This comment has been moved here.

Wow Bob, what an excellent rebuttle to the xians!  I would have never thought of that.  Thanks so much!!

Yah, great post Bob. For a theist who is stuck on one point, that is probably a great way to go.

 

One reservation though, it might not work with the YEC crowd. If the arbitrary starting point is in the recent past, then they don't really have to provide such a mechanism as there just has not been anywhere near enough time for it to emerge from the background data. Which then would leave you having to deal with the age of the earth.

 

Not that that is all that much harder to deal with. However, what the theists really need to do is not simply come up with one answer to one question. Where they really ought to have their feet held to the fire is the global picture.

 

As we all know, the evidence for evolution come not simply from one book written by Darwin. It comes from the totality of many areas of science. Molecular genetics, Geology, Cosmology and so on. So the true job for the theist is to come up with a whole theory that takes everything into account.

 

Such a whole theory could be attacked point for point as you demonstrated. Each piece would fall apart on it's own. Eventually, they would have nothing to work with. Still, in a proper debate with a well educated theist, one would need to be able to tear down each point individually. If one misses a single piece, then we just have smug theists running around claiming that a single argument stands because it did not fall at that point.

 

 

 

Have you seen this web site: http://www.creationtheory.org/Probability/

I found it works better to explain probability in terms of gambling.  Even those who profess to not gamble seem to pick up the theory pretty quickly when expressed in those terms. 

Didn't want to make new thread.

Just indtroducing myself - Peter, to this forum.

Hope to find many interesting things here and see you in forum.

 

lol ever heard of irreducable complexity!?

The Ultimate Paradigm of Science, which specifies the process of evolution, in presented in an essay located at http://home.spin.net.au/paradigm/cosmo.pdf

 

Did you know that it was utterly refuted in a court of law?

"Irreducible complexity" assumes that a structure must have developed for a specific function, and if it cannot serve that function with any one part removed, that 'proves' it was designed, and cannot have evolved step-by-step.

But that already assumes a conscious design of some kind.

In fact, as was amply demonstrated by a mass of papers dumped in front of Michael Behe at the Dover trial, there are plenty of ways such things can evolve - as long as intermediate structures serve some function, not necessarily anything to do with the final function, there is no logic being violated.

It is precisely because evolution has no end purpose, that such things can evolve.

 

No, my questions are not answered based on scientific facts or clear logic. Most of my questions related to development of organs remain completely untouched. Lets discuss those here one by one -

• If all organs developed based on theories currently accepted under theory of evolution, chance of an organ developing into a fully functional organ is just a fraction of the chance of an organ remaining undeveloped. In such a case we should find more undeveloped organs in our body than developed ones. So if there are 1000 organs in human body, at least 990 of those organs should be completely irrelevant. How many such organs do you find in human body?? (I'm talking about harmless but completely useless organs).
  
  

• According to studies, mutations largely cause either harmful or irrelevant changes. No mutation with a positive result was ever found in an experiment. For the sake of argument lets assume it happened.
  
  

• Consider this explanation of development of eye consisting of - appearance of photo receptors - photo receptors magically getting connected to brain in the same scan order (assume that the order of scanning was preserved magically) - appearance of lens - appearance of muscles to control focal length of the convex lens etc.
  
  • If all this was caused by random mutations, why dont we have a random organ like a patch of photo receptors or vibration receptors or heat receptors on our arms or legs or any other part of our body that are not connected to the brain (useless but at the same time harmless).
    

 

I answered your first point. Organs will never remain totally non-functional - the intermediate stages of what is currently serving a particular function will have served some function, often more than one, and may still serve those other, typically simpler, functions, which justified their initial evolution.

Mutations are mostly neutral, not harmful. The fact that virtually any gene, of any significant length, for any common aspect of our structure or function, appears in typically many slightly different sequences across all species is one demonstration of that.

Mutations do happen, all the time, at a rate more than adequate to be compatible with evolution. This includes all the possible ways a chromosome can change:

1. replacement of one unit (amino acids) by another;

2. deletion of one or more adjacent units;

3. replication - one unit, or sequence, being copied one or more times in sequence;

4. jumping - a whole gene being copied into a new location, on the same or another chromosome

These are observed in bacterial and other studies.

