Is there a legitimate argument for design?

Now if there were actual "objective evidence" (code for facts) rather than "the assertion of opinion" (code for fantasy) and "the argument from incredulity" (code for wishful thinking), if there were something other than the chemical connection of elements into molecules according to the rules of chemical bonding ... then you might experience a "see change" (code for objective evidence substantiated argument) ...We gots lots a codes ... Edited by RAZD, : .

Is that like the secret invisible code in cornstarch?Looks like information that is complex and specified in that stuff ... hidden in the molecules ...

Did they say that it was not, as Ringo said: Did they say some process other than chemistry was involved? It's just ...terms "in the English language understandable by English speakers. It means exactly what it says. It is not a mathematical term, ..." ... especially those that studied chemistry ...Edited by RAZD, : ..Edited by RAZD, : ..Edited by RAZD, : ..Edited by RAZD, : ..

One of the ways for dealing with cognitive dissonance is to insult\attack the messenger, also known as the ad hominem logical fallacy.I noticed that you failed to answer the question (which I'll repeat for your convenience): That is a very simple question, with a simple yes or no answer. Presumably the answer is no ... which you just don't want to admit ...And I don't understand why you would be upset by this: As that was just quoting your response on another thread ... so if your own behavior disturbs you then you should, perhaps, do some self evaluation on your behavior.

...Edited by RAZD, : duplicate

Hi Mike how ya doin? Logical fallacy, Mike, you know better.Logically, if those elements are then present in lifeforms, then we will know if lifeforms could be designed. Or not.What about if those elements are missing ... do we then know that it wasn't design?One of the elements of man-made design is development of concepts with ideas borrowed from several sources, a web pattern rather than a nested hierarchy, such as taking elements from two separate branches of organisms and combining them into a new one, giving two (or more) ancestral lineages rather than one. and why then are there so many variations on the eye design, some with basic flaws?

quote:

---

Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy...,
Investigator: Eye's Silly Design (paper #1)

​

Human:

​

​

The human eye has all the necessary components to allow it to gather light, focus it into an image, and process it into recognizable patterns.

​

But, the retina faces away from the light source, and it is covered by the nerves that convey the impulse from the photoreceptors to the interpretation area of the brain and the veins and arteries that deliver the necessary nutrients to these photoreceptor cells. This is like a clown standing on home plate facing the umpire and holding the bat in front of him, hoping that the pitcher will miss him and hit the bat.

​

Not only that, but these nerves, veins and arteries all enter and leave the eye near the center of the retina in prime vision territory:

​

​

Close your right eye and look at the right side green spot, move in or out and you will find a point where the left side green spot disappears, but the grid is still visible - this is because your brain assumes continuity over the blind spot, but is blind to the reality.

​

One has to wonder at the cosmic humor of giving the species with probably the biggest ego on the planet an unavoidable blind spot.

​

But, you ask, is there a better eye?

​

Octopus:

​

​

From What animal has a more sophisticated eye ... (Click):

​

The octopus eye ... has a cornea, an iris, an accommodating lens, a fluid-filled vitreous humor, a retina, and so forth ... the photoreceptor cells in the cephalopod eye point forwards toward the incoming light ... Cephalopods have a rigid lens of fixed focal length ... change their range of focus by moving the entire lens closer or farther from the retina with the ciliary muscle ... are able to always keep their slit-shaped pupils in a horizontal position ... cephalopods also have polarized vision. The chromatophores and iridescent cells on the skin of cephalopods can create a visual pattern that coincides with polarized light. Octopuses and squid can recognise these light patterns and since the chromatophore patterns change depending on mating season, behaviour, and stress, they can effectively communicate with each other. Polarized vision also allows cephalopods to detect otherwise transparent prey such as jellyfish and ctenophores.

​

Note that all human designs that use lenses and means to capture the light in images or data points involve a fixed focus lens and some means of moving the lens or the receptor field to bring the objects into focus and that in all such cases the field between the lens and the receptor is kept as free from other objects is (humanly) as possible. This is evidence of good design practice refining the efforts of previous designs. Remember that camera example as used by Dembski?

​

The irony here is that this better design is given to a creature that lives at the bottom of the ocean, participates in psychedelic light shows, bizarre mating rituals and a complete disregard for civilized life as we know it.

---

Now if I were looking for a designed eye, I would look for one that combines the focusing lens of the human eye with the movable retina of the octopus, then not only would glasses not be necessary for most humans, but you would have vision that goes from microscopic to telescopic.Both these systems exist in the living world but they are not combined in any organism: that element of combined ideas is not found, so doesn't this mean that the eye is not designed?

enjoy the spudtaneous moment.Another page you may want to visit is my thread: Is ID properly pursued?Later dude.

