|
Author
|
Topic: What IS evidence of design? (CLOSING STATEMENTS ONLY)
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
Message 1 of 377 (607645)
03-05-2011 1:10 PM
|
|
|
The assertion that there is some evidence of design seems to get batted around a lot but never really explained. In some cases it's pretty easy. For example the keyboard I'm using right now has a "HP" label, a warning telling me to read a safety and comfort guide which it claims will somehow reduce the risk of serious injury, and also a bunch of labels identifying the functions of each of the keys and buttons. If I go out front and look at my car it has Dodge written on it. If I look further inside the door I find Dodge/Mitsubishi which tells me that it was designed by one or both entities. I can look even further and find labels showing the designer for many of the different components in the car from engine to tires to seat-belts to radio to ... We also have a long history and lots of experience of human designers. We can look at a history of human designers going back thousands and thousands of years and see what constitutes a human designed object as opposed to something that was not designed. We can look at two rocks and tell which one was designed as a functional tool and which was not. The way we determine that is by observing knappers today and experimenting ourselves with knapping. We can then look at an unknown sample and see whether or not it shows the same characteristics we seen in the known samples. We can look at a jumble of stones or mound of earth and determine whether it was the result of normal geological processes or human intervention. For example the jumble of rock that was once Stonehenge was determined to be a design because many of the rocks came from locations far away and at those locations there was evidence of HUMAN quarrying. But when we look at living things we do not seem to find similar examples of design. As I pointed out in from an engineering perspective there is no Intelligent Design and again at Some thoughts from a designer, we do not see anything that approaches "Best Practices of Design" in living critters. So what exactly is this "Evidence of Design" that Creationists and Intelligent Design marketeers assert is there? Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add "(CLOSING STATEMENTS ONLY)" to topic title.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 6 of 377 (607665)
03-05-2011 6:55 PM
|
Reply to: Message 4 by Buzsaw
03-05-2011 6:46 PM
|
|
Word Salad is not evidence.
Buzsaw writes: In Message 35, NoNukes said:
NoNukes writes: You are playing silly word games. Empirical evidence is the only kind of evidence. So as not to go off topic this thread appears to be the more appropriate one for a response to NoNukes. My response is as follows:
quote:
There is supportive evidence, i.e. supportive to an hypothesis which may not have empirical evidence. There are also hypotheses which have some empirical evidences and other supportive evidences. One example of supportive evidence would be corroborative evidences. The more aggregate corroborative evidence supportive to the credibility of the ToE, for example, the more each aspect of the theory is corroborated for advocates of that ideology. The same goes for Biblical advocates. The more aggregate corroborative evidence supportive to the Biblical record, the more each account in the record is corroborated.
Evidence Buz. Do you have anything related to the topic? So what exactly is this "Evidence of Design" that Creationists and Intelligent Design marketeers assert is there? Do you have anything other than word salad?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 4 by Buzsaw, posted 03-05-2011 6:46 PM | | Buzsaw has seen this message but not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: Design by guided evolution - Example: the dog
Minnemooseus writes: I propose that populations (in specific environments) of very genetically similar but very morphologically different creatures (eg. dogs) would indicate design. Some morphologies would be well adapted to the given environment, while others would be poorly adapted. I also wonder about the "fingerprints" left when cross-species or cross-genus genetic engineering is done. Would examination of the product genome show the "fingerprints" that something outside of natural evolution has happened? Moose Would those be other examples of what I described in the OP, based on our experience of known human design?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 18 by Minnemooseus, posted 03-06-2011 2:41 AM | | Minnemooseus has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 21 of 377 (607707)
03-06-2011 9:19 AM
|
Reply to: Message 8 by Buzsaw
03-05-2011 9:41 PM
|
|
Re: Valid Evidence
Buzsaw writes: Coyote writes: The same goes for Biblical advocates. The more aggregate corroborative evidence supportive to the Biblical record, the more each account in the record is corroborated. But how do you count aggregate negative evidence? Global flood? Young earth? Talking snakes? Or do you just ignore that negative evidence? Imo, BB singularity and multi-verse theories have more negative aspects than the above. What is empirical, supportive or what ever will be determined relative to one's ideology. Do you agree with NoNukes that all evidence must be empirical in order to be considered evidence? Evidence Buz. Do you have anything related to the topic? So what exactly is this "Evidence of Design" that Creationists and Intelligent Design marketeers assert is there? Do you have anything other than word salad?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 8 by Buzsaw, posted 03-05-2011 9:41 PM | | Buzsaw has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 23 of 377 (607712)
03-06-2011 9:48 AM
|
Reply to: Message 22 by nwr
03-06-2011 9:37 AM
|
|
nwr writes: The evidence of design - awesomeness, as in "Wow! That's awesome; Evolution is refuted." Actually, I think that ID is taken as an a priori truth, with no need for evidence. Evidence is taken as that which you use to persuade doubters of what is obviously true. And the ID folk often use awesomness as an indicator of evidence. "ID is taken as an a priori truth, with no need for evidence" That is certainly possible, but then ID becomes simply another unsupported assertion, irrelevant.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 22 by nwr, posted 03-06-2011 9:37 AM | | nwr has seen this message but not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 25 of 377 (607715)
03-06-2011 9:54 AM
|
Reply to: Message 24 by Buzsaw
03-06-2011 9:49 AM
|
|
Re: Evidence of Design
