Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8789 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-20-2017 1:34 AM
341 online now:
Pressie (1 member, 340 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Post Volume:
Total: 819,127 Year: 23,733/21,208 Month: 1,698/2,468 Week: 207/822 Day: 0/82 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
5678Next
Author Topic:   the variety and evolution of reproduction methods over time.
Davidjay 
Suspended Member
Posts: 1026
From: B.C Canada
Joined: 11-05-2004


Message 46 of 111 (810734)
06-01-2017 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by RAZD
06-01-2017 7:21 AM


Re: Designers shouldn';t mock Design
Razz,you do understand that you are inconsistent and contradictory, do you NOT. You say you are a designer by occupation...... (I have not misrepresented you) as you have put it in your own profile, and yet say you are against design, and deem it silly.

Now thats silly, contradictory and inconsistent and worse.

But thanks for trying to make the team, do try out again next year when you get older....and wiser and more consistent.


Evolution is not science. It did not create life nor did it diversify life. It didn;t create the laws that exist nor did it create science. It is a religion and not Science.

Intelligent design always defeats evolutions lack of design and lack of intelligence. Luck and Chance is not a scientific doctrine,


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by RAZD, posted 06-01-2017 7:21 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13622
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 47 of 111 (810761)
06-01-2017 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by ProtoTypical
05-31-2017 6:31 PM


ProtoTypical writes:

My point is that the notion of a designer can not be dismissed by some perceived inefficiency in the nature of reproduction.


Why not? If you see a bunch of boulders strewn across the landscape, don't you doubt that the arrangement was designed?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by ProtoTypical, posted 05-31-2017 6:31 PM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-01-2017 9:46 PM ringo has responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4600
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 48 of 111 (810763)
06-01-2017 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jar
05-30-2017 11:00 AM


Jar writes:

Just the sheer variety of different methods is astounding and the fact that the vast majority of methods are both inefficient and ineffective is a classic sign of evolution and the fact that life is not designed but simply another example of "just barely good enough" that seems the hallmark of living organisms throughout history.

This strikes me as a self-defeating statement. All of the living things on the planet, presumably we would all agree have viably reproduced to this day, so how is this a classic sign of, "barely good enough design"? Go and create one viable reproductive system. Is that easy, in terms of design? Viablity is one feature of design which requires intelligence all on it's own. That's why every organism is riddled with contingency planning which shows INCREDIBLE design.

Obviously from the point of view of Christian creationists, we believe the extinct forms are largely because the flood led to a tougher world but the millions of species on earth all viably reproduce, so you didn't actually provide any evidence that this is, "inefficient and ineffective". If we presume God also has control and balance of the food chain in mind, some of that mortality may even show teleology.

I think also, we have to consider that the miracle of life is very great, you can't deal with a giraffe as some kind of static, oblong anatomy, you have to remember that it goes from being a spherically shaped blastocyst to being a mature adult with is anatomically viable, and sexually viable.

If this is poor design, please show me one idiot that can create a car that reproduces itself. Because if that person existed, he would be more famous that Einstein for his/her off-the-scale level of intelligence.

Jar writes:

Then we also find that "male and female he created them" is actually the exception to the rule. The vast majority of species have neither males or females but rather are without sex; many species are both male & female; many have more than two genders and there are even species that change sex as needed or with age.

That seems like a fair point. But let's not jump to conclusions I say.

Jar writes:

When we add in the fact of infant mortality where even successful reproduction does not mean a critter lives long enough to reproduce it seems clear that there is neither plan or design to reproduction and in fact entirely different models and methods have evolved where none are really reliable or effective and all simply barely good enough to continue.

Well, if you are arguing against a creation model, FIRST understand it. We don't argue that looking at the present state of the planet, is any indication of how it was made. We argue that God created a "very good" world, where there were no thorns or disease or malfunction. Since that time the harmful effects of mutations building up, are what have actually caused a lot of the problems you will be referring to.

Attenborough argues that God wouldn't create a parasite for the human eye, but that's the classic failure to fail to understand the creationist position, we don't believe God created parasites for those reasons, or malfunctions on purpose, any more than we believe He invented mad cow disease.

It also seems this last comment assumes that the world now and the harsh survival conditions for animals, would have been the same then. Now there are all kinds of reason young offspring doesn't survive, and a lot of those reasons have nothing to do with reproduction.

