Updated 08:19 pm.EST, Fri November 20, 2009

Education|Fri, Oct. 02 2009 09:33 AM EDT

'Ardi' Reverses Common Understanding of Human Evolution

By Eric Young|Christian Post Reporter

A team of researchers unveiled Thursday research findings on the skeleton of a hominid who is now being touted by some as the earliest known human ancestor of modern-day man.

  • Owen Lovejoy
    (Photo: Kent State University)
    Dr. C. Owen Lovejoy, Kent State University professor of anthropology, stands next to the reconstructed skeleton of "Lucy," a near-complete fossil of a human ancestor that walked upright more than three million years ago. A team of researchers including Lovejoy today unveiled research findings of a skeleton older than "Lucy," nicknamed "Ardi.
  • Earliest hominid discovered
    (Photo: Science / J.H. Matternes)
    This undated artist's rendering provided by the journal Science shows the probable life appearance in anterior view of Ardipithecus ramidus also known as 'Ardi'. The story of humankind is reaching back another million years with the discovery of 'Ardi,' a hominid who lived in what is now Ethiopia 4.4 million years ago.
  • Earliest hominid discovered
    (Photo: Science / J.H. Matternes)
    This image provided by the journal Science shows the reconstructed frontal view of the skeleton 'Ardi.' The story of humankind is reaching back another million years with the discovery of 'Ardi,' a hominid who lived in what is now Ethiopia 4.4 million years ago.
1
2
3

The multinational team of 47 researchers, who have been studying the bones of “Ardi” since they were discovered in 1994, presented the oldest known skeleton of the “potential human ancestor,” calling it by far the most complete among those of the earliest specimens found.

The skeleton, found in Ethiopia and thought to be 4.4-million years old, includes most of the skull and teeth, as well as the pelvis, hands, and feet - parts that the researchers say reveal an "intermediate" form of upright walking, considered a hallmark of hominids.

“This species … resolves many uncertainties about early human evolution, including the nature of the last common ancestor that we shared with the line leading to living chimpanzees and bonobos,” commented team member Tim D. White, director of the Human Evolution Research Center at the University of California, Berkeley.

“The most popular reconstructions of human evolution during the past century rested on the presumption that the behaviors of the earliest hominids were related to [or even natural amplifications of] behaviors observed in these living great apes (Chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas … our closest living relatives),” added anthropologist C. O. Lovejoy of Kent State University. “Ardipithecus ramidus nullifies these presumptions, as it shows that the anatomy of living African apes is not primitive but instead has evolved specifically within extant ape lineages.”

Simply put, this means the new skeleton reverses the common understanding of human evolution. Rather than humans evolving from an ancient chimp-like creature, “Ardi” provides evidence that chimps and humans evolved from some long-ago common ancestor - but each evolved and changed separately along the way.

"This is not that common ancestor, but it's the closest we have ever been able to come," White told The Associated Press.

Following Thursday’s announcement, some critics of evolution theory used the latest buzz to point out that “faith” is required to believe pro-evolution scientists who are themselves unsure about many things and constantly changing what they believe to be true.

"’Six months ago, we would have said our common ancestor looked something like a chimp,’" Christian preacher Ray Comfort cited White as having said. "’Now all that has changed.’ Sure has. And it will change again, and again, and again. I know, ‘that's what real science does.’”

Comfort, who has been drawing attention and controversy this past week for his plan to distribute tens of thousands of anti-evolution books to university students, said he needs “hard evidence,” and for him, that comes from Christianity.

“I know where we came from (on the highest Authority), I know why we are here and I know where I am going after death,” he stated Thursday.

“[I]t’s hard to argue with the sort of devotion that evolutionists have,” Comfort added, calling the findings of the Ardi researchers a “faith matter.”

While 44 percent of Americans would likely side with Comfort, believing that God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years, there are almost as many (36 percent) who believe that man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but that God guided the process, including man's creation.

The latter group, which includes theistic evolutionists and evolutionary creationists, argue that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist.

"We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests," state signers of the Clergy Letter Project, which has been endorsed by over 11,000 ministers.

"To reject this truth or to treat it as 'one theory among others' is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children," they add in their open letter concerning religion and science .

Many Christian denominations and bodies such as the United Church of Christ and the National Council of Churches USA have issued similar statements.

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
  • Mon Oct 19, 2009 6:24 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hawk When I look at ID information theorists I find that they fancy up this circular reasoning with communication theory and linguistics rather than information theory. In specific such concepts as meaning, intent, grammer, etc. are all drawn from the idea of language. Now while language is a means of encoding and transmitting information it does not circumbscribe the entire set of information as their arguments imply.

