|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is there a legitimate argument for design? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FLRW Member (Idle past 498 days) Posts: 73 Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
FLRW writes:
Evolution explains such anomalies quite nicely. How does ID explain them? zr, recently in the news there was a story about a baby born with 6 legs. 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FLRW Member (Idle past 498 days) Posts: 73 Joined: |
CS, thanks and I agree with you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mram10 Member (Idle past 3524 days) Posts: 84 Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Capt Stormfield Member Posts: 429 From: Vancouver Island Joined:
|
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Capt Stormfield Member Posts: 429 From: Vancouver Island Joined:
|
Where did natural selection get it's intelligence? How do waves on a steep beach know how to sort rocks according to size?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Capt Stormfield Member Posts: 429 From: Vancouver Island Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2285 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 7.4
|
Where did natural selection get it's intelligence?
what intelligence?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
mram10 writes:
How does a lion "decide" which zebra to eat? Simple: the one he can catch. Where did natural selection get it's intelligence? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13018 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Just thought I'd let y'all know.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
mram10 writes: 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. Sexual v asexual reproduction shows design more-so than evolution. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024