Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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:   What IS evidence of design? (CLOSING STATEMENTS ONLY)
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 46 of 377 (607763)
03-06-2011 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by nwr
03-06-2011 5:40 PM


nwr writes:
jar writes:
So consider honeycombs, a termite mound and a birds nest.
I don't have a problem saying that those are designed. But it depends on what is meant by "design." I would consider them ad hoc designs. That is, they are built up, and adjusted as needed, but there is explicit prior plan or blueprint.
This in my mind seems to be the true question...what is the accepted definition of design to be used in this discusion?? And your last sentence is confusing...seems a "no" should be added after "is"...?? LOL although confusing me is no great feat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by nwr, posted 03-06-2011 5:40 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by frako, posted 03-06-2011 6:07 PM fearandloathing has replied
 Message 56 by nwr, posted 03-06-2011 7:42 PM fearandloathing has not replied

frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 47 of 377 (607765)
03-06-2011 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by fearandloathing
03-06-2011 5:52 PM


Well i think you too should be focusing more on this
honeycombs and beaver dams are relatively simple in design, tough this is a very complex piece of engineering. Called magnetic termite mounds.
1 thing flat pointed directly east west to minimise the flat surface on witch the sun can land
2 thing these "buildings" have internal cooling systems so the mound stays at a comftorable 30 C almost all the time
3. it has a graveyard up on top, "royal chambers" on the bottom and lots of other rooms for diferent purposes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by fearandloathing, posted 03-06-2011 5:52 PM fearandloathing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by fearandloathing, posted 03-06-2011 6:51 PM frako has replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 48 of 377 (607767)
03-06-2011 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by nwr
03-06-2011 5:40 PM


I'm fairly sure that your ad hoc design includes the absolute majority of objects we'd consider designed through history.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by nwr, posted 03-06-2011 5:40 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by jar, posted 03-06-2011 6:40 PM Dr Jack has replied
 Message 57 by nwr, posted 03-06-2011 7:48 PM Dr Jack has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 49 of 377 (607769)
03-06-2011 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Dr Jack
03-06-2011 6:27 PM


Mr Jack writes:
I'm fairly sure that your ad hoc design includes the absolute majority of objects we'd consider designed through history.
So how do we distinguish a designed object from one that is not designed?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Dr Jack, posted 03-06-2011 6:27 PM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Dr Jack, posted 03-06-2011 6:45 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 50 of 377 (607771)
03-06-2011 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by jar
03-06-2011 6:40 PM


Given that I've already given an explicit set of criteria, I'm confused by your question?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by jar, posted 03-06-2011 6:40 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 51 of 377 (607773)
03-06-2011 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by frako
03-06-2011 6:07 PM


frako writes:
Well i think you too should be focusing more on this
honeycombs and beaver dams are relatively simple in design, tough this is a very complex piece of engineering. Called magnetic termite mounds.
1 thing flat pointed directly east west to minimise the flat surface on witch the sun can land
2 thing these "buildings" have internal cooling systems so the mound stays at a comftorable 30 C almost all the time
3. it has a graveyard up on top, "royal chambers" on the bottom and lots of other rooms for diferent purposes
Ah...yes...well I am glad you posted...Very good. I have taught many people who are competent plumbers, but never really understood why they had to do things a certain way. They know what the code says but don't understand the reason for it.
Couldn't it be said that animals build structures based on what works with no understanding of why it works??

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by frako, posted 03-06-2011 6:07 PM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by frako, posted 03-06-2011 7:03 PM fearandloathing has replied

frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 52 of 377 (607775)
03-06-2011 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by fearandloathing
03-06-2011 6:51 PM


Couldn't it be said that animals build structures based on what works with no understanding of why it works??
No question that a termite does not understand why that structure works, and i can easely see the structure part of the evolution of those termites.
- the termites that dug their "city" died more often then those that built it upwards
- the termites that made flat cities facing the right way died less often then those that built it differently
- the termites that made holes at the bottom and top to alowe for hot air to escape up top thus sucking cool air from the bootom died less then the termites that had no holes or holes at the wrong places
just a few millenia of trial and error and success encoded in their DNA.
tough still their structures are designed, the only diference is that their trials and errors are "writen down" <-- .....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by fearandloathing, posted 03-06-2011 6:51 PM fearandloathing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by fearandloathing, posted 03-06-2011 7:27 PM frako has not replied

fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 53 of 377 (607778)
03-06-2011 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by frako
03-06-2011 7:03 PM


frako writes:
Couldn't it be said that animals build structures based on what works with no understanding of why it works??
No question that a termite does not understand why that structure works, and i can easely see the structure part of the evolution of those termites.
- the termites that dug their "city" died more often then those that built it upwards
- the termites that made flat cities facing the right way died less often then those that built it differently
- the termites that made holes at the bottom and top to alowe for hot air to escape up top thus sucking cool air from the bootom died less then the termites that had no holes or holes at the wrong places
just a few millenia of trial and error and success encoded in their DNA.
tough still their structures are designed, the only diference is that their trials and errors are "writen down" <--
With my current line of thought then it could be said that these structures are a product of evolution and natural selection?? I think it does??