  • Mon Oct 19, 2009 6:19 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hi again Hawk,
    I did take the time to review some of the sources you suggested regarding informatin theory. Under Classical Information Theory applied to computer science, linguistics, communication etc. there is absolutely no such law of information which states that information must originate with an intelligent agent. In fact just the opposite is true. Shannon's paper in 1948 develops the mathematics of information theory (well accepted world wide) based on a hypothetical random symbol generator as information transmitter. Under classic information theory information need have no particular meaning or intent in order to be information. It is only later theorists who redefine information who find such a requirement. Of course these theorists like Gitt do not provide empirical or mathematical proofs for their theorems rather they define the "laws" into existence. If you examine the writings closely the logic works like this. In this analogy Dog equates to information and Masters equates to intelligent agents.

    I notice that Dogs are domesticated animals.
    Domesticated animals have masters.
    Therefore all Dogs have masters.

    This Canine creature(classicaly understood to be a dog) is feral and has no master. Therefore it is not a dog.

    Law of Dogs.
    No Dog has ever been found which does not have a master.

    The statement is true only if you accept the novel definition of dog.

    Likewise the Law of information that

    All information originates from an intelligent source.

    Is true only if you accept the novel definition of information.

    Both logic arguments represent circular reasoning.

  • Sun Oct 18, 2009 9:47 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    continued from last post.

    Hi again Hawk back to premise 1.

    1. All information is originated by an intelligent agent

    Let's try this example. As I was walking along one day I noticed dark clouds moving in from the west with shadows of rain below them. I felt a breeze from the west across my skin. I felt the hair on my forearms rise and my right knee began to ache.
    Question Had I recieved any information. If I did What was the mind that originated it if I did not recieve any information than how did I arrive at the inference that a storm was comming?

  • Sun Oct 18, 2009 9:21 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hawk Hi,
    hope all is well with you. Read your response. First regarding the goalposts. Sorry if I misinterpreted your statement.

    I'm sorry I didn't state this originally, but this proposition is related to origins; non-life to life

    But at any rate back to the analysis of the argument we agreed to be the lynchpin of ID. That being


    1. All information is originated by an intelligent agent
    2. DNA's encoded language is information
    3. DNA's encoded language was originated by an intelligent agent

    Well it seems we are at an impasse on the EV program as a refutation of Premise 1. Both of us provided references which dispute eachother in increasingly technical terms. Based on your failure to respond to my posting of Schneider's response with any specifics of your own but relying instead on pasting trumans response I doubt either of us have the personal technical skill to successfully assess the programming issues involved and would end up just quoting other people back and forth on this. I was inprudent in using an example of such complexity and technical aspects. Let me try something simpler in regards to premise 1.
    continued on next post

  • Fri Oct 16, 2009 11:47 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    HAWK

    << Not knowing the creators has not prevented science and archeology from proceeding. >>

    Agree

    << Your specific concern is about God and His existence. You'll find everything He wanted us to know in the Bible. This will give you greater intellectual fulfillment than being an agnostic. >>

    Well, not really. It appears to me to be be a compilation of ideas and writings from humans, just as are the writings of Hindu, Islam and Mormon scriptures.

    << Philosophically, there is no problem with an eternal God. What you are proposing in your questioning is an infinite regress, but eventually you'd have to end at an initial cause. God tells us in scripture He is the initial cause, there is no need for an infinite regress to finally arrive at the initial cause. The first cause must be uncreated and eternal. >>

    Philosophy and theology have not contributed to our understanding of the universe, science has. Science is what I find intellectually satisfying.

    << .....eternal existence in heaven or hell. >>

    There is no data to say either exist.

    << Why does a human get to be master and a dog his subserviant pet? >>

    Its called randomness. If given the choice, I would have chosen my dogs life, not mine..

    << It's His rules, not ours. He gives us a free will to accept His truths or reject them. >>

    The thing with Christians is its black and white. For me its not rejection, its called skepticism. How do I know what Gods rules might be? The only source Christians have is the Bible. As I stated above, it appears to me to be the ideas and writings of people. If God were to come down and speak to me directly, explaining the rules, then I would have to accept them. One problem I have with Christianity is its single sourced - the Bible. I was taught in science is not to rely on one source for information.

  • Thu Oct 15, 2009 12:36 pm Agree: 6   Disagree: 5

    "You are obviously on a different quest."

    Truth?

  • Tue Oct 13, 2009 11:47 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    johnzon,
    you didn't acknowledge the points with your quest for how far back do we go in searching the evidence. You are obviously on a different quest.

    As far as how far back to we go. I answered that. Not knowing the creators has not prevented science and archeology from proceeding. Performing research on the creations was sufficient to advance knowledge.

    Your specific concern is about God and His existence. You'll find everything He wanted us to know in the Bible. This will give you greater intellectual fulfillment than being an agnostic.

    If your enquiry is in earnest there are some of us on this site that can answer some of your questions.

