All eyes evolved from a common ancestor!

Originally posted by KellyJay
Let us review if you will, I asked this.

"Just so I know, how do you know it isn't because of a common design
and not a common ancestor?
Kelly"

I wasn't asking anything other than what was quoted, from that
one question "Noah's ark" gets brought up, another post in the
Spiritual forum gets started by Fabianfnas with my name in it about
somethin ...[text shortened]... guments for me and cry when I don't play along,
we will not have a discussion.
Kelly

Two points:

First I do not agree with the proliferation of threads in the spirituality forum attacking creationist ideas. One thread is reasonable enough and a perfectly good one was started by independently by Ivanhoe, there was no good reason to start any more. Also, bear in mind that I joined the debate after it had started and was responding to later rather than earlier posts.

Second. ¨How do you know it isn't because of a common design and not a common ancestor?¨ Essentially what you are asking is how do you distinguish between theories. My background is in physics, my knowledge of evolution comes from general interest as an amateur, with the advantage of general scientific training. In physics one of the things one requires of a theory is naturalness - what is meant by this is that the theory still produces recognizable physics if you move the parameters around a bit. Theories that don´t do this have what is known as a fine-tuning problem. This is generally regarded as bad news for a theory, the general principle is what is known as the weak anthropological principle - essentially we know we exist and expect theories about the universe to predict outcomes conducive to our existence without everything needing to be just right.

Now the difficulty with the ¨common designer¨ approach is that you can set up any theory to mimic what is in nature no matter how bad the theory is. If you have a fine tuning problem God sorts it out for you. Going back to evolutionary theory - missing links cease to be missing. Any gaps in the fossil record are immediately explainable by God changing his mind. Essentially it becomes impossible to distinguish between any theories as you can just move around your parameter space, or even add some new ones, until both theories predict the same outcomes.

The argument is that until you have demonstrated that there is no way of generating the world around us without introducing a universal fine tuner you should not resort to one. So the basic answer to your question is that the standard approach in science involves rejecting super-natural explanations for phenomena because they are non-theories.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Two points:

First I do not agree with the proliferation of threads in the spirituality forum attacking creationist ideas. One thread is reasonable enough and a perfectly good one was started by independently by Ivanhoe, there was no good reason to start any more. Also, bear in mind that I joined the debate after it had started and was responding to ...[text shortened]... ence involves rejecting super-natural explanations for phenomena because they are non-theories.

You run into the issues with common ancestors as well, why do we see
eyes in creatures where we believe they developed later or earlier than
other creatures with eyes? Getting eyes requires a variety of things
within a system to happen in just the right order, now if you think
about that, it too presents several issues. Bottom line, no matter what
you believe is true, issues will be present. Saying that, again how do
you know one is true and the other is not, is it just this is what you
want to believe is true? You assume the supernatural, I have not in
this thread suggested anything super-natural, again please limit the
discussion of my points to my points.
Kelly

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I didn't suggest it, I just responded to PBE6's posting: "You two sound like an old married couple. 🙂 "
My comment was only following his. Don't kill the messenger. 🙂

But seriously, nudge nudge? 🙂

By the way, you do insult people yourself, don't you?

I did not, and still do not find your attempt at humor funny.
Do not do that again, if you can point to one post where I treated you
that way post it. I've directly challenged you and been less than kind,
but I have ever treated you that badly?
Kelly

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Read your own postings. Start from the beginning of this thread. You are very eager to go off-topic.

(And don't start sounding like we are an old married couple, people may wonder... 🙂 ) Note MrSmiley meaning that this is a joke.

I don't care if you put a thousand smiley faces on your posts, it was
not funny!

You suggested design had nothing to do with science I quoted you,
you either back up your agrument or go away, I've had about I can
take from you this morning to really care one wit what you think about
anything to tell you the truth. Maybe later I will, now, no so much.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You run into the issues with common ancestors as well, why do we see
eyes in creatures where we believe they developed later or earlier than
other creatures with eyes?

Kelly

Let's have a concrete example so we can discuss it.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I don't care if you put a thousand smiley faces on your posts, it was
not funny!

You suggested design had nothing to do with science I quoted you,
you either back up your agrument or go away, I've had about I can
take from you this morning to really care one wit what you think about
anything to tell you the truth. Maybe later I will, now, no so much.
Kelly

look in the "criticism against evolution" in the spirituality forum to see my response.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I don't care if you put a thousand smiley faces on your posts, it was
not funny!

See you in the dinosaur thread in Spiritual Forum. Go away from Science Forum yourself, go to the Spiritual Forum, if you dare meet me there, you and me. I promise I'm not interested in any homosexual relationship with you. 🙂 😀 🙂

Originally posted by KellyJay
You run into the issues with common ancestors as well, why do we see eyes in creatures where we believe they developed later or earlier than other creatures with eyes? Getting eyes requires a variety of things within a system to happen in just the right order, now if you think about that, it too sted anything super-natural, again please limit the discussion of my points to my points.
Kelly

It´s called convergent evolution.