That is a fact, and that alone should be enough to convince anyone that evolution is pretty much inevitable.

You are thinking only of major gross changes, which are usually harmful. But that is not the way most evolution happens, rather it is by small changes at each generation, most of which are neutral, but of those that are not, those that lead to lower reproduction rates will not tend to spread in the population, those that improve the likely number of offspring will naturally spread. That is evolution.

The evolution of the eye started with very simple nerves that were mainly sensitive to heat, and evolved step by step, getting more complex. 

The connection to the brain did not require any specific arrangement to be preserved, they do not form a physical replica of the retinal image in the brain.

Nerves from closely associated points on the body will naturally be connected to closely connected parts of the brain. The networks and connections that evolved around each group of heat and ultimately light-sensitive cells will evolve to respond in useful ways to the patterns in which the sensitive nerves are stimulate. 

We can find examples of all kinds of 'eyes' in nature, from simple infra-red sensitive patches to nerves arranged inside hollows which increase the ability to sense the direction of the radiation, to hollows where the opening has almost closed up, to ones where a transparent tissue has formed over the hole, etc. It is not a mystery.

'Receptors' not connected to the brain will have no advantage, so will not be selected for. That is all we need to say.

Your final comment reveals your basic misunderstanding- evolution is not a purely random process. Each generation will have a few random variations, but they will be systematically, not randomly, sorted out by the process of living, ie that those that produce more offspring will tend to persist.

 

 

That is very impressive. Please read and understand evolution before writing about it. I commend Jerry Coyne to you.

 

 

What a great website. It has lots of interesting topics. Well, there goes my evening. 

Visual processing starts in the retina, and it seems small irregular areas of retinal cells connect to separate parts of the brain's visual processing region.

So the complete, coherent image only appears on the retina, which is effectively an extension of the brain, so your model of the eye as video camera sending its image over a cable to have processing applied in the brain is incorrect.

The eye and the associated visual processing circuits developed together, so there was never an issue of 'connecting them up' - they were never unconnected.

You still clearly don't 'get it' - viability of any single generation genetic change is tested in that generation, and such changes are normally relatively small. As you suggested, large changes in one generation are more likely to be unviable, but evolution is not dependent on that any more than the normal rate of genetic variation per generation. In the absence of a strong selection pressure, such as a significant change in the environment, little change (evolution) will occur.

In one generation, you are extremely unlikely to get a whole patch of special cells formed in a localized area. That would require successive matching mutations adding more cells to a particular patch, which is extremely unlikely to happen. And is unlikely to spread to other generations unless it confers some reproductive advantage. Without that it would be just a peculiar skin patch distinguishing one individual, which will blur out when that individual mates with another without that patch.

 

My arguments are strictly based on "evolutionary research currently is based on understanding genetics". I dont understand how you decided that I dont know basic genetics.

"respond to all of your nonsense" - I have decided not to insult any one during my argument coz it doesn't help the spirit of debate. Instead of getting angry why dont you think logically?

"Evolution is my hobby" - This is my hobby too! but it also has evolved - earlier i used to try to prove evolution is right but when I found it baseless I started disproving it. Funny fact is that you have thousands of ways to disprove it but very few ways to prove it.

I never said that we have a digital camera for our eyes. About "one to one correlation", where did you get this information? The exact correlation is not known but its not correct that there is no one to one correlation.

None of the above arguments disprove my point. If you think not, then let me know how.

No. While a no longer functional organ may provide a better framework for a possible new organ than no such structure, normal genetic drift will tend to slowly have a non functional structure lose its structure, so we would have no reason to see more useless than useful. For a formerly useful organ to be rendered useless would require a fairly dramatic change of environmental niche, and so would be expected to be very rare.

Slower changes will be more likely to simply drive existing organs to adapt, which is even easier than re-activating a vestigial one.

