Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence to expect given a designer
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 197 of 373 (646199)
01-03-2012 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Dr Adequate
01-03-2012 4:02 PM


Logically it does not matter how compelling you believe the evidence is, it is still only an induction of confirmation evidence, which logically, can only be regarded as "viable". Put what tags on it you want, it is still just the consequent in a modus ponen, which proves nothing, no matter how impressive the mountain of evidence is.
You can show me that a snail has walked a few inches? But if you show a human over a thousand years, there has been no movement at all. If you show a fossil of a frog, that is basically the same as frogs today, you have not shown an inch of movement.
It's the size of the claim of macro-evolution against reality. You have to show that if you follow the snail, it will fly, implode, then explode. You are reasoning that trees, somewhere down the line are ancestors to rabbits. It is not just a big claim, it is the biggest claim in history, therefore logically, it requires correspondingly vast evidence.
That that evidence is compelling to you and atrocious to others is irrelevant, all that matters is that the powers of evolution, if it has any, have not been shown in the least.
Time and time again you use the example of having to walk a mile, and showing one step shows how the mile was walked, but you have yet to show that the snail or shall we say, the person, can even walk.
It is a compositional error, otherwise SOME evolution would be observable, in regards to big changes, especially in micro-organisms.
But adapting to changes, small superficial differences, such as size, does not show any of that mile walk.
There are massive chmbered nautilis and crocs but between then and now, all you have really proven is superficial change.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-03-2012 4:02 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-03-2012 5:23 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 198 of 373 (646200)
01-03-2012 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by jar
01-03-2012 3:46 PM


Re: Where's the beef?
Do you ever plan on presenting any evidence that I have provided no evidence?
You see, any idiot can state the same thing forever, it's pretty easy Jar, but are you trying to prove you are the chief of idiots by purposely continuing your childish posts when I expressly told you not to post worthless posts to me again?
I'm sure this proves something in your own mind, but if it continues, then I can fire it back at you.
Are you ever going to produce any posts/evidence showing I have not shown that the consequent in a modus ponen is not confirming evidence?
I am afraid we can do this forever, the difference being that I know what evidence is and have explained it, and you have merely stated that I haven't. How very odd.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by jar, posted 01-03-2012 3:46 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by jar, posted 01-03-2012 5:56 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 207 by Percy, posted 01-03-2012 6:03 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 199 of 373 (646202)
01-03-2012 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by subbie
01-03-2012 3:46 PM


It is not ignorance.
Come on subbie, I know you are blinded with dislike for me but even you can see that that aerial inherently just doesn't require design.
I can literally cut a piece of metal and attach it to my radio, I have done it, and whether it looks squiggly for show or is just linear, the fact is that it's just a pedantic example, vacuous, doesn't even compare to a sophisticated circuit board.
I could throw a rock in a pond and call it, "design", or the rock could land in the pool but the definition would be so wide that it would be totally moot.
Sure- think evolution can produce design, but please, this is just silly. Why do you insult my intelligence? I have made these arials - they don't need design, or particular shape, or any thought, they in no way compare to the circuit board or a genome. No way, just no way, no matter how hard you fight it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by subbie, posted 01-03-2012 3:46 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by subbie, posted 01-03-2012 4:33 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 203 by bluegenes, posted 01-03-2012 5:10 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 200 of 373 (646207)
01-03-2012 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by mike the wiz
01-03-2012 4:25 PM


That's right. Stick your fingers in your ears, close your eyes and keep praying. That way, nothing disquieting will intrude on your little world. Just do me one favor, will you? Please keep it to yourself as the rest of the world moves on without you. M'kay pumpkin?

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by mike the wiz, posted 01-03-2012 4:25 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 201 of 373 (646209)
01-03-2012 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by mike the wiz
01-03-2012 2:45 PM


There are no new observed novel designs.
There shouldn't be. Evolution is descent with modification. Old designs are modified.
Look at HIV, and all bacteria, look at the speed they reproduce, it is not unreasonable to expect at least one of these organisms to have produce a new novel design that could be observed/counted as a mcro-evolution, or even a partial macro-evolution, given that 100 human years is.............how man bacteria years?
Then macro-evolution is not needed to produce the biodiversity we see today since evolution is modification of old designs. Humans are still apes, which are still primates, which are still mammals, which are still metazoans, which are still eukaryotes. Everything from protists on up is no new designs since they are still using the eukaryote design.
This is the funny thing about ID arguments. They define "new information" and "macroevolution" in such a way that evolution doesn't need to produce it.
We have no reason to believe in macro-evolution.
There is no reason that evolution needs to produce it, as you have defined it, in order to create the biodiversity we see today.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by mike the wiz, posted 01-03-2012 2:45 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 202 of 373 (646212)
01-03-2012 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by mike the wiz
01-03-2012 2:48 PM


