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: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   INTELLIGENT DESIGN: An Engineer’s Approach
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 302 (369721)
12-14-2006 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by limbosis
12-14-2006 8:35 AM


quote:
Well, most people would do well to take full advantage of the efficiency, economics, expedience, common sense, reliability, safety, competence, practicality, and overall effectiveness in reusing the existing plans.
Well, yeah, most people would. But would an omnipotent, omniscient being do so? A being who could just create by a snap of his metaphorical fingers wouldn't have to worry about efficiency, and omniscient being wouldn't be constrained by "experience".
-
quote:
The only conclusion I would draw from this mess is that our designer does not want to reveal its true nature.
Or maybe got bored and went away without checking in on its creation. Or died. Or never existed in the first place.

Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied. -- Otto von Bismarck

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by limbosis, posted 12-14-2006 8:35 AM limbosis has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 302 (369737)
12-14-2006 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by NOT JULIUS
12-14-2006 1:03 PM


The problem is the pattern of the "common parts". By classifying species according to body plans, features, and the like, we find that the species fit onto a nested hierarchy. This pattern is real; different investigators will produce essentially the same nested hierarchical pattern. This is an amazing fact, and cannot really be explained except through common descent; in fact, common descent would be falsified if we didn't see this.
I can't think of any human design that produces this phenomenon. Take the OP's example of cars. Different people will produce very different nested hierarchies. No talk of a common designer using a few established designs can explain this. For one, an omnipotent creator (or at least that is potent enough) would not be constrained efficiency of time or by lack of imagination. For another, even if a creator would reuse the same designs, there is no reason it would use them in the hierarchical pattern that we see. We should see a mix-and-match of characteristics that cross classification boundaries: mice with feathers and insect eyes and crocodile teeth, for example.

Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied. -- Otto von Bismarck

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by NOT JULIUS, posted 12-14-2006 1:03 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by NOT JULIUS, posted 12-14-2006 2:29 PM Chiroptera has replied
 Message 28 by NOT JULIUS, posted 12-14-2006 7:53 PM Chiroptera has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 302 (369758)
12-14-2006 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by NOT JULIUS
12-14-2006 2:29 PM


Re: Nested Heirarchies
I don't see the problem here. This is an easy thing to test out.
Take several people, and have each of them classify cars according to some hierarchical pattern. Let them choose which features to determine the classification, or give them a list of features yourself (like number of wheels, number of doors, carburator vs feul injection, number of cylinders, front wheel vs rear wheel vs all wheel drive, and so forth). I bet each person will come up with a significantly different pattern to their heirarchy. The type of design that went into manufacturing each car model simply does not produce a single nested hierarchy -- many possibilities exist.
In the case of species of life, the same nested hierarchy comes up again and again. There really does exist in nature an objective standard by which one creature can be said to be similar to another. If creationists want to provide evidence against the theory of evolution, the simplest thing they could do is show how multiple nested hierarchies are possible in the classification of life. To my knowledge, no creationist has done this. It seems that even creationists agree that there is a single nested hierarchical pattern to life.
Different models of cars have similar features because the designers reused common ideas. This is reflected in the pattern of the similarities. Different species have similar features because of common descent. This, too, is reflected in the pattern of similarities. The pattern seen in automobiles is very different than the pattern seen in living species. The difference in pattern shows that the similarity between different species is not analogous to the similarity between different models of cars.

Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied. -- Otto von Bismarck

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by NOT JULIUS, posted 12-14-2006 2:29 PM NOT JULIUS has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 302 (369819)
12-14-2006 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by NOT JULIUS
12-14-2006 7:53 PM


