Have complex human-made things been designed?

Like Paul, I can somewhat agree with whay you're saying.I agree that concepts and design ideas "evolve," as you said, but the actual product does not evolve. The idea for a new technology builds on the technology that already exists, but the new machine is made from scratch.The reason I think you may have a slight point is that IDists often argue that the "organization of the parts" is where design is evident. In order words, they often argue that the idea, not the actual product, is evidence of design.And, I guess, if we take the pattern of human technological progress as a general pattern for all "design," we could say that evolution over geological time shows the designer's "technological" progress over time, as well. So, when a new environment presents itself, God uses the "technology" that already exists to design a new organism that can adapt to the new environment.To me, the design idea is still a violation of parsimony, though.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Hi, Andorg.I'm going to have to say something that is very difficult for me to say, so bear with it:I agree with AlphaOmegakid.That hurt almost as much as that time when I had to agree with Tesla.Anyway, this is where I agree with the Kid: The thing that you are forgetting in your analogy is that, in biological evolution, the new form springs directly from the old form. In your technological evolution, the new form is produced independently, even though it may incorporate components of the old form, or may even be based on the old form.But, when you talk only of technological concepts, as opposed to objects, it is easy to see how, e.g., the idea of the switch "evolved" into the idea of the transistor. In this, I agree that technological concepts have "evolved" over time. But, the switch itself did not become a transistor, nor was the transistor made by the switch or from the switch. The first time a primate used a rock to smash a nut open was quite unlike anything that had ever come before it.But, aside from that, you're still arguing ideas, not objects. The reason I can't make something that doesn't resemble something else is because our intellect doesn't work by punctuated equilibrium: I can't go directly from designing the spear to designing indoor plumbing, not because I couldn't make the spear into a workable pipe, but because there is a disconnect between the two ideas.Ideas don't just crop up out of nowhere: the first plumbing pipe was probably designed after examining an intermittent stream; the light bulb was designed after electricity was found to be capable of making some filaments glow; etc.On the other hand, novel objects can just come "from nowhere." Most of the time, we call it "modern art."-----P.S. I've grown accustomed to putting quotation marks around words that are not being used in exactly their proper manner on threads where AlphaOmegakid is present: it might just save me a lot of trouble. He insists that challenging an existing definition (or just using one he doesn't like) is "equivocation."P.P.S. I didn't even notice that you were new here. Welcome to EvC! At the very bottom of this message, you can see a "Peek" button: that will show you the codes used to make quote boxes and other formatting changes. Also, while you're writing a response, you can check the circle next to "Peek Mode" below your "Submit Reply" button, and it shows you the same codes. And, finally, still on the reply screen, the left-hand column has a "help" link to a comprehensive list of dBCodes (message-formatting codes).

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Hi, AlphaOmegakid.It looks like we're going to be arguing rather on the same side for this one. But, I still have one bone to pick. You wrote this: While this is true, you should realize that the English language is not constructed completely out of precise, technical terms. It's possible that his word choice was wrong, but you should have figured out what he meant by his context. Andorg clearly chose the word "emergence" so as to avoid using either "evolution" or "creation." If he chose the wrong word, I'm sure you can get over it.But, if you can't, why don't you suggest an alternative instead of claiming that his entire argument is fallacious because he chose a word you don't like? Then, we could all get on to using words you approve of to show why his idea is wrong.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Hi, AlphaOmegakid. I agree with you.But, it's interesting to note that our concept of God has "evolved" over time, just as our technological concepts have "evolved" over time. For instance, did you know that the Old Testament Hebrews did not believe in heaven or a resurrection until they were taken into Babylon? After this is when the ideas of a glorious afterlife began to surface in the Hebrews. It's curious (and somewhat suspicious) to note that the Babylonians did believe in an afterlife, and that, after the Israelites came in contact with the Babylonians, they believed in an afterlife, too. Here is a source for this, but it isn't the source that first introduced this idea to me (which is a Mormon source and isn't online, so I'll leave it off in an effort to remain non-partisan). I have not actually read this online source completely yet (I've read to the section called "A Transformed Cosmos").It's interesting to me that religion has followed much the same pattern as all other technological and cultural paradigms: it has "evolved" from other, pre-existing paradigms. To me, this suggests that design (the concept, not the individual object or project) also follows an "evolutionary" pattern.-----On a side note, this shouldn't cause you to lose your faith in religion, though: just as science is getting closer and closer to learning the truth about nature, so could religion be getting closer and closer to learning the truth about the divine. Of course, this mindset only works if you don't ally yourself to a sect that refuses to allow change of any sort.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.