If we propose intelligent design, we have to ask what we should expect to see. We should get an induction of amazing designs, not just average, as might be expected from weak evolution.
Usually we see petty examples from Evolutionists, that are usually questionable. For example, nipples in men. I.e. Problems that aren't really problems, or silly little problems with eyes, to distract us from the rather large evidence that eyes are remarkable.
So here is the beginning of an induction we should expect to see. Certainly bio-mimicry should not be common place given the designer's ineptitude, but that is not the case;
*Human autonomy ---The fingers and autonomy leading to incredibly precise manoevres in the human hand, is enabled by an incredibly complex set of contingencies. " The lumbrical muscle serves two main functions—extending and retracting the finger in coordination with the other muscles. These muscles must work closely together. The complexity of moving three finger bones in sync is hard to grasp. Imagine laying three steel bars on the ground end-to-end, and then tying the bars together with a series of wire harnesses. Pulling any one wire will affect the other wires. Now try moving all three bars together, side-to-side and up-and-down at the same time. You’ll quickly see how hard it is to keep everything in alignment. Yet our index finger has no such problem. As the lumbrical muscle contracts, it reduces the tension on the long flexor tendon, while the lumbrical muscle simultaneously pulls on a ligament at the side of the finger, extending the finger ". (http://www.answersingenesis.org/...les/am/v5/n3/index-finger)
* Elephants. An elephant's ears, can cool down elephants in a short time, just by flapping their ears they can reduce their temperature. It 's trunk, amazing smell. 100 thousand muscle units. It can lift a 500 pound log and yet take something from a child's hand, very delicately. And yet his head is heavy and porous to compensate for it's size. They have big cushions on their feet to handle the weight. You would think an elephant would get stuck in the mud with it's great weight and yet his legs shrink in diameter enabling him to get out. Clever contingencies.
* Alligators. " The alligator can do more than just swim fast; in many other ways, he is uniquely designed for life in the water. Located on the same plane, his eyes, nose, and ear slits allow him to float mostly submerged and still see, smell, and hear above water. Since alligators frequently hunt at night, their eyes are equipped with cat-like pupils to see well in the dark. People often use ear plugs, nose plugs, and goggles when they swim, to keep water from going where it’s not supposed to, but alligators don’t have that problem. Their nose and ear slits are designed to close when they plunge into the water. And the nictitating membrane, a protective covering over the eye, allows alligators to keep their eyes open underwater. Imagine having your own built-in goggles! " (http://www.answersingenesis.org/.../am/v5/n2/sovereign-swamp)
* Shrimps' eyes. "The shrimp’s eyes are actually similar in some respects to technology called quarter-wave plates, which are designed to convert light polarity in CD and DVD players, and some camera filters. However, quarter-wave plates only work well for one color of light. The eyes of the mantis shrimp, on the other hand, work well across a broad light spectrum, much broader than that of human-made devices. The researchers believe mantis shrimp use this special ability in hunting and communication. " (AIG)
* Trilobites' eyes. "When I take students snorkeling and scuba diving, I have to warn them that organisms and objects underwater appear closer and larger than they really are (so that big, nearby shark is really smaller and farther away!). Some trilobites didn’t have that problem. They had double-lens systems that made the corrections for underwater vision, sort of “hand-crafted prescription face masks,” masterpieces of design. (AIG)
* Puffins. Not only are they brilliant flyers, but also briliant swimmers, which shows us a designer killing two birds with one stone. Here two problems are met with one solution, it can be said without any doubt that this is brilliant design!
* Giraffes. The giraffe has the problem of drowning it's brain in blood when it stoops down to drink, and fainting every time it returns it's head to full height. But these two problems aren't problems at all for giraffes. Again we see two problems met with one clever contingency. The giraffes' brain actually has a structure like a sponge, that absorbs the blood when it bends down to drink and slowly releases the blood when it returns to full height.
* Bilateral symmetry The ladybird has a perfectly symmetrical dome-shell that tucks it's wings neatly underneathe the shell. Not only is this a compact and efficient design, but organisms such as this beatle are bilaterally symmetrical. You could cut them in half down the middle and have a symmetrical mirror image of the other half. This is brilliant aesthetically and for efficiency. If designs were thrown together then symmetry would surely not be relevant. For example, a ferrari is bilaterally symmetrical and aesthetically pleasing, because it is not thrown together, but thoughtfully designed. Usually "neat packaged" symmetrical designs are the best sort unless there is a requirement for asymmetry. And there is an order to the universe, in that things such as wings require symmetry and balance.
