Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8951 total)
31 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Percy (Admin) (3 members, 28 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,944 Year: 21,980/19,786 Month: 543/1,834 Week: 43/500 Day: 1/42 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Distinguishing "designs"
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 46 of 73 (443126)
12-23-2007 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Cold Foreign Object
12-23-2007 5:46 PM


Petitio Principii, A Game For Any Number Of Players
Design indicates Designer.

Evolution special pleads design to not indicate Designer based on mandatory philosophical requirements that do not allow God as an explanation or interpretation or, of course, a conclusion.

When observation is ignored in favor of an antonym ("design" indicates mindless processes) then (Atheist) philosophy parading as science is confirmed.

Adaptation indicates evolution.

Creationism special pleads adaptation to not indicate evolution based on mandatory theological requirements that require God as an explanation and interpretation and, of course, a conclusion.

When observation is ignored in favor of an antonym ("adaptation" indicates fiat creation) then (Theist) theology parading as science is confirmed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-23-2007 5:46 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-26-2007 5:59 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1386 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 47 of 73 (443769)
12-26-2007 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by NosyNed
12-23-2007 5:51 PM


Re: Ned ignored a non reply
Ned ignored a non reply

Then why are you replying now?

The point is that we have known apparent designs that we also know are NOT designed by an designer. There are processes which can produce them.

By using the phrase "apparent designs" you are saying design is not real and that it does not exist. So what do these processes produce?

The designs that you point to as evidence are exactly those kind of designs. SNIP....

Negative.

Evolution says design does not exist in reality. It appears you are admitting existence, then saying something other than invisible Designer produced it, which brings us right back to design does not exist in reality.

That is not an argument but an ad hoc intelligence insulting explanation.

How do you know "apparent design" exists?

Are you admitting things look designed?

If so; our position is: yes, nature and organisims look designed and the same corresponds to Designer.

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by NosyNed, posted 12-23-2007 5:51 PM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by NosyNed, posted 12-26-2007 8:12 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded
 Message 51 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-26-2007 8:44 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1386 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 48 of 73 (443771)
12-26-2007 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Dr Adequate
12-23-2007 7:58 PM


Re: Petitio Principii, A Game For Any Number Of Players
Adaptation indicates evolution.

Define adaptation.

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-23-2007 7:58 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-26-2007 8:43 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8868
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 49 of 73 (443808)
12-26-2007 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Cold Foreign Object
12-26-2007 5:52 PM


Idiotic Games with Semantics
Ray, the English language doesn't have good words for these things.

If you don't know what is meant by "apparent designs" then you need to learn a whole lot about this subject.

The word design carries many connotations. The word "apparent" is used to avoid them when they are inappropriate. That is when we wish to remain neutral on the issue of a designer.

If you don't like the word apparent I'll take it out. We have more than one kind of design available for us to observe.

Two of the kinds of design process produce outputs that people have treated as artifacts of intelligent processes. Now we understand that one of the kinds of process produces a very different kind of design that the other.

Since the look of design that we see in nature is exactly NOT the kind of design that has a foreseeing guiding designer we can, with the available evidence today, conclude that those things are designed by the process that we KNOW produces that "look".

Your playing with semantics is not answering that distinction and starts to quickly look a bit childish.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-26-2007 5:52 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-28-2007 12:51 PM NosyNed has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 50 of 73 (443814)
12-26-2007 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Cold Foreign Object
12-26-2007 5:59 PM


Re: Petitio Principii, A Game For Any Number Of Players
Define adaptation.

The result of evolution.

There, you see how petitio principii works?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-26-2007 5:59 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 51 of 73 (443815)
12-26-2007 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Cold Foreign Object
12-26-2007 5:52 PM


Re: Ned ignored a non reply
Evolution says design does not exist in reality.

Wrong.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-26-2007 5:52 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1386 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 52 of 73 (444131)
12-28-2007 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by NosyNed
12-26-2007 8:12 PM


Re: Idiotic Games with Semantics - really?
If you don't know what is meant by "apparent designs" then you need to learn a whole lot about this subject.

I know what it means. I am attempting to discover if you know what it means.

SNIP....The word "apparent" is used to avoid them when they are inappropriate. That is when we wish to remain neutral on the issue of a designer.