There is no way evolution could produce an organ which had no function at all at any stage - organized structures can only evolve if they have some systematic positive effect on reproductive success.

A genuinely new organ can only start from some very simple function requiring a very simple structure, and then its functionality and complexity can grow and change under the selective pressure of some very new environment or ecological niche.

Your reference to 'information' shows you have bought into that complete misunderstanding of 'information' that creationists have tried to bring into this context. A new organ does NOT require the 'information' represented by that new organ to be somehow present already in the DNA. That is total nonsense.

Duplication, deletion, translocation, copying errors, all of which are observed to occur, are all that is required to generate literally all possible new sequences, ie all possible information. Selection pressures from the environment determine which of these new sequences are useful and get replicated into new offspring. The kind of new 'information' you are thinking of comes from the non-random nature of the selection pressures. The 'raw' information is already there, generated by the basic DNA replication, and comes from the chemicals in the environment which form the DNA molecules, and the available energy.

That is how all new useful information arises. Random generation of new configurations, allowing the useful configurations to be selected by a non-random context.

That also applies to human creativity - random speculation, maybe 'guided' by staring at the random shapes of flames in a fireplace, in a famous example, plus a process of watching for configurations which suddenly seem to fit some existing puzzle, is the only way genuinely novel ideas are arrived at. Otherwise we are limited to what is logically derivable by analysing existing solutions.

This argument from 'information' is utterly wrong, and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of this whole process.

For the theory of evolution to be wrong, much basic logic would be violated. It really is one of those ideas which once grasped, is blindingly obvious in retrospect.

A 'creator' provides NO ultimate explanation. All you have done is introduce a whole new entity, utterly beyond anything we have observed, or can observe, which is far harder to explain than the evolution of life.

But what created the creator? If a 'creator' can simply 'be', why not a basic energy field, which is all that is required by science to precede our universe.

And why need such a 'creator' be a conscious entity? A non-conscious initial origin can be identified with that basic primordial energy field.

'God' is a primitive, superstitous, unnecessary, and ultimately empty concept. As you effectively acknowledge when you say "there is no way we can understand, prove or disprove Him." Once you assume a God, you have no way to be certain about anything, since such a being could change anything at any instant, at a whim. We could never know anything about the attributes or motives of such a being. 

Science does actually go beyond space, time and matter. Have you not heard of Relativity, String theory, Metaverses, M-branes, etc, as theories or proposed theories about the basis of space-time, gravity, and matter/energy? The continuing search for a Grand Unified Theory is way beyond 'space, time and matter'. Relativity handles those pretty well. The world of sub-atomic particle theory defines matter and energy well. There are endless refinements being pursued, of course. But we can now predict many phenomena to extreme accuracy, so we have made enormous progress beyond the primitive understanding of reality that existed in the minds of the writers of scripture, and in medieval theologians.

All those things ARE defined, in terms of their attributes, their properties, which is all we CAN do with ANY concept, including God. The primitive concept of 'essences' is quite unhelpful.

They have proven vastly more useful in generating understanding and insights and sophisticated harnessing of reality, than any theology.

'God' is the most poorly defined concept around. It is just a label to apply to what you do not understand to make it seem like you have some kind of 'explanation'.

We really cannot ignore the God-concept, since clinging to that outdated idea is what drives this deliberate misinterpretation of science, including the extremely well supported Theory of Evolution, or more properly, the modern evolutionary synthesis, incorporating several disciplines, especially Genetics ultimately derived from Mendel, without which Darwin's ideas had a major gap.

This distortion of realty is necessary to sustain your unjustified, illogical, pre-supposition of a 'creator'.

Chimp plays FPS (in japanese):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ya7IhijXYUQ

Certainly, cognitive and intelligence tests have been done on chimps before. But Chrysis/Battlefield or whatever the hell that game was? Nuh-uh. Of course, one could always argue chimps don't have a soul...

NOTE: The description section is little more than an content-farm for Planet of the Apes' new movie, and numerous other pointless ads. The video is still valid.

