|
Author
|
Topic: Distinguishing "designs"
|
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5936 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: 01-04-2007
|
|
Message 7 of 73 (414766)
08-06-2007 4:53 AM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by NosyNed
08-04-2007 12:26 PM
|
|
They may have totally non-functional parts in them. The former type of design may have non-functional parts too. For example, electronics manufacturers may find it easier to print the same circuitboard and just disable some feature to make the low-end model. ((I'm just arguing as an IDist for fun. I don't necessarily agree with what I'm posting)) Edited by Goddy, : No reason given. Edited by Doddy, : clarify, because aliases don't work how I want them to
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by NosyNed, posted 08-04-2007 12:26 PM | | NosyNed has not replied |
|
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5936 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: 01-04-2007
|
|
|
Message 11 of 73 (414883)
08-06-2007 8:06 PM
|
Reply to: Message 10 by jar
08-06-2007 4:58 PM
|
|
Re: Some thoughts from a designer.
jar writes: However, if they make that assumption, then looking at the outcome, biological critters, the only possible conclusion seems to be that ID stands for Inept Designer or Incompetent Designer or Ignorant Designer or Inelegant Designer or Inefficient Designer or Inexpert Designer or Insensible Designer or Idiotic Designer.
Unless there is some deep reason for an intelligent designer to give his or her creation less than optimal designs, in which case only the very intelligent designer would do that. Behe makes the analogy, in Darwin's Black Box, of not spoiling his children with the best toys, because he wants them to learn the value of a dollar.
Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
We seek contributors with a knowledge of Intelligent design to expand and review our page on this topic. Registration not needed for editing most pages (the ID page is an exception), but you can register here!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 10 by jar, posted 08-06-2007 4:58 PM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 12 by jar, posted 08-06-2007 8:39 PM | | Doddy has replied |
|
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5936 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: 01-04-2007
|
|
|
Message 13 of 73 (414891)
08-06-2007 8:47 PM
|
Reply to: Message 12 by jar
08-06-2007 8:39 PM
|
|
Re: Some thoughts from a designer.
jar writes: the adoption of good ideas across the spectrum and how that is seen in one type of design but not in the other.
But if your viewpoint was one of independant creation of certain features, then any homology would in fact represent an adoption of a good idea across a certain fraction of a spectrum. For example, the tetrapod forelimb is considered a good design, so the designer used it in lots of animals (and in those where it wasn't a good idea, like Anurans, the designer changed it).
Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
We seek contributors with a knowledge of Intelligent design to expand and review our page on this topic. Registration not needed for editing most pages (the ID page is an exception), but you can register here!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 12 by jar, posted 08-06-2007 8:39 PM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 14 by jar, posted 08-06-2007 9:22 PM | | Doddy has replied |
|
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5936 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: 01-04-2007
|
|
|
Message 15 of 73 (414905)
08-06-2007 9:46 PM
|
Reply to: Message 14 by jar
08-06-2007 9:22 PM
|
|
Re: Some thoughts from a designer.
jar writes: The facts though are that if there is a designer who designed beyond the very most basic level, and by that I mean at the forces and process level, then the designer is incompetent. No, it isn't possible to conclude that, unless we know the aim of the designer. If the designer was trying very hard to get optimum designs, but failed, then I'd agree. But we don't know what the designer was thinking, so for all we know it could have been perfectly intentional and for good reasons. We can't say either way - it is a mystery. Anyway, there is no reason, apart from the obvious religious beliefs of the creationists, to assume that the designer was all-good and all-powerful. That isn't the viewpoint of ID proponents (well...not officially anyway). Bad design can still be intelligent designs. Just the designs of a perfect intelligence ones. Edited by Goddy, : clarify
Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
We seek contributors with a knowledge of Intelligent design to expand and review our page on this topic. Registration not needed for editing most pages (the ID page is an exception), but you can register here!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 14 by jar, posted 08-06-2007 9:22 PM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 16 by jar, posted 08-06-2007 9:55 PM | | Doddy has replied |
|
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5936 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: 01-04-2007
|
|
|
Message 17 of 73 (414916)
08-06-2007 10:24 PM
|
Reply to: Message 16 by jar
08-06-2007 9:55 PM
|
|
Re: You keep returning to issues I have already addressed.
jar writes: We are judging the product. It is irrelevant what the will of the designer might have been.