    What created God?
    How was God created?
    When was God created?

    Philosophically, there is no problem with an eternal God. What you are proposing in your questioning is an infinite regress, but eventually you'd have to end at an initial cause. God tells us in scripture He is the initial cause, there is no need for an infinite regress to finally arrive at the initial cause. The first cause must be uncreated and eternal. http://www.existence-of-god.com/index.html

    Why does God get to be God and the rest of us mere mortals?

    Creator Vs creation. Why does a human get to be master and a dog his subserviant pet? Or a parent the authority over a child? It's His rules, not ours. He gives us a free will to accept His truths or reject them. Through His grace He offers all of us a chance for redemption from our sins.

    I wonder if God feels pretty fortunate that God is God and not say a poor Ethiopian scratching out a living in the bush. Maybe its like Bill Gates thinking he is really quite fortunate to have become a multi billionaire. thanks his lucky starts everyday so to speak.

    God loves us all but grieves over those that reject Him. God's concern for His special creatures is not material wealth but faith in His Son, Jesus Christ. His concern will be for the spiritual salvation for both the Ethiopian and Bill Gates. Our life on earth is short compared to an eternal existence in heaven or hell. He did not promise us an easy life nor one of material equality.

    For me, I think it would really be cool being God, to have all that intelligence and knowledge to understand the structure and composition of the universe and all that is in it.

    He offers you a chance to understand much more than you do through His words of truth and wisdom found in scripture. One assurance He does offer is internal peace from the trials of life provided by His comfort.

  • Tue Oct 13, 2009 11:15 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    well Dr. pepper, your lack of response vindicates my comments. Thank you.

  • Tue Oct 13, 2009 10:14 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    Nice try johnzon,
    I will pray for you.

  • Tue Oct 13, 2009 9:44 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    There you go again Dr. pepper, engaged in attacks without an intelligent rebuttal to my comments. What I stated, covered in rather detailed explanations so I will not repost all here, that the US has been for decades engaged in policies in the ME to protect its oil interests at the expense of democratic values and at the expense of the best interests of Arabs and Persians. I cited the overthrow of the Iranian prime minister in 1953 and subsequent installment of the US puppet dictator and business partner the Shah. I also cited past and present protection and support by the US of the corrupt and autocratic Saudi Royal family in order to insure US oil and business (weapons sales) interests are protected and US hegemony preserved.

    Based on decades of US interference in the ME, the US does bear some responsibility for 9-11. From oppression, comes terrorism. Please cite specifically where I am in error in my statements. Hopefully you can do a better job this time than in our last exchange on the topic of US oil production vs demand. I have to say you really came up short there. If your knowledge of ME history is as poor as your knowledge on oil, you will embarrass yourself once more.

  • Tue Oct 13, 2009 2:51 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    johnzon says " As I mentioned I describe myself basically an agnostic or areligious." jz, you forgot to mention that you are also a 9-11 Truther, who
    blames the USA for the attacks on 9-11.

  • Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:45 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

    MGT

    << He would understand you unbelief to be reasonable? >>

    I would think an all knowing God would understand the skeptics and find skepticism to be perfectly reasonable..

  • Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:40 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    HAWK

    << Who created his creators? >>

    And its creator, etc, etc. No one knows...


    IF there is God:

    What created God?
    How was God created?
    When was God created?
    Why does God get to be God and the rest of us mere mortals?
    I wonder if God feels pretty fortunate that God is God and not say a poor Ethiopian scratching out a living in the bush. Maybe its like Bill Gates thinking he is really quite fortunate to have become a multi billionaire. thanks his lucky starts everyday so to speak.

    For me, I think it would really be cool being God, to have all that intelligence and knowledge to understand the structure and composition of the universe and all that is in it.

  • Mon Oct 12, 2009 9:55 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    johnzon;
    Let's take a look at a few examples;
    biological evolutionists go back to the single cell....and stop there. Where did the cell come from?

    evolutionary cosmologists go back to the cosmic egg...and stop there. Where did the egg come from?

    The Rosetta Stone; an Ancient Egyptian artifact which was instrumental in advancing modern understanding of Egyptian hieroglyphic writing. The stone is a Ptolemaic era stele with carved text made up of three translations of a single passage: two in Egyptian language scripts (hieroglyphic and Demotic) and one in classical Greek.

    Do you doubt that an intelligent agent created this stone? What did he look like? How old was he? Who created this intelligent agent? How tall was he? How much did he weigh? Who created his creators?

    Do not having answers to these typical johnzon questions deny that the Rosetta Stone was designed and benefited us for understanding of Egyptian hieroglyphics?

    Did not having those answers stop our reasearch of the stone to learn how to use it?