Conclusion; I think your argument is a non-sequitur..."these things don't show design to me....therefore evolution" but in fact even if we agree it is bad design, bad designs still need a designer, I don't see any solid reason to believe everything invented itself by evolution, you just seem to jump to that conclusion by attacking design.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jar, posted 05-30-2017 11:00 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by jar, posted 06-01-2017 12:20 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 50 by ringo, posted 06-01-2017 1:15 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 53 by Porosity, posted 06-01-2017 8:29 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29363
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 49 of 111 (810765)
06-01-2017 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by mike the wiz
06-01-2017 12:12 PM


Mike writes:

Well, if you are arguing against a creation model, FIRST understand it. We don't argue that looking at the present state of the planet, is any indication of how it was made. We argue that God created a "very good" world, where there were no thorns or disease or malfunction.

Yes Mike, I am fully aware that you pile nonsense on top of nonsense but that is still just nonsense totally refuted by reality and even the slitest hint of honesty.

But it is still totally irrelevant to this topic and and simply yet another of your attempts to palm the pea, con the rubes, move the goal posts, misdirect attention and post your fantasies.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by mike the wiz, posted 06-01-2017 12:12 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13622
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 50 of 111 (810772)
06-01-2017 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by mike the wiz
06-01-2017 12:12 PM


mike the wiz writes:

Attenborough argues that God wouldn't create a parasite for the human eye, but that's the classic failure to fail to understand the creationist position, we don't believe God created parasites for those reasons, or malfunctions on purpose, any more than we believe He invented mad cow disease.


So you're forced to fall back on the position that the "creator" didn't create everything.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by mike the wiz, posted 06-01-2017 12:12 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Diomedes, posted 06-01-2017 2:30 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 660
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 51 of 111 (810783)
06-01-2017 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by ringo
06-01-2017 1:15 PM


mike the wiz writes:
Attenborough argues that God wouldn't create a parasite for the human eye, but that's the classic failure to fail to understand the creationist position, we don't believe God created parasites for those reasons, or malfunctions on purpose, any more than we believe He invented mad cow disease.

So you're forced to fall back on the position that the "creator" didn't create everything.

I have to agree with ringo. That statement flies in the face of standard views on creationism. Is Mike arguing that there are other creators? Are we talking a polytheistic view?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by ringo, posted 06-01-2017 1:15 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by jar, posted 06-01-2017 2:45 PM Diomedes has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29363
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 52 of 111 (810786)
06-01-2017 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Diomedes
06-01-2017 2:30 PM


Diomedes writes:

I have to agree with ringo. That statement flies in the face of standard views on creationism. Is Mike arguing that there are other creators? Are we talking a polytheistic view?

No, he is likely relying on "The Fall™" which is also certainly not Biblical and in fact refuted by an honest reading of the Genesis myths.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Diomedes, posted 06-01-2017 2:30 PM Diomedes has not yet responded

  
Porosity
Member
Posts: 155
From: MT, USA
Joined: 06-15-2013
Member Rating: 5.8


(2)
Message 53 of 111 (810809)
06-01-2017 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by mike the wiz
06-01-2017 12:12 PM


No one's "attacking design" you're inferring design where there is none. Much like the puddle analogy, the puddle finds itself to fit the hole it rests in perfectly, therefore he thinks he's designed to fit the hole perfectly or the hole was designed for him.

The environment is not designed for us to fit in it and we are not designed to fit to it. We have evolved to survive the environment and if we could not have evolved to fit/survive, none of us would be here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by mike the wiz, posted 06-01-2017 12:12 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

    
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1751
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 54 of 111 (810815)
06-01-2017 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Porosity
05-31-2017 8:38 PM


We know what design looks like and we simply do not see anything being designed in nature.

We know what our designs look like. It is one thing to look at a piece of pottery on earth and say that it was designed but how do you assess a universe for elements of design? What would a designed universe look like?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Porosity, posted 05-31-2017 8:38 PM Porosity has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Porosity, posted 06-03-2017 3:04 PM ProtoTypical has responded

  
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1751
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 55 of 111 (810816)
06-01-2017 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by ringo
06-01-2017 11:58 AM


If you see a bunch of boulders strewn across the landscape, don't you doubt that the arrangement was designed?