Well, you concluded in message 10 that the designer was either Inept, Incompetent, Ignorant, Inelegant, Inefficient, Inexpert, Insensible or Idiotic. I'm telling you that if the designer had in fact been skillful, competent, knowledgeable, elegant, efficient, expert, sensible and genius, it still could be possible to have the bad designs we see today, if that was the will or intent of the designer.
jar writes: I am simply addressing the characteristics we see in the biological critters and comparing them to a standard of what minimal human design would be. You often hear people talk of how 'things aren't built like they used to be'. Human designers have gotten cleverer, and they know that if they build things to last, then they won't sell as many products as if they make them to break. Perfectly intelligent and rational beings, deliberately choosing something that is just barely good enough to be sold, but not good enough to last. They fulfill their design criteria beautifully. How do we know something similar isn't going on with the design of living critters? Edited by Goddy, : formatting
Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
We seek contributors with a knowledge of Intelligent design to expand and review our page on this topic. Registration not needed for editing most pages (the ID page is an exception), but you can register here!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 16 by jar, posted 08-06-2007 9:55 PM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 18 by jar, posted 08-06-2007 10:31 PM | | Doddy has replied |
|
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5936 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: 01-04-2007
|
|
|
Message 19 of 73 (414921)
08-06-2007 11:06 PM
|
Reply to: Message 18 by jar
08-06-2007 10:31 PM
|
|
Re: You keep returning to issues I have already addressed.
jar writes: Well, if you can show a profit motive for designed obsolescence in biological critters, then perhaps you may be able to make a case.
It probably won't be a profit motive, but a motive nonetheless. But of course I can't show it, that wasn't my point.
jar writes: As I said upthread, it is possible to make up most anything. Well, I'm not trying to prove to you that this is true. I'm just trying to say 'what if X'. I can conceive of a situation (regardless of there being evidence for it or not), that invalidates your argument that 'bad design, if indicating designer, indicates bad designer'. It can be considered purely hypothetical.
Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
We seek contributors with a knowledge of Intelligent design to expand and review our page on this topic. Registration not needed for editing most pages (the ID page is an exception), but you can register here!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 18 by jar, posted 08-06-2007 10:31 PM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 20 by jar, posted 08-06-2007 11:40 PM | | Doddy has replied |
|
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5936 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: 01-04-2007
|
|
|
Message 21 of 73 (414939)
08-07-2007 3:07 AM
|
Reply to: Message 20 by jar
08-06-2007 11:40 PM
|
|
Re: You keep returning to issues I have already addressed.
If your argument was truly valid, no hypothetical situation could invalidate it.
Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
We seek contributors with a knowledge of Intelligent design to expand and review our page on this topic. Registration not needed for editing most pages (the ID page is an exception), but you can register here!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 20 by jar, posted 08-06-2007 11:40 PM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 23 by jar, posted 08-07-2007 10:36 AM | | Doddy has not replied | | | Message 27 by NosyNed, posted 08-07-2007 4:19 PM | | Doddy has replied |
|
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5936 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: 01-04-2007
|
|
|
Message 28 of 73 (415035)
08-07-2007 8:28 PM
|
Reply to: Message 27 by NosyNed
08-07-2007 4:19 PM
|
|
Re: Good or Bad Isn't the Original Issue
NosyNed writes: Since the samples of this kind of apparent design that we know about are all produced without intelligence in the design process it is a resonably position to say that this is indeed apparent only. You can't just assume that what we see in living things is made without intelligence in order to prove that the design we see in living things is produced without intelligence. It begs the question.
NosyNed writes: We don't see old solutions re-sculpted to handle new environments in intelligent design. I see no reason why a designer would not co-opt an existing framework or object to solve a problem. Just as a car manufacturer may use an existing engine for a new car model, a designer may use the motor of a Type III Secretory System for a motor in a flagellum. Edited by Goddy, : clarify
Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
We seek contributors with a knowledge of Intelligent design to expand and review our page on this topic. Registration not needed for editing most pages (the ID page is an exception), but you can register here!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 27 by NosyNed, posted 08-07-2007 4:19 PM | | NosyNed has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 29 by NosyNed, posted 08-08-2007 12:53 AM | | Doddy has replied |
|
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5936 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: 01-04-2007
|
|
|
Message 30 of 73 (415083)
08-08-2007 3:21 AM
|
Reply to: Message 29 by NosyNed
08-08-2007 12:53 AM
|
|
Re: Samples and Solutions
NosyNed writes: the starter motor in one model being beefed up by redirecting A/C output through it to make it into the main driving motor for the rear wheels to make a higher traction 4 wheel drive car out of a front wheel drive. That is what we see in live [sic] it is not what we see in humanly designed things.
Yes, we see this sort of thing in humanly designed things. Junkyard Wars is a prime example. Another is overclocking a computer. Unconstrained human design may not do this recycling and reusing, but more constraints will force a designer to resort to reusing and recycling. Edited by Goddy, : quote box
Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
We seek contributors with a knowledge of Intelligent design to expand and review our page on this topic. Registration not needed for editing most pages (the ID page is an exception), but you can register here!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 29 by NosyNed, posted 08-08-2007 12:53 AM | | NosyNed has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2