The best evidence against intelligent design of life is the fact that we pewp.

@PathwayMachine LOL, you actually took his thread seriously?

@MoveAlong Seriously?

@PathwayMachine there are some good points in there, but before I go into that:

Why are you tagging @Elessar?
Where are these quotes coming from?
What does this have to do with creation not being nearly as perfect as the Bible claims?

@NerdyPotato [Laughs] Okay. Yeah. Well, as it turns out, for some inexplicable reason while I was posting that response the MACHINE took me to this thread instead of the one my response was intended for. This one https://similarworlds.com/atheism/5394268-What-is-atheism-Think-carefully .

But, since I'm here, where is creation not being nearly as perfect as the Bible claims? If, uh, if that hasn't already been established.

[Sigh]

@PathwayMachine my post speaks for itself on that.

@NerdyPotato Excrement! Yes.

Well, perfection is subjective, isn't it. You may be able to come up with a perfect system in concept but I don't think you can implement it.

@PathwayMachine not as a human, but if I couldn't implement it as an all powerful being, I wouldn't be all powerful. And if I make something and think I could have done 10 times better with more resources, skills, time or whatever, I wouldn't call it perfect. Yet the Bible does claim the whole universe was perfect.

@NerdyPotato That sounds like it might make sense. Let's kick it around - maybe poke it repeatedly with a sharp object, like number 2 pencil.

First of all, how can we propose to know what such an all knowing, all powerful entity could and couldn't do. It's kind of like "Christians" who describe what heaven is like. It's always what they say it is, not what its creator says it is. Secondly what evidence, aside from the pagan inspired superstitious and ignorant believer would propose, that the alleged being is in fact all knowing, all powerful, etc.

I can answer that for you. The creator in question, specifically Jehovah of the Bible, isn't, according to that Bible, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent or omnibenevolent. All of that is religious nonsense. In fact the Bible presents the opposite.

Another point, from the Biblical perspective, is that perfection doesn't mean what we think of as perfection. Perfection in the Bible means having great potential. Adam and Eve, for example, were not created perfect in the sense that they couldn't get any better, but rather, in that they were going to get better. They had that potential.

This means two possible things in this context. Either the bothersome bodily movements in question may improve or would have degraded to their current messy state due to sin. You would think that evolution would have produced a more elegant solution, huh?

Anyway. There it is.

@PathwayMachine That's definitely true, for all those omni-things. It's claimed, but then his actions are described and almost every single story shows there's many things he doesn't know, places where he's not present, things he can't do and where he's pure evil. If we'd apply "actions speak louder than words" to the biblical god the same way we do it to fellow humans, nobody would touch him with a ten foot pole.

We're very, very far from perfection though. Is this like a trillion year plan to reach our potential or something?

No, because elegance or perfection is not expected from a series of coincidences. It's already amazing we got something that barely works through that process, but for an intelligent and all powerful creator, this would be the very bare minimum.

@PathwayMachine
Because evolution isn't trying to solve a problem

@PathwayMachine
It's inherent in the term 'all powerful', because that's an absolute. It either is, or it isn't.

@PathwayMachine
Evolution has no use for perfection, simply because evolution has no goal. It's not teleological. It's not trying to get somewhere, so there can be no 'ideal' outcome.

The sole outcome is that genes either replicate or they do not. If they do, then Natural Selection works to decide whether those replicated genes will, themselves, get to replicate. Rinse and repeat. Over and over and over...

No ideal anything... just good enough for now

@newjaninev2
That would depend on context. If someone believes the failed metaphysical experiment of anything evolving into something else, that was trying to solve the problem of clerical authority. You see, atheism is a sociopolitical frustration with a quasi-theocratic society.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MgBekMGc-U

@newjaninev2
Isn't.

@newjaninev2
You mean - perfect?

@PathwayMachine Let's be clear... are you talking about evolution or about atheism (two separate topics)

@PathwayMachine Evolution is change in the frequency and distribution of individual alleles.

Nothing more and nothing less.

In what way is that a 'metaphysical experiment'?

@PathwayMachine No. As I said in that comment, evolution has no goal. It's not teleological. It's not trying to get somewhere, so there can be no 'ideal' outcome.

