Probability of Origin of Life by Chance just went way UP.

Oncedeceived said:

Yes, the positive claim is Dawkins when he claims that evolution has mimicked deliberate design.

Click to expand...

Dawkins makes a positive claim. He does not do this in the scientific literature, he does this when talking to a lay audience. At no point does Dawkins claim that this "design" is actually real.

I don't believe you are being honest either with me or yourself about not seeing features that resemble those that humans design.

Click to expand...

And you know what? If you have a scientific method for determining design, it wouldn't matter. Because we could go through it, step by step, and you could point out exactly where I was being dishonest. You could show me to be a right pillock! But you can't. Because your recognition of "design" is entirely subjective. I keep asking "what's the objective phenomenon" "what's the objective method to detect this phenomenon" "what's the objective anything" and you keep giving me nothing to work with. It's all just more "I see design, therefore there is design". Which is nonsense. I look out the window and I see a sperm whale. Does that mean there actually is a sperm whale there? No! Does that mean that some cloud-forming god is sending me an image of a sperm whale through the clouds, that I may interpret it? ("There is going to be lamp oil in your future", maybe?)

And to be fair, sometimes you repeat "Dawkins and Crick also see design, therefore my subjective opinion is elevated to a scientific fact". Which, even if it were true, even if they did recognize design (they don't), would do nothing to move this from "subjective" to "objective". Oh, so now lots of people are looking at this cloud and seeing a sperm whale! Except of course, the people you cited go on to say, "Yeah, it looks like a sperm whale, but it's actually just a random blobby shape that our overactive imaginations are reading.

If you don't see production lines, assembly lines, rotor systems, artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of pre-fabrication and modular construction

Click to expand...

I could see all of that, and still not see design. Because you have provided no way for me to go from the object to "therefore the object was designed".

Of course, the analogy is rough at best. The production lines, rotor systems, and assembly lines are all foreign and alien, bearing only the most cursory resemblance to the human systems that you claim they imitate. The function seems the same, but the structure is not, and no human ever designed anything like this (or, in many cases, would design anything like this - the example of bacterial chemotaxis comes to mind). The artificial languages are not there. They just aren't. You can claim that DNA is a language until the cows come home; you are merely mistaking an abstraction from the object of its abstraction. It's chemistry.

But none of this screams "design" to me. I look at this and think, "This is evolution". Why? Because we have absolutely no examples of anything like this ever being designed, but we know that evolution can produce phenomenally complex and intricate systems, systems that less informed people have called "designed".

And if you can provide an objective model to determine design from non-design, or to objectively demonstrate design, then by all means. Let's have it. But the fact that you still refuse to offer this model is a sign to me that you don't have one. Because you can't produce one. Because it's really just your opinion. And it can be your opinion, Dawkins' opinion, Crick's opinion, the opinion of every other person on the planet, and the opinion of Grob Gob Glob Grod, but that does not make it objectively true in any way.

Maybe an analogy to another subjective, baseless belief is relevant. Race. It was long believed that "race" was an actual, biological grouping that could be meaningfully documented. However, modern genetics shows that this simply is not the case. You cannot meaningfully discern any particular number of races with anything resembling objectivity. It just doesn't work. And you can get all the people in the world to agree that one person is black, another is asian, another is hispanic white... But that doesn't make those groupings objective or real in any way.

Oncedeceived said:

That is simply false.

Click to expand...

How is it false?

Do you understand the difference between knowledge and belief?

Knowledge is demonstrable. Mere belief isn't.
One is supported / demonstrated through evidence, the other isn't.

If people say that they know X exists, why is it a problem that they are asked to demonstrate what they think to know and how they know it?

Oncedeceived said:

It is actual design as in evidence or it is an illusion of deliberate design produced by evolutionary processes. No evidence has been provided as to how evolutionary processes produced this design in living organisms.

Click to expand...

For the gazillionth time: that is exactly what evolution does.
Those that fit there environments best (whatever that means depends on the organism and the actual habitat) are those that reproduce, making the next generation a slightly better fit then the previous one. And so it continues for as long as living systems reproduce.

I've explained plenty of times how evolution is like a natural optimisation module and how practical applications of this process are actually used as optimisation modules.