  • MGT2 »
    Mon Oct 12, 2009 12:19 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    Johnzon,

    When you say that you are agnostic, you are not ruling out the possibility of God, in your mind. And so, when you also say, "I dont think the creator is going to send me to eternal torture for my lack of belief," even though you may mean it to be a tongue-in-cheek remark, are you in some way entertaining the hope that, just in case God really is, He would understand you unbelief to be reasonable?

  • Sun Oct 11, 2009 11:18 am Agree: 4   Disagree: 2

    HAWK

    << we trace back as far as the evidence allows us. >>

    How far back is that?

  • Sat Oct 10, 2009 11:50 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 3

    viking,
    I did not change the rules. Check the time frame of posts. The 10/9 1:43 post asked you a question about the syllogism and I expected either a yes or no. Instead, you jumped right into the discussion.

    When you return next week we will begin with origins and then work our way to mutation and natural selection. I intended to do this after you accepted the syllogism Sorry about that. You can start your response from this point. You shouldn't have any trouble accomodating to this.

    As for EV; The results are derived from an intelligent designer commonly known as the programmer. As one architect level programmer from Microsoft told Meyers looking at the evolutionary algorithms: There is absolutely nothing surprising about the results of these algorithms. The computer is programmed from the outset to converge on the solution. The programmer designed the code to do that...everything interesting in the output of the program came as a result of the programmer's skill--the information input. There are no mysterious outputs."

    Computer science has two principles that codify this insight. Indeed, these principles can be or, in some cases, were derived from a careful analysis of evolutionary algorithms themselves. The first principle is called the no free lunch theorem..developed at NASA's Ames Research Center...Dawkins's simulation provided an obvious illustration of this....The second principle is called the law of the conservation of information...the computer does not create any new information. The computers are no more capable of creating new information than an iPod is for creating music.
    Bottom line, it is responding to what the intelligent agent (the programmer) told it to do. It takes a computer scientist, information specialist, to recognize this.

    ref pp 291-292, Signature in the Cell

    Royal Truman on EV: Selection is intelligently driven. Careful reading reveals not a simulation but a designed convergence algorithm. The two matrices of numbers, plus a tolerance score, define goals which can change slightly across generations. The immediate goals are instantly known and flawlessly acted upon by the computer program, with no consideration to survivability uncertainties.

  • Sat Oct 10, 2009 11:27 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    viking,

    This is why ev looks so spectacular. The ev evolutionary search algorithm finds such a target against what looks like miniscule odds! This looks like creation of a lot of information by evolutionary programming. As we will show, this is far from being the case....

    The rules of our game are simple. We pretend we do not know what the target is. We only know the Hamming distance (or as it is referred to on the EV Ware GUI, the Error Count.) Using only this information, our job is to construct an output that matches the target. The game is won when the Hamming distance is zero and the output and the target are the same....

    The ability of ev to find its target in much less that twelve and a half quintillion years is not due the evolutionary program. It is, rather, the active information [3] residing in the structure of the ev digital organism that allows one to find string of nucleotides that gives an output that matches the target. Active information can be defined as any structure or procedure that aids in finding the target. For the ev structure shown in Figure 1, there are two major sources of active information: the Hamming oracle and the structure of the number cruncher....

    We will show that the ability of ev to find its target is not due to the evolutionary algorithm used, but is rather due to the active information residing in the digital organism. This active information was provided by the designer of the computer software....

    http://www.evoinfo.org/Resources/EvWare/index.html

  • Sat Oct 10, 2009 10:14 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 3

    johnzon,
    we trace back as far as the evidence allows us.

  • Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:18 pm Agree: 6   Disagree: 3

    DP

    << In a thousand years, it [evolution]too will be viewed as based on a religious motivation (in this case to deny God) as we view much of the science from a thousand years ago....>>

    Yeah right, evolutionary biologists and paleontologist devote their lives to science in order to deny God. I went into science myself with the goal of denying God.......

  • Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:10 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 2

    Hey Viking, Thanks for your comments. It looks like we agree on a good many things although you appear to be convinced of a creator and are a Christian. As I mentioned I describe myself basically an agnostic or areligious. At present time, at least to me, the question of whether there is a creator is not answerable. So for me logically, being an agnostic/arelgigiuos makes the most sense. I dont think the creator is going to send me to eternal torture for my lack of belief.

  • Sat Oct 10, 2009 10:15 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    taking a group of students to the Allagash for a week see you all later

  • Fri Oct 09, 2009 10:03 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    part III

    How does Ev do that? By mutation (non directed, can't be intelligent) replication (non-directed, can't be intelligent) and selection (ahh ha!). So the 'intelligent' component must be selection.
    But this is exactly what happens in nature, as far as we can tell. Thousands of papers give evidence that mutation occurs. For examples of observed human mutations in splice junction binding sites, see ABCR and RFS. These mutations cause diseases and we know that the people who have them do not survive as well as others, so there is selection for their binding sites to be good. We also know that people replicate. All the components that Ev has are the same as in nature.
    So what's going on? Living things themselves create "specified complexity" via environmental selections and mutations. Living things and their environment are the "intelligent designer"!
    So what was Dembski's mistake? It was that he proposed that the design by necessity had to come from outside the living things, whereas it comes from within them and between the organism and its environment!
    Normally this is called evolution by natural selection.