Re: Common characteristics of living things proof of non design?
Hi, pilate.
quote:
Then it said that these characteristics proves there is no designer
Actually, it doesn't say any such thing.
-
Anyway, I don't understand the continued confusion on this.
Here is how the nested hierarchies constitutes evidence for the theory of evolution.
Let us take two examples. One, consider the copying of medieval manuscripts. Before the printing press, books had to be copied by hand. Several copies of important books would be made so that several people could have their own copies. Often, each of these copies would be copied in turn.
Now no copyist is perfect. Often, there would be errors made in the copy process. So, two copies made from the same manuscript would sometimes be slightly different in that one would have one or more errors, while the other would either be error-free or have error in different places.
But now that one particular copy has some errors, all the copies made from that manuscript will have the same errors. Plus, perhaps, one or more of these subcopies will have their own error, which will be propagated when copies are made from them.
So what we have here is an example of "descent with small modifications". That is, direct copies are made of specific individuals, and these copies will not be exact replicas. What do we see? We see that we can arrange these manuscripts into a nested hierarchy which reflects the lineages of the specific manuscripts. This is not mere theory -- this is actually seen in real life, and, in fact, there is an entire field called textual criticism which concerns itself with trying to find out where and when a specific manuscript was made by comparing it to all the other copies of it that are known to exist, and also to try to figure out what the original error-free manuscript said. The interesting thing is that these manuscripts, which we know were produced through copying specific individuals with the inclusions of small differences, can be classified into one nested hierarchical pattern. All researchers will produce essentially the same pattern.
Now take something that we know is not produced in this matter. Each car is not simply copied from an individual pre-existing car with some small modifications. Rather, cars are all produced en masse on assembly lines. And new models are not designed by merely making small modifications of a particular existing model, but by redesigning the whole thing, by mixing and matching features found in several completely different models, and sometimes incorporating completely novel features. Hence, there is no unique nested hierarchical pattern into which cars fall. If different people tried to produce a "phylogenic tree" for cars, each one would produce a very different tree.
Now which pattern do the living species fall? The pattern that living species exhibit is like that of the manuscripts. It is not at all like that of the cars.
This shouldn't be surprising. We already know that each individual organism is made by copying a pre-existing organism (the "parent"), and that minor modifications do occur. We already expect that some nested hierarchies should occur. What is surprising, or what should be surprising for someone who believes in special creation, is that all species can be placed on the same tree.
Now, if common descent were true, this is what we should expect. If we did not see a unique nested hierarchy, then we would have reason to doubt common descent. This, in science, is what we call "evidence". According to common descent, we should see a unique nested hierarchy. If we do not see it, then we know that common descent is not a good explanation for biology. So now we look, and what do we see? We see a unique nested hierarchy.
Now what other explanations do we have for this hierarchy? None that I am aware of. A "common designer"? Why would a common designer design according to a single nested hierarchy? Why wouldn't a common designer design according to a pattern like we see in cars, which are not produced from the copying of individuals with small differences? Why did the designer use a pattern that likes like that of manuscripts, where we know that individuals are copied from specific individuals with minor differences? A reasonable possibility is that all life ultimately stems from a common ancestor through a process by which each individual organism is copied from a previous organism with slight differences.
This doesn't prove that the species were all individually created separately. But it is evidence for evolution. According to evolution we should see this pattern. And there is no other good reason why we should see it. And we do.

Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied. -- Otto von Bismarck

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by NOT JULIUS, posted 12-14-2006 7:53 PM NOT JULIUS has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 302 (370012)
12-15-2006 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by NOT JULIUS
12-15-2006 6:37 PM


quote:
...drunks like me....
Ah. Well, this certainly explains a lot about the quality of your posts.

Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied. -- Otto von Bismarck

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by NOT JULIUS, posted 12-15-2006 6:37 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by NOT JULIUS, posted 12-15-2006 7:29 PM Chiroptera has not replied
 Message 46 by NOT JULIUS, posted 12-15-2006 7:46 PM Chiroptera has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 302 (370019)
12-15-2006 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by jar
12-15-2006 6:48 PM


He has changed the subject, hasn't he?
quote:

Classic attempt to change the subject.

The subject was examples of trail and error.
Actually, the OP was whether the repetition of certain designs in several different species is indicative of an intelligent designer. But I think that others and I have shown that, no, the pattern of similar designs indicates descent with modification. Perhaps pilate_judas is conceding the point?

Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied. -- Otto von Bismarck

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by jar, posted 12-15-2006 6:48 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by jar, posted 12-15-2006 7:10 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 302 (370028)
12-15-2006 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by limbosis
12-15-2006 6:48 PM


Re: Pyramid Schemes
quote:
Or maybe got bored and went away without checking in on its creation. Or died. Or never existed in the first place.
Those are simply not realistic.
What? Why not? In your OP you state:
The only conclusion I would draw from this mess is that our designer does not want to reveal its true nature.
How is this possibility more realistic than the ones I suggested? In fact, you state:
quote:
I am not assuming that a god would be omnipotent nor omniscient.
So now you are considering a possibility of a finite designer. So abandoning the experiment (or whatever life on earth is supposed to be) or dying are definite possibilities as to why we don't see the designer manifesting itself. And, me, I think that the non-existence of an intelligent designer is the most realistic possibility of them all.
-
quote:
Inventing as many possibilities as possible does't do anybody any good (as far as I know).
Unless you are seriously trying to answer a question. In that case, trying to think of as many possibilities as possible (called brainstorming) is exactly what one does. When one is serious about trying to find the answer to a question, one comes up with as many possible solutions as one can, and then one tries to eliminate as many as possible using evidence and logic. Sometimes several possibilities will remain. Sometimes none of the possibilities remain. That is the way things work out in life.
Inventing as many possibilities as possible poses a problem mainly to those who aren't really serious about finding an answer to the question, who are trying to limit the discussion to reach a conclusion already decided upon.
-
Anyway, in your OP, you mention that the existence of similar designs suggests to you that an intelligent designer, constrained by economics, is responsible for life. I have pointed out that the pattern of common designs is more indicative of common descent with small modifications. As far as we know, there isn't much evidence for an intelligent designer to begin with, so it would seem that the reason the designer doesn't seem to want to reveal its nature is that it doesn't exist.

Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied. -- Otto von Bismarck

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by limbosis, posted 12-15-2006 6:48 PM limbosis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by limbosis, posted 12-16-2006 2:22 AM Chiroptera has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 302 (370176)
12-16-2006 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by limbosis
12-16-2006 2:22 AM


Re: Pyramid Schemes
Hello, limbosis.
quote:
If one could consider a finite designer, wouldn't one want to characterize it before assuming that it got bored and left?
Probably a lot less than we would need to characterize a designer before we can postulate that it is mysterious and doesn't want to reveal itself.
-
quote:
Wouldn't one also consider that designer irresponsible if it left without checking on its creation?
Not really. What responsibilities would it have to check on its creation? If it had responsibilities to check on its creation, then maybe it has responsibilities to reveal itself.
-
quote:
In fair consideration of that possibility, one would not need to initially assume that the designer would have died, or never existed in the first place. That part of your reasoning doesn't make sense to me.
What doesn't make sense? There are lots of possible reasons why the designer hasn't revealed itself. Among those possibilities are death and non-existence. So far, you have presented no good reasons to exclude any of these other cases.
In fact, I would say that if we don't want to waste time then we should first determine whether there is a reason to assume a designer might have existed to begin with. So far, there doesn't appear to be any good evidence for a designer, so it is a bit premature to wonder why it doesn't reveal itself.
-
quote:
I would remind you that many creationists would insist that there are signs all over the place.
They also believe that the universe is only a few thousand years old, and that there was a global flood despite the very clear and unambiguous evidence otherwise. The fact that creationists insist on anything is not very good evidence.
-
quote:
There are also indications of alien life here, as reported all over the world by millions of people who do not know each other.
Actually, there aren't. There are a lot of con artists and gullible folks out there.
-
quote:
Are you going to say they're all either lying or mistaken?
Yes.
-
quote:
It wouldn't be your place to.
Another interesting notion that you have. Yes, when someone says something that it is incorrect, it is my place to point it out. It is everyone's place to point out mistakes.
-
quote:
when is everyone who believes in evolution going to express a fair amount of rage, for being publicly deceived with messages about some god that's supposed to be worth a darn.
What other people believe is their own business, except when they consent to discuss and debate their beliefs, we are doing here. The only need for "rage" is when people try to force their beliefs on others.

Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied. -- Otto von Bismarck

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by limbosis, posted 12-16-2006 2:22 AM limbosis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by limbosis, posted 12-16-2006 7:02 PM Chiroptera has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 302 (370209)
12-16-2006 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by NOT JULIUS
12-15-2006 7:46 PM


Once more into the breach.
quote:
Don’t underestimate drunks. Some drunk lawyers have made minced meat of sober ones in court. Some priceless works of arts were made by drunkards. Ha ha ha! Ha!
Well, when you finally sober up, you'll probably see that your post really doesn't address any of the issues that we are discussing vis a vis the opening post.
Let me try to explain this again. I am a teacher, so I am patient. I will continue to repeat the explanation as long as it takes for you to understand it, or until you decide to take the "F" and go on to other things.
Here is the part of the OP which I have been discussing:
In the OP we have:
Let’s pretend you manage a single car model for a productive automobile manufacturer. And, let’s say you have been asked to make some changes for next year’s line of your model. Would you commission your staff to start from scratch and redraw the plans for every facet of the current line while incorporating the new changes, or would you just reuse the current design plans and incorporate the required revisions to them?
Well, most people would do well to take full advantage of the efficiency, economics, expedience, common sense, reliability, safety, competence, practicality, and overall effectiveness in reusing the existing plans. I might add that it would certainly not be an accident. Your job would depend on your ability to do this. Plans for machinery rely upon intentional activities, and derive most of their utility from older designs.
In fact, the genetic designs we find in living things conform to the same business model. Newer designs appear to have originated as modified copies of earlier plans. Not only does this suggest that we were designed, it makes sense from an engineering perspective.
So the question we have been discussing, or at least the question I have been discussing in this subthread, is: is the existence of common designs among different species evidence for an intelligent designer?
I am claiming that the answer is no: this is not evidence for an intelligent designer. The reason is that the pattern of the evidence is different from what we see in designed, manufactured items, but very similar to what we see in things that are not consciously designed but are the result of descent with small modifications.
Let us take an example of something we know already is the result of descent with small modifications: languages, and to be specific let us look at the Romance Languages. We know that the different Romance languages and dialects are the result of descent with small modifications because we actually have a historical written record of the evolution of Vulgar Latin into the different Romance languages. We can actually trace the evolution of these dialects in peoples' writings and see how each generation learns a copy of the preceding generation's language, but with small changes here and there.
For this reason, we see that many different Romance dialects share many features in common. Is this because some designer sat down and designed each and every one of these languages? No, the common features result simply because various dialects share a common ancestral dialect, and even these ancestral dialects share a common ancestor.
And what do we see? We see that these dialects can be placed in a unique nested hierarchical pattern.
Now let us take something that we already know is not the result of descent with small modifications but is the result of the design and manufacuring process similar to the cars in the OP, namely, clocks. Examine all the different features a clock can have: hands on a dial vs. digital; spring driven vs. weight driven vs. battery powered; strap onto the wrist vs. carry in a pocket vs. set on a table vs. set on the floor vs. set in a very tall tower; calendar or no, second hand or no; different face styles; different additional features; and so on. Get different people to try to come up with a nested hierarchy for any set of watches. My guess is that each of these people will come up with a very different hierarchy.
So this is what we expect. Things that are the product of descent with small modifications should show a unique nested hierarchical pattern; we can even see why this should be the case. Things that are the product of an individual act of design, even when designed features are copied from previous existing items, do not show a unique nested hierarchy. So now, what do we see in the classification of living species? We see a unique nested hierarchy. This indicates that each species or each kind is not an individual act of creation or design, but the result of descent with modification.
What is more, we already know that descent with small modification is done naturally, without the need for an individual conscious act of creation, like, say, the medieval manuscript being the result of a human copyist. We already know the living organisms make copies of themselves -- this is called reproduction. Furthermore, we already know that the copies are not perfect -- these small differences from the previous copy are called genetic mutations.
So, the question: are the fact that different features found in different organisms evidence of a conscious designer who reuses designs in its creations?
The answer: no, the pattern found in the common features are more similar to what we expect in common descent with small modifications, and, furthermore, we already know that descent with small modifications occur naturally in living organisms without intelligent intervention.
So, no matter what one may talk about "economy" or "efficiency", the fact that different species have features in common is not evidence that the different species were designed by a common designer.

Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied. -- Otto von Bismarck

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by NOT JULIUS, posted 12-15-2006 7:46 PM NOT JULIUS has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 302 (370271)
12-16-2006 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by limbosis
12-16-2006 7:02 PM


Re: Putting the Car Before the Horse
quote:
I believe that there are one or more designers, call them gods if you like. But, I believe our designers are evil.
This is an interesting claim, but not very new. The Gnostics beleived that the demiurge that created the world was basically evil. And, of course, conspiracy theories are pretty common. Not to mention that Lovecraft pretty much invented the modern genre.
But in the end, what is needed is good, solid evidence to support claims such as this. If there is no evidence in favor of such a claim, and if the phenomena under investigation easily have more mundane explanations, then I don't see what the invention of "evil creators" really does for us.

Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied. -- Otto von Bismarck

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by limbosis, posted 12-16-2006 7:02 PM limbosis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by limbosis, posted 12-17-2006 4:42 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 112 of 302 (370727)
12-18-2006 7:10 PM


Re: Topic!
Seeing that we have now been warned to stay on topic, I will remind whoever is still interested in one of the points of the OP:
The OP makes an analogy of commonality of designs in living species with that of manufactured automobiles to attempt to try to make some conclusions about the supposed designer. I wrote a couple of posts explaining how the pattern of common designs in living species is actually not analogous to that of manufactured items, and, in fact, is analogous to items that are known to be formed through common descent.
http://EvC Forum: INTELLIGENT DESIGN: An Engineer’s Approach -->EvC Forum: INTELLIGENT DESIGN: An Engineer’s Approach
http://EvC Forum: INTELLIGENT DESIGN: An Engineer’s Approach -->EvC Forum: INTELLIGENT DESIGN: An Engineer’s Approach
Perhaps I succeeded in making my point, and this is no longer a point of contention?

Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied. -- Otto von Bismarck

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by jar, posted 12-18-2006 7:23 PM Chiroptera has replied
 Message 158 by limbosis, posted 12-22-2006 7:52 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 115 of 302 (370732)
12-18-2006 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by jar
12-18-2006 7:23 PM


Re: Topic!
Yeah, that was good, too. You got a POTM nomination for that one, if I recall. I'm kind of put out that neither of my posts were nominated! (No, no, I am not fishing for a nomination -- now that I have mentioned it, it would be bad form to nominate them and reward my whining.)

Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied. -- Otto von Bismarck

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by jar, posted 12-18-2006 7:23 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by jar, posted 12-18-2006 8:02 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 169 of 302 (371812)
12-23-2006 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by jaywill
12-23-2006 6:44 AM


Re: Assuming that We'd listen
quote:
Suppose the Designer said "jumping into bed for sex with someone you're not married to is fornication. Its wrong. And It will be judged."
I would say that the Designer should mind her own business.
But that's off-topic for this thread.

I have always preferred, as guides to human action, messy hypothetical imperatives like the Golden Rule, based on negotiation, compromise and general respect, to the Kantian categorical imperatives of absolute righteousness, in whose name we so often murder and maim until we decide that we had followed the wrong instantiation of the right generality. -- Stephen Jay Gould

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by jaywill, posted 12-23-2006 6:44 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by jaywill, posted 12-24-2006 7:35 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 170 of 302 (371813)
12-23-2006 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by jaywill
12-23-2006 6:14 AM


Re: Good for Goose and Gander
quote:
"So where did Evolution evolve from?"
It's like falling down, or gas expanding into a region of lower density. It just comes about because that's the way nature works.
You have living species produce more progeny than the environment can support. Therefore, most individuals will die without reproducing themselves. There is variation in the population: some individuals will have characteristics that will increase their chances of survival and reproductive success, others will have characteristics that will decrease their chances of reproductive success. These characteristics are usually inherited. New inheritable characteristics can come about.
These are facts. And evolution is the natural and logical outcome of these facts. But this, too, I fear may be off-topic.

I have always preferred, as guides to human action, messy hypothetical imperatives like the Golden Rule, based on negotiation, compromise and general respect, to the Kantian categorical imperatives of absolute righteousness, in whose name we so often murder and maim until we decide that we had followed the wrong instantiation of the right generality. -- Stephen Jay Gould

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by jaywill, posted 12-23-2006 6:14 AM jaywill 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