The design argument

Originally posted by lemon lime

Whether you know it or not you make intelligent design inferences every day. We all do because it's an unavoidable part of the human psyche. Without the ability to distinguish between a real banana and fake wax one how could you avoid always biting into a fake banana? Have you ever wondered why the images on Mount Rushmore [b]appear to be intelligen ...[text shortened]... id using it... it's the elephant in the room that some choose to ignore and pretend isn't there.[/b]

If a bunch of objects are dug up somewhere in sediment that was deposited a thousand years ago that all look a lot like arrowheads, then the simplest explanation is that they are indeed arrowheads. That is, the objects were intelligently designed by men.

If the objects were found in metamorphic rock dating back 100 million years, then there's a problem, because as far as we know men did not exist that long ago. Intelligent design theories would not necessarily be the simplest scientific explanation.

If the "object" in question is what appears to be a finely tuned universe, again intelligent design should not be the first recourse of scientists, if for no other reason than because the origin of the designer would need to be reckoned with.

Identifying things as manmade or natural in a world full of manmade objects is hardly an "elephant in the room." Your wax banana argument has no bearing on the matter of biological evolution or the tuning of cosmological constants.

Originally posted by DeepThought
ID is a theory, it proponents claim it is a scientific theory, but what it is not is a generalised tool available to scientists. It's either right or wrong. If it is right then its results can be used, if it is wrong they can't. Falsification can never produce a proof of a theory, only disproof.

I don't see what the Raven Paradox has to say about t ...[text shortened]... that were non-black. The problem with the paradox is that it utterly ignores scientific method.

Drawing inferences of intelligent design shouldn't be a problem for anyone, but it appears to be a problem for evolutionists... and so I think this may be the reason why many only see it as a theory and assume it should not be taken seriously.

But I have another question about evolution. I can't think of any other science (or branch of science) where some are willing to compromise and suggest (or be open to the suggestion) that God may have had something to do with it. Even atheists seem to be mostly mute when confronted with this idea, which suggests tacit approval (which I don't believe) or some other unspoken reason.

Offering or accepting a compromise to get religionists off their backs doesn't ring true as an explanation, because where else can we see atheists caving in on what they believe? Evolution has been their greatest weapon against the idea of any kind of God, so why the apparent discrepancy between what they believe and a "God helped evolution along" scenario? It looks like a weird three way love affair with atheists on one side, Christians on the other, and poor little evolution caught in the middle... let's call them A, C, and E...

Mr E is not sure why Miss C is courting him, because Mr A is his true love and Miss C is obviously trying to come between them. But then Mr E discovers that Mr A was responsible for getting E and C together, which leaves him to wonder if Mr A really loves him or is using him for some nefarious purpose. Miss C is confused because Mr A is continuing to see Mr E in spite of the fact that E and C are now living together in what appears to be a committed relationship. E appears to be confused as well because he knows it was A who got them together, even though Mr A stills wants to be a part of Mr Es' life and continue along as though nothing has changed.

Mr A is the only one who doesn't appear to be confused, but there isn't time to go into that now because Miss C is threatening to move out if Mr E doesn't break it off with Mr A....

Originally posted by Soothfast
If a bunch of objects are dug up somewhere in sediment that was deposited a thousand years ago that all look a lot like arrowheads, then the simplest explanation is that they are indeed arrowheads. That is, the objects were intelligently designed by men.

If the objects were found in metamorphic rock dating back 100 million years, then there's a problem ...[text shortened]... nt has no bearing on the matter of biological evolution or the tuning of cosmological constants.

If the "object" in question is what appears to be a finely tuned universe, again intelligent design should not be the first recourse of scientists

I'm not suggesting it should be, and in my opinion a finely tuned universe friendly to life is more useful as a supporting argument.

The example of arrow heads found in metaphoric rock (dating back before arrows could have been made) obviously needs some additional explanation. You would need to demonstrate how they are not arrow heads (ID is ideally suited for making this distinction) or find some explanation as to why they are there. ID can't tell you why they are there, it can only assist in determining if they are arrow heads or not.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
How would it be used as a tool by science? How does one distinguish the designed from the non-designed? What empirical predictions does ID make?

Really, ID develops airplanes, rocket ships, computers, medical devices,
cures for what ails us, you don't see how we use I.D. are you serious?

Originally posted by Soothfast
If a bunch of objects are dug up somewhere in sediment that was deposited a thousand years ago that all look a lot like arrowheads, then the simplest explanation is that they are indeed arrowheads. That is, the objects were intelligently designed by men.

If the objects were found in metamorphic rock dating back 100 million years, then there's a problem ...[text shortened]... nt has no bearing on the matter of biological evolution or the tuning of cosmological constants.

Your wax banana argument has no bearing on the matter of biological evolution...

It was an example, not an argument. And I wasn't applying the example to biological evolution. I was attempting to explain ID. If ID can be applied to biological evolution, then that's another matter.

Okay then, let's look at biological evolution...

Irreducible Complexity shows how molecular machines and structures can't work if the parts aren't all there and in place working together. And not only in the case of bacterial flagellum, but with other integrated systems working in concert... such as the inner workings of a cell.

Macro-e assumes that fully functional molecular structures and machines (and cell systems working in concert) can show up and be immediately selected, without concern over how they got there. It does this by assuming any new function can so simple that it's not hard to imagine it immediately showing up ready for shipping to the next generation. So the underlying assumption made by Macro-e (to overcome the objections of Irreducible Complexity) is to say that any new feature or machine (or integrated system) can start off fully functional, and be selected before evolving into more complex versions of themselves.

