Thanks for all your input. I was hoping for "miscellaneous topics" but this is fine, as long as my original post isn't taken to suggest anything divine, necessarily, about a would-be designer.
Let's see, Chiroptera, you wrote:
Well, yeah, most people would. But would an omnipotent, omniscient being do so?
I am not assuming that a god would be omnipotent nor omniscient. You likely believe that idea, because it is one of many things we've been told. I am not talking about those things.
You also said:
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. I'd like to stick to things that lead us to a potential conclusion. Inventing as many possibilities as possible does't do anybody any good (as far as I know).
RickJB, you said:
Then read up on [evolution].
Believe me, I have. And, I've never even ruled out a certain scenario where we could've been designed as well as remain subject to an arbitrary drive for relevant beautification within a given species. But, that scenario would seem to lead away from mutation at almost any reasonable cost. More to the point, though, speciation in its accepted constraints appears to be logically impossible.
If a species is defined as the set of potential breeders, then how would ONE outbreed ever come about, let alone another one who just happens to posess the same mutation (in a period where they are both fertile, of opposite sex, etc.)?
PaulK:
I work in the software industry, and I can tell you that there comes a point where it is necessary to stop and do radical rewrites. You do not keep on fiddling and fixing forever or you end up with a complete mess. I suspect it's the same in engineering - all the car manufacturers I've heard of bring out new models every so often.
Yes exactly. I agree with you. That would sometimes be the case. I believe that one would use copies of some of the same subroutines, right?
Also there's the business of transferring technology. Something that works in one application gets copied into other places where it's useful. That doesn't seem to happen very often in nature - at least it doesn't seem to be done intentionally.
That's a good point. This is also making the assumption, though, that the nature of programming DNA is the same as programming software, in terms of a "compiler". I don't know if we have enough knowledge to evaluate that yet.
Ringo wrote:
As I see it, the biggest flaw in your argument is that you ignore 99% of the life-forms on earth.
I'm talking about every life form on earth. I mean, they had to come from somewhere.
But what about the ball-point pens and the igloos? Would your phantom designer use the same materials to build them? Wouldn't that be a sure way to lose his job?
Not if he figured out out a way to make them reproduce themselves.
Crashfrog...
Let's say that your car designers branch out into the submarine business. Does it still make sense to reuse previous plans? Does it make sense to, say, design a fast attack sub that encorporates the double-wishbone suspension?
Let's just say it's cars.
Just a lingusitic note - "specie" means "money" or "coinage"; the word your looking for is "species", which refers to a reproducive community of like organisms. Used in this way it is self-plural.
Also - you're entire argument seems contradictory. You list all the reasons that there doesn't appear to be a designer; from this, you conclude that there is a designer but he simply doesn't want to be found. Exactly what would you expect the world to look like if organisms had evolved via random mutation and natural selection, through common descent with modification from an individual ancestor, unguided by any divine agency?
Thanks, I should know that.
Now, where have I listed ideas that there doesn't appear to be a designer?
You're exactly right, though. I don't know what I'd expect, but the world would have to look like SOMETHING no matter what.
Jar:
In each instance this was a new feature that first appeared in only one make, sometimes only one model of a car. The designer though took good ideas from one model and applied those same ideas to EVERY model.
That's assuming that they are either necessary or practical. Would you install an airabag if you couldn't reconfigure the processor to activate it?
In each instance this was a new feature that first appeared in only one make, sometimes only one model of a car. The designer though took good ideas from one model and applied those same ideas to EVERY model.
See, we should keep in mind that it would depend on the purpose of any given model.
Hi, PJ. You said
I know too little of science. But, whenever I see my Adidas shoes having the same material as my bag, having the same brand (Adidas) I say that these come from a single designer and maker. Never in my mind will it enter that my shoes evolved from my bag.
Right. There's no reason to do so. Remember now, there would also be no need to assume that there is a single designer.
Jazzns:
People are forgetting the most basic difference between cars or other inanimate object and living beings is that living beings MAKE COPIES OF THEMSELVES!
The argument of design by common traits is rediculous given this basic mechanism of life. You can tell that your Adidas shoes and bag are designed becuase that is the only way they can come into existence. We can also tell because we know the designer of those artifacts and can watch them being designed today.
Yes, I agree. We could call that the fundamental difference. That also means that if we find a way for machinery or programming to spawn, it would then become fundamental.
Iceage
Cars, chairs and golf club designs have evolved in a trail-and-error approach. Designs that work or are popular get reproduced and improved. Are you suggesting that God is not omnipotent and has to work like Edison in his lab trying 1000's of designs and material to find what works. If God was omnipotent he would reach for the design and material that works on the first iteration.
Yes, I am suggesting there may be a god that has to work like Edison in his lab trying 1000's of designs and material to find what works.
What are you saying here? God needs to avoid appearances of impropriety? Huh? Why does a "good God" need to keep secrets.
Yes, a good god would need to avoid appearances of impropriety. Would that be too much to ask?
Why does a "good god" need to keep secrets? Hhyeah. That's what I'd like to know.
1.61803...
The client: super intelligent beings who are bored of they're current online gaming choices.
Brilliant! Go with that, I'm serious.
And, do you mind if I patent that?
RAZD:
Welcome to the fray, limbosis. You seem a little ambivolent in your post (as others have noted). Love the avatar (now). Isn't "limbosis" a dance troupe?
Thanks. I'm not sure what limbosis is, it just sounded cool. We could all MAKE it a dance troupe.
I was going for the clinical terminology...a condition of being in a state of limbo. But, I did google it, and I had the top 2 results out of 495 matches for a single coherent word search. So, YEAH baby! (I still have the printout.)
But, Wikipedia didn't even have it yet. So, C'mon people! Let's give'em a word they won't soon forget!
...It does not exist in nature -- so where is your designer?
Wow, that was an awesome post.
Again, I don't know that certain designs don't meet certain specific needs, like slithering into and out of underwater crevices and such.
The question is, are you ready to be wrong? Or will you deny evidence that shows the contradictions of your beliefs?
Yes, I am ready to be wrong. I welcome everything, because the truth is we DON'T know. I've found an approach that seems to hold up. But, it needs to be tested. I guess that's why I'm here.
I'll have to get back to you on the eyeball thing, though. Nice work.
Dr Adequate also wrote
Why don't whales have gills? 'Cos someone else owns the intellectual property rights. The eye of the octopus? Exclusively manufactured by Molluscs-R-Us for their top-of-the-range luxury cephalopod.
Biogeography has a similar basis. Obviously the people who invented the marsupial are a small firm based in Australia, without the needed investment or infrastructure to make real penetration into overseas markets.
I...think...you have the picture. You're clearly onto something, though.
fallacycop:
Complexity is an argument against ID, not in favor of it.
For instance, I look at a simple object like the egyptian piramids and think imidiatly about design. But when I look at a complex object like a mountain, I think Natural ocurrence. This example shows that the presence of complexity doesn`t necessarily correlate with the fact of something having been designed.
Complexity doesn't necessarily correlate to anything. But, you raise a decent question. I don't know if you are aware of it.
What is the basis that should be used to determine complexity to begin with? Does it not depend on relevance?
Is a mountain complex because irregular features, jagged edges and disorder would require more data to fully describe it? Is it complex because it is the simple product of a complex agenda? Or is it just plain simple? Hmm.
What then is the pyramid, and why?
™ Version 4.2
