bond. Types Of Biochemical Pathways . . . Anabolic Pathways It is a biosynthetic pathway wherein energy is required to form bonds. The pools of reactants, intermediates and products are jointly called metabolites. The chemical reactions occurring are concerned with building up or production of larger, complex macromolecules from simpler micro molecules. A typical example is the synthesis of sugar (glucose from CO2 and H2O). Other examples include synthesis of fatty acids from acetyl CoA, synthesis of larger proteins from amino acid building blocks, and synthesis of new DNA strands from nucleotides. These reactions constantly take place in the cell and are critical to the survival of the cell. These reactions demand the input of energy which is provided by adenosine triphosphate (ATP) and other high energy molecules such as nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NADH) and nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate (NADPH). The up taken energy will be stored in the C-C bond of larger molecules. List of examples for major anabolic pathways: - Photosynthesis (synthesis of glucose from CO2 and H2O) - Pentose phosphate pathway (synthesis of pentoses and release of reducing the power needed for anabolic reactions) - Gluconeogenesis (synthesis of glucose from non-carbohydrate sources, mainly used by the brain) - Protein Biosynthesis - Fatty acid synthesis - Glycogenesis (synthesis of glycogen primarily from glucose occurs in liver and muscle) . . .
Additionally, there are also catabolic pathways and amphibolic pathways. Hopefully, you get the idea. Each of these chemical pathways involve physical interaction between molecules. It's extremely complex, but not magic. Science cannot study magic. @132,
Reverse engineering is a respectable process. ID, not a process at all, more of a scam.
Why do you resort to plastering the discussion with unsupported assertions? "ID is similar to reverse engineering." "No, it's a scam." "No, it's not" "Yes, it is." "No, it's not" "Yes, it is." etc. What's the point of your posts if you are unwilling or unable to support your position? -QQuerius_{November 28, 2022
November
11
Nov
28
28
2022
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77 @116,
But there are better reasons for us to be wary of the machine metaphor than wanting to keep intelligent design out of classroom. Eighteenth-century German philosopher Immanuel Kant pointed out that a machine is organized by an external agent from the outside in, while a living thing organizes itself from the inside out. Kant wrote that a living thing “is then not a mere machine, for that has merely moving power, but it possesses in itself formative power of a self-propagating kind which it communicates to its materials though they have it not of themselves; it organizes them.”
While there's no question that Kant was brilliant, he did not have any idea of DNA, biochemistry, ribosomes, etc. The machines he was familiar with were fairly simple. The epitome of mechanical complexity in his day were pocket watches. And yes, those pocket watches were designed by an external agent. However, not knowing the mechanical nature of how molecules bond together and that biochemistry is mechanical and physical at its core (this is how drug companies experiment with drugs using software), he recognized a fundamental difference in cellular processes of metabolism, reproduction, growth, defense (immune response), and repair as completely different. They are different, but it's a matter of size, scale, complexity, interaction, and most importantly INFORMATION. -QQuerius_{November 28, 2022
November
11
Nov
28
28
2022
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT}

Do you have any idea of the number of biochemical cycles in cells? Do you know how many enzymes operate in a cell?
Probably better than you judging by previous experience. Your link doesn't work for me (I'm in the EU).Alan Fox_{November 28, 2022
November
11
Nov
28
28
2022
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT}

@127
There are no experimental results that falsify the mechanical duplication of DNA molecules, protein molecules, the mechanical (in physical chemistry) operation of the ADP-ATP cycles as well as a vast number of other cycles.
The job of theoretical biology is to explore the conceptual foundations of biology, which is what we're talking about here. The question is whether reductionism or organicism is a better conceptual framework in which to do biology and biomedical science. I think ID is mistaken because it assumes reductionism.PyrrhoManiac1_{November 28, 2022
November
11
Nov
28
28
2022
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 10 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply