|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is there a legitimate argument for design? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
"group think" is code for being in substantial agreement on this specific issue and "blind" is code for disagreeing with the delusional ravings of IDiotology. Now if there were actual "objective evidence" (code for facts) rather than "the assertion of opinion" (code for fantasy) and "the argument from incredulity" (code for wishful thinking), if there were something other than the chemical connection of elements into molecules according to the rules of chemical bonding ... then you might experience a "see change" (code for objective evidence substantiated argument) ... We gots lots a codes ... Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
You probably couldn't see that 'cause it's a secret invisible code. Is that like the secret invisible code in cornstarch? Looks like information that is complex and specified in that stuff ... hidden in the molecules ... by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Did you notice the one from the University of Washington? Did they say that it was not, as Ringo said:
Ringo: that the "code" that's "embedded" in DNA is its structure - and that every other molecule has its own structure too, so every molecule has a "code" that's "embedded" in it exactly the same way. Did they say some process other than chemistry was involved?
And, since you know so much about chemistry, and are dying to share it, would you please explain your statement: It's just ...terms "in the English language understandable by English speakers. It means exactly what it says. It is not a mathematical term, ..." ... especially those that studied chemistry ... Edited by RAZD, : .. Edited by RAZD, : .. Edited by RAZD, : .. Edited by RAZD, : ..by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
I wasn't talking to you, turnip head. One of the ways for dealing with cognitive dissonance is to insult\attack the messenger, also known as the ad hominem logical fallacy. I noticed that you failed to answer the question (which I'll repeat for your convenience):
Did you notice the one from the University of Washington? Did they say that it was not, as Ringo said:
Ringo: that the "code" that's "embedded" in DNA is its structure - and that every other molecule has its own structure too, so every molecule has a "code" that's "embedded" in it exactly the same way. Did they say some process other than chemistry was involved? That is a very simple question, with a simple yes or no answer. Presumably the answer is no ... which you just don't want to admit ... And I don't understand why you would be upset by this:
And, since you know so much about chemistry, and are dying to share it, would you please explain your statement: It's just ...terms "in the English language understandable by English speakers. It means exactly what it says. It is not a mathematical term, ..." ... especially those that studied chemistry ... As that was just quoting your response on another thread ... so if your own behavior disturbs you then you should, perhaps, do some self evaluation on your behavior. by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
...
Edited by RAZD, : duplicateby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Mike how ya doin?
What is design anyway I propose that the answer can be given, BY LOOKING AT THINGS WE KNOW TO BE DESIGNED. Logically, if those elements are then present in lifeforms, then we will know if lifeforms are designed. Logical fallacy, Mike, you know better. Logically, if those elements are then present in lifeforms, then we will know if lifeforms could be designed. Or not. What about if those elements are missing ... do we then know that it wasn't design? One of the elements of man-made design is development of concepts with ideas borrowed from several sources, a web pattern rather than a nested hierarchy, such as taking elements from two separate branches of organisms and combining them into a new one, giving two (or more) ancestral lineages rather than one.
... Which means that logically, an eye is made to see. You can CONCLUDE soundly, that an eye is made/designed, to see. and why then are there so many variations on the eye design, some with basic flaws?