    Enjoy

  • Fri Oct 09, 2009 10:03 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Part II

    One could vary the parameter file using a random number generator. Given what we know about how ev works, unless one hits an extreme (e.g. binding site width too small to contain the required information) the evolution should show information gain in every case. So even my selection of parameters is irrelevant. If you don't believe me, go get the program and do the experiment yourself! (Note: You can now run the Evj java version on your own computer.)
    Ev uses a pseudorandom number generator, so one might complain that the results are "preordained". If you feel this way, I invite you to substitute into the program any good generator. A good generator would give a flat distribution between 0 and 1 and not repeat for at least thousands of calls. You could even use the HotBits radioactive source (http://www.fourmilab.ch/hotbits/) and remove any lingering doubt! Having run the program with different generators in various ways, it is clear that this cannot be the source of the "CSI". (Note: Dembski would probably accept the output of HotBits since he mentions radioactive emission as a generator of "pure chance" on page 149.)
    Was it, as Dembski suggests in No Free Lunch (page 217), that I programmed Ev to make selections based on mistakes? Again, no. Ev makes those selections independently of me. Fortunately I do not need to sit there providing the selection at every step! The decisions are made given the current state, which in turn depends on the mutations which come from the random number generator. I personally never even see those decisions. Of course since it is a program, one could watch them if wanted to by using the appropriate printouts.
    By contrast, a major weakness of Dawkin's biomorphs (described in "The Blind Watchmaker", W. W. Norton & Co., New York, 1986) was that a person had to make a decision at every step of the process by selecting a shape that they liked. The METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL example was better, but obviously had a specific final pattern. Ev, in contrast, is not guided at each step and has no specific final pattern. Rfrequency is only by the size of the genome and number of sites, but these may be varied over a large range and there still is an information gain during the Ev run. Watch the ev movies to see that the pattern shifts over time after the Rsequence reaches Rfrequency. It is the selections made by the Ev program that separates organisms with lower information content from those that have higher information content. If no selections are made, then it is straightforward to demonstrate that there is no information gain.
    So the Ev program itself must be the intelligent designer.

  • Fri Oct 09, 2009 10:00 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hawk, now now no moving the goal posts after the game has started. The premise must hold in all possible situations not just the ones you choose. So the reference to abiogenesis is not elevant to the validity of the argument.

    Ok so it comes down in this case to does the EV actually produce information or is it just Schnieder behind the machine like the wizzard of OZ. Well Ill give you Schneiders complete response and you can identify at what specific point he is incorrect and the specific way in which he is wrong. Don't be afraid to use the applicable math or specific computer science. If I don't understand a reference I can just look it up. But please don't just quote a rhetorical objection. Here you go.

    Part I
    The Ev model creates "Complex Specified Information"
    So, though I find the "CSI" measure too vague to be sure, for the sake of argument, I tentatively conclude that the Ev program generates what Dembski calls "complex specified information". Evidently Dembski thought this in the summer of 2001 since at that time he tried to find the source. Where he asked, had Tom Schneider snuck in the CSI? He suggested that it came from the SPECIAL RULE. (Dembski's suggestion turned out to be incorrect.) Also, in No Free Lunch, Dembski asked where the "CSI" came from in Ev runs (p. 212 and following). So Ev creates "CSI".
    According to Dembski, the existence of "specified complexity" always implies an "intelligent" designer. The question then is where, who or what is the designer? Is it me, Tom Schneider? No, that can't be right. I did set up the program - true - but I didn't make the complexity. When I set it up the parameter file, I only specified the size of the genome, the number of sites and a few other items. Well! The size of the genome and number of sites determines the information Rfrequency! But wait. At the first generation the sequence is RANDOM and the information content Rsequence is ZERO. So I didn't make the "complex specified information", as measured by Rsequence after 2000 generations. It must be created by Ev. Nor did I make the 'right' ("specified") pattern match the weight matrix gene to the binding sites. Only after I took my hands off the parameter file was the random sequence generated and the evolutionary process started. When I was involved there was no correlation between the two. Ev must have made the correlation.