See the bumps on the front of a humpback whale’s flipper? [Picture available only in Creation magazine.] What sort of designer would design such a thing, rather than a smooth, sleek flipper?
Engineers and US Naval Academy scientists have inadvertently answered that question: an incredibly ingenious designer—one whom aircraft designers can learn much from!1
They used scale models of a flipper 56 cm (22 inches) long. One was smooth, and the other had the little bumps, called tubercles. In a wind tunnel, the smooth one behaved like a typical aeroplane wing. But the one with the tubercles had 8% better lift and an astounding 32% less drag. It also resisted stalling (drastically losing lift) at a 40% steeper wing angle.
If that could be applied to aeroplanes, the better lift would make takeoff and landing easier; the lower drag would mean less fuel would be wasted; and the better stall resistance would be a huge safety advantage. The researchers propose that the tubercle design would also greatly benefit propellers, helicopter rotors and ship rudders.2
So why does this bumpy structure work so much better? The tubercles at the front of the flipper break up the flow of fluid (liquid or gas), and force it into the fluted valleys in between. This generates vortices (eddies) that keep the flow attached to the top surface of the flipper. This increases lift and resists stalling.
Shark species that can hurtle through the ocean at high speed—up to 80 km per hour (50 mph)1 —have a number of special features that allow them to do that, e.g., the tiny scales on the surface of their skin.
‘It’s like the difference between pushing a box over ball bearings instead of dragging it along the floor’—Dr Amy Lang, University of Alabama Each scale is just 0.2 mm (0.008 inch) long and is made of tough enamel—if you touch shark skin it feels like rough sandpaper. You might at first think that a perfectly smooth surface would be better for speed but in fact it’s been known for some time that the scales actually reduce drag.2 And now researchers have discovered another special characteristic of shark skin. In light of evidence that some shark species may bristle their scales during fast swimming, engineers decided to see how lifting the scales on end affects water flow over the shark.
Using models of bristled shark skin in a water tunnel experiment, researchers from the University of Alabama’s Aerospace Engineering and Mechanics Department and their colleagues observed that at high speed, tiny vortices or whirlpools formed within the cavities between the scales.3 (The scales were raised at an angle of 90º to the surface of the skin.) The effect of these vortices was to form a kind of ‘buffer layer’ between the fast moving fluid and the skin’s surface, thus preventing a turbulent wake from forming behind the shark. In other words, reducing drag.
For me it's simple, the induction is endless, most of the "problems" can be put down as foggy thinking or genetics and disease leading to less efficiency. The fact is that this level of design should be expected if there is a designer.
(I'll let you put it where you want, you guys can bash it out, I personally won't argue facts).
I think generally, you would be correct. But I think facts that are, for example, "amazing" usually serve as self-evident. On a personal level they might not amaze you. For example a magician's trick does not amaze or impress me, it bores me, but the thing of itself still has it's value.
For example, it is not an epithet to state that, that race car is amazingly FAST!.
When we see a hummingbird flying in slow motion, it is amazing. Or if we consider the contraflow lungs that make aviation possible, that is amazing design. It's not a claim it is a fact.
Evolutionists and creationists agree there is design, it's just that they dispute how that design came about. But rather I am saying, in a world without a designer, we would expect average design, glue and sticky-tape but in a designer-world we would expect to see amazing designs.
The question really, is, what is a good design?. If we show designs that are unquestionably brilliant, then it stands to reason that the person saying they are not good designs, has an agenda.
I don't need terms such as, "amazing" because that much is obvious. If a race car obviously goes amazingly fast, a person that hates race-cars might counter, "it is not fast or amazing" because to them it isn't. But objectively, designs are there and they present morphological contingencies to physical problems. Such as the shark example. The problem is drag, and how to reduce it. Are we going to say that this is not a good solution and therefore not a good design? Then that begs the question; what WOULD qualify a design?
In my opinion, evolutionists will not qualify what would make a good design unless they knew posteriori that such a design is not attainable.
i.e. Their agenda is to not accept anything that would qualify as a good design.
I say, qualify a good design, and accept reality, even if it does not favour your cause.
You say, "point of view". In a way you are right, it takes a point of view to appreciate how good something is. If you have a worldview that says that designs are put together, and not amazing, then you will ignore the amazing and pass it off as inexplicable.
I think there is an induction in nature, that shows that there are indeed amazing designs as we would expect to see. The evidence only requires observation and comprehension. The facts are there, but you can lead a horse to water and that won't mean it will drink.
There are problems for design=designer that I acknowledge but have not mentioned, such as the Problem of Evil and other factors, but to qualify a good design should be simple.
It's a good point, I have it all written down but it is too long, but usually what makes a design, is how something is arranged, specifically. We can infer this from KNOWN designs.
For example, a wall isn't merely what it is made from, (cement and bricks), but it is how it is arranged that makes it a design.
The metal parts in a car, the carburetor, for example, is another good example of determining design.
We agree there is design (evo/creo,), it's how it got there.
For qualifying, "good" design, we would expect those designs to be used, by lesser designers.
Humans use bio-mimicry. If those designs in biology, they borrow from, where not good designs, then why would designers use them?
This shows us 2 things.
1. Human artificial designers "NEED" to borrow from biological designs. 2. If those biological designs were not good, why would there be bio-mimicry?
For these clear logical reasons, it is self-evidence that good design exists, as we would expect it to, given an all-wise designer.
The only reason to deny that examples of bio-mimicry are not good design, would be because you had a motivation that meant that you do not want good biological designs to exist.
(More about, "arranging" matter, it should be noted that a different reading from the DNA code, will determine what is conctructed. We see it is how the biological matter is arranged that makes it what it is, just like with the brick wall. So a monkey and a man might be made of the same, "stuff", but it is how they are arranged/constructed, that makes them designed.)
It should be noted that I am claiming very specifically that these facts would be consistent with a wise-designer. Any other "inferences" you think I am making, well, those opinions were entirely invented by your own synapses. (Not you specifically, Percy, but the readers.)
-Design is recognized by how an object's components are arranged. -Good design is recognized by whether other designers copy it.
I think design is recognized by how something is arranged, yes. I think pedantic examples do not change this. For example, what makes a wall is how it is put together, not it's parts but how it is arranged. This is the same for all designs unless they require extremely crude simplicity. The position of an antenna for example, it not inherently important, necessary because of the physics involved, but a radio would still be recognized as a design by how it's parts are arranged, very specifically.
Bio-mimetics proves that biological designs are good, as it stands to reason that humans would not use designs from nature if they were not useful. What I mean by "good" is that they are viable and work in a superior way to other solutions.
The example of the bullet train for example, or using the design of the shark, as I mentioned.
I think it is an important point to say that If there is a designer we would expect to see good designs.
The induction of "good" designs is almost limitless.
To say that you can't differentiate between evolution being responsible and a designer, is logically problematic because of the fact that we KNOW, 100%, through logical deduction, that a designer answers for designs, given human design.
But we don't know deductively, that evolution has the power for such specific designs.
For example, the difference between the avian lung and our own might require a hernia.
Even if there is a general picture, and induction of evidence favouring the ToE, this does not address specific designs. You can only speculate that evolution somehow did it, but when we look at a combustion engine we are not speculating that a designer could have somehow did it, we know designers did it.
For me, evolution, as it is proposed, does not have thought nor can it plan or predetermine or come up with a thoughtful contingency in answer to a specific problem and all the arguments in the world will not change the fact that a thoughtful mind can do these things, does have the capacity, and therefore answers the problem neatly.
Again, the only real reason to reject the glaringly obvious facts is denial, in my opinion, given that two basic mechanisms would not be expected to produce high-quality design.
There is no predictive power in claiming that evolution can produce brilliant design, unless we see it produce it in the future. For now, evolutionists can only reason posteriori yet the facts certainly do not dictate that biological evolution should have the power to produce such designs. I think it is more reasonable that a power that more adequately explains the designs, is inferred.
Designs are designed well given;
- Ideas - Planning - An extraordinarily clever contingency for a specific problem - Predetermination
Evolution does not have these attributes, yet we know from OTHER designs that these attributes are essential for design.
Now of course, evolution could be hit-and-miss, but unless you can show the hit-and-miss examples then it is only speculation, as to whether evolution led to it.
The picture from the fossil record can in no way give a satisfying answer given how fragmented and incomplete that record is. It seems that it is simply by faith that evolution is favoured over the glaringly obvious solution.
At the very and bare least, intellectually it must be conceded that these types of designs qualify as evidence of a designer, because logically, such designs are superior to human designs, and human designs, even though they are lesser designs, REQUIRE designers.
If atheists could admit this then perhaps they would frighten me a lot more than they do, because then I could know that they could be reasonable, but to pretend that nothing in existence supports a designer is not reasonable, given that even in an atheistic universe, chance would produce evidence that would favour a designer.