 

If ToE was wrong, then... evolution could still be true, because one is practice, the other is theory. It would only mean that we did not understood how it happened, not that it did not happened. For evolution to be wrong you have to say that "evolution is wrong", not that "ToE is wrong".

 

 

I dont understand why you think "normal genetic drift will tend to slowly have a non functional structure lose its structure". Remember that according to modern genetics, organs dont develop or vanish due to the amount of use it is serving (it only depends on the genetic blue print, which cannot change if an organ is not used). Instead it develops or becomes less developed due to random mutations. Then the trait gets carried on if the animal is fit to survive.

Secondly I'm not talking about a formerly useful organ becoming useless. Instead Im talking about a formerly unused organ (at the very early stages of development) adding complexity but still remaining useless.

But this conflicts with scientific data that says :

1. A large percentage of mutations cause harmless (but useless) changes to an organism. (This has no effect on natural selection)

2. A small percentage of mutations cause harmful effects and this will be wiped out due to natural selection.

3. Only a fraction of mutations supposedly cause useful effects.

 

The question "what created the creator" itself is wrong because we cannot understand the creator. We can get a glimpse of his capabilities through his creations. Energy field theories cannot find god as energy is inside the time- space - matter coordinates and god is outside time - space - mass coordinates.

Science does not go beyond space time and matter, if you think science knows whats below time space and matter then tell me a basic quantity thats lower than time space and matter. If there is a quantity known below time space and matter then define 'time' base on that quantity?

How can you say that Relativity, String theory, etc are beyond space, time and matter? Take for example relativity, it uses space time and matter in relative form than absolute form but still uses time space and matter. GUT is a mathematical (abstract) theory, even GUT has to use time, space and matter to be applied to a physical phenomena. Ultimately, any physical phenomena in the world is a function of space time matter etc. I didnt say there are no other basic quantities that are not definable, even they are not below time space and matter and cant be used to define these basic quantities. 

The first statement is out of your emotions and not logic. When I was an atheist, I used to call God - dog to make fun of it and my mom used to feel scared of my words (though even she did not have a religious background). Now I'm sorry for it and I know that I did it out of ignorance.

We cannot understand or define god because He is much below the basic quantities we know.

Do you think there is 'time'?? Then define time. You cannot! But does it mean that time does not exist? Even a guy who has never even accidentally stepped into a school would say no. Its just that we dont have the ability to understand what is below that. But any thing above that can be defined (eg. speed, acceleration, force, energy etc).

Do you think god is an old concept and Atheism is a new concept? No Atheism was there even during the very early history. I used to think that Atheism is a modern concept and god is an old concept then once I read about an incident that happened during the time of the Islamic prophet, that says - when the people who did not believe in God (the Atheist) mocked at the prophet, asking him how can your god bring back the dead people for a judgement when not even a trace of them remain (after they die and are buried). Then a verse of the Koran was revealed that says - "Nay, We are able to put together in perfect order (even) the very tips of his fingers.". For the people of that era its just means god can bring back every thing even finger tips. But with our current knowledge of finger print recognition, we know that each individual in the world has a unique finger print and bring back some one with such accuracy is not trivial. That addresses even the atheists of this age.

 

Ok, so you'd rather let people think the earth is flat? Sorry, but when someone, especially adults go around threatening  lagit science with comic book claims and tries to infect the minds of others with it, it deserves every scorn and ridicule.

Imagine how further ahead humanity had been if people had listened to Galileo. It is 2011, not 329. We have computers, cell phones and modern medicine. Coddling the insecurities of the fans of superstition will not progress humanity. Wallowing in tribal myth is exactly how humanity stagnates.

 

 

That is not what I claimed, and you can't threaten "lagit science". However, my originally intended meaning may occur along the lines of

Point 1: Someone is always going to be wrong. Get over it. Point 2: Not everyone that is wrong or "go(es) around threatening lagit science with comic book claims (ed note: on the internet)" is necessarily worth any time or energy. Point 3: A person that makes an honest mistake -as opposed to a pseudo-intellectual attempt at proving ID or creationism- does not deserve scorn and ridicule.