No ideal outcome = no way to either define or assess perfection

@newjaninev2 Yes, let's be clear. There are many types of evolution. Evolution, things evolving, changing, isn't contrary to the Bible. We observe this in nature. Evolution that proposes that something can become something else, like humans from a "common ancestor" that we have no idea of, is not even really speculation, it certainly isn't observable. It has NEVER been observed. That is against the Bible. Though developing in ancient Greek philosophy in the modern sense it is simply propaganda of atheism, a cultural experiment to cast doubt on the clerical authority. Atheism is nothing more than a sociopolitical frustration with a pseudo-theocratic society. It's all about control. It has nothing to do with God, the Bible, or even religion. That's why you are always downplaying gods and the Bible. As if they were nothing. Not really a good or scientific strategy. You won't debate outside of science and diminishing gods and the Bible.

@PathwayMachine
No, evolution is a singular process... change in the frequency and distribution of individual alleles. The word 'evolution' is often used loosely and incorrectly as a synonym for 'change' or 'development', etc, but that's merely lazy thinking.


Do you understand that's not what the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection says? One species doesn't 'turn into' another species.

If you doubt common ancestry, perhaps you'd like to examine some of the evidence? I'd be very happy to share some with you


So what?


What authority?


Do you think there's a group of atheists somewhere manipulating society? Really? I'm now annoyed that they haven't invited me along to their meetings.


I frankly don't care what people say or think about their gods or their books about gods... for me it is a matter of complete indifference so long as they don't try to influence my society and how I live.

@newjaninev2
Ahh . . . genetics. Racism?

Alleles - I was just thinking that the other day. It's so obvious, isn't it. You know, as someone who has been doing this a long time there are two types of people I try to avoid, I think because I quickly learned it's best to do that. Religious people who embrace being religious and irreligious people who embrace being irreligious. The distinction is merely ideological but their methodology is the same. They are insane. And I think they know it and so they are looking for someone else who shares their particular brand of insanity. This is, perhaps, problematic only in two respects. First we are all insane and secondly we are all insane in our own unique individual ways.

How do I know you aren't a lunatic and these alleles of which you speak aren't some goofy imaginary aspect of your particular brand of insanity. You know, like crystals or Tupperware.


There's a common human trait, isn't it. Laziness. Often appearing with stupid.


Of course I do! That's why I said it. Sorry, I was being sarcastic. I actually have no idea what that is any more than I have what theology is. Theory, theology. Apples, oranges. Bananas as well. Just alleles. Acting up again. I couldn't help but notice that you said "Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection" all capitalized and shit. Like "God is in Heaven and the Angels are with Him." Always a red flag for me. I think that comes from editing and proofreading Asian philosophical and quasi-sacred texts. I know what you're thinking. Grammar. Everything has a Particular Significance that must be Capitalized to stress importance within a specific or particular brand of batshit. Laziness. think nothing of it. PLEASE.



What, specifically, is a species? Or rather, contextually, what do you think a species is. Because that could be the same as the word God. Used differently by each individual.


Would you really? ! How generous of you. I actually enjoy learning about other people's insanity. My website pathwaymachine.com, you've probably seen it advertised in all of the science journals, is all about that very thing. Why not? I'm game.


Exactly!


The one to which they so desperately cleaved just prior to the industrial revolution or age of enlightenment. And rightly so, if you ask me, Mrs. Richards. On the other hand, meet the new boss, same as the old boss as they say. I personally think it's all a part of God's plan. Like sin and death. Well, a part of sin and death - I mean, organized religious authority was bad enough but science is potentially much more destructive. Sure, religion brought us the inquisition, crusades, public education, science, Christmas and Easter. All bad enough, but science itself has poisoned our air, water, land, food, medicine, children and minds. Not to mention biological and chemical warfare. Science and religion. Neither as much a pain in the ass without government. That societal influence you so hypocritically referred to earlier.

Think about it. If gods don't exist that would mean they were created by atheists.


Yes.


Yes. They are called, sardonically, Dumacrats. They have most of the capital and they are particularly and excessively insane, I hear. Not unlike the Repugnicans or Cheesus.


Don't be. Or at least I wouldn't be. But then I'm irreligious as well as apolitical. Which is kind of cool if you think about. I like to think so.


There, you see?! We have something in common. I don't want "Christianity," "Judaism," "Science," or "Dumocracy" influencing my society as well, but unfortunately there's that particular brand of insanity people insist on sharing I referred to earlier.