I don't see any great objective reasonings as to why I should change my mind.
In fact if there is a designer it seems that he operates almost exclusively by modifying existing designs.
That's a counter-claim because the evidence shows that all organisms are made to do what they do NOW. The burden of proof is upon you to show that we are going to or coming from some place.
Usually, "modification", could firmly be put into the category of, "superficial". That is another type of argument completely. (Another topic entirely, as you are claiming that all organisms are transitionals, but largely I do not agree. I don't see they are moving to or from anything, if anything that is evolution's biggest problem and always was.)
Anyway, we accept adaptation, we just think the facts show that it leads nowhere, like with breeding.
Evidence for the power of evolution-like mechanisms and for evolution is ignored.
Not ignored, it's that the evidence is not sufficient in comparison to a known fact. The evidence is tenuous. I mentioned this in my previous post.
Remember, logically, we KNOW how a thoughtful mind can solve design-problems as we have OTHER known designs and we know that such examples required clever contingencies such as the differential to solve wheel spin. in the same way, hollow bones and contraflow lungs are excellent contingencies for aviation of organisms.
Note, I am only observing designs from known designers as to example what happens with genuinely known designs.
We know that planning and thinking go into the very best human designs yet biological designs are far superior. Logically, if you REQUIRE a designer for known human lesser designs, then you should require an even greater designer for superior designs.
An analogy is that if we have a professional footballer, and an inept, non-professional player, then if a certain standard is required to score goals against a good goal-keeper, and the inept player can't achieve these goals, would it be logical to state that you do not need a greater football player to achieve that standard?
It's not just that there is an induction of some good designs. The DNA, code, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics involved shows a superior standard to even the best man-made designs, with incredible information-density, off the scale. Since DNA is in all designs, then even if individual organisms were not examples of brilliant designs, the components of each individual, are. Yet all organisms are brilliant. That they succesfully replicate is enough to show viable designs. What leg does not run? Unless running is not a primary function? What wing does not successfully fly? Unless flying it not the primary function/goal? Everything that exists is equipped to do it's job, and in marvelous ways, any evolutionary nature program on TV will say the same thing. They will say such things as, "the genius of evolution". But that is the problem, it has no genius, it is two inadequate mechanisms that do not match up with reality.
And the induction bites back - we can equally well say that all known complex designs are the creation of humans
What does that prove? That 100% induction of all designs, complex ones, required designers.
I can't man-handle God. He is not claimed to be scientifically verifiable. We can infer Him as we could infer a designer if we came across a U.F.O. in a field. If you found a U.F.O in a field, genuinely alien, you would attribute it to a designer. The special-pleading of the atheist is that we can't attribute the best ever designs to the best ever designer.
(Also, I can't mention bad designs in this topic, because it is a can of worms. There are so many variables involved, such as the difference between Biblical belief, where there is a fallen world, and a general theism. For example, if you believe in a vague god, then if he created everything as it is now, then you have the Problem Of Evil to deal with, and the different variables between different types of religious faiths.)
My only real intention in this thread is to show that I have reason to believe in a designer, I think it is denial to deny that, it's one of those obvious things that is futile to argue because it is so self-evident. I think only an absolutely brilliantly reasoned and novel claim could change my mind because for me, it is irrelevant to argue facts. They are simply there.
There is no way two simple mechanisms should be expected to do a better job than an exceedingly clever mind.
To convince me personally, on a personal level, Paul, you would have to explain how two chopsticks are a better tool for rebuilding an engine, than the standard mechanical tools.
I concede that I can't prove, 100% that evolution did not happen. If I am wrong, that's okay, I just don't think I am.
Well, that's a nice opinion, if you want to have it fair enough. I know people see it differently than I do. If I completely wrong, that is okay, I do not claim to have any special knowledge that others don't have.
I can only give my reasonings. If those reasonings are deemed inefficient, and not correct by others then I don't have a problem with that.
But I can't stop the desire to argue these things, you see, I have to create things, whether they are paintings or stories, or arguments or music.
There are no new observed novel designs. Even if information was gained, they have yet to show an improvement to a fruit-fly. We see adaptations, but the same essential organisms. Look at HIV, and all bacteria, look at the speed they reproduce, it is not unreasonable to expect at least one of these organisms to have produce a new novel design that could be observed/counted as a mcro-evolution, or even a partial macro-evolution, given that 100 human years is.............how man bacteria years?
