Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is there a legitimate argument for design?
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 301 of 638 (725556)
04-28-2014 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by Ed67
04-26-2014 11:38 PM


difference in degree\quantity or difference in sort\quality
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.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Ed67, posted 04-26-2014 11:38 PM Ed67 has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 302 of 638 (725560)
04-28-2014 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by frako
04-28-2014 4:45 AM


so so your saying it was all intelligently designed its just the designer is an idiot.
Yeah, I walked into that, trust you to exploit it. Nothing to say about the rest of it, there are either good reasons you have no way of knowing, or the Fall is the reason.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by frako, posted 04-28-2014 4:45 AM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by frako, posted 04-28-2014 2:26 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 305 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-28-2014 2:55 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 306 by RAZD, posted 04-28-2014 3:21 PM Faith has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


(3)
Message 303 of 638 (725568)
04-28-2014 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 302 by Faith
04-28-2014 1:56 PM


Yeah, I walked into that, trust you to exploit it. Nothing to say about the rest of it, there are either good reasons you have no way of knowing, or the Fall is the reason.
LOL sure faith sure, its the fall or i have no blatend idea why the design is better this way.
So tell me did eating the apple cause all the nerve endings and blood vessels in the eye to shif from the sensible way of doing it ie coming from the back of the receptors to going in to the eye and coming in from the front blocking light, and causing a blind spot. Some apple.
Or am i too stupid to realise thats the best way to wire the eye and we should all copy that method when making cameras, making all the wires go in front of the lenses then coupling the cameras with computers so they Photoshop the wires out of the picture.
Id really like your take on this was it the fall, or am i the idiot who cant see that that is the best way to wire an eye.
Yeah, I walked into that, trust you to exploit it.
Always here to serve.

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by Faith, posted 04-28-2014 1:56 PM Faith has not replied

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


(1)
Message 304 of 638 (725570)
04-28-2014 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by mike the wiz
04-27-2014 11:36 AM


As for his claims that the design argument is false, it is not an argument that an eye is designed to see, it is a statement of scientific fact. You can take a course in anatomy, and they will show you the functions, and how destroying the function will lead to a pointless eye.
But that is not what "designed" means.
A thing is designed if someone designed it, if they thought about what they wanted it to do, and then thought about how it should be constructed in order to achieve that goal, and it was then brought it into being in line with their conclusions. This is design.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by mike the wiz, posted 04-27-2014 11:36 AM mike the wiz has not replied

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


(1)
Message 305 of 638 (725571)
04-28-2014 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 302 by Faith
04-28-2014 1:56 PM


Nothing to say about the rest of it, there are either good reasons you have no way of knowing, or the Fall is the reason.
Aaaaand once again a creationist defends an obviously false hypothesis by festooning it with additional hypotheses designed to make it unfalsifiable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by Faith, posted 04-28-2014 1:56 PM Faith has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 306 of 638 (725573)
04-28-2014 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 302 by Faith
04-28-2014 1:56 PM


Is there a legitimate argument for design?
That is the question on this thread.
What's your take on ID Faith?

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by Faith, posted 04-28-2014 1:56 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by mike the wiz, posted 04-29-2014 8:12 AM RAZD has replied

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


Message 307 of 638 (725575)
04-28-2014 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by mike the wiz
04-27-2014 11:36 AM


I have proposed quite obviously, that looking at things that we KNOW to be designed, is the place to start, and systematically asking if all of the elements in those known designs, are present in lifeforms. I then shown in my blogs that all the elements are there, so we can know that life is designed, through these logical steps. But it's obvious anyway, because intelligent design is nearly always overt, because of the PURPOSE or GOAL we see with our eyes. For example, we see a helicopter is designed to fly.
And since it has that in common with lifeforms such as birds, bats, and bees, we can conclude that the helicopter is the product of two helicopters fucking.
Oh, wait ... that's not the false conclusion you wish to reach, is it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by mike the wiz, posted 04-27-2014 11:36 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by mike the wiz, posted 04-29-2014 8:09 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 308 of 638 (725599)
04-29-2014 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 307 by Dr Adequate
04-28-2014 3:26 PM


And since it has that in common with lifeforms such as birds, bats, and bees, we can conclude that the helicopter is the product of two helicopters fucking.
I would also not conclude that bees are a product of birds, or birds, bats.
My argument is a logical comparison, more akin to the following: If you also have all of the elements that make a human, you are also "human". But that wouldn't make you my mother, as you rightly point out.
Oh, wait ... that's not the false conclusion you wish to reach, is it?
No, instead I went for the sound conclusion, that both are designed if they both share the elements of design. If you want to read WHY that is the case, here is a link;
Creation and evolution views
I think you've confused two things there, logically. To prove a helicopter is the product of reproduction, you'd have to show it had sexual parts. Whereas to find out if a bird is designed, you have to research and find out what makes a design. If it has the elements that make it designed, it is logically designed.
Of course we are all biased, and of course we are trying to all make our cases because we believe our position is right.
So your point makes it SEEM like I am arguing rhetorically, as though that is an evil motive. But even if my motive was indeed rhetorical, that would not change the fact that "design" can be established, scientifically and logically, by looking at designs. Therefore your point is MOOT.
Here is a SCIENTIFIC example I am aware of.
On the "squeaky" beeches of Britain, they wanted to show why sand squeaked. They believed that a shuffling of uniform, more equally sized grains causes a motion of a shift of layers over eachother simultaneously, rather than the uneven, different sized pieces, which doesn't cause this strange effect. So they took even, same-sized toy balls and shown that you achieve the same layering effect with toy balls, because they share the elements required. Both the sand grains and the toy balls shared two elements.
1. Uniform size, very similar.
2. Similar shaping.
The scientist then shown how all the balls move on top of each other like a blanket of balls, all moving as one. But with the uneven balls they did not move in the same way, because the uneven balls did not have the same elements.
Now he was trying to prove his case, and he would also admit he was trying to prove his case, but logically this motive is not always a cynical one. I am an honest Christian Dr A, and I admit I am trying to prove design both to myself and others, because I am driven.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-28-2014 3:26 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 310 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-29-2014 9:34 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 311 by NoNukes, posted 04-29-2014 2:16 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 317 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-30-2014 5:56 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 309 of 638 (725600)
04-29-2014 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 306 by RAZD
04-28-2014 3:21 PM


