Evidence of design .... ?

Crash, wouldn't our inner ear mechanism for helping us detect up and down be such a gravity sense?

Ah, you're using the car as something designed and thinking that it is a good analogy for a living thing.Did it occur to you that there is a very large difference between animals and cars? What might that difference be? Care to guess. There is a specific difference which invalidates that kind of anaology completely.

That's it! Good going.However, you miss the point. It isn't a design flaw of the car I'm talking about. It is what makes the analogy totally off base.It's the imperfect reproduction with selection which can produce a form of design (just not "intelligent" design).

delete duplicate[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 06-29-2003]

It isn't the flaws I'm talking about. It's useing a manufactured thing (flawed or not) as an analogy to talk about a reproducing thing. I guess I was guessing that was what you were on about when you suddenly brought the car up.We were talking about the kind of thing you might expect out of an "intelligent" design process and one out of an evolutionary process. There the difference between a car and a body is pretty large. The car is a better design in the engineered sense. For example, it leaves out unnessary parts and is very simple over all.However a car would be a lousy starting point for an evolutionary process even if it did reproduce. It doesn't have enough complexity or any redundancy to allow the process to work well. What point do I miss?

quote:

---

quote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
ID postulates that organisms exist due to an intelligent designer's
interventions. To find suitable evidence of design we can look
to existing designed systems and see if there are similarities
between biological systems and what we would expect to find
in an intellgently designed system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Here, you first need to hash this out with NosyNed. He tells us that we can’t take this approach because the analogy between things humans design and natural things is totally off base.

---

I think there are two different things going on here and you misapply my objection to the analogy.One point is using manufactured things that we know are designed and saying "these can't come about by accident they had to have a designer" and then, by analogy, saying that a living thing couldn't have come about by "accident" it, by analogy, had to have a designer.The point of the evolutionary idea is that it demonstrates that "design" can appear without a designer. But it requires imperfectly reprocing things to work on and that doesn't apply to a manufactured object.The second point being made is that if we just look at some design but don't know if it is "intelligently designed" or not is there a way to distinguish one that is designed from one that evolved? This isn't considering the manufactured or reproducing aspects and is different from point one above.In this case the ID folks are not only claiming an "intelligent" designer but an all-knowing all-powerful one as well. One might be expected to figure the designs from this guy would be pretty darn good and clearly distinuguishable from "designs" that evolved which doesn't have any future knowledge, is constained by what is there as a starting point and is subject to contingent events.Well, when we look at the two ends of two different ways of arriving at a "design" we see that that of living things is pretty clearly (for many reasons, some of which have been given) not in the "intelligently" designed side of the fence but rather on the evolved side. This view isn't by analogy but is by comparing and contrasting.How clear is all that?edited to change object to objection[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 07-02-2003]