Brian, you're going to make an honest mistake here and there. Whether you care if people scorn or ridicule you over optic fibers (I wouldn't), I don't see the point in striking everyone who does this down with verbal fury and rage. (I think I chose an inappropriate thread to point this out. Anyhoo)

As for shark hunter or whatever their name is, let 'em have it! Same goes for Comfort. As for organs appearing in skin... wow. Just... wow.

 

I dont understand the difference you intend to convey. But DNA is called 'blueprint of life' even in strictly scientific circles. You can see some fairly simple explanations here

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_is_DNA_called_the_Blueprint_of_Life
http://www.microbeworld.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=152&Itemid=89
Let me try to explain what I mean:
Imagine that you clone yourself from the tissue of your hand. You get an exact twin of your self with the exact looks, capabilities etc. You make a clone out of that clone even then you get the exact replica. Even if you cone a hundred times it will be the same. Its like a=b=c=d then a=d.

Wont there be any difference, the answer is yes there will be, but those will be due to the environment in which the embryo developed into foetus, temperature, supply of nutrients, the environment in which he lives, climate, food supply etc. But even with all the outward differences, the DNA will be exactly the same. That means even if you progressively vary the environment after each cloning, if the 100th clone get the same environment as you then he will be your exact replica.


But this is exactly what I said! where is the mistake?

       But from the data you quoted "The majority of mutations in a multi-cellular organism's genome are neutral and do not harm the organism[1]" neutral mutations do not harm the organism (that means the organism is likely to survive) and majority are neutral.

       If you extrapolate the same logic, then there can be neutral (useless) organs in a successful animal. If you apply the same logic on its offspring, the organ can develop due to successive mutations and still remain neutral (useless). It also says majority of mutations are neutral, and in that case you should have more useless organs than useful ones. Analyze this step by step. This is exactly what made many others stop and think.

This is exactly what Im trying to say.

You are only analyzing one small part of the evidence that you have. The other larger part of the evidence will prove that he is competent, caring and benevolent.

Energy is NOT more fundamental than time, space and matter. You know the following right?

Acceleration = displacement happening in square of time = D/(t x t)

Force = mass x acceleration

Work = Force x displacement

Finally Energy = Work done in unit time = Work / time

That means energy is less fundamental than matter time and space.

You are underestimating me. Im an engineer. The basis of engineering is physics and mathematics. I have done quite a good amount of work on both. One of my works in mathematics was even chosen for publication by a national mathematics journal when I was still in my high school. So if you want to point out some thing more interesting please go ahead.

Not myth, but a verifiable fact. But my point was to tell you that atheism did not emerge due to modern day scientific discoveries. It was there even when knowledge of science was still a distant future.

 

Of course they do, even me. 

Or you. 

And if I was that lame, I'd expect to be mocked, insulted, satirized or caricatured for it.  I'll try to remember your sensitivity, but don't count on it.

I don't have the patience to deal with someone who is deliberately and obviously ignorant.  Get over it.

 

A 'blueprint' is a set of diagrams which are simplified pictures of what various parts of a completed structure should look like, with measurements and detailed descriptions where necessary which are intended to be read by a conscious agent to clarify and specify materials and methods to be used in construction.

Nothing in DNA remotely corresponds in any way to a simplified picture of the corresponding organ, as in a real 'blueprint'. It simply defines a bunch of chemicals (proteins and others) which when brought together will have appropriate 'affinities' for each other so as to form a tiny piece of tissue which will have the capability to grow into the appropriate shaped tissue, of the appropriate composition, to have the necessary function. Its development is further controlled by all the other chemicals and organs interacting with it. A mix of chemicals is far more analogous to the 'recipe' telling us what ingredients need to be mixed together and allowed to interact to form the intended object.

'Answers.com' is a good source for informal and often not very rigorous or authoritative information.

The second one was somewhat better, but sorry, not particularly impressed. 

That in no way addresses my point. 