Not alleles, though, go ahead with your instructions.

@PathwayMachine
No, why on Earth would you think that? There’s no genetic basis for the concept of race. In fact, the concept of race exists merely to allow racists to exist.



That’s because the term is unique and specific such as to qualify as a proper noun. Nothing to do with particular significance… just basic english grammar.

“If you doubt common ancestry, perhaps you'd like to examine some of the evidence?”



Well, if you’re all done wading through your own stream of consciousness…

All species carry ‘silenced’ genes… these are genes that once caused certain proteins to be produced, but now no longer function in the original manner. Such genes are called pseudogenes.

Nearly all mammals have functional genes for expressing an enzyme (L-guluno-γ-lactone oxidase) that allows the production of vitamin C, which is essential for proper metabolism.

I say ‘nearly all mammals’ because primates cannot produce their own vitamin C. In humans, there is a set of four genes that code for vitamin C production. As you may know, these genes are composed of many, many smaller units called nucleotides, so these four genes contain a very large number of such nucleotides (the human genome has 64 billion nucleotides}. The first three genes are fully functional, but the final gene in the sequence has a mutation in a single nucleotide, and this mutation prevents the sequence from completing. That’s why humans need to obtain vitamin C from their food… because the mechanism for producing it has become a pseudogene.

Across all primates (chimpanzees, bononbo, humans, and apes) not only is it the final gene in the sequence that is silenced, but within that gene the same nucleotide carries the mutation that is responsible.

Now, why would this be?

1. astonishing coincidence

2. when the gods created all the species they put genetic pathways for vitamin C production into all mammals, but then inactivated a single nucleotide from among the four genes necessary for that production, inactivated the same nucleotide in all cases, and did that only in primates. They obviously thought this to be a tremendous joke to play, because we carry around 2,000 such pseudogenes.

3. All mammals developed the ability to produce vitamin C, but around 40 million years ago, in the ancestor common to all primates, that ability was removed by a mutation in a single nucleotide, and the deficit was passed to all primates due to common descent during evolution.

What's your choice? Or, better yet, perhaps you have a different complete, cogent, and coherent, explanation to offer.

@PathwayMachine Perhaps you'd prefer this...

Genes control protein synthesis. That’s pretty much all they do (they have quite dull social lives, and don’t seem to have hobbies or outside interests). Those proteins are built up from amino acids.

The genes comprise large numbers of base-pairs, which are simply guanine matched with cytosine and adenine matched with thymine. The human genome contains around 3.2 billion of these base pairs (the largest we’ve found so far is that of the flowering plant Paris japonica, which has 150 billion base pairs. The marbled lungfish has 133 billion base pairs).

As I said, proteins are built up from amino acids. Each amino acid that is used to build the proteins is specified by three base-pairs (those blocks of three base-pairs are called codons).

Let’s look at cytochrome c (we could use any number of such proteins, but I have a fondness for cytochrome c… I like the alliteration)

The cytochrome c protein is built up from around 100 amino acids.
This means that there are 10E135 possible ways that the amino acids could be arranged… but not all of those arrangements would work, of course.
However, because there’s a high level of redundancy in the construction of cytosine c (and all proteins), a stunning 10E93 variants would still be functional.
So that’s 100,000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000 possible ways that DNA could code for functional cytosine c.

Time to make some predictions in accordance with the Theory of Evolution, don’t you think?

1. Because evolution began from a tightly limited range of organisms, only one of those possible functional variants will have been passed down over the last 3.5 billion years.

2. Because of point mutations (among other factors), there should be evidence of extremely slight variation that has crept in over the last 3.5 billion years… after all, even high-fidelity copying systems aren’t perfect (and it would be suspicious if they appeared to be so)

3. That variation should be negligible for species that have comparatively recent common ancestors, and increase between species with more distant common ancestors… while still remaining negligible (The process is remarkably stable, so we wouldn’t expect too many of the 10E93 functional variants to have appeared).

So, what do we find?

