Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,472 Year: 3,729/9,624 Month: 600/974 Week: 213/276 Day: 53/34 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What IS evidence of design? (CLOSING STATEMENTS ONLY)
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4167 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 26 of 377 (607717)
03-06-2011 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Buzsaw
03-06-2011 9:49 AM


Re: Evidence of Design
So if I understand your line of thought then a mouse has no significant difference in intelligence or ability to reason compared to a chimp or bonobo?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Buzsaw, posted 03-06-2011 9:49 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by jar, posted 03-06-2011 11:19 AM fearandloathing has not replied
 Message 33 by Buzsaw, posted 03-06-2011 12:53 PM fearandloathing has not replied

fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4167 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 36 of 377 (607739)
03-06-2011 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Dr Jack
03-06-2011 2:26 PM


honeycombs
I think the honeycomb may be simply the best arrangement to utilize most storage space possible. Its also strong, but I don't feel it it designed by the bee or god. With that line of thought you could argue the beaver-dam and few other things too.
You can wiki honeycomb and follow the links to Archimedes lab and see some interesting stuff and even a way the design could be better in theory but in practice the difference is negligible.
Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Dr Jack, posted 03-06-2011 2:26 PM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Dr Jack, posted 03-06-2011 2:53 PM fearandloathing has replied
 Message 42 by ringo, posted 03-06-2011 4:16 PM fearandloathing has not replied

fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4167 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 38 of 377 (607743)
03-06-2011 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Dr Jack
03-06-2011 2:53 PM


Re: honeycombs
I guess we would have to agree on what design means to this discussion...wiki wasn't very helpful.. lol.
Maybe someone smarter than I has a definition that would be acceptable?? I shall look a little further.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Dr Jack, posted 03-06-2011 2:53 PM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Dr Jack, posted 03-06-2011 3:16 PM fearandloathing has replied

fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4167 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 40 of 377 (607747)
03-06-2011 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Dr Jack
03-06-2011 3:16 PM


Re: honeycombs
LOL...well there are many too choose from. I will put some thought into it. Maybe you see one that you think is more relevant?
I work in construction/maintenance < plumbing , pipefitting ect.., so I am biased. I veiw design as when I walk into a new house...look at prints and then lay-out where stuff goes. I have to design that system to work well and meet code. There are other considerations such as doing it cost effective ie...least number of fittings and pipe. Then there are considerations of ease of use or access for maintainence, and of couse what the customer wants. After all that the end product is my design based on many different reqirements, but rarely do I have to put it in the form of a blueprint.
I am not sure I can say the beaver is not simply working on instinct.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Dr Jack, posted 03-06-2011 3:16 PM Dr Jack has not replied

fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4167 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 41 of 377 (607749)
03-06-2011 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Dr Jack
03-06-2011 3:16 PM


Re: Beavers as designers
I honestly cant say beavers don't design at this point.
I will say that it is not a design process that uses engineering in a method to get a end result. As a child I built many forts and a tree house using trial and error. I didn't have no understanding of how much load a piece of wood could withstand, but common sense and erring on the side of caution worked well for me then. By some definitions I was still actively designing.
Could the use of tools , in order to complete a design be appropriate?
Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Dr Jack, posted 03-06-2011 3:16 PM Dr Jack has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by fearandloathing, posted 03-06-2011 5:10 PM fearandloathing has not replied

fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4167 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 43 of 377 (607758)
03-06-2011 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by fearandloathing
03-06-2011 3:51 PM


Re: Beavers as designers
fearandloathing writes:
I honestly cant say beavers don't design at this point.
I will say that it is not a design process that uses engineering in a method to get a end result. As a child I built many forts and a tree house using trial and error. I didn't have no understanding of how much load a piece of wood could withstand, but common sense and erring on the side of caution worked well for me then. By some definitions I was still actively designing.
Could the use of tools , in order to complete a design be appropriate?
I will answer myself...lol....sign of mental instability or not???
Tool use means nothing. I can design and build a shelter with no tools...sticks vines and leaves maybe...snow cave ect...
Maybe in this case an argument can be made by how the materials are utilized?? Most designs will utilize materials available in an orderly and efficient way as to reduce waste and improve efficiency of said design or ease of constuction...whether it be labor or energy used.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by fearandloathing, posted 03-06-2011 3:51 PM fearandloathing has not replied

fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4167 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

fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4167 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

fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4167 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

fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4167 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 111 of 377 (608056)
03-08-2011 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Perdition
03-08-2011 1:19 PM


