|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,482 Year: 3,739/9,624 Month: 610/974 Week: 223/276 Day: 63/34 Hour: 0/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: the variety and evolution of reproduction methods over time. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 371 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
In this tread we're contemplating reproduction - We are talking about how reproduction on earth supports or opposes the idea of a designed universe. The premise of jar's argument is that the haphazard shotgun approach of the various methods that exist is somehow evidence that the universe was not designed. The premise is false or at least unsupported. Why wouldn't a designer do it exactly that way? Does it matter if the failure rate is high? We design many things that are grossly inefficient and yet viable like car engines and power plants and particle accelerators.
which presupposes that there is something to reproduce. "Why" there is something to reproduce is irrelevant. The 'why' of it comes in when considering the design objective. How can you be critical of an arrangement if you don't know what the arrangement is for?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 371 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
No, once again that is simply not true. But you wrote in msg 1
Just the sheer variety of different methods is astounding and the fact that the vast majority of methods are both inefficient and ineffective is a classic sign of evolution and the fact that life is not designed I am not arguing that the ToE is not supported. I just don't see how it addressees the question of design which is, at it's heart, a question of origin.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 371 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
The whole premise of the ID movement is that if something "looks designed" it must be. Why not use the same argument against ID? If it looks like nobody with half a brain would design it that way, it most likely wasn't designed. That captures my point exactly. If they are the same argument then they are both faulty.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 371 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
An open-minded skeptic will consider the possibility of a designer, and be skeptical that it exists due to lack of objective empirical evidence. In essence will make no decision yay or nay until there is evidence one way or the other. I agree with this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 371 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
And how it addresses the question of design has been repeatedly answered. No it hasn't. You make the unsupported claim that if it were designed then the design is faulty. What would a properly designed evolutionary process look like?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 371 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
Your argument is faulty for the same reason. No. Jar's argument is faulty for the same reason.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 371 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
The burden of proof for a designed universe is on the claimant. I agree but I have made no such claim. Jar made the claim that no designer would design such a thing and so the burden is his to support the claim. My fairly narrow point is that sometimes design looks like this
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 371 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
Yet is that an example of design or another example of simple evolution. That is a good question and are the 2 mutually exclusive?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 371 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
Ringo writes:
I've shown that your argument is the same argument that IDist use, that has been refuted umpteen times. If you think that also impugns jar's argument, you'll have to explain. Ringo writes: The whole premise of the ID movement is that if something "looks designed" it must be. Why not use the same argument against ID? If it looks like nobody with half a brain would design it that way, it most likely wasn't designed. This is jar's argument exactly or at least the point that I am arguing against. The idea that reproduction is so messed up that no one would design it that way. It is the same argument as saying that because something looks designed then it must be.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 371 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
PT writes: The idea that reproduction is so messed up that no one would design it that way. jar writes: Rather what is being argued is that reproduction shows variety that if designed would show a piss poor designer. Not really much substantive difference between those two statements is there? edit; The order and predictable nature of the universe compels many to infer design as those are legitimate indicators of design. The fact is that order does not always indicate design. The inverse is true about apparent disorder and this is my point. Apparent disorder does not count against the idea of a designer any more than order supports the idea. Edited by ProtoTypical, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 371 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
The first says that it could not be design while the later says design is possible if the designer is ignorant, inept, incompetent, ineffective ... Well ok but could an inept designer design the universe? Your msg 1 claimed that it was evidence that life is not designed and isn't that the point that you were originally trying to support using the variety and shot gun approach of reproductive methods as evidence?
The point is until there is at least some evidence that there is some designer no designer need apply. I agree that it is wrong to conclude that there is a designer but I also think that the question is a valid one. What I see is that we can not decide the question because we are missing the crucial element of motive, objective or intent. Of course, if we had that then the question would be settled. So if we were in a designed universe where the designer was absent how could we tell? What would qualify as evidence of design?
Speculating on design when discussing biological things is simply mental masturbation and of no worth or value. First of all, is masturbation really a bad thing and B) is it ever of any value to consider the question of design?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 371 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
My point was to start a discussion about the actual evidence that is the variety of reproduction methods found as well as the characteristics of those methods. Designers are utterly irrelevant and simply fantasy. The whole point of your thread is to refute the idea of a designer and so if the concept is fantastically irrelevant then what's the point of denoting any evidence?
But what question? Why is it valid? There are already explanations available and so no designer needs to be considered. Why add some unnecessary and untestable entity? The age old question of 'where did we come from?'. It is valid because we want an answer and the explanations that now exist, exist because we asked the question. I don't see sufficient reason to stop asking the question or to stop seeking refinement of the answer. You claim that the entity is untestable. Can we not hypothesize her existence in a way that is falsifiable?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 371 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
but I think you might be missing a part: Yes there always seems to be something missing when looking for a designer.
When talking about the Christian god as the designer, the would-be nature of his design wouldn't fit with his claimed characteristics because his design would be pretty stupid and he's supposed to be pretty smart. I think that the would-be nature of his design detracts more from the Christian narrative then it does from the concept of a designer. edit or put another way, that our assessment of the design objective is wrong. Edited by ProtoTypical, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 371 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
No, the whole point of the topic is to discuss and educate folk on just how complex reproduction is and the reality of the different methods. Designers really are so fantastically irrelevant that they are only useful as examples of how silly the concept of ID really is. Well then you have totally moved your goal posts from msg 1 where you said
...classic sign of evolution and the fact that life is not designed...
Then we also find that "male and female he created them" is actually the exception to the rule.
When we add in the fact of infant mortality where even successful reproduction does not mean a critter lives long enough to reproduce it seems clear that there is neither plan or design to reproduction and in fact entirely different models and methods have evolved where none are really reliable or effective and all simply barely good enough to continue. or perhaps I just misunderstood, carry on.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 371 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
Don't kid yourself; the concept of a designer comes from the Christian narrative. Sure it is there too but I think there is evidence that it existed in many cultures long before the Christians wrote it down. A designer or god is a posited answer for the so far unanswerable question of origin and that question has been around for about as long as we have been asking questions. I just mean that if the Christian narrative is inconsistent with what nature reveals that doesn't detract from the idea of a creator that is perhaps different from what is described in the bible.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024