Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
10 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why complex form requires an Intelligent Designer
RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 6 of 165 (358005)
10-21-2006 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by KBC1963
10-21-2006 5:45 PM


The only possible mechanism that can provide for the
patterns of mechanical form is intelligence since it
can logically choose the extremely minute functional
possibilities from within a sea of infinite nonfunctional possibilities.
Why is a "logical choice" needed? Cannot the physical nature of the material itself (and the environment in which it operates) dictate structure?
Ever seen a snowflake?
Snowflakes and Snow Crystals
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by KBC1963, posted 10-21-2006 5:45 PM KBC1963 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by KBC1963, posted 10-21-2006 6:36 PM RickJB has replied

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 15 of 165 (358028)
10-21-2006 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by KBC1963
10-21-2006 6:36 PM


KBC1963 writes:
Our environment cannot dictate form otherwise you could not get diversity.
Environments (and selective pressures) vary, hence diversity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by KBC1963, posted 10-21-2006 6:36 PM KBC1963 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by KBC1963, posted 10-22-2006 10:32 AM RickJB has replied

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 21 of 165 (358087)
10-22-2006 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by KBC1963
10-22-2006 9:00 AM


kbc writes:
Unless you could show that any specific shape is constrained to occur then our observation of all the billions of shapes shows us that form is not constrained and thus can be any of an infinite set of possibilities
Firstly, demanding that others must refute your own assertions is a bit rich. They are your assertions to clearly demonstrate - something you have utterly failed to do in your little essay.
Secondly, you consistently refer to an "infinite set of possibilities", but you also consistently ignore the potential for environmental and selective pressures over time to constrain them.
I don't think your understanding of science or evolution is anywhere near as good as you seem to think it is...
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by KBC1963, posted 10-22-2006 9:00 AM KBC1963 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by KBC1963, posted 10-22-2006 8:14 PM RickJB has not replied

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 34 of 165 (358120)
10-22-2006 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by KBC1963
10-22-2006 10:32 AM


kbc writes:
The assumption here is that what worked in an initial environment could continue to be selectable in a different environment.
The evidence we have shows that it can. You must remember that the changes we are talking about are very gradual. Fish didn't evolve limbs in a single generation. This is a straw man assertion - evolution makes no such claims.
Tiktaalik (Tiktaalik - Wikipedia), for example, was an aquatic creature with strengthened fins that could be used to support its own weight during terrestrial locomotion whilst retaining their usefulness underwater - a classic transitional form. We see similar adaptations (operating in reverse) in pinnepeds (seals, sea lions, and walruses).
kbc writes:
If a new or differing environment meant that the previous form was no longer selectable and thus requiring a change of form to become selectable then how did it live long enough for mutation to provide for the right combination of form to be found in an infinite selection set of possible forms so that it would then be selectable for the diffent environment?
Again, we're not talking about a change within the lifespan of one individual, we are talking about subtle changes over many thousands of generations.
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by KBC1963, posted 10-22-2006 10:32 AM KBC1963 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by KBC1963, posted 10-24-2006 11:15 PM RickJB has replied

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 42 of 165 (358170)
10-22-2006 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Straggler
10-22-2006 5:05 PM


Re: Isn't this just the same old story?
Straggler writes:
Isn't KBC's whole argument just the same old misunderstanding of the nature of evolution as gradual change Vs the wholesale change argument put forward by proponents of ID everywhere?
Pretty much. This has been pointed out by myself and others.
Straggler writes:
I don't get why the discussion is getting so bogged down in details when the whole premise of the OP is just the usual ID silliness seen time and time again.
But "ID silliness" is ALWAYS lacking in details. One useful way to reveal the limitations of such arguments is to mount a challenge based on detail.
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Straggler, posted 10-22-2006 5:05 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Straggler, posted 10-22-2006 5:31 PM RickJB has not replied

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 44 of 165 (358173)
10-22-2006 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by KBC1963
10-22-2006 9:00 AM


kbc writes:
Unless you could show that any specific shape is constrained to occur then our observation of all the billions of shapes shows us that form is not constrained and thus can be any of an infinite set of possibilities.
Ever noticed how all stars, planets and moons are spherical/oblate spheroids? In this case gravity severely limits the possibilities.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by KBC1963, posted 10-22-2006 9:00 AM KBC1963 has not replied

