General > Off Topic
to Nums and PY
PurpleYouko:
--- Quote ---That eukaryotes were designed from preexisting microbes by an alien intelligence (perhaps as part of a terraforming project or something along those lines) would explain that better than evolution. Not that evolution couldn't have done that, just that ID fits the evidence as well or better.
--- End quote ---
Let's follow this through logically and scientifically.
Evidence - The development of eukaryotes was very sudden. (note: By sudden we still mean several 10s of millions of years at least but this can be termed sudden by evolutionary standards)
This can be explained by 2 (at least) possible mechanisms.
Hypothesis 1 - Inteligent aliens caused the modifications.
Supporting evidence - None. No direct evidence of this has been found.
Circumstantial evidence - None. We don't know whether any other alien race exists or has ever existed. No evidence of them has ever been found.
Hypothesis 2 - Evolution got a bit lucky and made a breakthrough by pure chance.
Supporting evidence - None. No direct evidence of this has been found in the fossil record.
Circumstantial evidence - Evolution happens. We see it happen all around us every day.
From these two possible scenarios we see that evolution is by far the most probable explanation because we know that it happens to this day. Although we cannot directly test what happened during the cambrian, by extrapolation it is possible to see that it could well have happened this way.
Furthermore, assuming that the aliens were not God (no beginning or end etc. yada yada), then they themselves must have evolved somewhere else. Further evidence that evolution can go from nothing to a sentient being.
In the absence of absolute proof either way, the principle of parsimony (or Occam's razor) states that we should always choose the answer with the least complexity.
In this case, the addition of any kind of inteligence is increasing complexity. It is completely unecessary and must therefore be rejected, pending further evidence.
Numsgil:
Okay, let's suppose that we make contact with intelligent aliens tomorrow. Let's suppose that these aliens have terraforming technology.
Then suddenly the ID and evolution theories are on equal footing...
I think you'd be hard pressed to find a scientist that would tell you there are no aliens whatsoever. I also think you'd be hard pressed to find a scientist that says designing life is impossible.
Within the next 100 years we will probably be technologically advanced enough to be the Intelligence of some form of Intelligent Design.
Occam's Razor has been used far too often IMO to discredit theories. Occam's Razor does not tell you what theory is right. It only presents guidelines for picking among competing theories the one you should accept as your primary. Don't discard your competing theories. Evidence may change.
Stochastic evolution is simply more difficult to describe using evolution than ID. Evolution tends to work in steps. Skipping several intermediary steps in the process isn't something terribly easy for evolution, but is something absolutely hallmark of ID (using our Bots in DB as an example).
I don't know that you can ever say what happened on Earth conclusively. But we will probably be able to say one day what the evidence on Earth seems to point to, and what is the more common origin of life in the universe. Probably primarily evolution, but a few leaps and jumps might be accredited to outside tinkering.
And we know not that the process of Eukaryotization took 10 million years or so (or whatever the time frame), just that it occured within that sort of window. Fossil dating for stuff that old is sketchy, so we end up with a time limit.
PurpleYouko:
--- Quote ---Okay, let's suppose that we make contact with intelligent aliens tomorrow. Let's suppose that these aliens have terraforming technology.
Then suddenly the ID and evolution theories are on equal footing...
--- End quote ---
Absolutely. In light of new evidence, the prevailing scientific theory is apt to change. That is what differentiates science from religion.
PurpleYouko:
--- Quote ---Within the next 100 years we will probably be technologically advanced enough to be the Intelligence of some form of Intelligent Design.
--- End quote ---
I agree with this too. It is just that what you are proposing is not what is typically understood to be inteligent design.
Numsgil:
--- Quote ---
--- Quote ---Within the next 100 years we will probably be technologically advanced enough to be the Intelligence of some form of Intelligent Design.
--- End quote ---
I agree with this too. It is just that what you are proposing is not what is typically understood to be inteligent design.
--- End quote ---
Hmm, maybe I should form my own competing theory XD
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version