Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence to expect given a designer
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 221 of 373 (646570)
01-05-2012 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by foreveryoung
01-04-2012 6:44 PM


Re: Where's the beef?
foreveryoung writes:
Nested hierarchies are manmade inventions. Cytochrome C was not designed to make it look like evolution occurred. Men see evolution when there is none.
Bluegenes has already addressed this in Message 219, and we can get into the evidence for nested hierarchies in more detail if you like, but I'm trying to see the "Evidence to expect given a designer" in your argument and can't find it. Your argument appears similar to the same arguments others offered earlier, namely that whatever we find, that's what God did.
As others have pointed out, if the genomes of species were designed then we should expect to find many examples of genes with no similarity to genes in other species. At the morphological level we should expect to find characteristics crossing family, order and class boundaries, e.g., ostriches with hooves, seals with bills, whales with gills, squirrels with wings, and so forth.
I suppose one way to approach the discussion is just to look at the existing evidence and claim that it is better explained by God than by nature, but it's hard to imagine anything that couldn't be explained by God. I think you need evidence of things that can't be explained by evolution. The claim that evolution can't explain the diversity of life both extant and in the fossil record has no support and is just an argument from incredulity, while the fact that species change over time is an inevitable consequence of the imperfect copying that takes place during the process of reproduction we already know so much about. All evidence we find is consistent with an evolutionary view of life, from cosmology to astronomy to geology to paleontology to biology.
Lack of a nested hierarchy of life would be as much evidence for design as a the presence of this hierarchy is for evolution, but that's been obvious to everyone on the evolution side for decades. If life that didn't fit a nested hierarchy were found it would be big news and we'd all know about it already if it existed.
There wouldn't be much point to arguing about whether life, both at the morphological and genetic levels, fits within a nested hierarchy. You could deny this fact, just refuse to accept it, and I for one would just let you go your own way because you won't make much headway anywhere with a head-in-the-sand approach.
It would be much more interesting if someone on the creationist side could describe the type of evidence we should see were there a designer and that isn't just a misinterpretation of evidence we already have.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by foreveryoung, posted 01-04-2012 6:44 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 284 of 373 (647159)
01-08-2012 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by Just being real
01-08-2012 12:21 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
Just being real writes:
Since we only know about the life that is found on Earth, we have no grounds with which to even speculate. Any speculation of how life could form (or be created) had the universe been different, would be pure H.G. Wells fantasy. Right now we know that carbon is one of the key elements necessary to have life.
So when you say "life" what you really mean is "life as we know it." Life based on other chemistries and physics need not apply no matter that it has metabolism, reproduces, and is subject to evolution. And you're interpreting the lack of evidence of this other life as evidence that it can't exist.
Any slight change in just one of the proportions of virtually all the laws of physics would render the existence of carbon impossible.
Just as we don't know if or how life might be based upon other chemistries and physics, neither do we know what element or elements might take the place of carbon were such life possible. The important point to take away is that you're drawing conclusions in an area of great ignorance, and the usual good advice is that of what one does not know one must remain silent.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Just being real, posted 01-08-2012 12:21 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by Just being real, posted 01-08-2012 10:23 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 285 of 373 (647161)
01-08-2012 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by Just being real
01-08-2012 12:21 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
Just being real writes:
My point again is that we have never observed something come from nothing.
Since you define nothing as the era "before" the existence of anything, how could anything exist to observe this nothing. Another consequence of your definition is that since nothing has never been observed, how can you reach any conclusions about its qualities, such as what can come from it?
You seem to be seeking your evidence of the designer in regions of science where there is very, very little evidence and where no firm conclusions are possible.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Just being real, posted 01-08-2012 12:21 AM Just being real has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 309 of 373 (647312)
01-09-2012 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by Just being real
01-08-2012 10:23 PM