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 77 of 165 (358351)
10-23-2006 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Taz
10-23-2006 1:46 PM


Re: KBC's crucial mistake
subbie: And, to take this point a step further, why do all mammals have the same basic femur shape?
gasby: This is not an argument against intelligent design. In fact, it is an argument for intelligent design.
Not really. Do you notice how the sun, planets and moons all have a similar spheroid shape? All are formed under gravity.
In any case, if one chooses to see "intelligent design" everywhere one can do so. What ID propoents have so far been unable to do is produce evidence of an intelligent agent to do the designing.
The best KBC and others can do is to argue from incredulity.
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Taz, posted 10-23-2006 1:46 PM Taz has not replied

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 108 of 165 (358511)
10-24-2006 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Taz
10-24-2006 10:20 AM


Re: On Design
gasby writes:
What I am saying is that they all (or at least the ones that claim to be the "real experts") seem to not take an official stance on who the designer is.
Rarely in public, and for good reason. Here follows just a tiny part of the evidnce given during the Dover ID case.
Intelligent design followed the Supreme Court’s rejection of creation science as night follows day: At the time that Edwards was decided, the Foundation for Thought and Ethics (a publisher of Christian texts) had been developing Of Pandas and People as a creationist work to advance the FTE’s religious and cultural mission.44 After the Supreme Court rejected the proffered expert opinions in Edwards claiming that creation science is ”science,’ Kenyon and FTE took their draft textbook (which advocated for creationism) and, with all the elegance of a word processor’s algorithm, replaced references to ”creationism’ with the new label ”intelligent design.’45 When they issued Pandas’s first edition just two years later, they presented intelligent design as if it were a new intellectual endeavor rather than merely a rechristening of creationism. But Pandas defines ”intelligent design’ exactly as an earlier draft had defined ”creationism.’46
44. Buell 07/14/2005 Testimony at 87; see also Forrest Suppl. Rep. at 10-13.
45. Buell 07/14/2005 Testimony at 98-99; App. IV-G; Forrest Suppl. Rep. at 4-8.
46. Buell 07/14/2004 Testimony at 98-99; Forrest Suppl. Rep. at 5.
gasby writes:
...we can't discredit them by attacking their motives.
Yes we can. As long as they have no scientific evidence for a designer, what else can their motives be? For a bet? Or a dare, perhaps?
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Taz, posted 10-24-2006 10:20 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Taz, posted 10-24-2006 10:55 AM RickJB has replied

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 111 of 165 (358520)
10-24-2006 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Taz
10-24-2006 10:55 AM


Re: On Design
Gasby writes:
Fine, then point out the fact that they lack evidence.
We have been. What planet are you on?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Taz, posted 10-24-2006 10:55 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Taz, posted 10-24-2006 3:04 PM RickJB has not replied

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 144 of 165 (358698)
10-25-2006 4:49 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by KBC1963
10-24-2006 11:15 PM


kbc writes:
I would like to see the beginning of bone formation and the myriad of steps (selectable) it went through. Do you have any of that kickin around the fossils?
Here's a couple of links. All I had to do was Google "evolution of vertebrates". I don't know why you are incapable of doing the same, but I guess you prefer to keep yourself in the dark.
http://www.peripatus.gen.nz/Paleontology/HigEvoVer.html
http://www.gpc.edu/~janderso/historic/vertev.htm
kbc writes:
And where is all the evidence for the evolutionary garbage along the way? where are all the evolutionary errors?
"Errors" is a relative term. Animals which were unable to adapt to selective pressure died out. We have their fossils. Simple.
kbc writes:
Amazingly every form seems to be fully functional in its own right
They are adapted in the same way that a puddle of water is "adapted" to the shape of a depression.
kbc writes:
...no little transitional step by step fossils.
This is simply not true. Here is a reptile to mammal sequence complete with "steps".
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1
In any case, where is the middle of a piece of string of infinite length? ALL forms are transitional. Humans are transitional. All forms are a product of their environment.
Now, where is YOUR evidence of a designer?
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by KBC1963, posted 10-24-2006 11:15 PM KBC1963 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