This thread is to debate the book Nature's Destiny by Michael Denton.
The following debaters are allowed to participate:
Cathar1950
McCulloch
Confused
Furrowed Brow
otseng
Here is the agenda:
- Start off with background info of the author and book.
- Clarify any terms used.
- Cover one chapter at a time and debate the points made in that chapter. We might skip some chapters if we agree to it.
- Give closing arguments and final thoughts on the book.
- Go out for a drink.
Nature's Destiny - Michael Denton
Moderator: Moderators
Post #41
I agree with your overall assessments of chapters 6 and 7 but don't agree that they are the most intelligent designs or even the best designs. While both chapters do show how the elements work in such great harmony and balance and how RNA and DNA work in such great harmony, Denton attempts to lure to the reader into accepting this as evidence of an overall design that works in harmony and balance. The problem is that while he is so busy distracting the reader by pointing to all the fine tuning in the universe, earth, and life itself, he evades pointing out how often the elements don't balance or work in such harmony which leads to destruction of life rather than promotion of life. All of the processess are interdependent upon one another. If one of the processes is interrupted, say for instance an asteroid hits the earth leading to dust etc coating the earths atmosphere leading to no sunlight for an extended period of time so photosynthesis can't occur, global temperatures can't be maintained, and life is essentially suppressed and many plant and animals become extinct, then all the subsequent processes cannot occur. He points to water being so essential, but fails to point out that most of what is found on earth (oceanic salt water) isn't suitable for land life. For example, hurricane Ivan hit us here in Florida. The salt water destroyed most if not all plants within 5-8 miles inland. Land creatures can't drink ocean water. We can't use it to irrigate agriculture. If it is as Otseng implies:
Now looking at DNA and RNA.
Otseng:
then it isn't an intelligent design. Now that is just water. But look at the climate and atmosphere required for this elegant design. It must be maintained within narrow parameters. Sure, this is elegant design, but not very intelligent. Too warm waters with too cool atmosphere leads to destructive hurricanes, too cool air in too warm atmosphere leads to massive thunderstorms and tornados. Too much gas pressures in the earths core leads to volcano eruptions and earthquakes. Once again, elegant design, but not very intelligent.an elegant design of complex life.
Now looking at DNA and RNA.
Otseng:
Considering the fact that mutations occur, I am not sure it is elegant. And considering that fact that though most mutations are insignificant, the fact that those that are consist of more fatal mutations rather than beneficial mutations once again demands the acknowledgment that regardless of how elegant Denton wants to make this, it certainly isn't intelligent and most would consider it fairly incompetent to a degree when you factor in the inefficiency and unpredictability of the system as a whole.page 160 wrote:
Although the current evidence is insufficient to establish absolutely the unique fitness of DNA and RNA for their respective biological roles, all the available evidence is at least consistent with this position.
Though it cannot be conclusively shown that it is optimal, there can be no question that it is an elegant solution.
What we do for ourselves dies with us,
What we do for others and the world remains
and is immortal.
-Albert Pine
Never be bullied into silence.
Never allow yourself to be made a victim.
Accept no one persons definition of your life; define yourself.
-Harvey Fierstein
What we do for others and the world remains
and is immortal.
-Albert Pine
Never be bullied into silence.
Never allow yourself to be made a victim.
Accept no one persons definition of your life; define yourself.
-Harvey Fierstein
-
Onlineotseng
- Savant
- Posts: 20680
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Has thanked: 206 times
- Been thanked: 348 times
- Contact:
Post #42
To show that they are not the best design requires you to give a plausible alternative that is superior. Otherwise, it is an unsubstantiated claim.Confused wrote:I agree with your overall assessments of chapters 6 and 7 but don't agree that they are the most intelligent designs or even the best designs.
Of course if a cataclysmic event occurs, then there will be a major disruption in life. But, I fail to see how this has any relevance to his argument.All of the processess are interdependent upon one another. If one of the processes is interrupted, say for instance an asteroid hits the earth leading to dust etc coating the earths atmosphere leading to no sunlight for an extended period of time so photosynthesis can't occur, global temperatures can't be maintained, and life is essentially suppressed and many plant and animals become extinct, then all the subsequent processes cannot occur.
