Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8946 total)
28 online now:
AZPaul3, kjsimons, PaulK (3 members, 25 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Post Volume: Total: 865,938 Year: 20,974/19,786 Month: 1,371/2,023 Week: 322/557 Day: 15/47 Hour: 0/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence to expect given a designer
subbie
Member (Idle past 65 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(1)
Message 182 of 373 (646170)
01-03-2012 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by mike the wiz
01-03-2012 2:38 PM


They certainly did. And they did it, with no design or intelligent input.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by mike the wiz, posted 01-03-2012 2:38 PM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by mike the wiz, posted 01-03-2012 2:54 PM subbie has responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4662
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 183 of 373 (646171)
01-03-2012 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by subbie
12-15-2011 5:42 PM


Usually such rudimentary examples are all you can give which makes them pedantic and pretty moot.

This is not the equivalent of a genome, is it?

If you show me something GENUINELY complex, with code, semantics, pragmatics.

This proves very little though you are simply delighted with it as an example.

If blood spatter is information, then everything in existence is information. If everything is information, then the atheist is dilluting the definition to the point of it not being viable.

What we mean by design and information, is something sophisticated and specific.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by subbie, posted 12-15-2011 5:42 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by subbie, posted 01-03-2012 3:03 PM mike the wiz has responded
 Message 202 by Taq, posted 01-03-2012 4:57 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 205 by Percy, posted 01-03-2012 5:54 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4662
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 184 of 373 (646174)
01-03-2012 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by subbie
01-03-2012 2:46 PM


And they did it with the intent to create an antenna? I know that there is something inherently random about antennas you see, I have made some myself, and they are extremely simple/simplistic, although the design of the radio isn't.

Can I also randonly hit the "negative" button for every post you type, please? You seem to do this to mine, even though I know that my posts were correct. Of course, I have always got a low member rating so I am not bothered, but I see you have a good score, so it will kind of hurt you more.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by subbie, posted 01-03-2012 2:46 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by subbie, posted 01-03-2012 3:12 PM mike the wiz has responded

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


Message 185 of 373 (646177)
01-03-2012 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by mike the wiz
01-03-2012 2:45 PM


There are no new observed novel designs. Even if information was gained, they have yet to show an improvement to a fruit-fly. We see adaptations, but the same essential organisms. Look at HIV, and all bacteria, look at the speed they reproduce, it is not unreasonable to expect at least one of these organisms to have produce a new novel design that could be observed/counted as a mcro-evolution, or even a partial macro-evolution, given that 100 human years is.............how man bacteria years?

Well, they have. Indeed, every adaptation is "a partial macro-evolution" if you wish that phrase to have any meaning whatsoever.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by mike the wiz, posted 01-03-2012 2:45 PM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by mike the wiz, posted 01-03-2012 3:34 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 65 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(1)
Message 186 of 373 (646178)
01-03-2012 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by mike the wiz
01-03-2012 2:48 PM


Antenna gymnastics
I was specifically replying to this quote from Just Being Real:

In DNA, specific function implies intent because specific function has only been observed originating by intelligence.

In his quote, he did not say specific function in DNA has only been observed originating by intelligence. He did not limit it to any particular type of specific function. The quote encompassed all specific function. The proffered example is something that has a specific function, the design of which evolved without any intelligence of any type.

If you think that the arrangement of wires is not "GENUINELY complex," then you need to define what you mean by "GENUINELY complex."

I'm delighted with the example because it so breathtakingly clearly shows that the appearance of design can arise out of descent with modification. It also tickles me pink that so many cdesign proponentists twist themselves in such knots to avoid the inevitable conclusion. It's fun to watch the gymnastics.

What we mean by design and information, is something sophisticated and specific.

Those wires are a sophisticated arrangement that is specifically intended to be an optimal receiver of radio signals. Again, if this doesn't fit your terms, you need to define them more clearly.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by mike the wiz, posted 01-03-2012 2:48 PM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by mike the wiz, posted 01-03-2012 3:36 PM subbie has responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 65 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(1)
Message 187 of 373 (646183)
01-03-2012 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by mike the wiz
01-03-2012 2:54 PM


Yes, they did it with an intent to create an antenna. And they created the arrangement of wires through descent with modification. No intelligence involved. That defeats the claim by cdesign proponentists that intelligence is required to produce the appearance of design.