Science is not about cold hard facts and the definitely known. Science is about the unknown, or at least not very well understood, and controlling our level of uncertainty about it. Most scientists accept that our best physics theories - the standard model of particle physics and general relativity - are only approximations to a deeper underlying truth that we may or may not ever have access to, this applies even more so to biology because of variation between experimental subjects. This does not mean it is not possible to understand it, just that the understanding you have is always subject to revision.

All human knowledge comes with the caveat that it might be bunk. All scientific knowledge (at least modern information) comes with levels of uncertainty attached, ideally expressed in the form of a confidence interval. If you insist on a perfect level of truth then we can´t get further than Descartes. Since this is what you are driving at, yes in science you make the simplifying assumption that the universe is not some weird conspiracy designed to make every experiment you do. or observation you make, lead you to the wrong conclusion.

Since you started talking about design, and this implies agency, there must be a designer. The only alternatives that I am aware of are either natural selection (no designer), God, or the notion that we are part of some alien species´ experiment. Since I know you are a Christian it was natural to assume you meant God. If you meant aliens then my arguments still apply since really that is just a sort of nasty version of God. If you mean something else to which you think my argument does not apply then say what you mean.

I think you are engaging in sophistry because you are insisting on a level of proof which is not possible in any field and you are not specifying what you mean so that you can take any position in response to our arguments. Who is your designer?

Originally posted by DeepThought
It´s called convergent evolution.

Science is not about cold hard facts and the definitely known. Science is about the unknown, or at least not very well understood, and controlling our level of uncertainty about it. Most scientists accept that our best physics theories - the standard model of particle physics and general relativity - are only approx ...[text shortened]... you mean so that you can take any position in response to our arguments. Who is your designer?

I understand you wish to assume a lot about my views and why I ask
the questions I do, but is that fair? I attempt to read what you write
and answer those points you bring up, I do not attempt to assume
I know what you are really thinking and answer you by my grand
mind reading skills according to what I know you really mean instead
of what you really said, so why is it okay for you to treat me in that
manner? The question is fair, design does imply a designer yes, it
also implies that more than likely what we see before us could not or
would not 'just happen naturally' and if the odds because to great for
such a feat, what are left with?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I understand you wish to assume a lot about my views and why I ask
the questions I do, but is that fair? I attempt to read what you write
and answer those points you bring up, I do not attempt to [b]assume
I know what you are really thinking and answer you by my grand
mind reading skills according to what I know you really mean instead
of what you ...[text shortened]... appen naturally' and if the odds because to great for
such a feat, what are left with?
Kelly[/b]

Just answer his question, numbnutz. "Who is your designer?"

Originally posted by KellyJay
I understand you wish to assume a lot about my views and why I ask
the questions I do, but is that fair? I attempt to read what you write
and answer those points you bring up, I do not attempt to [b]assume
I know what you are really thinking and answer you by my grand
mind reading skills according to what I know you really mean instead
of what you ...[text shortened]... appen naturally' and if the odds because to great for
such a feat, what are left with?
Kelly[/b]

Yes, it´s fair. If you don´t want people to make assumptions about what you say then it is your responsibility to state clearly what you mean.

When biologists say things like ¨evolutionary design¨ they do so as a sort of misuse of notation. What they mean is a set of adaptations that was selected for, but you get shorter sentences if you just use words like design. You have not established that there is design,

You seem to be saying that because design implies a designer it is improbable that the natural world could have come about by chance. This is begging the question. You have assumed a designer to prove that the natural world could not have come about without one.

Originally posted by PBE6
Just answer his question, numbnutz. "Who is your designer?"

Again, I asked a question it gets ignore and you instead of dealing
with that reduce this discussion to name calling. Design is
something that occurs when something is done with intent that
would not happen during the normal course of life or nature. It
does not matter who or what did the design that is a secondary
topic for another thread, please answer my question without the
name calling if you’re capable. Many birds nest can be said to be
designed, it may not always get made by a bird, but it is without
a doubt not something that just happens because the wind blows.
Kelly

Originally posted by DeepThought
Yes, it´s fair. If you don´t want people to make assumptions about what you say then it is your responsibility to state clearly what you mean.

When biologists say things like ¨evolutionary design¨ they do so as a sort of misuse of notation. What they mean is a set of adaptations that was selected for, but you get shorter sentences if you just use wo ...[text shortened]... u have assumed a designer to prove that the natural world could not have come about without one.

I stated quite clearly what I meant, I wanted to know how do you
knew? Instead the whole discussion now has shifted to who is the
designer, it does not matter who did the design!
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I stated quite clearly what I meant, I wanted to know how do you
knew? Instead the whole discussion now has shifted to who is the
designer, it does not matter who did the design!
Kelly

If it doesn´t matter who did the design, it doesn´t matter that I assumed you meant a specific one.

Originally posted by KellyJay
So unless you know the designer you cannot see design?
Kelly

That's the problem. You can see design anywhere you like. Whether or not it actually is design is a different story.