Good points you make, they will never acknowledge it though, in nine years they always give the standard answers but those answers are not satisfying. We have no reason to believe in macro-evolution.
And they did it with the intent to create an antenna? I know that there is something inherently random about antennas you see, I have made some myself, and they are extremely simple/simplistic, although the design of the radio isn't.
Can I also randonly hit the "negative" button for every post you type, please? You seem to do this to mine, even though I know that my posts were correct. Of course, I have always got a low member rating so I am not bothered, but I see you have a good score, so it will kind of hurt you more.
Lol - no knots here mate, just realty and logic as per usual.
An aerial is not complex. I have made many, you do not require, inherently, any specific arrangement in the same way you would to create a cathedral. It is a woefully simplistic and vacuous example, but at least it pleased you.
[qs]Yes, they did it with an intent to create an antenna. And they created the arrangement of wires through descent with modification. No intelligence involved. That defeats the claim by cdesign proponentists that intelligence is required to produce the appearance of design./qs
No, it does not prove that you can get a complex genome, with code, syntax, pragmatics and apobetics because the example is INHERENTLY without the need for any real sophisticated design.
If I say that a few rocks can roll into a "P" shape, that will not mean you can get an alphabet wil random falling rocks. The example, logically, is simply not equivalent. You can't compare two very different things.
There is a massive difference between an inherently random simplistic aerial for receiving signals, and a genome.
Wow. That you could even conceive that your jeering me would have any impact on me in any way other than mild amusement speaks volumes about your level of maturity. Knock yourself out, jeer away.
Yes but the point is, I nearly always have a negative from you, even on posts that are pretty neutral. So actually, it shows your level of maturity, because I have not actually put a negative on every one of your posts. You clearly think it proves something otherwise you wouldn't incessantly do it.
I am not going to actually go through your posts, like you seem to do with mine, hitting that button.
I think perhaps you should get anew hobby maybe? Life outside the evc forum?
You can do that, certainly, although why you say randomly I have no idea. I never randomly hit jeers for any posts. Each post I jeer I do so for specific reasons that I'd be more than willing to articulate anytime you wish. Often, someone else has already said something about it, and I see no need to pile on. But whatever.
Nah. I don't buy it, it's nearly always your name, and I know that my posts aren't that bad. Just because you disagree with my posts doesn't mean you would hit it nearly every time, I find it a bit creepy to be honest. A bit weird. I mean, it is just a popularity button, you can see that by looking at the people with the different beliefs. I know that if I said something outstandingly sound, it would still get a negative. I think it's just weird that you need to do this.
Logically it does not matter how compelling you believe the evidence is, it is still only an induction of confirmation evidence, which logically, can only be regarded as "viable". Put what tags on it you want, it is still just the consequent in a modus ponen, which proves nothing, no matter how impressive the mountain of evidence is.
You can show me that a snail has walked a few inches? But if you show a human over a thousand years, there has been no movement at all. If you show a fossil of a frog, that is basically the same as frogs today, you have not shown an inch of movement.
It's the size of the claim of macro-evolution against reality. You have to show that if you follow the snail, it will fly, implode, then explode. You are reasoning that trees, somewhere down the line are ancestors to rabbits. It is not just a big claim, it is the biggest claim in history, therefore logically, it requires correspondingly vast evidence.
That that evidence is compelling to you and atrocious to others is irrelevant, all that matters is that the powers of evolution, if it has any, have not been shown in the least.
Time and time again you use the example of having to walk a mile, and showing one step shows how the mile was walked, but you have yet to show that the snail or shall we say, the person, can even walk.
It is a compositional error, otherwise SOME evolution would be observable, in regards to big changes, especially in micro-organisms.
But adapting to changes, small superficial differences, such as size, does not show any of that mile walk.
There are massive chmbered nautilis and crocs but between then and now, all you have really proven is superficial change.
Do you ever plan on presenting any evidence that I have provided no evidence?
You see, any idiot can state the same thing forever, it's pretty easy Jar, but are you trying to prove you are the chief of idiots by purposely continuing your childish posts when I expressly told you not to post worthless posts to me again?
I'm sure this proves something in your own mind, but if it continues, then I can fire it back at you.
Are you ever going to produce any posts/evidence showing I have not shown that the consequent in a modus ponen is not confirming evidence?
I am afraid we can do this forever, the difference being that I know what evidence is and have explained it, and you have merely stated that I haven't. How very odd.