Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8945 total)
34 online now:
Coragyps, DrJones*, dwise1, PaulK, RAZD, ringo, Theodoric (7 members, 27 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Upcoming Birthdays: ONESOlivia, perfect
Post Volume: Total: 865,486 Year: 20,522/19,786 Month: 919/2,023 Week: 427/392 Day: 43/74 Hour: 4/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence to expect given a designer
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.3


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 responded

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

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 2250 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 32 of 373 (644311)
12-17-2011 5:23 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by NoNukes
12-16-2011 10:24 AM


Direct observation is only one of the ways that we make determinations and reach conclusions.

Well I didn't say "directly" observed did I? I said clearly observed. That is to say observed in a manner that is 99.99% sure. Not to mention the fact that you are waffling your examples back and forth wildly. My original comment was referring to evidence or lack there of, that DNA formed by natural processes. I specifically mentioned the lack of even observed additions of new info in the chromosomal DNA of a multi-celled organism. To which you compared to evidence in a criminal case. Then when I responded to the criminal case comment you immediately waffled back to refute my comments with things like, lack of observation of atoms. Your jumping all over the board and throwing everything but the kitchen sink into the mix, which doesn't even apply to the question of DNA formation. I haven't got time to keep chasing your bunnies my friend. Are you going to provide evidence that "highly infers" that single celled organisms became multi-celled etc... or not?

BTW we actually have been able to in a sense, observe atoms.

Your DNA is different from that of every single one of your ancestors.

So are you implying different kind, species, alleles, or just different copies? It's sad that I have to ask such a silly question just so you won't try to trip me up on simple wording.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by NoNukes, posted 12-16-2011 10:24 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by NoNukes, posted 12-20-2011 8:59 AM Just being real has not yet responded

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 2250 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 33 of 373 (644312)
12-17-2011 5:27 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by subbie
12-16-2011 11:38 AM


Sorry, but you missed the point. My specific question was whether the arrangement of the wires was by design. Care to give it another go?

Well given the definition of specificity and my lack of any knowledge about antennas, I have no recognition response and therefore I personally can not detect design in the actual arrangement. That doesn't mean there is none. It only means that I am not qualified to make that determination.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by subbie, posted 12-16-2011 11:38 AM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Granny Magda, posted 12-17-2011 8:27 AM Just being real has not yet responded
 Message 53 by subbie, posted 12-17-2011 5:19 PM Just being real has not yet responded

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 2250 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 34 of 373 (644313)
12-17-2011 5:32 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Dr Adequate
12-16-2011 8:32 PM


And a copy is not the creation of anything. It is only a reproduction. Reproductions do not explain the existence of the originals... Doc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-16-2011 8:32 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-17-2011 6:20 AM Just being real has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.3


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 responded

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

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 373 (644317)
12-17-2011 6:41 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Dr Adequate
12-17-2011 6:20 AM


So then there's two choices:

produced by natural unintelligent causes

Which is what you say

or

intelligent supernatural causes

Which is what I/we say

Dr Adequate writes:

If you want to argue that some DNA was made some other way, the onus is on you.

So then you're good? No need to backup how DNA or anything was produced unitelligently? The onus is on us?

How about you show how DNA was produced unintelligently out of nowhere and we'll work on showing how it was produced SN. The first one to the finish line wins.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-17-2011 6:20 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-17-2011 6:49 AM Chuck77 has responded
 Message 47 by jar, posted 12-17-2011 9:59 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 49 by Coyote, posted 12-17-2011 10:45 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.3


(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 responded

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

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 373 (644320)
12-17-2011 7:03 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Dr Adequate
12-17-2011 6:49 AM


Dr Adequate writes:

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

Ok, you think it was not produced SN because your experience says different. For instance a computer was not produced SN of course, is that what you mean?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-17-2011 6:49 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-17-2011 7:10 AM Chuck77 has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.3


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 responded

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

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 373 (644323)
12-17-2011 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Dr Adequate
12-17-2011 7:10 AM


A computer is just one specific case.

