Originally posted by jaywillExplain to me how you detect design.
=============================
Well no, more that the obvious design flaws are not the sort of thing you would expect from an omnipient God (although he can put them in if wants to) but are exactly the sort of thing that are predicted by the theory of evolution.
=============================
Again you admit that design is detectable. This concedes th ...[text shortened]... n indication of design tradeoffs brought about because of the realities of the physical world.
You can make an assumption that design exists.
We might talk about a natural system being well-[b}designed[/b], but this is just an everyday usage of the word and does not infer that this system must therefore have actually been designed.
You may wish that natural systems have been designed, but this does not make it true.
You're going to have to do better than analogies to cars or computers .... or watches.
Your insistence on spontaneous generation as a flaw in evolution, and your quote about it being a cornerstone of eviolution is the funniest thing I've read in a long time - thanks for that.
I'll repeat the blinding obvious - evolution does not make any claims about the origin of life. It assumes life already exists.
The problem of life's origin is left for some other science to explain - which has not yet occurred terribly satisfactorilly, but takes nothing away from evolution.
Where you have reproduction with errors you have evolution.
The beauty is in its simplicity.
Almost as if the world were designed that way ..... (LOL)
1 edit
Originally posted by amannionExplain to me how you [b]detect design.[/b]
Explain to me how you [b]detect design.
You can make an assumption that design exists.
We might talk about a natural system being well-[b}designed[/b], but this is just an everyday usage of the word and does not infer that this system must therefore have actually been designed.
You may wish that natural systems have been designed, but this d he beauty is in its simplicity.
Almost as if the world were designed that way ..... (LOL)[/b]
Now that seems to be a hard one to really describe. Design, by definition--- first off--- requires a designer. That designer is not subject to the same rules as are placed on the design, yet they are an expression of the designer, nonetheless. Rather, the designer is outside of the designed, and obviously distinct from the design. The designer makes rules and conditions for those rules to be followed by those subject to the design.
Design itself, however, it simply evidence of a plan, or "an orderly arrangement of parts of an overall design or objective."
Apparently, thought is the overriding issue at hand. Pattern and similarity are two key components which make design observable.
Originally posted by jaywillThis is simply a mixture of misrepresentation and lies.
Just as the people most prone to discuss [b] "natural selection" are evolutionists so the people most prone to discuss "spontaneous generation" are usually evolutionists.
"By the end of the nineteenth century, the majority of scientists believed that spontaneous generation was not possible. Loyal Darwinists, however, insisted on spontane ...[text shortened]... rn theory of evolution for the last forty years. "
Quoted from TrueNews.Org.[/b]
"Spontaneous generation" refers to the spontaneous creation of life from no life within a very short time frame. No evolutionist believes this. Any attempt by your pseudo-scientific website to claim that is simple lies. Abiogenic theory basically says that life developed from non-life. Virus' would be a reasonable candidate for the non-life, a group of which developed to fulfil the 'extra' criteria which would cross the non-life / life boundary.
As for Urey's experiments, there may have been no evidence of the atmosphere of proto earth back then, but there is plenty now. It all points to them being in the right direction. The lack of molecular oxygen in tha atmosphere is a necessary pre-requisite for abiogenesis. Of course, all physical evidence, in the form of sedimentary rock formations dated to pre-2 billion years ago prove this to be the case.
The IDers and creationists frequently bemoan the lack of transitional forms.
Just in case anyone missed it then say hello to the Tiktaalik
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/mg19125681.500-meet-your-ancestor--the-fish-that-crawled.html;jsessionid=OEGBMJECKFEO
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik
he discovery of a fossilised crocodile-like creature gives us one of the missing links between fish and land-living animals.
Tiktaalik roseae fossil is a missing link between fish and land animals © Ted Daeschler
The Tiktaalik roseae fossil is a missing link between fish and land animals © Ted Daeschler
The new species, Tiktaalik roseae, has features found in fish, such as fins and gills, and also features that are only found in land-living animals, such as a wrist, elbow and neck.
The crocodile-like creature probably lived in shallow water but had limb-like lobe-fins that enabled it to carry itself up onto land.
'This is the fossil of the year and a most significant addition to our knowledge,' said Natural History Museum palaeontologist Dr Andrew Milner.
'It is a stepping-stone in the water-land transition showing us a permutation of features not seen before, notably the combination of lobe-fins with the beginnings of a neck.'
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeHope springs eternal.
The IDers and creationists frequently bemoan the lack of transitional forms.