Re: Evidence for a designer
Just being real writes:
I'm saying that at present we have no evidence to suggest other kinds of life is possible, so how can you base your argument in something there is not even any evidence for?
I was only pointing out another possibility, not advocating for it. I'm not arguing for any specific conclusion. You're the one who's doing that. I'm merely pointing out the lack of evidence. Given the lack of evidence pro or con for life under different conditions or physical laws, conclusions either way are unwarranted.
Yes, life on Earth under the conditions on Earth under the laws of this universe is all we have evidence for, but we are aware of our ignorance. We have a fair amount of knowledge of only a single planet, and we know almost nothing of the literally billions and trillions and quadrillions of planets that we know must exist, and we know approximately nothing about all the universes that might exist, and given this incredible amount of how much we do not know you still want to conclude that other kinds of life are not possible.
You've chosen an area of science where the evidence is especially sparse to argue for a designer.
Now your just playing with words. My point of course is that there never was an "era before the existence of anything." Else that era would still exist.
I'm not playing with your words, just trying understand you. So your position is that once there's nothing then nothing will be eternal. Is that part of your evidence for a designer?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Just being real, posted 01-08-2012 10:23 PM Just being real has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 310 of 373 (647313)
01-09-2012 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 302 by Just being real
01-08-2012 11:35 PM


Re: Evidence for a designer
Just being rea writes:
The term for something that has always existed is "infinite."
For clarity, you might want to be explicit by saying "infinite in time", otherwise when you use the word "infinite" by itself people are likely to assume you mean "infinite in space". Or you could say "eternal".
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by Just being real, posted 01-08-2012 11:35 PM Just being real has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 321 of 373 (647846)
01-11-2012 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 314 by Just being real
01-11-2012 12:40 PM


Just being real writes:
With a little clip here and a little soldering there (onto an intelligently designed threaded coaxial) your naturally formed wires are turned into an intelligently designed antenna.
The process used to design the antennae is the same one used by evolution to design species. Evolution tries out random changes, a longer beak here, slightly shorter legs there, then it tests the organism in its environment to see how successful it is, which means that the most successful organisms contribute more of their changes to the next generation. Then it repeats this over and over again for generation after generation.
The genetic algorithm tries out random changes for the antennae, a little clip here, a littler soldering there, then it tests the antennae in its environment to see how successful it is, which means that the most successful antennae contribute more of their changes for the next iteration. Then it repeats this over and over again for iteration after iteration.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Wordsmithing.
Edited by Percy, : Typo, more wordsmithing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by Just being real, posted 01-11-2012 12:40 PM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 331 by Just being real, posted 01-14-2012 6:45 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 333 of 373 (648287)
01-14-2012 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 331 by Just being real
01-14-2012 6:45 AM


Just being real writes:
Oh it was? My bad... Now if you will just be so kind as to point out to me who it was that was there to observe the process of evolution and know they are the same... I would greatly appreciate it.
Evolution is simulated by genetic algorithms at the reproductive level of a single generation, and the process of reproduction has been the subject of intense study since the beginnings of modern science. We have observed the imperfect reproduction between male and female where random change in the form of mutations and allele remixing occurs when the sperm and egg come together. This is followed by selection where the offspring compete in the existing environment to contribute to the next generation.
Genetic algorithms follow the same process as evolution. In this case it creates offspring antennae by combining the characteristics of two antennae and at the same time introducing random changes. The offspring compete to see which perform best as antennae, and the best are selected to contribute to the next generation.
Genetic algorithms are an illustration of the power of evolutionary processes (at heart just repeated Monte Carlo trials with selection added) to innovate new designs without any intelligent contribution. Algorithms that model evolutionary processes no more introduce intelligence into the evolutionary process than algorithms that model meteorological processes introduce intelligence into the weather.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 331 by Just being real, posted 01-14-2012 6:45 AM Just being real has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 353 of 373 (650077)
01-27-2012 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 351 by ookuay
01-27-2012 10:48 AM


Re: If a tree falls in the forest...
Hi Ookuay, welcome aboard!
The evolutionists here usually go pretty easy on other evolutionists. It has been my theory that that's because when a fellow evolutionist is wrong it is usually only in minor ways not worth correcting, but that any evolutionist wrong in major ways would receive as much attention as creationists. It appears possible that you are wrong in major ways that you are attempting to gloss over with hand waves and glibness, so this should be a good test of my theory.
Unfortunately that test shouldn't take place in this thread because Einstein's position on alternate timelines is not the topic here.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 351 by ookuay, posted 01-27-2012 10:48 AM ookuay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 355 by ookuay, posted 01-27-2012 3:08 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 359 of 373 (650130)
01-27-2012 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 358 by ookuay
01-27-2012 8:09 PM


