Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-26-2019 4:08 PM
23 online now:
Diomedes, kjsimons, PaulK, Percy (Admin) (4 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,681 Year: 3,718/19,786 Month: 713/1,087 Week: 82/221 Day: 36/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Selective Design?
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 1 of 6 (436279)
11-24-2007 10:06 PM


One of the arguments common for ID is to point to a few components where it is claimed design is evident or that appear to be "Irreducibly Complex".

That argument has always seemed to be among the weakest imaginable if someone wanted to support or assert a designer.

I realize I'm old, slow and not very well educated, but...

If there is a designer, are the ID folk claiming that the Designer only stepped in and designed a few critters or sub-systems?

If that is the case, is there some reason that the Designer only stepped in to design some pretty much irrelevant and unimportant subsystem such as the bacterial flagellum?

If there is a designer, is there some reason the Designer has turned out only mediocre or even minimal designs, designs just barely good enough to meet minimum standards?

If there is a designer, is there any reason we do not see the same design criteria and practices we see in human designed items as pointed out in Message 8?

If there is a designer is there some reason the designer was such an Ignorant or Inept Designer that "the designer was too stupid to either take all the great designs and build one critter that incorporated many of them, or even create ONE single critter that was not just a collection of barely good enough to survive traits" as pointed out in Message 105?


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Silent H, posted 11-25-2007 6:42 PM jar has not yet responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 6 (436286)
11-24-2007 10:42 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3900 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 3 of 6 (436432)
11-25-2007 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jar
11-24-2007 10:06 PM


Just one note as Devil's Advocate...

If there is a designer, are the ID folk claiming that the Designer only stepped in and designed a few critters or sub-systems? If that is the case, is there some reason that the Designer only stepped in to design some pretty much irrelevant and unimportant subsystem such as the bacterial flagellum?

They aren't claiming what the limits (or exact number of products) of the designer are at all. The argument they are making is that if they can show even one small detail for which evolutionary mechanisms are not possible, some sort of creation mechanism must be responsible. If it exists in one place, then it could just as easily have occurred many places, but we would not be able to tell due to reproductive realities. That is we couldn't say for sure if it was one vs the other.

Does that make sense?

So to them they are simply looking for the single card they can pull which will topple the whole house of cards. After one instance is recognized, they don't really need any more to have a valid theory. Every other aspect becomes suspect.

The rest of your questions I've seen answered, but never well, so I hope an IDer takes the challenge.

Edited by Silent H, : clarification


h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jar, posted 11-24-2007 10:06 PM jar has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 4 of 6 (438102)
12-02-2007 7:10 PM


Bump for any of the Design folk.
So is there anyone that can support design?


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by spitze, posted 12-13-2007 10:58 PM jar has not yet responded

  
spitze
Junior Member (Idle past 3840 days)
Posts: 6
Joined: 12-13-2007


Message 5 of 6 (440638)
12-13-2007 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by jar
12-02-2007 7:10 PM


Re: Bump for any of the Design folk.
Well, of course IDs say would say that the eye, wing, and flagellum are all evidence, however they often fail to recognize two concepts in evolution. these are evolutionary scaffolding and exaptation. In short, scaffolding is the concept that a characteristic evolves around support structures which are then removed, like an arch which is supported until the keystone is put in. Exaptation is the concept that characteristics evolve for one use, but then are used for something else eventually. Then bird wing could be an example of this since the earliest stub could have evolved to keep the bird warm (notice the modern bird which sticks its head under its wing in cold weather)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by jar, posted 12-02-2007 7:10 PM jar has not yet responded

  
waqasf 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 6 of 6 (462909)
04-10-2008 12:29 PM


Spam deleted

Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.


  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019