This is true also, but again, how is the fact that land life cannot live in saltwater relevant?He points to water being so essential, but fails to point out that most of what is found on earth (oceanic salt water) isn't suitable for land life.
I think this is another evidence of fine-tuning.But look at the climate and atmosphere required for this elegant design. It must be maintained within narrow parameters.
I don't recall anywhere where Denton argues for a "perfect" atmosphere.Too warm waters with too cool atmosphere leads to destructive hurricanes, too cool air in too warm atmosphere leads to massive thunderstorms and tornados. Too much gas pressures in the earths core leads to volcano eruptions and earthquakes.
But, actually I would agree that the current atmosphere is not "perfect". And I believe the atmospheric conditions prior to the flood were superior to current conditions.
I would agree that detrimental mutations vastly outnumbers beneficial mutations. But, I do not see this as evidence against design.And considering that fact that though most mutations are insignificant, the fact that those that are consist of more fatal mutations rather than beneficial mutations once again demands the acknowledgment that regardless of how elegant Denton wants to make this, it certainly isn't intelligent and most would consider it fairly incompetent to a degree when you factor in the inefficiency and unpredictability of the system as a whole.
Just because viruses can infect Microsoft Vista does not mean that the Vista was not intelligently designed. Or if rust appears on a Cadillac, it doesn't mean the car wasn't intelligently designed.
- McCulloch
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24063
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
- Location: Toronto, ON, CA
- Been thanked: 3 times
Post #43
Perhaps, but it does argue against the omnipotence, omniscience and benevolence of Microsoft and General Motors.otseng wrote:I would agree that detrimental mutations vastly outnumbers beneficial mutations. But, I do not see this as evidence against design.
Just because viruses can infect Microsoft Vista does not mean that the Vista was not intelligently designed. Or if rust appears on a Cadillac, it doesn't mean the car wasn't intelligently designed.
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John
-
Onlineotseng
- Savant
- Posts: 20680
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Has thanked: 206 times
- Been thanked: 348 times
- Contact:
Post #44
Microsoft is not omnipotent?! Heresy!McCulloch wrote:Perhaps, but it does argue against the omnipotence, omniscience and benevolence of Microsoft and General Motors.
-
Onlineotseng
- Savant
- Posts: 20680
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Has thanked: 206 times
- Been thanked: 348 times
- Contact:
Post #45
Denton covers proteins in chapter 8.
However, like DNA, Denton doesn’t conclusively show that proteins are the best solution.page 182 wrote:As the constructor devices of the cell, it is the proteins that carry out all the atomic manipulations upon which life depends.
But, current evidence shows that no other class of molecules approaches the diverse range of functionality as proteins.page 186 wrote:While there could perhaps be “alternative” proteins of very different amino acid sequence and perhaps even basic design which are functionally equivalent to hemoglobin or collagen, if the teleological position is correct, then no “alternatives” should be fitter than the natural products. Unfortunately, protein chemistry is not sufficiently advanced to provide any clear answers. Consequently, the teleological position cannot be subjected to a vigorous test.
page 181 wrote:Within the context of current scientific knowledge proteins are, as far as we know, the only available molecular constructor devices possessing, first, the capacity to carry out a vast diversity of structural and functional chemical roles, involving every imaginable type of specific atomic and molecular manipulations and, second, the capacity to assemble themselves automatically without the help of an external agent.
page 188 wrote:In the entire realm of science no class of molecule is currently known which can remotely compete with proteins. It seems increasingly unlikely that the abilities of proteins could be realized to the same degree in any other material form.
Post #46
I'd just like to point out that this typifies the problem with the conclusions drawn by the author. Our star is a normal main sequence G2 type, one of over 100 billion stars in our own Galaxy. There are many other different types of stars some of which pour intense Gamma rays into their vicinities. Obviously we wouldn't find ourselves in orbit around any of those. It's simply not appropriate to draw any teleological conclusions from Anthropic observations.otseng wrote:Add to this the interesting fact that atmospheric gases absorb EMR outside of this range.page 53 wrote:Electromagnetic radiation from gamma rays through X rays to ultraviolet rays is all harmful to life. Similarly, radiation in the far infrared and microwave regions is also damaging to life. Just about the only region of the electromagnetic spectrum which is harmless to life apart form the visible and the near infrared is the region of very long wavelength radiation - the radio waves. So the sun not only puts out all its radiant energy in the tiny band of utility to life but virturally none in those regions of the spectrum which are harmful to life.