Valence Bond Theory

quote:

---

In chemistry, valence bond (VB) theory is one of two basic theories, along with molecular orbital (MO) theory, that were developed to use the methods of quantum mechanics to explain chemical bonding. It focuses on how the atomic orbitals of the dissociated atoms combine to give individual chemical bonds when a molecule is formed. In contrast, molecular orbital theory has orbitals that cover the whole molecule.[1]

---

Information that is complex and specific (your "definition" of csi) to how all molecules are formed from elements.Note that this is general basic knowledge in chemistry.What you have failed to show (yet) is that there is an entirely different sort/quality of "csi" in DNA, rather than just a difference in degree/quantity due to the quantity of molecular bonds.There is a larger number of bonds, and hence "information that is complex and specified" regarding the molecular formation in Sodium Sulfate ( Na₂SO₄) crystals than in Salt (NaCl) crystals ... a difference in the degree of "csi" (based on the coded information specified by the valence bonds) but not any difference in the sort of "csi".If I have one apple in one basket and 10 apples in another then I have a difference in the degree of fruit in the baskets. If I have one apple in one basket and one pear in the other then I have a difference in the sort of fruit in the baskets.Please identify something that makes it a different sort of "csi" in DNA from the chemical bonding sort of "csi" in salt and sodium sulfate and other molecules -- this is your assertion to support.Edited by RAZD, : qvqEdited by RAZD, : added elementary example, clrtyEdited by RAZD, : clrtyEdited by RAZD, : fruit exampleEdited by RAZD, : ..

topic drift -- the forum is: Intelligent Design (not creationism)The thread is: Is there a legitimate argument for design?perhaps a new thread?

Ed67 stomps his foot and shouts Gosh Ed67 ... DNA DOES NOT CONTAIN THE CODE FOR BUILDING OF SALT CRYSTALS.and yet curiously they are both still ordinary chemical processes ... governed by the ordinary operational rules of chemical bonding.Again, what you have failed to show (yet) is that there is an entirely different (special) sort/quality of "csi" (which by your "definition" means information that is both complex and specific) in DNA, rather than just a difference in degree/quantity due to the quantity of molecular bonds.There is a larger number of bonds, and hence "information that is complex and specified" regarding the molecular formation in Sodium Sulfate ( Na₂SO₄) crystals than in Salt (NaCl) crystals ... a difference in the degree of "csi" (based on the coded information specified by the valence bonds) but not any difference in the sort of "csi".If I have one apple in one basket and 10 apples in another then I have a difference in the degree of fruit in the baskets. If I have one apple in one basket and one pear in the other then I have a difference in the sort of fruit in the baskets.Please identify something that makes it a different sort of "csi" in DNA from the chemical bonding sort of "csi" in salt and sodium sulfate and other molecules -- this is your assertion to support.

Is there a legitimate argument for design?That is the question on this thread.What's your take on ID Faith?

I applaud your attempt to argue design on it's own merits and not as a default from some purported disproof of evolution.Three things Mike(1) Logical mistake We know that all A is B -- all human designs show evidence of designWe don't know that all B is A -- that all evidence that seems to be design is human or other intelligence design.At best we can say it is a possibility.(2) Elements of design should include borrowed\recycled traitsThe rear window wiper appeared, iirc, on a Volvo station wagon. The following year it appeared on other vehicles, and now is almost universally available.This means that a lineage diagram would show two ancestral sources, something that has not been observed in the fossil record or the genetic record.(3) Elements of design should include "form follows function"Designers have a purpose to design and the optimal form is dictated by that function to greater or lesser degrees. A racing bicycle is a good example where form is minimized to provide function with the least of extraneous elements, ergonomically sized and arranged to maximize the input from the rider.Something like the Laryngeal Nerve of the Giraffe does not fit this criteria, at all, and -- if we are talking of the design hypothesis -- appears more suitable as evidence of Silly Design than intelligent design.

Curiously, knowing what actual design looks like and what actual evolution looks like it is obvious that neither sexual nor asexual reproduction looks like design. Both sexual and asexual reproduction result in nested hierarchies -- descendants only have traits of parents plus new mutations, they do not have traits from other sources. Design borrows from other sources all the time. Evolution is not an entity, it is processes that occurs over generations by random mutation and natural selection (nor is natural selection an entity). Mutations to existing hereditary traits (ie for eyes and ears) can cause changes in the composition of hereditary traits for individuals in a breeding population, but not all mutations are expressed (and many are in non-hereditary areas). In addition there are many different kinds of mutations and they have different effects (from small to large), especially if they affect the developmental process of an organism.Natural Selection and Neutral Drift can cause changes in the frequency distribution of hereditary traits within a breeding population, but they are not the only mechanisms known that does so. Selection processes act on the expressed genes of individual organisms, so bundles of genetic mutations are selected rather than individual genes, and this means that non-lethal mutations can be preserved. The more an individual organism reproduces the more it is likely to pass on bundles of genes and mutations to the next generation, increasing the selection of those genes.The ecological challenges and opportunities change when the environment changes, when the breeding population evolves, when other organisms within the ecology evolve, when migrations change the mixture of organisms within the ecology, and when a breeding population immigrates into a new ecology. These changes can result in different survival and reproductive challenges and opportunities, affecting selection pressure, perhaps causing speciation, perhaps causing extinction.This is a two-step feedback response system that is repeated in each generation: Like walking on first one foot and then the next. And there is the standard education in the actual science of evolution, which curiously, is available for those who want to learn ... I can suggest a starting point:An introduction to evolution - Understanding Evolution Only if you don't understand how it works, and particularly if you don't know how design works. By killing off what doesn't work. Those organisms that survive and breed more than other organism pass their traits on to the next generation ... because they are better 'fit' to the current ecology.But selection is only half of the picture. You don't walk on one foot.Take a 6 sided di and divide the compass into 6 directions (1 = north, 2 = 60° east, 3 = 120° east, 4 = south, 5 = 120° west and 6 = 60° west); now