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by frako, posted 03-06-2011 7:03 PM frako has not replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 377 (607779)
03-06-2011 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Dr Jack
03-06-2011 12:03 PM


Mr Jack writes:
An artefact can be identified as designed if:
1. It can be identified as having a purpose or function to a third party
I'm not sure I understand your criteria. What are the three parties are involved in the design of a pointy spear made by humans?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Dr Jack, posted 03-06-2011 12:03 PM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Dr Jack, posted 03-06-2011 7:32 PM NoNukes has replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 55 of 377 (607781)
03-06-2011 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by NoNukes
03-06-2011 7:28 PM


The stabber, the stabbee and the spear maker. Obviously, in many cases two of these parties will be synonymous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by NoNukes, posted 03-06-2011 7:28 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by NoNukes, posted 03-06-2011 8:36 PM Dr Jack has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 56 of 377 (607782)
03-06-2011 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by fearandloathing
03-06-2011 5:52 PM


fearandloathing writes:
This in my mind seems to be the true question...what is the accepted definition of design to be used in this discusion??
Yes, I agree. There's a tendency to treat it as a black or white issue, as in "it either is designed or it isn't designed." But I think it is a bit more complex than that.
fearandloathing writes:
And your last sentence is confusing...
Sorry, that was a typo. I have fixed it.

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by fearandloathing, posted 03-06-2011 5:52 PM fearandloathing has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 57 of 377 (607783)
03-06-2011 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Dr Jack
03-06-2011 6:27 PM


Dr Jack writes:
I'm fairly sure that your ad hoc design includes the absolute majority of objects we'd consider designed through history.
The extent of planning and of ad hoc changes probably varies a lot. The religious claims are about planning by an external agent, so "design" is perhaps a misleading term.
Personally, I don't have a problem with the idea that biological organisms are designed. The development phase seems to me to be a system for self-design. But that's not the issue that concerns ID proponents.

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Dr Jack, posted 03-06-2011 6:27 PM Dr Jack has not replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 377 (607785)
03-06-2011 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Dr Jack
03-06-2011 7:32 PM


Three parties.
Mr Jack writes:
The stabber, the stabbee and the spear maker. Obviously, in many cases two of these parties will be synonymous.
Your criteria seem ... problematic based on the roles you assign to the parties.
In your critieria, the second party (stabbee) plays absolutely no role at all, and by your own admission the first and third parties can be identical.
Revisiting your dung example, why do you introduce the dung beetle if we really don't need a distinct third party. Why not consider the dung maker and the dung dropper as two of the parties? Might not dung have a shape or a consistency convenient for the dung dropper?
Who would the three parties be for a painting? Surely a painting is designed, yet there is only a single party involved. Arguably, a painting is not functional.
Finally how useful would your criteria be for identifying designed living things which is where ID proponents really want to apply it? It does not seem intuitive to me how it would be applied.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Dr Jack, posted 03-06-2011 7:32 PM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Dr Jack, posted 03-07-2011 4:01 AM NoNukes has replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 59 of 377 (607796)
03-07-2011 4:01 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by NoNukes
03-06-2011 8:36 PM


Re: Three parties.
NoNukes writes:
Your criteria seem ... problematic based on the roles you assign to the parties.
In your critieria, the second party (stabbee) plays absolutely no role at all, and by your own admission the first and third parties can be identical.
Look, if it makes you happy just substitute designer or whatever. I only put "third party" to account for those cases where the designer is not the one who benefits.
Arguably, a painting is not functional.
I said 'function or purpose'
Finally how useful would your criteria be for identifying designed living things which is where ID proponents really want to apply it? It does not seem intuitive to me how it would be applied.
Well, in order to claim that an animal is designed you would need to identify a purpose or function they fulfil for a designer, identify that designer, show that the designer created - or suitably modified - the form of the animal to fulfil that purpose or function and show that this creation was intentional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by NoNukes, posted 03-06-2011 8:36 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by NoNukes, posted 03-07-2011 8:30 AM Dr Jack has replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 377 (607802)
03-07-2011 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Dr Jack
03-07-2011 4:01 AM


Re: Three parties.
Mr. Jack writes:
Look, if it makes you happy just substitute designer or whatever. I only put "third party" to account for those cases where the designer is not the one who benefits.
Don't blame me. Using third party made your definition useless because by varying selection of the third party, we also varied the outcome determined by use of the criteria.
By substituting designer as you suggest, then we have a useless tautology. Something made by a designer to fulfill a purpose or a function is designed? This is news?
Mr. Jack writes:
Well, in order to claim that an animal is designed you would need to identify a purpose or function they fulfil for a designer, identify that designer, show that the designer created - or suitably modified - the form of the animal to fulfil that purpose or function and show that this creation was intentional.
If I could show that a designer intentionally modified an animal to fulfill a purpose/function, then I could show that the animal is designed?
Wow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Dr Jack, posted 03-07-2011 4:01 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Dr Jack, posted 03-07-2011 8:51 AM NoNukes has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024