  • Fri Oct 09, 2009 9:47 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    Hey HAWK, How goes it? I dont have much time tonight, but wanted to see what was going on on this topic. Rather interesting reading you and Vikings exchange.
    your recent post:

    << When its progress along the chain of transmission events is traced backward, every piece of information leads to a mental source, the mind of the sender.>>

    The problem I have with the "traced back", what is left at the end of the line. What created the last in the line of creators? The creator we humans in the west refer to as god, may simply be an extraterrestrial more advanced than ourselves. But where did that ET come from? If there is an all knowing creator of the universe, how was it created, by what? These are questions we simple humans seem incapable of answering at this time. We may never know. I am basically an agnostic because I have no clue as to the answer to those questions.

  • Fri Oct 09, 2009 8:26 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    For those that have an interest, this discussion started months ago between viking and myself. I stated the propostion in a compact form. But the premise is based on:
    1. There is no known law of nature, no known process, and no known sequence of events that can cause information to originate by inself in matter.

    2. When its progress along the chain of transmission events is traced backward, every piece of information leads to a mental source, the mind of the sender.

  • Fri Oct 09, 2009 8:19 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    viking,

    1. I'm sorry I didn't state this originally, but this proposition is related to origins; non-life to life. Afterall, we better start from the beginning to have a better understanding of how we got here, then we can proceed to mutation and natural selection.

    2. Sorry to say, Schneider's EV program doesn't do the job. It incorporates a goal directed foresight inputed by an intelligent agent that natural selection doesn't have. EV incorporates one additional step that Dawkins's and Kupper's simulations lack. Before EV applies its fitness function, it applies a filter to the crop of mutated sequences. The filter favors the sequences that have the general profile of a binding site. Like the fitness function, this coarser filter makes use of information about the functional requirements of binding sites to favor some sequences over others. As such, it imparts information based on knowledge that Thomas Schneider, not natural selection or the environment, has imparted into the EV simulation. EV exhibits the genius of its designer.

    Senior engineering professor Marks shows that despite claims to the contrary by their sometimes overly enthusiastic creators, algorithms such as EV do not produce large amounts of functionally specified information from scratch. Marks shows that, instead, such algorithms succeed in generating the information they seek either by providing information about the desired outcome or by adding information incrementally during the computer programs search.
    p. 284; Signature in the Cell

    We are right back to the Intelligent Agent at work and P1 still holds true.

  • Fri Oct 09, 2009 7:24 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    What...someone doesn't like BBQ? WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU??? :D

  • Fri Oct 09, 2009 6:24 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 3

    "We may not be as smart as we think we are, but we've come a long way from sacrifing goats and bulls in the desert."

    Sacrifice was interesting. If you do some study on the subject we have another word for it...cook out!!! The animals were killed on the alter, the blood drained out and it was cooked and often eaten! The first example I could find is:

    Gen 31:54 Then Jacob offered a sacrifice on the mountain, and called his kinsmen to the meal; and they ate the meal and spent the night on the mountain.

    In short, many people still do a form of sacrifice and pay quite a bit of money for their alter!!!



    So, why was the whole blood thing part of it?

    Mar 14:24 And He said to them, "This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many."

    "Blood of the covenant" was put into place by God so that we could understand the death of Jesus in our place.

  • Fri Oct 09, 2009 6:16 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 3

    "No, I do not think the world was created in seven days and that the world is only 4,000 years old. It is just not true. I do however believe in God, and am a Christian. I don't see how this is a problem. "

    Jesus never said you had to understand how the world was created to be saved. Quite frankly:

    Luk 10:27 And he answered, "YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND; AND YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF."

    is a full time job. Still, if you carbon date the materials in my house some of it is quite old. Is my house that old? Fruit can be dried in the sun for days or in a machine for hours with the same result. Should we then say that it couldn't possibly have dried in hours instead of days because we limit our understanding? We really are not as smart as we think we are.

  • Fri Oct 09, 2009 5:25 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Bujo,
    excellent point.

  • Fri Oct 09, 2009 5:12 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hawk
    thanks for your response.
    I accept the formulation you offer for analysis.

    1. All information is originated by an intelligent agent
    2. DNA's encoded language is information
    3. DNA's encoded language was originated by an intelligent agent

    I would point out that in this syllogism 1 is P1 or premise 1.,2 is P2 or premise 2 and 3 is C1 or conclusion 1.

    For the argument to be convincing the premises must be true and the conclusion must be a logical inference drawn from the premises taken together.

    Now let us examine the premises. Taking P1 first. How do we arrive at this premise. Well your earlier comment

    2)only an intelligent agent can originate encoded information(based on the laws found for computer and information sciences).
    May inform us.

    If by this we mean we have simply defined information a priori as stuff that originates from an intelligent agent then of course this would be an example of circular reasoning where the conclusion and the premise are logically equivalent.