quote: Now if I were looking for a designed eye, I would look for one that combines the focusing lens of the human eye with the movable retina of the octopus, then not only would glasses not be necessary for most humans, but you would have vision that goes from microscopic to telescopic. Both these systems exist in the living world but they are not combined in any organism: that element of combined ideas is not found, so doesn't this mean that the eye is not designed? by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
But I value your post, so I will do it justice later, at the moment, my roast spuds are nearly there so I need to eat them before they get cold enjoy the spudtaneous moment. Another page you may want to visit is my thread: Is ID properly pursued? Later dude.by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Do you have any citations, evidence, or explanation to back up this statement? I'm still waiting... Valence Bond Theory quote: Information that is complex and specific (your "definition" of csi) to how all molecules are formed from elements. Note that this is general basic knowledge in chemistry. What you have failed to show (yet) is that there is an entirely different sort/quality of "csi" in DNA, rather than just a difference in degree/quantity due to the quantity of molecular bonds. There is a larger number of bonds, and hence "information that is complex and specified" regarding the molecular formation in Sodium Sulfate ( Na2SO4) crystals than in Salt (NaCl) crystals ... a difference in the degree of "csi" (based on the coded information specified by the valence bonds) but not any difference in the sort of "csi". If I have one apple in one basket and 10 apples in another then I have a difference in the degree of fruit in the baskets. If I have one apple in one basket and one pear in the other then I have a difference in the sort of fruit in the baskets. Please identify something that makes it a different sort of "csi" in DNA from the chemical bonding sort of "csi" in salt and sodium sulfate and other molecules -- this is your assertion to support. Edited by RAZD, : qvq Edited by RAZD, : added elementary example, clrty Edited by RAZD, : clrty Edited by RAZD, : fruit example Edited by RAZD, : ..by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
"The Fall" is invented nonsense, and represents one of the most evil ideas ever cooked up by the shaman class. topic drift -- the forum is: Intelligent Design (not creationism) The thread is: Is there a legitimate argument for design? perhaps a new thread?by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Ed67 stomps his foot and shouts
SALT DOES NOT CONTAIN THE CODE FOR BUILDING OF PROTEINS. Gosh Ed67 ...
DNA DOES NOT CONTAIN THE CODE FOR BUILDING OF SALT CRYSTALS. and yet curiously they are both still ordinary chemical processes ... governed by the ordinary operational rules of chemical bonding. Again, what you have failed to show (yet) is that there is an entirely different (special) sort/quality of "csi" (which by your "definition" means information that is both complex and specific) in DNA, rather than just a difference in degree/quantity due to the quantity of molecular bonds. There is a larger number of bonds, and hence "information that is complex and specified" regarding the molecular formation in Sodium Sulfate ( Na2SO4) crystals than in Salt (NaCl) crystals ... a difference in the degree of "csi" (based on the coded information specified by the valence bonds) but not any difference in the sort of "csi". If I have one apple in one basket and 10 apples in another then I have a difference in the degree of fruit in the baskets. If I have one apple in one basket and one pear in the other then I have a difference in the sort of fruit in the baskets. Please identify something that makes it a different sort of "csi" in DNA from the chemical bonding sort of "csi" in salt and sodium sulfate and other molecules -- this is your assertion to support. by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Is there a legitimate argument for design?
That is the question on this thread. What's your take on ID Faith? by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I applaud your attempt to argue design on it's own merits and not as a default from some purported disproof of evolution.
Three things Mike (1) Logical mistake
We know that all A is B -- all human designs show evidence of design We don't know that all B is A -- that all evidence that seems to be design is human or other intelligence design. At best we can say it is a possibility. (2) Elements of design should include borrowed\recycled traits The rear window wiper appeared, iirc, on a Volvo station wagon. The following year it appeared on other vehicles, and now is almost universally available. This means that a lineage diagram would show two ancestral sources, something that has not been observed in the fossil record or the genetic record. (3) Elements of design should include "form follows function" Designers have a purpose to design and the optimal form is dictated by that function to greater or lesser degrees. A racing bicycle is a good example where form is minimized to provide function with the least of extraneous elements, ergonomically sized and arranged to maximize the input from the rider. Something like the Laryngeal Nerve of the Giraffe does not fit this criteria, at all, and -- if we are talking of the design hypothesis -- appears more suitable as evidence of Silly Design than intelligent design. by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Sexual v asexual reproduction shows design more-so than evolution. ... Curiously, knowing what actual design looks like and what actual evolution looks like it is obvious that neither sexual nor asexual reproduction looks like design. Both sexual and asexual reproduction result in nested hierarchies -- descendants only have traits of parents plus new mutations, they do not have traits from other sources. Design borrows from other sources all the time.