If blood spatter is information, then everything in existence is information. If everything is information, then the atheist is dilluting the definition to the point of it not being viable.
We also have the other problem where the IDer defines new information in such a way that evolution does not need to produce it in order to create the biodiversity we see today. If mutations do not create new information then evolution does not need to produce new information in order for evolution to occur.
Also, you have yet to tackle the nested hierarchy problem. This is the biggest hurdle for IDer's, in my view. No designer limits itself to a nested hierarchy, but it is the only pattern that evolution can produce for species that do not participate in horizontal gene transfer. What do we see in the design of metazoans? A nested hierarchy. This is a big reason that design is falsified and why evolution is evidenced.
If you want, we can focus on just one gene, cytochrome B. I think that would be most informative.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by mike the wiz, posted 01-03-2012 2:48 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 203 of 373 (646215)
01-03-2012 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by mike the wiz
01-03-2012 4:25 PM


mike the wiz writes:
Come on subbie, I know you are blinded with dislike for me but even you can see that that aerial inherently just doesn't require design.
There's a brief description of what subbie's talking about on the page linked below, mike. NASA needed a tiny antenna (able to fit in a one-inch space) to send and receive signals from satellites to earth. The software that designed it uses a process deliberately modelled on biological evolution, and it can out perform intelligent engineers.
The equivalent of the environment in biological evolution is the performance combined with the necessary constraints (the tiny size).
It illustrates that variation and selection can produce excellent practical function, such as that which we see in life forms.
It's not just any old coat-hanger attached to your radio.
NASA - NASA 'Evolutionary' software automatically designs antenna.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by mike the wiz, posted 01-03-2012 4:25 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 204 of 373 (646220)
01-03-2012 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by mike the wiz
01-03-2012 4:17 PM


Logically it does not matter how compelling you believe the evidence is, it is still only an induction of confirmation evidence, which logically, can only be regarded as "viable". Put what tags on it you want, it is still just the consequent in a modus ponen, which proves nothing, no matter how impressive the mountain of evidence is.
This does not mean anything, but if it did, it would probably be wrong.
What you seem to be trying to say (in some jargon of your own with a vague resemblance to English) is that having a vast amount of evidence for something is not a reason to believe it.
Yes it is.
You can show me that a snail has walked a few inches? But if you show a human over a thousand years, there has been no movement at all. If you show a fossil of a frog, that is basically the same as frogs today, you have not shown an inch of movement.
And if I show you hominids over a longer period, then there has been movement, and if I show you a primitive frog, then there has again been change.
It's the size of the claim of macro-evolution against reality. You have to show that if you follow the snail, it will fly, implode, then explode.
Uh, no. I have to show that small changes can add up to big changes. This is obvious.
You are reasoning that trees, somewhere down the line are ancestors to rabbits. It is not just a big claim, it is the biggest claim in history, therefore logically, it requires correspondingly vast evidence.
And the evidence is correspondingly vast. The whole of the fossil record, of molecular phylogeny, of biogeography, of comparative morphology, of behavioral ecology ... you could spend a lifetime and not learn more than a fraction of the evidence.
It is a compositional error, otherwise SOME evolution would be observable, in regards to big changes, especially in micro-organisms.
And some evolution is directly observable. The amount of evolution that takes millions of years is not directly observable, which is another successful prediction of the theory of evolution.
But adapting to changes, small superficial differences, such as size, does not show any of that mile walk.
Which is why I referred you to the actual evidence for macroevolution, which you are ignoring.
There are massive chmbered nautilis and crocs but between then and now, all you have really proven is superficial change.
If this has a meaning, it is known only to you and God.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by mike the wiz, posted 01-03-2012 4:17 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 205 of 373 (646229)
01-03-2012 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by mike the wiz
01-03-2012 2:48 PM


mike the wiz writes:
If blood spatter is information, then everything in existence is information. If everything is information, then the atheist is dilluting the definition to the point of it not being viable.
The important distinction isn't whether an object contains information or not (for everything contains information), but the particular details of that information.
And for ID the question isn't whether an object contains information, for it most certainly does, but whether the information is specified or not.
And for the debate the question is whether intent, i.e., if or not the information was specified by an intelligence, can be ferreted out.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by mike the wiz, posted 01-03-2012 2:48 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 206 of 373 (646230)
01-03-2012 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by mike the wiz
01-03-2012 4:21 PM


Re: Where's the beef?
Even mentioning "that the consequent in a modus ponen is not confirming evidence" when speaking about reality or science is simply a nonsense assertion, using big words in the hope that it will sound like you know what you are talking about; but folk here are not that simple Mikey.
Logic is irrelevant to reality or truth Mikey.
We are in a science forum.
In science, physical evidence trumps logic every day.
If you have physical evidence of even a single non-natural cause or object, then your designer might be worth examination, but until you present some evidence, you have nothing.
If you have ever presented any such evidence then it is a simply thing for you to provide a link to that post.
Until then you have nothing but pseudo-philosophical masturbation.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by mike the wiz, posted 01-03-2012 4:21 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 207 of 373 (646233)
01-03-2012 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by mike the wiz
01-03-2012 4:21 PM