    However if we assert that this is empiricly true then we may proceed. In this case which I will assume to be the assertion (to avoid the circular reasoning problem) then if there is even a single example of information not originated by an intelligent agent then the premise fails and the argument and everything based on it (including the entire ID construct) fails.
    Are we agreed? (that's rhetorical)

    Now then to examine whether such a example exists we need to first define the critical terms of the Premise those being Information, Originate and Intelligent Agent. We could spend a lot of time on those debating between us what they mean but for the sake of this argument since we are discussing ID let us agree that they mean what the scholarly community focused on these issues accept them as meaning.

    Given that I would direct you to Tom Schneider' EV program. You can find information on this by googling Dissecting Demski's complex specified Information. I would draw your particular attention to the response to this work by Walter Rothe at GodandScience.org a source supportive of ID. Rothe attempts a brief critique of the work attempting to support Dembski and refute Schneider. His intellectual honest however compells him to admit the flaws in Dembski's propositions. He criticizes Schneider's model as not being an exact analog of DNA however for purposes of our discussion this is not critical. What Rothe acknowledges is that the program Schneider developed does produce information (and even complex information) not originating from an intelligent mind but rather from a complex computer program. There fore with this one acknowledged example (and of course there are others less directly on point) the first premise and lynch pin of all ID theorizing is shown to be incorrect.

  • Bujo »
    Fri Oct 09, 2009 4:26 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    DP,

    I guess we just see things two different ways. From what I can tell, you think that if the creation story isn't true then the Bible has no authority.

    I think that the creation story is just one part of a complex subject..LIFE!

    No, I do not think the world was created in seven days and that the world is only 4,000 years old. It is just not true. I do however believe in God, and am a Christian. I don't see how this is a problem.

    We may not be as smart as we think we are, but we've come a long way from sacrifing goats and bulls in the desert.

  • Fri Oct 09, 2009 4:09 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 3

    "Do you really think it's important to aruge over if the story in Gen. is true or not?"

    Ummm...yes it is. Either the Bible can be trusted or it cannot. If the Bible cannot be trusted to be the truth then salvation would just be a good story too....

    The problem comes in when we want to think our understanding is on par with what God is capable of doing. Quite frankly, God created what we base our science on. We are yet to discover most of it let alone understand how it works.

    We look back several hundred years and say they were scientifically ignorant in SOOOO much. The same will be said of us in a few hundred years (if everything doesn't end before then). Evolution has bearly been on the science table for 150 years. In a thousand years, it too will be viewed as based on a religious motivation (in this case to deny God) as we view much of the science from a thousand years ago....

    We are no where near as smart as we think we are....

  • MGT2 »
    Fri Oct 09, 2009 1:40 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

    Bujo

    "What I'm saying is that not believing in the creation story doesn't mean a person can't be in a fulfilling, loving realtionship with Christ."

    I understand what you are saying. I think you have good point.

  • Bujo »
    Fri Oct 09, 2009 1:26 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

    MGT2,

    I'm not saying that we shouldn't have discussion with unbelivers. What I'm saying is that not believing in the creation story doesn't mean a person can't be in a fulfilling, loving realtionship with Christ.

    I'm of the opinion that no one knows how any of this got started, and no one knows when it's going to end. But we do know is that Jesus gave us wonderful teachings and examples to follow to live the best life possible while we are here. That's what's important. Not belief in some school of theology or science on how this world was created, but a life lived and lived more abundantly!

  • MGT2 »
    Fri Oct 09, 2009 12:46 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    "Believe what you will about evolution or creationism, when it comes down to it it's not that important."

    Unless your position is simply that people will either believe or not, and Christians do not have a responsiblilty to reason with those who deny the existence of God, I believe it is important.

    How can they believe unless they hear? How can they hear without someone telling them? (Paraphrasing portions of Romans 10).

    Even Paul engaged in philosophical discourse with deniers, unbelievers and agnostics at Mars Hill.

  • Fri Oct 09, 2009 12:43 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hawk truly I will be completing our exchange only have a moment during lunch now to peek but will respond fully later this pm.

  • Bujo »
    Fri Oct 09, 2009 9:53 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

    Do you really think it's important to aruge over if the story in Gen. is true or not? Shouldn't the point of the story be the most important thing we take from it? I've never read Gen. as a guide to Earth's creation but as a picture of how God has loved us from the start--even when we fail him.

    I think as believers we've gotten so far away from the foundation of our faith, which is to love our neighbor as ourself, that all we want to do is aruge with him. Believe what you will about evolution or creationism, when it comes down to it it's not that important.

  • Fri Oct 09, 2009 9:43 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 14

    "All information is originated by an intelligent agent"

    Dreadfully wrong.

  • MGT2 »
    Fri Oct 09, 2009 9:31 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    HAWK49 says,

    1. All information is originated by an intelligent agent
    2. DNA's encoded language is information
    3. DNA's encoded language was originated by an intelligent agent
    I do believe this is a valid logical argument, is it not?