...I have made some myself,...

You have written a genetic algorithm? Somehow I doubt that. If you meant to say that you bent antennas in a seemingly random way and ended up with something that received radio signals, I find that quite likely, but point out that it is completely different from the genetic algorithm that created that antenna, and others.

Can I also randonly hit the "negative" button for every post you type, please?

You can do that, certainly, although why you say randomly I have no idea. I never randomly hit jeers for any posts. Each post I jeer I do so for specific reasons that I'd be more than willing to articulate anytime you wish. Often, someone else has already said something about it, and I see no need to pile on. But whatever.

Of course, I have always got a low member rating so I am not bothered, but I see you have a good score, so it will kind of hurt you more.

Wow. That you could even conceive that your jeering me would have any impact on me in any way other than mild amusement speaks volumes about your level of maturity. Knock yourself out, jeer away.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by mike the wiz, posted 01-03-2012 2:54 PM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by mike the wiz, posted 01-03-2012 3:44 PM subbie has responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4662
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 188 of 373 (646186)
01-03-2012 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Dr Adequate
01-03-2012 3:03 PM


Is? Lol. So this is the equivalent change of the general claim of evolution? You are saying a bacteria basically becoming a bacteria is the same logically, as the difference between a tree and a frog?

This is why we need to see that small changes actually lead anywhere, ever, because a human becoming ahuman, a bacteria becoming a bacteria, logically, this is very, very weak "evidence".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-03-2012 3:03 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-03-2012 3:57 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 196 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-03-2012 4:02 PM mike the wiz has responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4662
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 189 of 373 (646187)
01-03-2012 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by subbie
01-03-2012 3:03 PM


Re: Antenna gymnastics
Lol - no knots here mate, just realty and logic as per usual.

An aerial is not complex. I have made many, you do not require, inherently, any specific arrangement in the same way you would to create a cathedral. It is a woefully simplistic and vacuous example, but at least it pleased you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by subbie, posted 01-03-2012 3:03 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by subbie, posted 01-03-2012 3:43 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7135
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 190 of 373 (646188)
01-03-2012 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by mike the wiz
01-03-2012 2:45 PM


mike the wiz writes:


There are no new observed novel designs. Even if information was gained, they have yet to show an improvement to a fruit-fly. We see adaptations, but the same essential organisms.


You may be interested in this:

Scientists report on the development of engineered silkworms that express a synthetic spider silk protein and stably produce chimeric silk fibers that are stronger than parental silkworm silk fibers and as tough as spider dragline silk

http://www.genengnews.com/...oduce-super-tough-silk/81246148

Spiders make extremely strong silk, but it can't be farmed (spiders eat each other). Silkworms can easily be farmed but make weak silk. So geneticists stitch a spider silk gene into a silk moth and get super strong silk that can be farmed.

That's intelligent design.


Life, don't talk to me about life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by mike the wiz, posted 01-03-2012 2:45 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 65 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 191 of 373 (646189)
01-03-2012 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by mike the wiz
01-03-2012 3:36 PM


Re: Antenna gymnastics
So, you don't have a definition of complex. It's just a term you throw out to dismiss counterexamples when you don't have anything substantive to say about them. Is that it?

I agree that at its simplest, an antenna does not necessarily require any specific arrangement. I believe the same is also true of a church, a spear, a knife and countless other objects. This, of course, ignores the fact that some do have a specific shape to perform a specific purpose. The example I provided is one of those.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by mike the wiz, posted 01-03-2012 3:36 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4662
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 192 of 373 (646190)
01-03-2012 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by subbie
01-03-2012 3:12 PM


[qs]Yes, they did it with an intent to create an antenna. And they created the arrangement of wires through descent with modification. No intelligence involved. That defeats the claim by cdesign proponentists that intelligence is required to produce the appearance of design./qs

No, it does not prove that you can get a complex genome, with code, syntax, pragmatics and apobetics because the example is INHERENTLY without the need for any real sophisticated design.