Just in case anyone missed it then say hello to the Tiktaalik
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/mg19125681.500-meet-your-ancestor--the-fish-that-crawled.html;jsessionid=OEGBMJECKFEO
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik
he discovery of a fossilised crocodi ...[text shortened]... atures not seen before, notably the combination of lobe-fins with the beginnings of a neck.'
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeWhat's great about this example is that the Tiktaalik discoverers relied upon our current understanding of evolution to predict the general geographic region to search.
The IDers and creationists frequently bemoan the lack of transitional forms.
Just in case anyone missed it then say hello to the Tiktaalik
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/mg19125681.500-meet-your-ancestor--the-fish-that-crawled.html;jsessionid=OEGBMJECKFEO
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik
he discovery of a fossilised crocodi ...[text shortened]... atures not seen before, notably the combination of lobe-fins with the beginnings of a neck.'
This example kills two birds with one stone: transitional fossil and testable prediction.
Waiting for one of two following standard responses:
1) It's a hoax. Look at Piltdown Man, etc.
2) It's just large crawfish (or other common species)
Originally posted by telerionCertainly, upon closer examination, this 'eureka' moment--- as with all other so-called proofs of transition--- will go the way of the dodo.
What's great about this example is that the Tiktaalik discoverers relied upon our current understanding of evolution to predict the general geographic region to search.
This example kills two birds with one stone: transitional fossil and testable prediction.
Waiting for one of two following standard responses:
1) It's a hoax. Look at Piltdown Man, etc.
2) It's just large crawfish (or other common species)
5 edits
Originally posted by PenguinPenquin,
Well no, more that the obvious design flaws are not the sort of thing you would expect from an omnipient God (although he can put them in if wants to) but are exactly the sort of thing that are predicted by the theory of evolution.
An [b]absence of any discernable design flaws in biological organisms would be a clear indicator of an intelligent desig try to ensure any timestamps I use are in UTC (and labelled as such) in future.
--- Penguin[/b]
If you were to a theory of evolution predicts design flaws I would say that is an understatement.
Most mutations are not benefitial.
To me this is like comparing the Grand Canyon with Mount Rushmore. I can see how natural forces could eventually arrive at a huge gorge in the earth. I cannot as easily see how purely natural forces could arrive at four human faces carved in the side of a mountain without intelligent design.
Now if upon close examination we noticed that the nose of say, Jefferson, is a little flawed, would that be a vindication for a theory of natural forces producing Mt. Rushmore? Would you then say "Well natural forces would predict that Jefferson's nose might be a little unrealistic."
I think it is an understatement to say "Evolution would predict design flaws, you know?"
Originally posted by scottishinnzSo can you don't need it so it wasn't designed that way. The theory
So why didn't God give us the ability to view IR, or other radiative energy? It seems very restrictive of him to limit us to only visible light. Of course, evolutionary theory can explain it well.
of evolution is just a theory that adapts to everything you think you
know, if it doesn't cover a point, you make it up as you go and claim
it does later.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by Penguin"...but are exactly the sort of thing that are predicted by the theory of evolution.
Well no, more that the obvious design flaws are not the sort of thing you would expect from an omnipient God (although he can put them in if wants to) but are exactly the sort of thing that are predicted by the theory of evolution.
An [b]absence of any discernable design flaws in biological organisms would be a clear indicator of an intelligent desig try to ensure any timestamps I use are in UTC (and labelled as such) in future.
--- Penguin[/b]
You predicted the eyes forming before they formed, or are you
claiming you would have before they did? Creationism isn't science
it is a story about a special event, predictions within Christianity if
you settle on its creation story, there are predictions that have been
made and fullfilled too. That however is off topic as far as the eye is
concern. The theory of evolution does not actively predict anything,
people do, just as science does not tell us things, people do.
An absence of design flaws in the biological organisms is something
I'd like to you tell me about, do you have the correct flawless design
for an human eye as we would need it today? If it is doing what the
creator/designer wanted, it is doing what the creator wanted, if you are
talking about if you were god and were going to design something a
little differently that isn't discussing flaws, but personal taste on what
you would have done. There is a saying friends of mine who write
code say from time to time, I don't know if it is something everyone
who codes hears from time to time, but if it works it works there can
be better ways of making the code understandable to another person,
better ways to do the things, you could want less key strokes of code
to do the task, but the bottom line is that if your code does what you
want it gets the job done, and if it doesn't break it is good code.
Kelly
Originally posted by jaywillOk, 3 points:
Penquin,
If you were to a theory of evolution predicts design flaws I would say that is an understatement.