Re: If a tree falls in the forest...
ookuay writes:
No, the point I'd been making was that Einstein had reason to believe that an alternate time-space frame could be observed by surpassing the speed of light...
I think people are trying to figure out why you think this. You cited the Wikipedia article on relativity, which doesn't seem to even hint at Einstein ever believing anything like this, but it does make very clear statements that are consistent with what everyone else here understands Einstein to have believed, for example:
Wikipedia article on relativity writes:
Maximum speed is finite: No physical object, message or field line can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum.
What was it from this article that led you to believe that Einstein thought differently?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 358 by ookuay, posted 01-27-2012 8:09 PM ookuay has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 365 of 373 (650142)
01-28-2012 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 363 by ookuay
01-27-2012 10:46 PM


Re: If a tree falls in the forest...
Hi Ookuay,
Your conclusion seems unrelated to the text and claims that precede it.
The field of physics has always been full of startling possibilities. Some prove out, some don't. Perhaps neutrinos can travel faster than the speed of light, but we don't know that yet. Perhaps tachyons exist, but we don't know that yet.
And perhaps someone has proposed ideas about time dilation causing alternate space/time frames (whatever that is and means), but it wasn't Einstein. Ideas about alternate universes derive more from quantum theory than relativity, and Einstein was very wary of quantum theory.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 363 by ookuay, posted 01-27-2012 10:46 PM ookuay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 368 by ookuay, posted 01-28-2012 8:04 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 369 of 373 (650225)
01-29-2012 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 368 by ookuay
01-28-2012 8:04 PM


Re: If a tree falls in the forest...
ookuay writes:
I basically heard that moving faster than the speed of light causes an object to slow down and contract relative to the objects around it and that there were existing objects that traveled faster than the speed of light.
There are some recognizable elements of what relativity really says in this. Here's a summary of special relativity, which is the simple form of relativity that ignores gravity and the effects of acceleration:
  • All motion is relative.
  • The speed of light is the maximum speed at which anything can move or influence be transmitted in any frame of reference.
  • The speed of light is a constant in all frames of reference.
  • When one reference frame moves relative to another, objects in the moving reference frame will be measured as having increased mass and shortened length relative to the direction of motion. The greater the speed the greater is this effect. At the speed of light an object's mass would be infinite and its length 0, which according to our understanding is physically impossible. It would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate any particle with non-zero mass to the speed of light, which is another reason mass traveling at the speed of light isn't thought to be possible.
  • This effect is symmetric. The moving reference frame perceives itself as stationary and observes the other reference frame as moving with its objects increased in mass and shortened in length.
The most distant parts of the universe are retreating from us at a rate that exceeds the speed of light, but we cannot observe them directly. This may be where you heard that some objects can travel faster than the speed of light. They are no longer within our reference frame, and the expansion of space itself is responsible, not motion, which is why this is consistent with our current understanding of relativity.
Nice recovery! Again, welcome aboard!
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 368 by ookuay, posted 01-28-2012 8:04 PM ookuay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 370 by PaulK, posted 01-29-2012 7:31 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 371 of 373 (650228)
01-29-2012 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 370 by PaulK
01-29-2012 7:31 AM


Re: If a tree falls in the forest...
PaulK writes:
Maybe I'm being a bit pedantic, but I should point out that that is Special Relativity...
Saying "Here's a summary of special relativity..." in the opening paragraph wasn't enough? Geez!
We may have different opinions about how much new information should be presented at one time. Given Ookuay's current level of understanding and the topic I thought that including general relativity might be a bit much, but maybe I'm wrong about that.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 370 by PaulK, posted 01-29-2012 7:31 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 372 by PaulK, posted 01-29-2012 8:11 AM Percy 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