Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence to expect given a designer
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 9 of 373 (644162)
12-15-2011 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
12-05-2011 3:24 PM


The fact is that this level of design should be expected if there is a designer.
The fact is that this level of adaptation should be expected if there was evolution.
So how can we tell the difference between the two hypotheses?
Well, we could ask:
* Are there the necessary conditions for evolution, i.e. reproduction with variation subject to selection? Yes there are.
* On the other hand, has anyone ever seen this supposed designer designing anything? No they haven't.
* Is there evidence that evolution has taken place? Yes there is. The fossils record, genetics, biogeography, etc.
* Turning to these supposed "designs", do organisms have the problems that we would expect to be produced by evolution but not by an intelligent designer? Yes they do.
* Are we done here? Yes we are ... so long as we're not religiously motivated to ignore the bleedin' obvious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 12-05-2011 3:24 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 14 of 373 (644192)
12-16-2011 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by mike the wiz
12-15-2011 1:23 PM


Humans use bio-mimicry. If those designs in biology, they borrow from, where not good designs, then why would designers use them?
This shows us 2 things.
1. Human artificial designers "NEED" to borrow from biological designs.
2. If those biological designs were not good, why would there be bio-mimicry?
For these clear logical reasons, it is self-evidence that good design exists, as we would expect it to, given an all-wise designer.
The only reason to deny that examples of bio-mimicry are not good design, would be because you had a motivation that meant that you do not want good biological designs to exist.
I.e. Denial.
Humans use bio-mimicry. If those adaptations in biology they borrow from, were not good adaptations, then why would designers use them?
This shows us 2 things.
1. Human artificial designers "NEED" to borrow from biological evolutionary adaptation.
2. If those biological adaptations were not good, why would there be bio-mimicry?
For these clear logical reasons, it is self-evidence that good adaptation exists, as we would expect it to, given evolution.
The only reason to deny that examples of bio-mimicry are good imitations of evolution would be because you had a motivation that meant that you do not want good evolutionary adaptations to exist.
I.e. Denial.
---
Now, why don't you come up with arguments for design that are not one vast petitio principii and which I therefore can't rewrite in this manner?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by mike the wiz, posted 12-15-2011 1:23 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 17 of 373 (644206)
12-16-2011 6:20 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Just being real
12-16-2011 5:31 AM


Looking back at Subbie's picture, if we were to pick this device up in the forest we would know it was intelligently designed just by the fact that metal ore doesn't naturally form in thin wire like shapes.
It wasn't intelligently designed, but I'll let Subbie field that one.
What I would like to point out is that in order to infer design, you were forced to appeal to the fact that it doesn't occur naturally.
Well, in the first place, DNA does occur naturally. We observe it being produced by an entirely unintelligent process of reproduction with variation.
And in the second place, you're giving up the whole point of this vague semi-intelligible ID waffle about specificity. Because the whole point of it is to pretend that there's some direct way you can identify organisms as being designed just by looking at them, without having to tackle all the evidence that they aren't. But if you first have to rule out the possibility that they "naturally form" (which they do) then you are obliged to confront this evidence.
Therefore if specificity is recognized by the scientific community as a sign of intelligence, then whenever we observe it we can conclude that its origins are from an intelligent source.
If you assert that DNA possesses this "specificity", then the scientific community does not recognize "specificity" as a sign of intelligence, since the scientific community does not identify DNA as a product of intelligence. Creationists loons do, the scientific community doesn't.
Archaeologists infer intelligence in an artifacts formation by looking for specified design clues. That is to say features that the archaeologist recognizes as being formed with purpose in mind.
And again, archaeologists do not "infer intelligence" in the formation of (for example) the skull of a bison, and do not recognize it "as being formed with purpose in mind". If archaeologists are correctly distinguishing design, then IDists are wrong. What you need is a method which is different from that employed by archaeologists, and so gives a different answer.
The problem is that no one seems to have a problem with trying to detect intelligence in marine biology, archaeology, or extra terrestrial, and calling that scientific research.
Pretending to have succeeded in detecting it when you haven't is, however, still frowned on.
But for some reason the moment we apply these same exact constructs to try and detect intelligence in the design of life or the universe, is suddenly is deemed pseudoscience. And no body can seem to quantify for me the reasons why?
Because IDists aren't using the "exact same" methods as scientists. That's why they get different answers.
Many highly respected and prominent astronomers and astrophysicist describe the cosmos under these same kinds of specified descriptors. Hoyle said that it appears to have been monkeyed with by a super-intellect. Paul Davies said the universe is remarkably ordered on all scales, organized into coherent identifiable structures with great complexity. John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA) describes it as having exacting precision. George Greenstein says it is a "crafted" cosmos. Arno Penzias described it as delicately balanced exactly, appearing to have a supernatural plan. Roger Penrose says it appears to have purpose, and the list just goes on and on and on.
Likewise physicists often describe the very laws of physics to be specified and balanced perfectly for there to even be life. Electromagnetic forces, nuclear intensity, strength of gravity, mass of material, temperature, excitation of nuclei, and rate of expansion, (we are told) all had to somehow be monkeyed with to make the big bang event a mathematical possibility.
I think being wrong about physics and cosmology is off-topic. Stick to biology, eh?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Just being real, posted 12-16-2011 5:31 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Just being real, posted 12-16-2011 6:48 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 18 of 373 (644207)
12-16-2011 6:28 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Portillo
12-16-2011 5:48 AM