1. if you throw the di and take a step in the direction indicated, that chances are (from random mutation steps) that you will never get very far from your original location, but
2. if you select only those throws that are less than 4 (natural selection for fitness to ecology), you will proceed in a generally north-east to east-north-east direction. There will be some staggering around the path to the north and to the southwest, but the overall average path will be 60° east.
3. if you increased selection pressure so that only 2's and 3's "survived" to make the next throw, then the stagger would be slightly smaller (fewer options for survival) and the direction would change to an average due east "path" (different evolutionary results).
4. if you were going to design a path it would be direct and linear, and the throw of the di would not be necessary to determine that direction.

When we look at the actual biological record of life on earth we see that there has been a lot of staggering back and forth along the evolutionary path, not a straight line, not just stumbling in one place, but a "drunken walk" (Dawkins) in a general direction that makes for greater fitness to the current environment. Sometimes the "direction has completely reversed (walking sticks with wings, without wings, with wings again ... ).In no case is there a record of a linear development, nor is there any evidence of one species borrowing or stealing traits from another species, and these are common elements of design that we do NOT see in any objective empirical evidence from biological systems. Mutation and selection.Apparently you know nothing about either evolution or design.I suggest you learn.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : added commentsEdited by RAZD, : ]Edited by RAZD, : added

Hi taiji2 and welcome to the fray. Well I would say that by definition ideas are not objects that can be sensed or perceived the way material objects can be sensed or perceived. We could agree that it is a fact that ideas exist, as we can experience them, discuss them and convey them to others ... or we can agree that all is illusion.Science can investigate some aspects of ideas - how they are transmitted and how accurate the transmission is. Some certainly appear to be ideas that have been passed down from generation to generation with varying degrees of modification in the process.Dawkins coined the term "meme" to apply to ideas that are passed from generation to generation that have a survival/reproduction advantage, in similar fashion to the way genes are passed from generation to generation via selection of traits that improve survival or reproduction.We could also agree that if all the people that knew a certain idea (meme carriers) died that the idea would die out (become extinct), in similar manner to the way certain genes become extinct.We can also see examples of this meme transmission in Japanese "Snow Monkey" macaques where potato washing was 'invented' by one female and the idea spread to other members of the troop.Blue Planet Biomes - Japanese Macaque

quote:

---

Potato washing by a troop in Koshima was first started by a one and a half year old female named Imo. Researchers would put sweet potatoes along the beach to bring the monkeys out in the open. Imo found that she could get the sand off the potato better by dipping it into the river water, rather than brushing it off with her hands, like the other monkeys were doing. Her brothers and sisters imitated her first and then their mother. Over time the entire troop took to washing sand off potatoes with river water. At first they simply washed the sand off, but Imo soon found that the potatoes tasted better if seasoned with salt water from the ocean. They began to bite into the potato then dip it into the sea water to season it and bite again. Imo was a bit of a genius for a monkey because she also discovered wheat washing. She would make a ball of wheat and sand and throw it into the water. The wheat would float up to the top where she could pick it up and eat it without the sand.

---

Biological evolution is not always gradual, nor does it necessarily take eons for changes to appear and be incorporated into a breeding population.The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities ... and it is a FACT that this has been observed to occur in virtually every living species ...... and memes would likely follow similar patterns, being more prevalent in some cultural environments than in other, and likely undergoing modification when moving into new cultural environments. At this point I think you are stretching the analogy a bit further than is necessary.Certainly some ideas are new, and not previously recorded; and some new ideas are built on a foundation of other ideas ... we reach new heights of understanding of the universe because "we stand on the shoulders of giants" who have preceded us ... who stand on the shoulders of other giants ... ( and it is giants all the way down ... )So: do you think there is a legitimate argument for design?You picked this topic and apparently have read all the preceding posts, so you should know that this thread is about valid ideas for (intelligent) design. This forum likes to keep to specific topics in each thread (it minimizes confusion and encourages focus on specific concepts) -- and you can always start a new thread if you can't find a previous topic to suit.See Proposed New TopicsEnjoy

Hi again taiji2I'll reply to a couple posts to cut down on the load of replies you are receiving. Curiously, I feel that you have this a bit out of place - I do not consider ID to be a scientific pursuit but a philosophical one, one that employs science in order to understand the design.See Is ID properly pursued?The human eye. You can show me why you think it "reeks of sophisticated design" and I can show you why it isn't -- the key being an appreciation of what "sophisticated design" actually entails. Note that I am a designer by profession.See Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy... especially Message 4Have you considered Deism? See my sig ... And I agree. Of course it also includes the concept that all is illusion ... which doesn't get you far in scientific investigations ... Indeed. again see Is ID properly pursued?EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : dbcode