Then why didn't you say that in the first place?

Evolutionists are not neutral on a Designer - anything but. Evolution says God did not create nature - transmutation by natural selection-did-it.

But "apparent design" does not mean "neutrality" it means design does not actually exist. If something looks apparently designed you are admitting design to exist but asking and saying that the same does not indicate Designer; therefore, there is no neutrality. My point is that once design is admitted to exist then logicians have the right to say the same corresponds to Designer.

Parahomologous structures in animals are identified to infer that evolution has occurred. To an evolutionist this is a logical correspondence, but design does not correspond to Designer - go figure.

Design does correspond to Designer - it is not a matter of opinion and it is perfectly logical. Your only choice is to deny that design exists in the first place and stop insulting our intelligence.

If you don't like the word apparent I'll take it out. We have more than one kind of design available for us to observe.

Take it out.

But I want you to know that I am well aware that the phrase "apparent design" is abundant in the literature. It exists largely unexplained because it is paradoxical.

The word design carries many connotations....Two of the kinds of design process produce outputs that people have treated as artifacts of intelligent processes. Now we understand that one of the kinds of process produces a very different kind of design that the other.

This comment is on the verge of stipulating a special meaning for the word "design" as not corresponding to intelligence - am I correct?

Are you setting up a bait and switch while begrudgingly admitting?

Since the look of design that we see in nature is exactly NOT the kind of design that has a foreseeing guiding designer we can, with the available evidence today, conclude that those things are designed by the process that we KNOW produces that "look".

The design we see in nature is real corresponding to Designer; from bat sonar to feathers to army ants. You cannot have it both ways: you cannot admit something looks designed but then turn around and deny Designer. All you are saying is that natural selection produces the "look" of design but the same, of course, is an unintelligent process.

Charles Darwin writes:

The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows.

Autobiography p.87

Read carefully what Darwin says. I cannot find one scholar who has ever denied or criticized the above quote as not accurate. The quote says NOW that natural selection has been discovered design does not exist in organism variation OR in the action of natural selection.

By attempting to say that a "look" of design exists you are saying it was produced by natural selection. Darwin says NO! Design does not exist (nor is it an outcome) in the "action of natural selection."

If you disagree then please include references or source cites.

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by NosyNed, posted 12-26-2007 8:12 PM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by NosyNed, posted 12-28-2007 2:27 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8868
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 53 of 73 (444178)
12-28-2007 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Cold Foreign Object
12-28-2007 12:51 PM


Distinguishing them
Most you your post is a waste of the bits to store it. Your paranoia about other peoples motives is a waste of time.

You do finally get to the topic of the thread.

The design we see in nature is real corresponding to Designer; from bat sonar to feathers to army ants. You cannot have it both ways: you cannot admit something looks designed but then turn around and deny Designer. All you are saying is that natural selection produces the "look" of design but the same, of course, is an unintelligent process.

I am not saying that it produces the "look" of the kind of design you are talking about.

It appears that you insist on using the word design to mean intelligently designed. Since that is the case we will have to avoid the word altogether.

Humans are the only designers that you can show me in action. The outcome of their work as a particular "form".

Evolutionary processes (natural or man made) produce work of a different "form". Bats and ants are exactly this kind of form not the former kind.

You have managed to avoid explaining that with all your bafflegab and misdirection.

By attempting to say that a "look" of design exists you are saying it was produced by natural selection. Darwin says NO! Design does not exist (nor is it an outcome) in the "action of natural selection."

If you disagree then please include references or source cites.

Darwin was using the word "design" exactly like you do. I use the word "design" in the same way someone might comment on the design of a snowflake. It is this confusion of different meanings of the term that makes it impossible for us to use the word at all.

The forms produced are outcomes of different processes. The outcomes have different natures depending on the producing process. We can compare the nature of the outcomes to make a judgement about the process used.

Bats and ants are NOT intelligently designed based on this comparison.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-28-2007 12:51 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 1202 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 54 of 73 (444377)
12-29-2007 5:34 AM


Not so distinct...
The presence of selection within a process does not prevent it from being an intelligent design process. What is important is whether anticipation by someone or something contributing to the process affects the form of the outcome.