Re: Where's the beef?
mike the wiz writes:
Do you ever plan on presenting any evidence that I have provided no evidence?
I neglected to mention it in my previous post, so let me mention it by responding to your reply to Jar's request for evidence.
This thread isn't asking for evidence of the designer. Rather, it is an opportunity for creationists to describe the evidence we should expect to see if a designer existed. Whether we've actually found that evidence yet doesn't matter.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by mike the wiz, posted 01-03-2012 4:21 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Taq, posted 01-04-2012 12:06 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(2)
Message 208 of 373 (646361)
01-04-2012 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Percy
01-03-2012 6:03 PM


Re: Where's the beef?
This thread isn't asking for evidence of the designer. Rather, it is an opportunity for creationists to describe the evidence we should expect to see if a designer existed. Whether we've actually found that evidence yet doesn't matter.
Since my horse is still kicking around . . .
Why would we ever expect a design process to produce a nested hierarchy? Automobiles do not fall into a nested hierarchy. Computers do not fall into a nested hierarchy. I am unaware of any set of designs where a designer was required to make designs that fall into a nested hierarchy. Therefore, there is no reason that we would ever expect life to fall into a nested hierarchy. This observation would be inexplicable in a design setting.
To be specific, why couldn't a designer produce a species with feathers and three middle ear bones? Or a species with flow through lungs and fur? Why would a designer need to change the amino acid sequence of cytochrome B in mice and yeast by 30% even though mouse cytB functions just fine in yeast?
At the end of the day, it is PATTERN of homology (and divergence) that ID can not explain.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Percy, posted 01-03-2012 6:03 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by foreveryoung, posted 01-04-2012 3:11 PM Taq has replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 209 of 373 (646397)
01-04-2012 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Taq
01-04-2012 12:06 PM


Re: Where's the beef?
Why would a designer need to change the amino acid sequence of cytochrome B in mice and yeast by 30% even though mouse cytB functions just fine in yeast?
Could it be because the dna sequence that is responsible for producing cytB in both mice and yeast are partially transcribed to produce miRNA that have other regulatory functions specific to each organism?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Taq, posted 01-04-2012 12:06 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Taq, posted 01-04-2012 5:20 PM foreveryoung has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 210 of 373 (646453)
01-04-2012 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by foreveryoung
01-04-2012 3:11 PM


Re: Where's the beef?
Could it be because the dna sequence that is responsible for producing cytB in both mice and yeast are partially transcribed to produce miRNA that have other regulatory functions specific to each organism?
Actually, I was thinking of cytochrome C:
quote:
With this in mind, consider again the molecular sequences of cytochrome c. Cytochrome c is absolutely essential for life - organisms that lack it cannot live. It has been shown that the human cytochrome c protein works in yeast (a unicellular organism) that has had its own native cytochrome c gene deleted, even though yeast cytochrome c differs from human cytochrome c over 40% of the protein (Tanaka et. al 1988a; Tanaka et al. 1988b; Wallace and Tanaka 1994). In fact, the cytochrome c genes from tuna (fish), pigeon (bird), horse (mammal), Drosophila fly (insect), and rat (mammal) all function in yeast that lack their own native yeast cytochrome c (Clements et al. 1989; Hickey et al. 1991; Koshy et al. 1992; Scarpulla and Nye 1986).
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 4
So why rewrite cytochrome C for yeast when any of these other ones will work fine? Not only that, but why rewrite cytochrome C sequences so that they produce the same nested hierarchy that is formed when comparing morphology? How does that make sense from a design perspective? Why would you rewrite cytochrome C to make it look like evolution occurred?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by foreveryoung, posted 01-04-2012 3:11 PM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Tangle, posted 01-04-2012 5:28 PM Taq has not replied
 Message 212 by foreveryoung, posted 01-04-2012 6:38 PM Taq has replied
 Message 213 by foreveryoung, posted 01-04-2012 6:44 PM Taq has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 211 of 373 (646457)
01-04-2012 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Taq
01-04-2012 5:20 PM


Re: Where's the beef?
Taq writes:
Why would you rewrite cytochrome C to make it look like evolution occurred?
That's a recurring theme - why would God make it LOOK as though it was done by evolution, whilst leaving no proper clues about designing it himself - I've never seen anyone even attempt that answer.
Perhaps he just has a wicked sense of humour.

Life, don't talk to me about life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Taq, posted 01-04-2012 5:20 PM Taq has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024