Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,651 Year: 4,908/9,624 Month: 256/427 Week: 2/64 Day: 2/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is there a legitimate argument for design?
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 331 of 638 (733470)
07-17-2014 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 330 by FLRW
07-17-2014 1:00 PM


CS, what do you think is an acceptable error for the design of humans?
I dunno, any amount I suppose. I'm not really sure what you're asking. I guess it depends on the design process.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by FLRW, posted 07-17-2014 1:00 PM FLRW has not replied

  
FLRW
Member (Idle past 564 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 10-08-2007


Message 332 of 638 (733471)
07-17-2014 1:29 PM


Being a moral person, I would say it is 0. Why would you design a human with any error? Haven't we just proven that humans are not a product of intelligent design? Or have we proven that humans are the product of imperfect design?

Replies to this message:
 Message 334 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-17-2014 2:08 PM FLRW has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 499 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 333 of 638 (733474)
07-17-2014 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 330 by FLRW
07-17-2014 1:00 PM


FLRW writes:
zr, recently in the news there was a story about a baby born with 6 legs.
Evolution explains such anomalies quite nicely. How does ID explain them?
According to the Theory of Evolution, if there is a survival advantage to six legs - i.e. if the baby lives long enough to reproduce - there is a chance that the trait will be passed on to future generations and eventually there may be a species of six-legged humanoids. But there doesn't seem to be much of an advantage.
According to ID, what?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by FLRW, posted 07-17-2014 1:00 PM FLRW has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 334 of 638 (733478)
07-17-2014 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 332 by FLRW
07-17-2014 1:29 PM


It helps a lot if you use the Reply button at the bottom right of a message rather than using the General Reply button at the top.
Being a moral person, I would say it is 0. Why would you design a human with any error?
Well it can't be zero, because then we couldn't evolve and we could easily be wiped out (and already would have been).
Haven't we just proven that humans are not a product of intelligent design? Or have we proven that humans are the product of imperfect design?
Humans have obviously evolved from earlier hominids. Whether or not that is by design, I do not know.
I have not seen any evidence to suggest that humans were intelligently designed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 332 by FLRW, posted 07-17-2014 1:29 PM FLRW has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 335 by FLRW, posted 07-17-2014 2:28 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
FLRW
Member (Idle past 564 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 10-08-2007


Message 335 of 638 (733482)
07-17-2014 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 334 by New Cat's Eye
07-17-2014 2:08 PM


CS, thanks and I agree with you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-17-2014 2:08 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
mram10
Member (Idle past 3589 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 08-07-2012


Message 336 of 638 (734194)
07-26-2014 5:43 PM


Sexual v asexual reproduction shows design more-so than evolution. 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. There are the standard evolution talking points, but the complexity of nature is too much to LOGICALLY discount a designer.
Where did natural selection get it's intelligence?
Where did the intelligence come from to make the different sexes?

Replies to this message:
 Message 337 by Capt Stormfield, posted 07-26-2014 8:50 PM mram10 has not replied
 Message 338 by Capt Stormfield, posted 07-26-2014 8:53 PM mram10 has not replied
 Message 339 by Capt Stormfield, posted 07-26-2014 8:57 PM mram10 has not replied
 Message 340 by DrJones*, posted 07-26-2014 9:04 PM mram10 has not replied
 Message 341 by ringo, posted 07-27-2014 2:44 PM mram10 has not replied
 Message 342 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-27-2014 2:55 PM mram10 has not replied
 Message 343 by RAZD, posted 07-27-2014 8:53 PM mram10 has not replied
 Message 345 by Pressie, posted 07-28-2014 8:15 AM mram10 has not replied
 Message 346 by Taq, posted 07-28-2014 1:46 PM mram10 has not replied
 Message 347 by Dogmafood, posted 07-28-2014 11:53 PM mram10 has not replied

  
Capt Stormfield
Member
Posts: 429
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009


(1)
Message 337 of 638 (734212)
07-26-2014 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 336 by mram10
07-26-2014 5:43 PM