You have to make this assumption, because with an undirected (no intelligence allowed) process of evolution a beneficial change can only be selected when the thing being selected exists. You cannot select something unless or before or until it's actually there to select. Because with evolution there is no planning committee. There is no one to come up with an idea and say "We can use a product like this, let's build one." So selection can only be accomplished when the product is already there to select.

If you want to say no, there's a storage area for holding potentially useful parts for building potentially useful (selectable) structures and machines and integrated systems (and anything else I might have overlooked) then go for it.... because I would have no idea how to respond to that. If Willy Wonka is your god, and anything is possible in his candy making factory, then so be it.

Originally posted by lemon lime
[bIrreducible Complexity shows how molecular machines and structures can't work if the parts aren't all there ............[/b]

No example of irreducible complexity has been
shown which has not been refuted by scientists,

Unless you have one up your sleeve?

Originally posted by lemon lime
... with an undirected (no intelligence allowed) process of evolution a beneficial change can only be selected when the thing being selected exists. You cannot select something unless or before or until it's actually there to select. [/b]

True.
Sometimes an adaption will be useful - sometimes not.
What is your point?

"Evolution" does not decide anything, it doesn't design creatures for
an environment. Lots of crappy creatures get created over millions of
years - the best adapted to their environment (at the time) survive.

The basics of the Theory are really just commonsense.

Originally posted by Soothfast
If a bunch of objects are dug up somewhere in sediment that was deposited a thousand years ago that all look a lot like arrowheads, then the simplest explanation is that they are indeed arrowheads. That is, the objects were intelligently designed by men.

If the objects were found in metamorphic rock dating back 100 million years, then there's a problem ...[text shortened]... nt has no bearing on the matter of biological evolution or the tuning of cosmological constants.

Determining the age of sediment is still a problem for scientists because they are still using assumptions and speculation in most cases. Many of them like to have bragging rights about finding the oldest artifact. So only a fool would accept the word of someone who claimed to have found an object in metamorphic rock dating back 100 million years. 😏

Originally posted by wolfgang59
True.
Sometimes an adaption will be useful - sometimes not.
What is your point?

"Evolution" does not decide anything, it doesn't design creatures for
an environment. Lots of crappy creatures get created over millions of
years - the best adapted to their environment (at the time) survive.

The basics of the Theory are really just commonsense.

"Evolution" does not decide anything. It is the "designer" that does the deciding. That should be common sense. 😏

Originally posted by wolfgang59
No example of irreducible complexity has been
shown which has not been refuted by scientists,

Unless you have one up your sleeve?

I don't recall any scientist showing how a motor can continue to perform its function if a critical part is removed. That would be interesting magic to see. 😏

Originally posted by lemon lime
Macro-e assumes that fully functional molecular structures and machines (and cell systems working in concert) can show up and be immediately selected, without concern over how they got there.

Actually, what the theory of evolution predicts is that such structures arrive through intermediate steps which are either itself beneficial or neutral in terms of fitness. For instance, in the Lenski experiment it was shown that the ability to metabolize citric acid occurred through several independent steps. Maybe if you had done some reading about evolution in the past fifty years, you'd know this.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
True.
Sometimes an adaption will be useful - sometimes not.
What is your point?

"Evolution" does not decide anything, it doesn't design creatures for
an environment. Lots of crappy creatures get created over millions of
years - the best adapted to their environment (at the time) survive.

The basics of the Theory are really just commonsense.

"Evolution" does not decide anything, it doesn't design creatures for
an environment.

That's right, and so within every living organism we must presume a Department of Research and Development. Now if we can just find the door with that title, we can go in and see how the process actually works. We will see the storage area for parts, and see how those parts are used to design all of the wondrously selectable and delectable candy bars used to feed all of the staff who work for the organisms Department of Research and Development...

Originally posted by Proper Knob
As far as I'm concerned, if you dish it out, you got to take a little back every now and again and I expect the same in return.

No debate from me on that one, and I actually except those I dish it out to
to complain about it. It isn't my goal to do that, I hate it when I do, you
should see the stuff I delete! 🙂

Originally posted by DeepThought
There are about 20,000 genes and over 3 million base pairs in the human genome [1]. Human genomes vary by about 0.1% between individuals. There's a 4% difference between us and bonobos. If the rate of mutation were high enough that a point mutation had a good chance of being reversed by the same random process that created the mutation in the first pl ...[text shortened]... org/wiki/Human_genome
[2] I can't remember where I heard this so you're entitled to dispute it.

The point of design is that when changes are made it is done so with a
plan and purpose in mind. Random does not abide by the rules of keeping
good or bad, it doesn't know the difference between harmful or helpful.

I've gone through some nasty stuff with development I'm afraid I know
more now about Pulmonary Atresia with ASD and VSD that I'd ever want
to know.

As I was pointing out if you get a random mutations anywhere, it does not
matter where it is the fact it was there means it could happen again! The
fact that this place where the mutation occurs now is believed to be able
to build something within a living system as complex as an eye is laughable
to me. Unless there is more at work than random mutations in play, do
you see all the hills that must be over come? Mutate here, do it again only
this time start building something the life form doesn't have and will only
need later if a million other things that will be working with it also are
built!

Originally posted by RJHinds
So now you are changing your story. Ha ha. 😀

So are you saying that some of the unchanged ones got the secret from the changed ones?

No.

How can a strain of bacteria 'get the secret' from another strain of bacteria? Turn your brain on.