I am not saying that if you start from exactly the same cells you will not produce exactly the same result. Although, given the probabilities of imperfect DNA replication, and other stages where random effects can occur, or very tiny difference in the environment can affect the processes, it is unlikely to be exactly the same.

I was saying that the way DNA controls the process is not very well described by the 'blueprint' metaphor. You are talking more about a 'photocopy' type of process.

The other point I would add is that if you put identical DNA into a very different cell, say from a different species, you will definitely NOT get an identical result, since the specific effects of a given sequence of DNA are going to be highly dependent on all the other components of the cell, many of which the organism also inherits from its parents, in addition to the nuclear DNA.

For a start, you would ideally need the mitochondrial DNA to be identical as well. 

If you gave a sufficiently detailed blueprint to any competent builder or construction firm, you should get an identical result. You would not have to give them physical samples of all the materials to be used as well, and the tools to be used, for them to produce a near identical result. 'Life' is nowhere near that simple a process.

Actually, a small apology - I read your original comments as saying that mutations are mostly harmful, so on that point I will concede. My only excuse is that I typically hear that assertion.

But most of the rest of my point, apart from that specific quote, stll applies.

NO. While it may not be strictly impossible, it is incredibly unlikely that a series of neutral mutations will lead to any coherent structure, it is more likely to lead to a random lump of tissue, which does happen, and if it gets big enough, will become a negative for the organism, by absorbing nourishment and physically getting in the way of actual functionality. IOW, it will be more likely to be identified as a tumor, a cancerous growth. 

Because of this, life has evolved mechanisms to inhibit such things, so a new 'organ' which does nothing but consume resources and get in the way will be unlikely to get going. IOW, it will not ultimately be a 'neutral' mutation. This mechanism is limited, which is why we see cancerous tumours more commonly that we would like, which of course is 'never'.

Put it another way, beyond an initial stage, there are no purely neutral useless 'organs'. There is some evidence that even our appendix contributes in small but still mildly useful way to our functioning, which is why it is still there. I don't have mine, having come done with potentially life-threatening appendicitis in my early 20's. Of course the appendix did have a major use in some ancestral species, which is why it is there.

EDIT: New organs are only likely to arise in one step by a mutation in the genes controllng the arrangement and position of the body structures, which could trigger an additional 'copy' of an existing organ. This is the sort of thing we see when someone has a whole extra arm growing out of their chest, altho that can also be the result of a resorbed twin.

Once an organ is copied, maybe imperfectly, then it may possibly evolve away from its original function to augment the function of the original, or to some new function. This is the sort of path that allows new organs to form.

But a body cluttered with a significant number of really useless organs will be less 'fit' than one without them, so is unlikely to thrive and reproduce as well, so will not pass on that characteristic. 

So useless organs are NOT neutral mutations.

Some extra useless 'organs', or existing ones that become more visible, may occasionally appeal to the female of the species, and become 'sexually' selected, like the plumage of birds of paradise or the peacocks tail, as extreme examples. They will then persist and grow, but of course they are no longer useless for the purposes of maximizing reproductive success of the individual possessing them, which is all evolution is about.

/EDIT.

OK, but they are unlikely to produce anything which could be identified as an organ. That is where you lose me.

You are very unlikely to get anything you could call an 'organ' in one generation, except as an additional copy of an existing organ. Mutations can also cause a useful organ to fail to develop. This does happen.

Applying continuing random changes just produces a mess. 

They would almost as likely cancel out the result of any earlier mutations.

They would as likely just cause a slight change in some hormone, skin color, hair length or color, body size, etc, etc, as anything that would be describable as an 'organ', useless or not. A series of small random changes will just tend to lead to a continuing reshuffling of the characteristics of the species, which is what we see. That is the ultimate source of evolutionary change. Eventually, there wil be a small but non-zero chance that one of these versions will find an ecological niche which its particular set of attributes is better suited to.

So you are just describing evolution, but not quite grasping that random mutations, if they do not have any significant positive or negative impact on that generation, will simply get lost in the re-shuffling that continually occurs, first by sexual reproduction, then by further mutations during individual cellular replication.