Buzsaw writes: Biblically, humans are designed after the likeness of their designer, unlike brute beasts. This is evidenced in the huge intelligence and reasoning gap between the most intelligent animal and human kind. Among all of the animals, there is no really significant intelligence and reasoning gap, such as is observed between animals and humans. Biblically, intelligent humans were determined by the designer to rule over the animal kingdom. This has all been observed throughout recorded human history. Evidence Buz. What is the evidence of design, not just some vague assertion. Evidence of design. Go back and reread the original post. I point out specific tests I can use to show design. What tests do you use to show design? No more word salad or simple assertions. Show us how you determine design?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 24 by Buzsaw, posted 03-06-2011 9:49 AM | | Buzsaw has seen this message but not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Topic folk, Please
fearandloathing writes: So if I understand your line of thought then a mouse has no significant difference in intelligence or ability to reason compared to a chimp or bonobo? Please folk, don't let Buz's rabbit holes attract you. What IS evidence of design?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 29 of 377 (607722)
03-06-2011 11:49 AM
|
Reply to: Message 28 by Dr Jack
03-06-2011 11:47 AM
|
|
Mr Jack writes: How about this: designed artefacts are identifiable because they have been shaped to assist a known third part with identifiable influence on the artefact. Not sure what that even means? Can you expand it for me?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 28 by Dr Jack, posted 03-06-2011 11:47 AM | | Dr Jack has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 30 by Dr Jack, posted 03-06-2011 12:03 PM | | jar has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 31 of 377 (607724)
03-06-2011 12:07 PM
|
Reply to: Message 30 by Dr Jack
03-06-2011 12:03 PM
|
|
Mr Jack writes: Okay, I'll expand (and refine a little, thinking about it) An artefact can be identified as designed if: 1. It can be identified as having a purpose or function to a third party 2. That third party influenced the form of the artefact 3. That influence was intentional So an object that has no obvious function cannot be described as designed - an amorphous lump of rock is not designed, for example (fails on 1). Whereas as elephant poo could be said to have a function to a dung beatle but the dung beatle is incapable of influencing the elephant poo in any way, so elephant poo is not designed (passes 1, fails 2). Criteria 3 is there to root out symbiosis, and co-evolution - aphids did not design Buchnera, Buchnera did not design aphids. (Oh, and I see I missed the 'y' in party off my previous post, oops) So consider honeycombs, a termite mound and a birds nest.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 30 by Dr Jack, posted 03-06-2011 12:03 PM | | Dr Jack has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 34 by Dr Jack, posted 03-06-2011 2:26 PM | | jar has not replied | | | Message 44 by nwr, posted 03-06-2011 5:40 PM | | jar has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 45 of 377 (607762)
03-06-2011 5:52 PM
|
Reply to: Message 44 by nwr
03-06-2011 5:40 PM
|
|
nwr writes: jar writes:So consider honeycombs, a termite mound and a birds nest.
I don't have a problem saying that those are designed. But it depends on what is meant by "design." I would consider them ad hoc designs. That is, they are built up, and adjusted as needed, but there is explicit prior plan or blueprint. Can we also see the actual production and producers and then can we infer that like arrowheads, pottery and Stonehenge that ancient examples of honeycombs, termite mounds or nests had similar origins?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 44 by nwr, posted 03-06-2011 5:40 PM | | nwr has seen this message but not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 49 of 377 (607769)
03-06-2011 6:40 PM
|
Reply to: Message 48 by Dr Jack
03-06-2011 6:27 PM
|
|
Mr Jack writes: I'm fairly sure that your ad hoc design includes the absolute majority of objects we'd consider designed through history. So how do we distinguish a designed object from one that is not designed?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 48 by Dr Jack, posted 03-06-2011 6:27 PM | | Dr Jack has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 50 by Dr Jack, posted 03-06-2011 6:45 PM | | jar has seen this message but not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 76 of 377 (607911)
03-07-2011 6:39 PM
|
Reply to: Message 75 by Percy
03-07-2011 6:25 PM
|
|
Re: Judging Design by Inspection is Impossible
Why is it not possible to judge based on inspection? For example, if you look at each of your examples in situ, in the surrounding context, I imagine that I could tell which were design and which were not.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 75 by Percy, posted 03-07-2011 6:25 PM | | Percy has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 82 by Percy, posted 03-07-2011 8:43 PM | | jar has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 79 of 377 (607916)
03-07-2011 7:01 PM
|
Reply to: Message 78 by ringo
03-07-2011 6:54 PM
|
|
Re: Judging Design by Inspection is Impossible
ringo writes: What if I take a piece of driftwood and don't change it in any way except to put it on my coffee table? Did I "design" something by selecting a new location for it? Wouldn't that be very similar to Stonehenge? When we find driftwood in an unusual place, particularly on a coffee table, is it not reasonable to assume that a human did move the wood?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 78 by ringo, posted 03-07-2011 6:54 PM | | ringo has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 80 by ringo, posted 03-07-2011 7:09 PM | | jar has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 84 of 377 (607924)
03-07-2011 8:52 PM
|
Reply to: Message 82 by Percy
03-07-2011 8:43 PM
|
|
Re: Judging Design by Inspection is Impossible
I agree that we have no definition of design and I am not sure that a definition of design is even possible. I think what we can see is evidence of outside influence and interference. The important thing I see is that where we can see such signs we can also point to the evidence that leads to a conclusion of influence and interference and they correspond to examples we can see today. But in each case of determining design (meaning interference by a known external entity) we can lay out exactly what the evidence is and even possible methods of the influence and interference.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 82 by Percy, posted 03-07-2011 8:43 PM | | Percy has seen this message but not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 89 of 377 (607986)
03-08-2011 8:57 AM
|
Reply to: Message 87 by Percy
03-08-2011 8:08 AM
|
|
Re: Defining design.
The problem with that is that it doesn't tell us how to identify Specified Complexity or why Specified Complexity is evidence of design.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 87 by Percy, posted 03-08-2011 8:08 AM | | Percy has seen this message but not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2