Creation and evolution views
I wrote the above blog with you in mind RAZD, but please note this is neither an attack on what you stand for, nor an attempt to argue with folk, I simply wanted to provide my explanation.
Bye for now. All the best.
(In regards to other folk, in regards to an "appearance of design", I don't know of any designists that argue it. Think about it, it would be like Dawkins saying there is an appearance of evolution. To make out we are saying things look designed, rather than they are actually being designed, is silly.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by RAZD, posted 04-28-2014 3:21 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 312 by RAZD, posted 04-30-2014 10:50 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 310 of 638 (725601)
04-29-2014 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 308 by mike the wiz
04-29-2014 8:09 AM


If it has the elements that make it designed, it is logically designed.
Yeah, animals have all kinds of awesome designs that they evolved into.
Natural Selection provides a great pressure on the ever-changing genomes that results in all kinds of ingenious adaptations and niche-fillings that makes all kinds of cool designs.
But the design that this thread was asking about, was intelligent design. And animals don't show any evidence of that.
Neither does identifying your "logically" designed stuff suggest that the designing was done by intelligence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by mike the wiz, posted 04-29-2014 8:09 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 311 of 638 (725614)
04-29-2014 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 308 by mike the wiz
04-29-2014 8:09 AM


No, instead I went for the sound conclusion, that both are designed if they both share the elements of design. If you want to read WHY that is the case, here is a link;
Your argument is of exactly the same form as the one Dr. Adequate proposed, and like the one he proposed, it is not valid. One problem is that there are is more than one way to produce similar looking features.
Evolution is perfectly capable of producing figures that look designed. Further, your identification of features of an airplane as being designed are all adhoc. You know ahead of time that an airplane was designed, so any feature of an airplane could be used to build your argument that an airplane is design, despite the fact that you did not actually use that feature to reach your conclusion. Additionally, there is the fact that things which exploit aerodynamics are constrained by that to have features that generate lift. Humans might well have exploit the example of birds regardless of where birds came from. And then one might well note that no bird really operates just like an airplane in any significant fashion.
I could list more counter arguments. But there is really no point to doing so. Your argument is still the same I know design when I see it, cloaked as something different, and the answer is that you don't. You might at best be able to detect man made objects, but you simply are not calibrated to distinguish between evolution and design of biological organisms simply by looking. No one is.
In contrast, for mechanical objects we know apriori that they were not made using the begatting of variation and natural selection process because those things cannot participate in such a process. We have few conclusions to choose from other than man made, which means intelligent design.
Is a beaver dam a product of ID? Why or why not?

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by mike the wiz, posted 04-29-2014 8:09 AM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 315 by Omnivorous, posted 04-30-2014 2:00 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 312 of 638 (725669)
04-30-2014 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 309 by mike the wiz
04-29-2014 8:12 AM


3 points
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.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by mike the wiz, posted 04-29-2014 8:12 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 313 of 638 (725677)
04-30-2014 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by Ed67
04-25-2014 11:06 PM


RE: Is there a legitimate argument for design?
Here, I'll let the good folks at the University of Washington tell you what they see...
I want to hear it from you. What makes it a code? For example . . .
"Genomes contain both a genetic code specifying amino acids and a regulatory code specifying transcription factor (TF) recognition sequences. We used genomic deoxyribonuclease I footprinting to map nucleotide resolution TF occupancy across the human exome in 81 diverse cell types. We found that ~15% of human codons are dual-use codons (duons) that simultaneously specify both amino acids and TF recognition sites. "
How is it specified?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Ed67, posted 04-25-2014 11:06 PM Ed67 has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 314 of 638 (725679)
04-30-2014 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by Ed67
04-26-2014 10:50 PM


Re: What does the CODE in DNA do?
You are correct. The code necessary to sustain life is integrated with the chemistry of the DNA molecule, of course.
How is that any different than the code that is integrated into oxygen and hydrogen to make water?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Ed67, posted 04-26-2014 10:50 PM Ed67 has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


(3)
Message 315 of 638 (725685)
04-30-2014 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 311 by NoNukes
04-29-2014 2:16 PM


Forgive me for riding your coat-tails, NoNukes, but your excellent question...
Is a beaver dam a product of ID? Why or why not?
...brought to mind these feathered friends. The Caledonian crows fashion various tools, mainly to fish out insects. They fashion a tool, use it, then modify it for better functionality. They make left handed and right handed hooks. They can fashion a sequence of three different tools in order to solve a food gathering problem.
What's more motivating than food? Well, the fair feathered sex, of course. Here is a bower created by a Satin Bowerbird in its blue period. The bowerbirds work long hours at this construction, using decorative objects that complement or contrast shapes and colors. They step back from their work, walk around it, and then make adjustments.
Surely both of these constructions were designed as intelligently as my bad back.

"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by NoNukes, posted 04-29-2014 2:16 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 316 by 1.61803, posted 04-30-2014 5:22 PM Omnivorous 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