Most mutations are not benefitial.
To me this is like comparing the Grand Canyon with Mount Rushmore. I can see how natural forces could eventually arrive at a huge gorge in the earth. I cannot as easily see how purely natural forces ...[text shortened]...
I think it is an understatement to say "Evolution would predict design flaws, you know?"
1. On 22nd Sep, at 11:33UTC, I posted Can you point to any material that does back up the claim that "Evolution use to be about origin of life problems."? If you can't then I think you have to drop that particular argument..
So far, you haven't done so. So I would like to put a stake in the ground that at present and until you come up with such material, you accept that the theory of evolution does not and never has said anything about the initial origin of life.
2. Can we move on then to the second of my posts and sort out what your arguments are against that one? Actually, having looked back, that second post is what we have just sorted out. (from that post at 11:19UTC on the 19th: Abiogenesis was the formation of the self-replicating structures mentioned above, hense occured before evolution got started, hense evolution plays no part in abiogenesis.)
The first post was actually a pretty crap one for getting concensus on, I don't think it really had a single concise point so I'm not ging to bug you about it.
So its currently one scrapped, one to me and the ball is back in your court for post number 3 (from 12:49UTC on the 19th: I think there's a logic here in saying that the conditions on the early earth are implied by the simple fact that we are here to argue the point: we have established that the initial state that leads to life is theoretically possible; life exists; therefore the initial state probably occured. God could have done it of course but there's no need for Him.).
I suppose my point here is that there is no need for God so why invoke him? We can see the stages for first life to have begun on Earth, with no divine influence, and we have a cast-iron mechanism (evolution) whereby any initial life would have grown in variety, again with no divine intervention. You could shoehorn him in at the very beginning if you wanted to stop investigating abiogenesis but there is no call for him whatsoever after that. This means that the answer to what is wrong with evolution is nothing at all but if you want to you could cling desperately to divine abiogenesis
3.Your post is falling back on classic creationist misunderstandings of evolution. Yes, the majority of mutations are harmful or some extent. That is the random part of the process. But the organisms with the mutations have to compete against each other for scant resources. Which of these organisms are more likely to survive long enough to breed? The ones with the mutations that allow them to do better in the environment or those with mutations that hinder them?
Surely you can see that a harmful mutation will tend to be weeded out. This is the non-random part and please not that there is no intelligence needed.
Actually, the problem is clearly that you can't see the logic in the inevitability of evolution. I'm no mathmatician but I would have thought evolution is straightforward enough that a solid mathmatical proof should be acheivable. Are there any mathmaticians here who can voice an opinion on this?
Sorry for the long post!
By the way, some of recent posts could do with a little more proof-reading. There are some gramatical and syntactic errors that distract from the points you are trying to make.
--- Penguin
Originally posted by jaywill"Thus according to the laws of physics it is impossible for matter to have organized itself without the aid of energy and of teleonomic machines!"
No I won't go away. I would not only post it again, I would post more of the same person's comments. He argues that life requires the input of information. Matter plus energy does not = life. But he argues matter plus energy plus ideas = life:
[b]"Thus according to the laws of physics it is impossible for matter to have organized itself without the aid o ...[text shortened]... rgy and of teleonomic machines!"
"Matter plus energy plus ideas = life."[/b]
Does this mean that God arranges the rocks on a sea shore, or that he arranges the gas layers in the atmosphere? Or is matter + energy okay for doing those things?
Originally posted by KellyJayWe can predict deisgn "flaws". We see them. We can predict that placing organisms under stress will make them adapt. We have MRSA. We have many, many other examples like this.
[b] "...but are exactly the sort of thing that are predicted by the theory of evolution.
You predicted the eyes forming before they formed, or are you
claiming you would have before they did? Creationism isn't science
it is a story about a special event, predictions within Christianity if
you settle on its creation story, there are predictions th ...[text shortened]... does what you
want it gets the job done, and if it doesn't break it is good code.
Kelly[/b]
Originally posted by scottishinnzAwaiting more arguments from jaywill's online ocular filter. At least KJ thinks up his own arguments.
[b]"Thus according to the laws of physics it is impossible for matter to have organized itself without the aid of energy and of teleonomic machines!"
Does this mean that God arranges the rocks on a sea shore, or that he arranges the gas layers in the atmosphere? Or is matter + energy okay for doing those things?[/b]
Before the internet, lazy fundy sheep still had to memorize the sources they parroted. Now all they do is GCP (Google, Copy, and Paste).
Waste of your time and skills if you ask me.