... Evolution could have found a better way to allow for more anti-bodies and viral resistance than to make 2 different sets of organs, separate hormone levels, etc. ... Evolution is not an entity, it is processes that occurs over generations by random mutation and natural selection (nor is natural selection an entity).
(1) The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities. Mutations to existing hereditary traits (ie for eyes and ears) can cause changes in the composition of hereditary traits for individuals in a breeding population, but not all mutations are expressed (and many are in non-hereditary areas). In addition there are many different kinds of mutations and they have different effects (from small to large), especially if they affect the developmental process of an organism. Natural Selection and Neutral Drift can cause changes in the frequency distribution of hereditary traits within a breeding population, but they are not the only mechanisms known that does so. Selection processes act on the expressed genes of individual organisms, so bundles of genetic mutations are selected rather than individual genes, and this means that non-lethal mutations can be preserved. The more an individual organism reproduces the more it is likely to pass on bundles of genes and mutations to the next generation, increasing the selection of those genes. The ecological challenges and opportunities change when the environment changes, when the breeding population evolves, when other organisms within the ecology evolve, when migrations change the mixture of organisms within the ecology, and when a breeding population immigrates into a new ecology. These changes can result in different survival and reproductive challenges and opportunities, affecting selection pressure, perhaps causing speciation, perhaps causing extinction. This is a two-step feedback response system that is repeated in each generation:
Like walking on first one foot and then the next.
... There are the standard evolution talking points, ... And there is the standard education in the actual science of evolution, which curiously, is available for those who want to learn ... I can suggest a starting point: An introduction to evolution - Understanding Evolution
... but the complexity of nature is too much to LOGICALLY discount a designer. Only if you don't understand how it works, and particularly if you don't know how design works.
Where did natural selection get it's intelligence? By killing off what doesn't work. Those organisms that survive and breed more than other organism pass their traits on to the next generation ... because they are better 'fit' to the current ecology. But selection is only half of the picture. You don't walk on one foot. Take a 6 sided di and divide the compass into 6 directions (1 = north, 2 = 60° east, 3 = 120° east, 4 = south, 5 = 120° west and 6 = 60° west); now
When we look at the actual biological record of life on earth we see that there has been a lot of staggering back and forth along the evolutionary path, not a straight line, not just stumbling in one place, but a "drunken walk" (Dawkins) in a general direction that makes for greater fitness to the current environment. Sometimes the "direction has completely reversed (walking sticks with wings, without wings, with wings again ... ). In no case is there a record of a linear development, nor is there any evidence of one species borrowing or stealing traits from another species, and these are common elements of design that we do NOT see in any objective empirical evidence from biological systems.
Where did the intelligence come from to make the different sexes? Mutation and selection. Apparently you know nothing about either evolution or design. I suggest you learn. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : added comments Edited by RAZD, : ] Edited by RAZD, : addedby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi taiji2 and welcome to the fray.
Do ideas exist in a materialist sense? Well I would say that by definition ideas are not objects that can be sensed or perceived the way material objects can be sensed or perceived.
Is the question: "Do ideas really exist?" one that should be answered scientifically or philosophically? We could agree that it is a fact that ideas exist, as we can experience them, discuss them and convey them to others ... or we can agree that all is illusion. Science can investigate some aspects of ideas - how they are transmitted and how accurate the transmission is.