If I say that a few rocks can roll into a "P" shape, that will not mean you can get an alphabet wil random falling rocks. The example, logically, is simply not equivalent. You can't compare two very different things.

There is a massive difference between an inherently random simplistic aerial for receiving signals, and a genome.

Wow. That you could even conceive that your jeering me would have any impact on me in any way other than mild amusement speaks volumes about your level of maturity. Knock yourself out, jeer away.

Yes but the point is, I nearly always have a negative from you, even on posts that are pretty neutral. So actually, it shows your level of maturity, because I have not actually put a negative on every one of your posts. You clearly think it proves something otherwise you wouldn't incessantly do it.

I am not going to actually go through your posts, like you seem to do with mine, hitting that button.

I think perhaps you should get anew hobby maybe? Life outside the evc forum?

You can do that, certainly, although why you say randomly I have no idea. I never randomly hit jeers for any posts. Each post I jeer I do so for specific reasons that I'd be more than willing to articulate anytime you wish. Often, someone else has already said something about it, and I see no need to pile on. But whatever.

Nah. I don't buy it, it's nearly always your name, and I know that my posts aren't that bad. Just because you disagree with my posts doesn't mean you would hit it nearly every time, I find it a bit creepy to be honest. A bit weird. I mean, it is just a popularity button, you can see that by looking at the people with the different beliefs. I know that if I said something outstandingly sound, it would still get a negative. I think it's just weird that you need to do this.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by subbie, posted 01-03-2012 3:12 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by jar, posted 01-03-2012 3:46 PM mike the wiz has responded
 Message 194 by subbie, posted 01-03-2012 3:46 PM mike the wiz has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31674
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 193 of 373 (646192)
01-03-2012 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by mike the wiz
01-03-2012 3:44 PM


Where's the beef?
Do you ever plan on presenting any evidence?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by mike the wiz, posted 01-03-2012 3:44 PM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by mike the wiz, posted 01-03-2012 4:21 PM jar has responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 65 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(1)
Message 194 of 373 (646193)
01-03-2012 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by mike the wiz
01-03-2012 3:44 PM


No, it does not prove that you can get a complex genome, with code, syntax, pragmatics and apobetics because the example is INHERENTLY without the need for any real sophisticated design.

The specific example I chose is one that does need a sophisticated design. Your ignorance of that fact does not make it go away.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by mike the wiz, posted 01-03-2012 3:44 PM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by mike the wiz, posted 01-03-2012 4:25 PM subbie has responded

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


Message 195 of 373 (646194)
01-03-2012 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by mike the wiz
01-03-2012 3:34 PM


DP.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by mike the wiz, posted 01-03-2012 3:34 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

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


Message 196 of 373 (646196)
01-03-2012 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by mike the wiz
01-03-2012 3:34 PM


Is? Lol. So this is the equivalent change of the general claim of evolution? You are saying a bacteria basically becoming a bacteria is the same logically, as the difference between a tree and a frog?

What I am saying is that the difference between a small amount of change and a large amount of change is a quantitative difference.

An analogy: we watch a snail for a quarter of an hour. You say that after watching such a rapidly-moving animal for such a long time, we should have seen it move a mile, "or at least a partial mile". I reply that we have seen it move a partial mile --- we have seen it move a yard, which is part of a mile.

This is why we need to see that small changes actually lead anywhere, ever ...

"Lead anywhere"? Be more precise.

because a human becoming ahuman, a bacteria becoming a bacteria, logically, this is very, very weak "evidence".

Which is why if you ask for evidence for "macroevolution", we usually refer you to molecular phylogeny, homology, embryology, the fossil record, etc; and this evidence is so compelling that creationists are forced to pretend that we refer them to microevolution instead.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by mike the wiz, posted 01-03-2012 3:34 PM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by mike the wiz, posted 01-03-2012 4:17 PM Dr Adequate 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