I certainly do but when I get to contemplating why there are boulders and landscapes the question is less clear.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by ringo, posted 06-01-2017 11:58 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by ringo, posted 06-02-2017 11:58 AM ProtoTypical has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13622
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


(2)
Message 56 of 111 (810869)
06-02-2017 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by ProtoTypical
06-01-2017 9:46 PM


ProtoTypical writes:

I certainly do but when I get to contemplating why there are boulders and landscapes the question is less clear.


In this tread we're contemplating reproduction - which presupposes that there is something to reproduce. "Why" there is something to reproduce is irrelevant.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-01-2017 9:46 PM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-03-2017 7:34 AM ringo has responded

  
Davidjay 
Suspended Member
Posts: 1026
From: B.C Canada
Joined: 11-05-2004


Message 57 of 111 (810918)
06-03-2017 5:47 AM


You evolutionists chatting away is rather funny and humoress, because you side step the cause and effect of the amazing different reproductive methods that the Lord created for His different KINDS....... amazingly innovative and unique.

For with you, evolutionists you omit writing about how beneficial mutations miraculously created all these different methods and abilities and traits and organs of reproductivity, and just chat away like preachers preaching to each other.

So come on, start telling us what a miracle it is that all these various methods all, just happened by accident and luck and chance and then got selected by your god of selection to make these creations all viable and reproducing. You need to write a new 'Genesis.' according to your newest theory of a theory of the theory of evolution and your magical mutation theory.

Just a suggestion.

APCSRG


Evolution is not science. It did not create life nor did it diversify life. It didn;t create the laws that exist nor did it create science. It is a religion and not Science.

Intelligent design always defeats evolutions lack of design and lack of intelligence. Luck and Chance is not a scientific doctrine,


    
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1751
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 58 of 111 (810928)
06-03-2017 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by ringo
06-02-2017 11:58 AM


In this tread we're contemplating reproduction -

We are talking about how reproduction on earth supports or opposes the idea of a designed universe. The premise of jar's argument is that the haphazard shotgun approach of the various methods that exist is somehow evidence that the universe was not designed. The premise is false or at least unsupported.

Why wouldn't a designer do it exactly that way? Does it matter if the failure rate is high? We design many things that are grossly inefficient and yet viable like car engines and power plants and particle accelerators.

which presupposes that there is something to reproduce. "Why" there is something to reproduce is irrelevant.

The 'why' of it comes in when considering the design objective. How can you be critical of an arrangement if you don't know what the arrangement is for?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by ringo, posted 06-02-2017 11:58 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by jar, posted 06-03-2017 8:04 AM ProtoTypical has responded
 Message 62 by RAZD, posted 06-03-2017 9:51 AM ProtoTypical has responded
 Message 63 by ringo, posted 06-03-2017 11:51 AM ProtoTypical has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29363
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 59 of 111 (810933)
06-03-2017 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by ProtoTypical
06-03-2017 7:34 AM


Help wanted: No designer need apply
PT writes:

We are talking about how reproduction on earth supports or opposes the idea of a designed universe. The premise of jar's argument is that the haphazard shotgun approach of the various methods that exist is somehow evidence that the universe was not designed.

No, once again that is simply not true.

The variety of different methods of reproduction exist and there is evidence that all of those different methods of reproduction really do exist.

Those various processes can be observed and characterized.

The efficiency, effectiveness, reliability and success or failure rate of those methods can be established.

There is a process (The Theory of Evolution) that can explain both the variety of processes as well as why they are as inefficient, unreliable and ineffective as they are.

What is not in evidence and so has no merit is any designer.

Until the designer is actually placed in evidence there is simply no worth or value or reason to try to insert the imaginary designer.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-03-2017 7:34 AM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-03-2017 8:51 AM jar has responded

  
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1751
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 60 of 111 (810938)
06-03-2017 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by jar
06-03-2017 8:04 AM


Re: Help wanted: No designer need apply
No, once again that is simply not true.

But you wrote in msg 1

Just the sheer variety of different methods is astounding and the fact that the vast majority of methods are both inefficient and ineffective is a classic sign of evolution and the fact that life is not designed

I am not arguing that the ToE is not supported. I just don't see how it addressees the question of design which is, at it's heart, a question of origin.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by jar, posted 06-03-2017 8:04 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by jar, posted 06-03-2017 9:19 AM ProtoTypical has responded

  
Prev123
4
5678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017