Sexual v asexual reproduction shows design more-so than evolution. 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.
This seems ass backwards to me. It seems like design would use the better way (if indeed there is one), while evolution, not having a goal in mind, is stuck with whatever shows up variationwise. Where did you get the idea that evolution should result in the "better" way to accomplish any particular physiologic task?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 336 by mram10, posted 07-26-2014 5:43 PM mram10 has not replied

  
Capt Stormfield
Member
Posts: 429
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009


(5)
Message 338 of 638 (734213)
07-26-2014 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 336 by mram10
07-26-2014 5:43 PM


Where did natural selection get it's intelligence?
How do waves on a steep beach know how to sort rocks according to size?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 336 by mram10, posted 07-26-2014 5:43 PM mram10 has not replied

  
Capt Stormfield
Member
Posts: 429
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009


Message 339 of 638 (734214)
07-26-2014 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 336 by mram10
07-26-2014 5:43 PM


Where did the intelligence come from to make the different sexes?
What makes you think that requires intelligence? You seem to be making a lot of unsubstantiated assertions. Your questions have no substance unless you support the premises underlying them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 336 by mram10, posted 07-26-2014 5:43 PM mram10 has not replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2293
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 4.6


(2)
Message 340 of 638 (734216)
07-26-2014 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 336 by mram10
07-26-2014 5:43 PM


Where did natural selection get it's intelligence?
what intelligence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 336 by mram10, posted 07-26-2014 5:43 PM mram10 has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 499 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(3)
Message 341 of 638 (734253)
07-27-2014 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 336 by mram10
07-26-2014 5:43 PM


mram10 writes:
Where did natural selection get it's intelligence?
How does a lion "decide" which zebra to eat? Simple: the one he can catch.
The slow zebras get eaten. The zebras that happen to evolve more speed get a chance to pass it on to their offspring. No intelligence needed, just natural consequences.
Edited by zombie ringo, : Splling.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 336 by mram10, posted 07-26-2014 5:43 PM mram10 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 371 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 342 of 638 (734254)
07-27-2014 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 336 by mram10
07-26-2014 5:43 PM


Evolution could have found a better way ...
Ah yes, the Argument From Undesign. Nature is so clearly faulty that instead of being produced by a ramshackle, hit-or-miss, trial-and-error process like evolution, it must be the product of a perfectly wise God who is also a freakin' moron ...
Where did natural selection get it's intelligence?
... and who made you in his own image.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 336 by mram10, posted 07-26-2014 5:43 PM mram10 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1492 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 343 of 638 (734301)
07-27-2014 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 336 by mram10
07-26-2014 5:43 PM


evolution a stumbling staggering walk, design is a linear purposeful stride
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
  1. if you throw the di and take a step in the direction indicated, that chances are (from random mutation steps) that you will never get very far from your original location, but
  2. if you select only those throws that are less than 4 (natural selection for fitness to ecology), you will proceed in a generally north-east to east-north-east direction. There will be some staggering around the path to the north and to the southwest, but the overall average path will be 60° east.
  3. if you increased selection pressure so that only 2's and 3's "survived" to make the next throw, then the stagger would be slightly smaller (fewer options for survival) and the direction would change to an average due east "path" (different evolutionary results).
  4. if you were going to design a path it would be direct and linear, and the throw of the di would not be necessary to determine that direction.
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, : added

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 336 by mram10, posted 07-26-2014 5:43 PM mram10 has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 13082
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 344 of 638 (734329)
07-28-2014 3:33 AM


Moderator On Duty
Just thought I'd let y'all know.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 345 of 638 (734342)
07-28-2014 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 336 by mram10
07-26-2014 5:43 PM


mram10 writes:
Sexual v asexual reproduction shows design more-so than evolution.
How so? Some unicellar organisms have both sexual and asexual reproduction. Doesn't show any design. They just show what's more advantageous to the survival and reproduction of those organisms in the environment they live in.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 336 by mram10, posted 07-26-2014 5:43 PM mram10 has 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