If ideas do exist, are the ideas we have today what they are as the result of evolution (I mean evolution in the sense it is debated by evolutionists on this forum, not a more general meaning that might be found in common use)? Some certainly appear to be ideas that have been passed down from generation to generation with varying degrees of modification in the process. Dawkins coined the term "meme" to apply to ideas that are passed from generation to generation that have a survival/reproduction advantage, in similar fashion to the way genes are passed from generation to generation via selection of traits that improve survival or reproduction. We could also agree that if all the people that knew a certain idea (meme carriers) died that the idea would die out (become extinct), in similar manner to the way certain genes become extinct. We can also see examples of this meme transmission in Japanese "Snow Monkey" macaques where potato washing was 'invented' by one female and the idea spread to other members of the troop. Blue Planet Biomes - Japanese Macaque
quote: If so, was this evolution the gradual change over eons, existing today at a higher level of complexity only because of chance mutations that were more likely to cause the family tree of ideas ideas to survive? Biological evolution is not always gradual, nor does it necessarily take eons for changes to appear and be incorporated into a breeding population. The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities ... and it is a FACT that this has been observed to occur in virtually every living species ... ... and memes would likely follow similar patterns, being more prevalent in some cultural environments than in other, and likely undergoing modification when moving into new cultural environments.
If evolution is pertinent to ideas, what was the earliest scientifically validated idea in the "idea fossil record" (for want of a better analogy). Are there any missing links in the "idea family tree" of evolution, or are there scientifically verifiable examples through time of the evolution of ideas from the simple to the complex with no macro-evolutionary jumps? At this point I think you are stretching the analogy a bit further than is necessary. Certainly some ideas are new, and not previously recorded; and some new ideas are built on a foundation of other ideas ... we reach new heights of understanding of the universe because "we stand on the shoulders of giants" who have preceded us ... who stand on the shoulders of other giants ... ( and it is giants all the way down ... ) So: do you think there is a legitimate argument for design? You picked this topic and apparently have read all the preceding posts, so you should know that this thread is about valid ideas for (intelligent) design. This forum likes to keep to specific topics in each thread (it minimizes confusion and encourages focus on specific concepts) -- and you can always start a new thread if you can't find a previous topic to suit. See Proposed New Topics Enjoy
... as you are new here, some posting tips: type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy and you can type [qs=RAZD]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
RAZD writes: quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote: also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window. For other formatting tips see Posting TipsFor a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi again taiji2
I'll reply to a couple posts to cut down on the load of replies you are receiving.
The question already asked is what does this rather abstruse line of questioning have to do with Intelligent Design. The answer is: What is design if not an idea. If, therefore, the scientific community has not addressed, studied, and developed supportable theory about ideas, the scope of study required to form any conclusions in the ID debate is flawed. Curiously, I feel that you have this a bit out of place - I do not consider ID to be a scientific pursuit but a philosophical one, one that employs science in order to understand the design. See Is ID properly pursued? ... My challenge to you is to show me anything in nature that doesn't reek of sophisticated design. ... The human eye. You can show me why you think it "reeks of sophisticated design" and I can show you why it isn't -- the key being an appreciation of what "sophisticated design" actually entails. Note that I am a designer by profession. See Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy... especially Message 4 Message 380: I don't mind being perfectly clear where I am coming from. I am not a Christian, nor do I believe in any of the Abrahimic dogma. I was raised a Baptist, but discarded that notion early in life. I have dabbled with the eastern religions and have settled on the Taoist cosmology as the one which most closely fits my acceptable worldview: in a nutshell... an Original Self Awareness (with ideas if you will) creating from Wu Chi (nothingness) the Tai Chi (duality) and from the Tai Chi all things. Nothing is said about the mechanisms for doing thus. Have you considered Deism? See my sig ...
Core Taoism really doesn't have a dogma (temple Taoism does, but that is not what I read). Their cosmological view is simple and very non-restrictive. Evolution fits nicely within it, if you can get used to the idea that there is a primordial intelligence and that it had some agency in bringing something forth out of nothing. And I agree. Of course it also includes the concept that all is illusion ... which doesn't get you far in scientific investigations ...
Message 382: And I would argue you are right and so am I. My model sees evolution within ID. No conflicts there. ... Indeed. again see Is ID properly pursued? Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : dbcodeby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024