    Valid but not necessarily true. There first has to be agreement on the operational definition of premise (1).

    By "all information," do you mean that information derived by secondary causality, tertiary causality, etc., is attributed to the primary cause, in which case there would be no difference? For example, if I drop a rock in the middle of a pond such that the resultant ripple creates a wave that pulls a bug from the bank of the pond into the water where it is eaten by a fish, did I intentionally feed the bug to the fish?

    There is a big difference between "all information" in premise (1)and "encoded...information" in premise (2), where "encoded" suggests a direct, deliberate intervention for a specific purpose. "All" in this syllogism suggests random consequences with no purpose or oversight, which would render the conclusion (3), supportive of evolution, and make DNA with its complex encoding a purely accidental event.

    Clever argumentation without the operational definition.

  • Fri Oct 09, 2009 1:43 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    viking,
    Let's keep it a simple Argument format such as:
    1. All information is originated by an intelligent agent
    2. DNA's encoded language is information
    3. DNA's encoded language was originated by an intelligent agent

    I do believe this is a valid logical argument, is it not?

  • Fri Oct 09, 2009 1:20 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    viking,

    thanks for the explanation. That quote from Wernher was part of the Science and Philosophy of Science article I attached. The author of that passage selected to use the quote from Wernher. I suppose the author could have just made the statement without invoking an authorities name as it is not needed.

    I agree that if that was the basis for the article then it would be a logical fallacy.

  • Fri Oct 09, 2009 12:04 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    OK Hawk got a little time so here goes,
    You requested
    Provide a definition of ID
    The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
    Taken from a website you recommend as authoritative (discovery.org) This way I am not substituting my own wrong defintion.
    You continue your request
    along with an example to show you now have an understanding of the subject.
    Well again using a prominent example drawn from ID proponents and your own suggestion how about DNA.
    You continue your request
    Then provide an Argument that we can discuss.
    You continue your request
    Suggest your Argument be based on 1)the encoded information in DNA and 2)only an intelligent agent can originate encoded information(based on the laws found for computer and information sciences).
    Ok here is the argument as I understand it from your posts and the web sites and other references you list and following your suggestion .
    Premise 1. DNA contains encoded information (also often reffered to by ID proponents as CSI)
    Premise 2. Only an intelligent agent can originate encoded information ( or as commonly reffered to by ID proponents CSI)
    Conclusion 1. The encoded information(or CSI) in DNA is originated by an intelligent agent
    Corrolary conclusion 2. Since origination by an intelligent agent is not an undirected process then the encoded information (or CSI) within DNA and by extension DNA and by further extension living organisims (including human beings) are not the result of an udirected process .
    Subpremise 1. Evolution is an undirected process
    Secondary Conclusion 1. Human beings did not arise through Evolution.

    Now before I go on please indicate any objections to how I have stated the arguments.

  • Mee »
    Thu Oct 08, 2009 8:55 pm Agree: 7   Disagree: 2

    Get a bunch of bones and they can make what ever they want out of them. They aren't changing any christian' minds that for sure. We know what they are... And who really is the creator of us all.

  • Thu Oct 08, 2009 7:37 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "Welcome to the SARC"

    Sounds like SARCasm to me....

  • Thu Oct 08, 2009 4:20 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hawk thanks for the challange regarding ID. I have to go to another meeting now but will attempt to respond later tonight. I will use the premises you provided in framing the question for discussion. those being.

    1)the encoded information in DNA and 2)only an intelligent agent can originate encoded information(based on the laws found for computer and information sciences)

    by for now

  • Thu Oct 08, 2009 4:15 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hawk
    Happy to help you out
    Argument from authority or appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative.
    Quote from Hawks Post
    The other major philosophy of science was expressed well by Wernher von Braun, the U.S. missile scientist who pioneered our moon rockets, a physicist by education, when he said in a 1969 interview:
    Through a closer look at creation, we ought to gain a better knowledge of the Creator, and a greater sense of man's responsibility to God will come into focus.

    In the post no logical argument proceeding from accepted premises to a logical conclusion through inferential reasioning is provided. Instead the implication is clear that the propostion should be accepted uncritically due to its source being a scientist of significant repute.
    If the propostion we were asked to accept had in fact been within the scope of this scientists area of study then as an expert in that area we would in the abscence of logical fallacy or conflicting evidence be obligated to give it credence. However since Von Braun's area was "missile science" rather than the philosophy of science this presentation constitutes a fallacious appeal to authority.

  • Thu Oct 08, 2009 3:54 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    MG2
    Hi glad to be of help, Welcome to the SARC (Self Aware Reasoning Club).

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Also on CP
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Health
  • Gifts
  • DVD
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Joolwe :
Cross-pendant necklace
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a

Featured Advertiser Links