How many amino acid differences are there between humans and other species?
To make things interesting, let’s list some species in order of how long it has been since we shared a common ancestor with each species, and then see how many amino acid differences there are between us and that species.
Chimpanzee = 0
Rhesus Monkey = 1
Rabbit = 9
Cow = 10
Pigeon = 12
Bullfrog = 20
Fruit Fly = 24
Wheat Germ = 37
Yeast = 42

Evidence-based simplicity and elegance… common descent and the Theory of Evolution

@PathwayMachine Something a little less 'academic', perhaps?

Embryology can be very helpful in showing how our evolutionary history appears during foetal development. There are a few quick and easy examples that spring to mind from all those available: gills, blood vessels, and kidneys.

In the early stages of development, fish embryos have a series of pouches (separated by grooves) near where the head will later develop. These are called the brachial arches - they develop into gills, and the grooves between them develop into the gill slits. It‘s very straightforward.

Other vertebrates have the same structures... including humans. In fact, I once had the opportunity to see these brachial arches for myself on a foetus, and it was fascinating. They‘re not ‘sort of like’ a fish‘s brachial arches... they are a fish‘s brachial arches. They‘re morphologically completely identical.

Tiktaalik roseae, on the cusp between ocean and land, used gills and lungs, but after the move onto land, gills were superfluous (although Olympic swimming competitions would be very different had we retained them). Sometimes (it‘s very rare) the gill slits fail to close, but it‘s easily corrected via minor surgery once the infant is born.

Blood vessel development in fish is, once again, basic and straightforward, producing six major blood vessels. In mammals (including humans, of course), the same six major blood vessels appear in early foetal development, but then three of them disappear at the same time that our circulatory system stops resembling that of fish and instead becomes identical to the circulatory system of embryonic amphibians. Not similar... identical.
In amphibians, this system simply grows into an adult amphibian circulatory system, but in mammals (including humans, of course) it changes into the circulatory system of embryonic reptiles. Not similar to the circulatory system of embryonic reptiles... identical.
In reptiles, this system simply grows into an adult reptilian circulatory system, but in mammals (including humans, of course), it undergoes further changes (the development of carotid, pulmonary, and dorsal arteries) to become the mammalian circulatory system.

During development, human embryos form three distinctly different types kidneys... the pronephros, the mesonephros, and the metanephros. The first two systems are discarded. The pronephros is the kidney system found in fish and amphibians, the mesonephros is the kidney system found in reptiles, and the metanephros is the kidney system that we eventually use.

From fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal.
No matter how many comforting myths we mutter to ourselves, every foetus carries the truth.

@PathwayMachine In a female mammal there is a pair of tubes along which eggs travel from the ovaries to the uterus. These are called the Fallopian Tubes (salpinges). Sometimes when a human egg is ejected from an ovary it does not make it into the fallopian tube. This is because, quite oddly, the fallopian tube is not actually connected to the ovary. Rather, the opening of the fallopian tube envelops the ovary, like a too-large garden hose resting on a too-small spigot. The two are not actually attached, and sometimes an egg gets squirted out of the ovary and into the abdominal cavity instead of into the fallopian tube.

When this happens, it is usually of no consequence. The egg simply dies after a few days and is resorbed by the peritoneum, the thin wall of highly vascular tissue surrounding the abdominal cavity. No problem.

However, if an egg falls into the abdominal cavity and sperm arrives within a day or so, it might find this egg and fertilise it. The resulting embryo, completely unaware of how far it is from home, begins the process of growth, division, and tunnelling into whatever nearby tissue that it can find, usually the peritoneum but occasionally the outer covering of the large or small intestine, liver, or spleen. This is called an abdominal pregnancy

Abdominal pregnancies pose serious risks. In developing countries, they usually result in the death of the mother. In developed countries, they are easily spotted with ultrasounds and treated with surgical intervention to remove the doomed embryo and repair any damaged tissue or bleeding.

Despite creationists’ laughable claims of an ‘intelligent designer’, abdominal pregnancies are 100% the result of unintelligent design. Any reasonable plumber would have attached the fallopian tube to the ovary, thereby preventing tragic and often fatal mishaps. An ‘intelligent designer’ would never have created the small gap between the human ovary and Fallopian tube, so that an egg must cross this gap before it can travel through the tube and implant in the uterus.

In reality, the gap is a remnant of our fish and reptilian ancestors, who shed eggs directly from the ovary to the outside of their bodies. The Fallopian tube is an imperfect connection because it evolved later as an add-on in mammals as a result of common descent