Re: Unconsious design.
Perdition writes:
Perhaps I'll take a stab at it if we ever do come up with a definition for design.
Good luck with that. That's sort of the crux, there is no definition for design that can be universally agreed upon, and even if there were, ascribing that to some supernatural designer is at best begging the question, and at worst, just plain fallacious.
Exactly why I havent posted anymore on this...although I find it fascinating. I think animal engineering could be an interesting topic on its own. Maybe I will try a new topic again based on this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Perdition, posted 03-08-2011 1:19 PM Perdition has not replied

fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4167 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 179 of 377 (608211)
03-09-2011 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Coyote
03-09-2011 11:36 AM


Re: Designed?
Coyote writes:
havoc writes:
Could you identify a thing as designed if you were unsure of its maker or originator?
Give it a try:
Modern art (designed) or natural?
And how can you tell?
Looks like crystal of some sort...maybe table salt magnified?? You cant really examine it only by looking a single picture and determine. there is no perspective of size for one. It would need to be handled at the least in order to see tool marks or have many photos taken in a more scientific way.
No way to say based on one picture, LOL maybe its art in the form of a picture of a natural crystal, if so then yes it, the photo, was designed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Coyote, posted 03-09-2011 11:36 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Coyote, posted 03-09-2011 3:50 PM fearandloathing has not replied

fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4167 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 353 of 377 (608686)
03-12-2011 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 328 by jar
03-12-2011 9:04 AM


Re: Design Evidence
jar writes:
Percy writes:
Off-topic question: How *old* is that boat, and what's that big, bulbous thing on the front behind the bow gun?
--Percy
Looks like one of the Arleigh Burke but could be an older Kidd. And likely phased array radar?
It is the USS Shiloh...Ticonderoga class cruiser ...built at bath iron works. Commissioned in 92. Was part of pacific fleet and forward deployed in Japan...She is a guided missile cruiser. This info is little old, last year and she may have re-assigned to 5th or another fleet??
Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 328 by jar, posted 03-12-2011 9:04 AM jar has not replied

fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4167 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 355 of 377 (608688)
03-12-2011 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 352 by Percy
03-12-2011 2:23 PM


Re: Design Evidence
see msg 353...warships .com has lots of info...or just google USS Shiloh...Also Cole is a destroyer...DDG. Shiloh is a cruiser..CG
While I am off topic Ill finish this and post no more on it.
USS Shiloh is part of 7th fleet currently. The panel you see on her superstructure are Phased array radar...similar to Cobra Dane radar. With current versions of the standard missile she carries, intercepting an inbound ballistic target is possible. She was used in test doing so in the not to distant past.
Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.
Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.
Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 352 by Percy, posted 03-12-2011 2:23 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4167 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 365 of 377 (608744)
03-13-2011 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 364 by Buzsaw
03-13-2011 8:56 AM


Re: Intelligence Gap
Buzsaw writes:
I was hoping, before the closing of the thread, I'd get some response to my Message 33, culminating an exchange between Fearandloathing and me concerning the huge intelligence gap observed, relating to humans and other creatures. I alluded to evidence that throughout human history, mankind has ruled over the brute beasts as per Genesis.
No gap between other species even approaches the gap between humans and other creatures, relative to reasoning, creativity, logic, spiritual, control, travel, and cultural, etc.
I see this as evidence of design attested to by recorded history.
You can follow the short debate between us to follow it.
I think everyone would agree with me when I said that the difference between a mouse and a chimp is far greater than us and a chimp, well most of us. Chimps can learn language, they use and fashion tools and have complex social groups. Similarities closer to man than to a mouse in intelligence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 364 by Buzsaw, posted 03-13-2011 8:56 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 366 by Buzsaw, posted 03-13-2011 10:51 AM fearandloathing has replied

fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4167 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 367 of 377 (608753)
03-13-2011 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 366 by Buzsaw
03-13-2011 10:51 AM


Re: Intelligence Gap
you do same thing to everyone, you twist their words or your use of English differs so greatly from mine that no meaningful debate could take place. Some great apes have tested with an IQ of 70+. Yes I know these test vary from researcher to researcher, but all would agree the Great apes are intelligent, JUST GOOGLE IT!! Lots of CREDIBLE research along with plenty of ID sites spreading their view on it also. You have taken a simple statement and twisted it around. All of what you said is a politicians answer.You side step with other irrelevant questions?? I could say more but you bore me with "the party line of creation, you cant prove none of it....THATS WHY ITS CALLED FAITH AND NOT FACT.
By the way, how many of the things mankind can do have you done or are capable of doing,,performed surgery??composed a song??play an instrument or made one,LOL Yes this is going no where and has nothing to do with anything...kind of like your statement.
Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 366 by Buzsaw, posted 03-13-2011 10:51 AM Buzsaw has seen this message but 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