An individual cluttered by a bunch of genuinely useless organs wii typically be less successful than one not so encumbered.

No it doesn't.

You are just describing how we define a quantity of energy, not what it IS. You are describing one way in which energy manifests, an example of the transformation of energy from one form into another - remember, it can neither be created or destroyed, although it can form, but only if balanced by formation of an equal quantity of negative energy (as in the Big Bang), and disappear, but only by cancellation with an equal amount of negative energy.

in any process, such as movement, the energy which is converted from some other form in order to cause something to move against some opposing force, refers to 'something' in a separate category from the movement it may be causing.

Energy is what ultimately forms all sub-atomic particles, and light, and is fundamental to the main forces of physics. Time is just one dimension of reality, of which there may be eleven, according to some hypotheses. 

So? I know that, I acknowledged it. The dispute here is not between atheism and religion, it is between modern scientific understanding and religiously-inspired attempts to deny a well-established theory of science. The scientists who support evolution include both atheists and believers.

Atheism is NOT the issue. Unjustified beliefs and theories are.

BTW, I qualified with a University Degree (with Honors) in Electrical Engineering ( Electronics and Communications), and it continues to sadden me how many of my fellow engineers get attracted to creationism or other crazy ideas, often religious.

Mathematics is an essentia tool of science, but an understanding based on empirical observations, analysed with mathematics, is what constitutes Science.

Mathematics (and the even more fundamental tool, namely Logic) leads, of itself, to no explicit truths about Reality, in the absence of a repeated cycle of careful empirical study, observation, testing, experiment, etc. It 'only' allows us to say what are the implications of specific assumptions, and produce useful but inevitably incomplete 'models' of ultimate reality. For a mathematical conclusion to be truly applicable to reality, the axioms and assumptions and data it is based on ned to be match reality to an appropriate degree of accuracy. Which can only be determined by empirical research and testing, IOW, does it work?

 

That is what puzzles me about other engineers trying to support religiously-inspired nonsense - what I described seems to me the very practical justification of science.

 

Physics does not address the complexity of living organisms - it describes the mechanics of atomic structure and chemical bonding, and so on, but it is totally impractical to attempt to describe a living organism in terms of chemistry, let alone atomic theory or quantum mechanics. Whole new concepts need to be introduced, which are independent of the specifics of the 'nuts and bolts' of a specific life process. Complexity theory, information theory, non-linear systems, are the minimum you need to consider, and these are independent of issues of what makes up matter and energy, etc. 

They are more in the realm of mathematics, but address abstractions, models, of specific aspects of the real world.

 

Parts of Physics are dependent on these studies, rather than the reverse. IOW Physics is not really the ultimate study of everything, despite what Hawking may believe. Biology is not reducible to Physics.

 

It seems your knowledge takes you a significant way along a valid path, then you make very simplistic assumptions, some maybe 'informed' by creationist sites, such as the standard crap about 'information'. (BTW, I did information theory as part of my honors subjects).

Maybe it is an insufficient grounding in the more subtle aspects of and implications of the complexity of life processes, as contrasted with the conscious and purposeful design process of engineering.

Evolution produces far more 'wholistic' structures, where it is far harder to unpick the structures and processes into clearly distinct and independent functions, precisely because every part of it has evolved together, with no overall guiding intelligence.

Evolved organisms can 'solve' problems by a pure 'trial-and-error' process that would be difficult by conscious reasoning. This has lead to the development of 'genetic algorithms' to harness this process. The natural application of the Darwinian Algorithm - random mutation followed by non-random selection - slow, but we cn speed it up considerably with modern computers. (I am also deeply experienced in computers and software development).

Step-by-step evolution also has limitations, because of the need for each intermediate step to be viable. This can be seen in many less-than-optimum 'designs', such as the classic case of the laryngeal nerve of the giraffe...

http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2010/06/the_laryngeal_nerve_of_the_gir.php

Curious to identify the 'blind spots' that lead you off the track...

Yeah, but if he comes back with more of the same, not acknowledging his more egregious errors, like that 'information' nonsense, I may well 'lose it'...