If we went through the book paragraph by paragraph with a big red marker pen and eliminated all such worthless observations what would we be left with?
-
Onlineotseng
- Savant
- Posts: 20680
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Has thanked: 206 times
- Been thanked: 348 times
- Contact:
Post #47
You'll have to explain in more detail why not.QED wrote:I'd just like to point out that this typifies the problem with the conclusions drawn by the author. Our star is a normal main sequence G2 type, one of over 100 billion stars in our own Galaxy. There are many other different types of stars some of which pour intense Gamma rays into their vicinities. Obviously we wouldn't find ourselves in orbit around any of those. It's simply not appropriate to draw any teleological conclusions from Anthropic observations.
Feel free to bring up the paragraphs that you're referring to and we can discuss.If we went through the book paragraph by paragraph with a big red marker pen and eliminated all such worthless observations what would we be left with?
- Greenbeard
- Student
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 1:33 am
- Location: La Grande, Oregon
- Contact:
Post #48
osteng wrote:To show that they are not the best design requires you to give a plausible alternative that is superior. Otherwise, it is an unsubstantiated claim.
This is upside down. The burden of proof is on those attempting to show that the implied design, or excellence of design, is inevitable. That's exactly the subject of debate. To beg the issue, and simply assume that there is design or excellence of design and expect 'proof' of the negative is a useless pursuit. The unsubstantiated claim is that of design.
Matt
-
Onlineotseng
- Savant
- Posts: 20680
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Has thanked: 206 times
- Been thanked: 348 times
- Contact:
Post #49
Yes, the burden of proof is upon Denton. And I think he does a good job arguing for his position in the book. He has provided quite detailed arguments and evidence for his position. So, if you have specific arguments against what Denton presents, please present those.BohemianBanjo wrote:The burden of proof is on those attempting to show that the implied design, or excellence of design, is inevitable. That's exactly the subject of debate.
No, I'm merely challenging Confused's statement "but don't agree that they are the most intelligent designs or even the best designs." It is this statement that needs to be supported.To beg the issue, and simply assume that there is design or excellence of design and expect 'proof' of the negative is a useless pursuit. The unsubstantiated claim is that of design.
As for the evidence for design, I've already presented the arguments for light, water, carbon, oxygen, carbon dioxide, DNA, proteins, and some others. And I'll be continuing on with the other chapters as time permits.
Post #50
Sorry, been out with flu. Will get up to speed and respond promptly by tonight.otseng wrote:Yes, the burden of proof is upon Denton. And I think he does a good job arguing for his position in the book. He has provided quite detailed arguments and evidence for his position. So, if you have specific arguments against what Denton presents, please present those.BohemianBanjo wrote:The burden of proof is on those attempting to show that the implied design, or excellence of design, is inevitable. That's exactly the subject of debate.
No, I'm merely challenging Confused's statement "but don't agree that they are the most intelligent designs or even the best designs." It is this statement that needs to be supported.To beg the issue, and simply assume that there is design or excellence of design and expect 'proof' of the negative is a useless pursuit. The unsubstantiated claim is that of design.
As for the evidence for design, I've already presented the arguments for light, water, carbon, oxygen, carbon dioxide, DNA, proteins, and some others. And I'll be continuing on with the other chapters as time permits.
What we do for ourselves dies with us,
What we do for others and the world remains
and is immortal.
-Albert Pine
Never be bullied into silence.
Never allow yourself to be made a victim.
Accept no one persons definition of your life; define yourself.
-Harvey Fierstein
What we do for others and the world remains
and is immortal.
-Albert Pine
Never be bullied into silence.
Never allow yourself to be made a victim.
Accept no one persons definition of your life; define yourself.
-Harvey Fierstein