More evidence of design. Blood is the best lubricant.
(Stickwell, Luther, "A Comparative Study of the Lubricant Properties of Blood, Astroglide, and KY Jelly", Journal of Psychotic Studies (54) pp. 98-102)
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Portillo, posted 12-16-2011 5:48 AM Portillo has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 21 of 373 (644215)
12-16-2011 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Just being real
12-16-2011 6:48 AM


The key word here (your choice) is reproduction not "production." In a Ford plant where most of the workers have been replaced by machines, no one would think that the machines building machines, had "produced" themselves. My point is that there are no examples of life being observed forming from non life. Nor are there any examples of observed single celled life being observed advancing to multicelled life. Nor is there even a single example of a multicelled organism being observed having added beneficial "new" information to its chromosomal DNA, to even demonstrate that its possible.
Leaving aside the actual falsehoods in this, I note that it doesn't really answer my point. We see DNA being produced naturally, unintelligently, without design. This is all we ever see happening in nature.
Now, if you wish to suppose that at some point a rosebush (for example) was produced, not in the way that any rosebush we've ever seen was produced (i.e. by reproduction with variation) but in the way that an automobile is produced, then that is not an inference from observation, but a flat contradiction of what we infer from observation.
Oh please. The only possible "evidence" that could prove that they aren't would be an example of an observed case of life naturally forming from non life.
No, the evidence would be DNA being produced naturally, which it is.
First let me just say I think your painting with an awfully broad brush since there are plenty of people in the scientific community who do see it as a product of intelligence. But since you call those people loons who practice pseudoscience, thanks for making my point.
If your point was that creationists are loony pseudoscientists, you're welcome.
Its all well and good when we stick to lower or even possibly equal intelligence. But if it hints at a supreme intelligence... then suddenly all bets are off.
That was odd.
My point remains. If you are going to appeal to the practice of the scientific community, then one of their practices is pointing out that creationists are ludicrously wrong. What you want to do is something different from what scientists want to do, so that you can draw a different conclusion.
We know how real scientists detect design. They do not do so by maundering incoherently about "specificity" and then pretend to find it in naturally occurring substances such as DNA.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Just being real, posted 12-16-2011 6:48 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Just being real, posted 12-16-2011 8:08 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 24 of 373 (644219)
12-16-2011 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Just being real
12-16-2011 8:08 AM


I'm only familiar with it be "RE produced" in nature. Please specify an example of it being "produced."
Reproduction --- with which, as you admit, you are familiar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Just being real, posted 12-16-2011 8:08 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Just being real, posted 12-16-2011 8:21 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 31 of 373 (644282)
12-16-2011 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Just being real
12-16-2011 8:21 AM


If I hand print or copy Jules Verne's "Journey to the center of the earth" I haven't PRODUCED it I have only REPRODUCED it.
You have produced the copy.
Really, when you have to misunderstand the actual English language in order to be wrong, perhaps it's time to give up and be right instead.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Just being real, posted 12-16-2011 8:21 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Just being real, posted 12-17-2011 5:32 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 35 of 373 (644315)
12-17-2011 6:20 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Just being real
12-17-2011 5:32 AM


And a copy is not the creation of anything.
In the case of DNA, it is the creation of DNA. This is how DNA is made. Every time. By reproduction with variation and sometimes recombination as well. This is how we get DNA. This is how you got yours and I got mine.
Note that you are not in fact a copy of either of your parents.
Reproductions do not explain the existence of the originals... Doc.
If by that you mean the first life, then no it doesn't. However, the inference would still be that it was produced by natural unintelligent causes rather than intelligent supernatural causes, because this is how DNA is invariably produced. If you want to argue that some DNA was made some other way, the onus is on you.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Just being real, posted 12-17-2011 5:32 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Chuck77, posted 12-17-2011 6:41 AM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 50 by Just being real, posted 12-17-2011 4:50 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 37 of 373 (644318)
12-17-2011 6:49 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Chuck77
12-17-2011 6:41 AM