Well, based on my experiences, computers are designed, are they not?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-17-2011 7:10 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-17-2011 7:17 AM Chuck77 has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.3


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 responded

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

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 373 (644327)
12-17-2011 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Dr Adequate
12-17-2011 7:17 AM


I said that they weren't supernatural, not that they weren't designed.

Ok but you agree they are designed. We can tell they were designed. Design leaves fingerprints. Can't you see intelligent design all around us? Anything? Or are we to believe it came about some other way as you suggest?

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-17-2011 7:17 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-17-2011 7:39 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 44 by NoNukes, posted 12-17-2011 7:46 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 48 by nwr, posted 12-17-2011 10:42 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.3


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 yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 44 of 373 (644330)
12-17-2011 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Chuck77
12-17-2011 7:28 AM


Design leaves fingerprints. Can't you see intelligent design all around us?

This is one of those threads where people who propose that design leaves fingerprints are being asked to describe those fingerprints. What are the markers for identifying designed objects that haven't been built by humans. Biological things don't have tool marks and generally don't look much like things we've watched being designed.

In this thread usually the answers boil down to either 1) that awesome wonderful thing reflects the designer's glory and must have been deliberate (complex specified information), or 2) that improbably cool thing must have been designed because it could not have arisen by accident (irreducible complexity) or 3) some mashed up combination.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


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

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 792 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 45 of 373 (644333)
12-17-2011 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Just being real
12-16-2011 5:31 AM


Just Being Real writes:

For example 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 what objective purpose have you identified in life forms? Don't confuse function with intelligent purpose. A natural bridge can function as a bridge without having been intelligently designed for that purpose. A complex cave system can function as the habitat for numerous organisms without having been intelligently designed for that purpose.

JBR writes:

Marine biologists detect levels of intelligence in dolphins by studying specified communication patterns of the dolphins. That is to say, patterns that the biologist recognizes as having specific meanings to the dolphin community.

They are assessing biological intelligence that comes from brains. Unintelligent organisms also have "specified communication patterns", so it's a mistake to infer from examples like ourselves and the dolphins that communication requires intelligence.

JBR writes:

And finally, SETI scientists search for extra terrestrial intelligence by looking for specific radio signals that are narrow in bandwidth and are known only to occur artificially by an intelligent source with an intended purpose.

Note that in all three of these scientific fields, intelligence is being detected by something that can be termed as "specificity." Specificity can be defined like this: A distinguishing quality or attribute explicitly set forth; as Intended for, applying to, or acting on a particular thing: Something particularly fitted to a use or purpose.

Once again, don't confuse any function we can specify with intelligent purpose. By using the word "intended" above, you seem to be assuming your conclusions. In all of your examples, scientists are looking for intelligence in known biological beings with nervous systems and brains, or (with SETI) hypothetical biological beings from other life systems. Intelligence is a known attribute of some life forms, but is not known to exist independently of a life system (our machines aren't independent of us, even if we manage to make intelligent ones).

JBR(my bold) writes:

Any event or object which exhibits a pattern that matches a foreknown pattern that was completely interdependent of the first. In other words, for an observer to test for specificity, he must be able to recognize it from a completely independent experience. This can either be a pattern that produces a recognition response or a functional response. 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.

"Specificity" is not recognized by the scientific community as being necessarily a sign of intelligence.

I repeat: Unintelligent organisms also have "specified communication patterns", so it's a mistake to infer from examples like ourselves and the dolphins that communication requires intelligence.

JBR writes:

DNA uses specified base code sequences and arrangements as the blue prints to build the correct cells. Here we have a clear case of code being transmitted, and then received to producing a functional response match, completely independent of the first (specificity). Devoid of any observable evidence that shows how it can possibly form naturally, it should be concluded to have originated from an intelligent source. Yet seemingly, for completely unscientific personally biased reasons, that conclusion is rejected time and time again.

Chemical function and communication is not confined to intelligent organisms, so why associate it with intelligence? Bacteria communicate with each other in chemical codes, and translate signals into action.

And intelligence is only associated with life systems, so it's hardly a likely explanation for the origin of life, is it?


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Just being real, posted 12-17-2011 5:17 PM bluegenes has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019