For example, I could design a face using photofit software. The computer generates alterations to the current image, and I select alterations which best match a form that I know in advance.

The term "natural selection" does not exclude intelligent selection or intelligent design.


Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by NosyNed, posted 12-29-2007 11:37 AM sinequanon has responded
 Message 57 by RAZD, posted 12-31-2007 2:39 PM sinequanon has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8868
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 55 of 73 (444418)
12-29-2007 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by sinequanon
12-29-2007 5:34 AM


A Third Type?
A Third Type?

Interesting point Sin ... This process uses a wide rangeing search for variation (as mutations do in biological processes) and then a selection process. But the selection process is applied with some thought.

Is it possible to distinguish this from the biological evolutionary process? I haven't thought about it enough yet. When we use this with evolutionary algorithms or in artificial selection we get outcomes that look like the biological forms. But is there a distinction?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by sinequanon, posted 12-29-2007 5:34 AM sinequanon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by sinequanon, posted 12-30-2007 6:32 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 1202 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 56 of 73 (444650)
12-30-2007 6:32 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by NosyNed
12-29-2007 11:37 AM


Re: A Third Type?
It is conceivable that adaptive timescales would be reduced because survival capability is being anticipated rather than necessarily being put to the test.

Also, with intelligence comes error and 'vogue'. Features that are neutral to survival and would otherwise be merely allowed, may now become preferred. This could lead to the development of apparently useless or part developed features.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by NosyNed, posted 12-29-2007 11:37 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20326
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 57 of 73 (444955)
12-31-2007 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by sinequanon
12-29-2007 5:34 AM


Re: Not so distinct...
The term "natural selection" does not exclude intelligent selection or intelligent design.

True, but it doesn't need it either. Some choices made by intelligent species aren't made for intelligent reasons. Mating for instance.

Enjoy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by sinequanon, posted 12-29-2007 5:34 AM sinequanon has not yet responded

  
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 1202 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 58 of 73 (445102)
01-01-2008 7:32 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by NosyNed
08-04-2007 12:26 PM


A part of what?
NosyNed writes:

1) Human (known intelligent) Design.

These designs strive to be as simple and clearly understandable as is possible for the situation. They use standard parts in many cases. They borrow from one another across whole classes of product. (spark plugs in cars and lawn mowers).

I could equally interpret the car and the lawn mower as ecosystems in which the form, 'spark plug', exists.

This could be similar to finding a particular bacteria in organisms of different species, or finding a particular bird nesting in various types of shrub.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by NosyNed, posted 08-04-2007 12:26 PM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by NosyNed, posted 01-01-2008 11:47 AM sinequanon has responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8868
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 59 of 73 (445152)
01-01-2008 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by sinequanon
01-01-2008 7:32 AM


Re: A part of what?
I could equally interpret the car and the lawn mower as ecosystems in which the form, 'spark plug', exists.

This could be similar to finding a particular bacteria in organisms of different species, or finding a particular bird nesting in various types of shrub.

I don't think I get the point you are making. Can you make the logical steps clearer?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by sinequanon, posted 01-01-2008 7:32 AM sinequanon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by sinequanon, posted 01-01-2008 1:06 PM NosyNed has responded

  
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 1202 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 60 of 73 (445180)
01-01-2008 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by NosyNed
01-01-2008 11:47 AM


Re: A part of what?
I took the term "standard part" in the OP as referring to a relationship between functional units.

In biological terms a functional unit could be a cell, a unicellular organism, a micro-organism, an organ, a macro-organism, an ecosystem etc. i.e a living construct that has evolved to function in its own right.

I would define a "part of a unit" as another unit without which the whole would either not function, or would be functionally impaired.

So, with my definition, a bacterium that is necessary for digestion is part of the whole organism or digestive organ, because, without it, the organism or organ could not function. Similarly, elements of an ecosystem are parts of that living system. Removing part of an ecosystem could cause the whole system to fail.

This would mean biological "parts" can appear to "borrow from one another". The same bacterium can be found in the gut of different organisms (as the spark plug is found in different mechanical devices). The same bird can be found in different ecosystems, etc.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by NosyNed, posted 01-01-2008 11:47 AM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by NosyNed, posted 01-01-2008 2:27 PM sinequanon has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019