So then you're good? No need to backup how DNA or anything was produced unitelligently?
The evidence that backs it up is that in our experience this is how it is always produced; just as the evidence that backs up the statement "no pigs have wings" is that in our experience we always see wingless pigs. The onus of proof is, therefore, on someone who claims the existence of an exception.
How about you show how DNA was produced unintelligently out of nowhere and we'll work on showing how it was produced SN.
I don't think that it was "produced out of nowhere". I do, however, think that it was not produced supernaturally, because in my experience nothing is. Every time we manage to definitively find out the cause of something, it turns out to have natural causes, just as every time we see a pig it has no wings.
Again, the burden of proof is on you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Chuck77, posted 12-17-2011 6:41 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Chuck77, posted 12-17-2011 7:03 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 39 of 373 (644322)
12-17-2011 7:10 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Chuck77
12-17-2011 7:03 AM


Ok, you think it was not produced SN because your experience says different. For instance a computer was not produced SN of course ...
No, it wasn't, and more to the point, whenever I can determine the causes of things, they never turn out to be supernatural. A computer is just one specific case.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Chuck77, posted 12-17-2011 7:03 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Chuck77, posted 12-17-2011 7:12 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 41 of 373 (644324)
12-17-2011 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Chuck77
12-17-2011 7:12 AM


Well, based on my experiences, computers are designed, are they not?
I said that they weren't supernatural, not that they weren't designed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Chuck77, posted 12-17-2011 7:12 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Chuck77, posted 12-17-2011 7:28 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 43 of 373 (644329)
12-17-2011 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Chuck77
12-17-2011 7:28 AM


Ok but you agree they are designed. We can tell they we're designed.
Only because we know that they're designed. I know that an Apple computer was made in a factory because I know that computers are made in factories; and I know that an apple grew on a tree because apples grow on trees. Without knowledge gained from experience, however, how would we know which to ascribe to which cause?
Design leaves fingerprints. Can't you see intelligent design all around us?
In nature? No, I can't see it, and you can't either. Design in nature is something you infer, rightly or wrongly. What we see is reproduction, variation, recombination, lateral gene transfer, etc.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Chuck77, posted 12-17-2011 7:28 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 54 of 373 (644423)
12-17-2011 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by shadow71
12-17-2011 5:04 PM


Re: Unintelligent Non-design
It is just as easy to assume that Biological evolultion is a result of a plan prior to or at the time of the Big Bang and what we now know as evolution is in fact a planned process.
No, these would be two different things. If (for example) I write a program to simulate evolution, then evolution is part of my plan, but the course it takes is not a planned process.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by shadow71, posted 12-17-2011 5:04 PM shadow71 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 55 of 373 (644425)
12-17-2011 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Just being real
12-17-2011 4:50 PM


Lol. That's like saying that because every time the ice-cream man hands out a pop-cycle he decreases the over all temperature by 10-942 degree, that Mr. Good bar is therefore the cause of the last Ice Age.
No it isn't.
It's like saying: "In the case of DNA, it is the creation of DNA. This is how DNA is made. Every time. By reproduction with variation and sometimes recombination as well. This is how we get DNA. This is how you got yours and I got mine."
I "note" no such thing Doc.
You don't? How amusing.
When organisms reproduce, their offspring receive one member of each pair of their chromosomes from each of their parents the two members of each pair, are the same genes, but are often different alleles. This means that the potential for variety in their offspring is great. For example if each parent, in humans, were to differ by only one allele in each of their 23 pairs of chromosomes, that would mean that the mother draws from a set of more than 8,400,000 different ones, and the same goes for the father. That makes the combined potential of variety of offspring more than 70 trillion.
You said something true. So no-one designed your DNA.
However no "new" never before existed DNA "information" is being introduced.
There's this thing called mutation, you may have heard of it.
In order for you to demonstrate otherwise Doc, you would have to produce at least one example of observed added beneficially NEW information to the gene pool of any multi-celled organism. That is the only evidence that would conclusively prove that the neodarwinian theory is possible. And I'll give you a clue to save you from searching to long and hard... "no such examples exist."
Are you pretending that no-one's observed adaptive evolution in multi-celled organisms? Or are you planning to take refuge from this fact in vacuity of language and undefined terms?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Just being real, posted 12-17-2011 4:50 PM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Just being real, posted 12-19-2011 10:14 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 70 of 373 (644585)
12-19-2011 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Just being real
12-19-2011 10:14 AM


Do you suppose that it is necessary to know every facet of somethings purpose just to be able to infer intelligent design? Could a child who never saw a gun, distinguish an AR-15 military assault riffle from naturally occurring things in the forest?
Did you just imply that "naturally occurring things in the forest" are not intelligently designed?
Well I would say that in the same way an arrowhead sparks an independent recognition response in the archaeologist, the incredibly specific order of base code sequences and arrangements of DNA sparks an independent recognition response in the micro biologists who have cracked that code.
Er ... except that those "micro biologists" do not attribute it to design.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Just being real, posted 12-19-2011 10:14 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Just being real, posted 12-19-2011 11:28 AM Dr Adequate 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