Evolution actually really explains the "design" we see in living systems.
Your claim doesn't explain anything about anything.

It's nothing but an assertion, which - when questioned - amounts to nothing more then arguments from ignorance, cognitive bias, subjective opinions and, off course, dogmatic a priori beliefs.

You know, it's fine by me if you wish to believe in your religion and take up a dogmatic stance that biology can't possibly be correct because it contradicts your religion... Really, that's fine...

But stop sticking your head in the sand when it comes to what biology really about.
Stop denying that evolution is an explaination of the "design" we see in nature.
Stop pretending that the principles of this process aren't used in practical application to literally evolve better solutions for certain design problems.

I really wonder what you hope to accomplish by this...

This tactic might work on people who are ignorant of basic principles of biology and who've been raised as perhaps creationists etc.

But the people you are talking to here are not in that position.
We are actually informed on the basics of the natural sciences.

And, as I said before, I can't take you seriously if you insist on misrepresenting evolution like this, and insist on denying that evolution as a mechanism literally explains how the designs we see in living things actually come about.

I disagree and so do other biologists that recognize that this design must have an explanation and they make the claim that it is there due to evolutionary processes mimicking deliberate design. I've quoted Dawkins and Crick as examples.

Click to expand...

Yes, you quote-mined Dawkins and Crick. Both of whom will go on to tell you that evolution explains who such designs in nature come about.

But hey.... who cares about facts ey?

What is the best explanation of the appearance of design with a purpose in living organisms that is recognizable to the only intelligent agents we have experienced which forms, features, systems and functions?

Click to expand...

The best explanation we currently have is Evolution.

We have not been shown any evidence that shows evolutionary processes produced this design that is recognized as intelligent design from the only intelligence on earth that we have.

Click to expand...

Except that that isn't true. You have been shown the evidence.

http://boxcar2d.com/

Evolutionary processes naturally result in designs that are optimised for the habitat they need to survive in.

The evidence is there, it needs explanation if one wishes to claim that the living organisms apparent design is one of an illusion produced by evolutionary processes. The burden is on them.

Click to expand...

And that burden has been met a couple centuries ago. The evidence has been piling on ever since.

It's called evolution

Smidlee said:

The retina does send a digital code to your brain.

Click to expand...

What is that code? Show us. How is the code generated in the retina?

JacksBratt said:

They still cannot produce it in a lab, cannot prove that it happened here, cannot prove that it even happened once.

Click to expand...

How many times have we observed a deity producing life in the lab?

Do you equally reject the idea that life was created by God?

The Cadet said:

Dawkins makes a positive claim. He does not do this in the scientific literature, he does this when talking to a lay audience. At no point does Dawkins claim that this "design" is actually real.

Click to expand...

No but he makes the claim that it appears to be real. He moves on then to it can't be real because it must be there due to evolutionary processes because nothing else of worth can explain it. That is his subjective opinion on the evidence of design in living organisms.

And you know what? If you have a scientific method for determining design, it wouldn't matter. Because we could go through it, step by step, and you could point out exactly where I was being dishonest. You could show me to be a right pillock! But you can't. Because your recognition of "design" is entirely subjective. I keep asking "what's the objective phenomenon" "what's the objective method to detect this phenomenon" "what's the objective anything" and you keep giving me nothing to work with. It's all just more "I see design, therefore there is design". Which is nonsense. I look out the window and I see a sperm whale. Does that mean there actually is a sperm whale there? No! Does that mean that some cloud-forming god is sending me an image of a sperm whale through the clouds, that I may interpret it? ("There is going to be lamp oil in your future", maybe?)

Click to expand...

My recognition of design is in keeping with most biologists that actually do recognize design and admit as such. You are making the claim that it is only I that sees design but that is simply not true. It is there, it needs an explanation and Dawkins and other materialists who do not accept an intelligent agent produced it make the claim that it is there by evolutionary processes. You seem to be speaking out of both sides of your mouth here because on one side you want to claim that evolution can produce this appearance of design and on the other that you don't see it.

And to be fair, sometimes you repeat "Dawkins and Crick also see design, therefore my subjective opinion is elevated to a scientific fact". Which, even if it were true, even if they did recognize design (they don't), would do nothing to move this from "subjective" to "objective". Oh, so now lots of people are looking at this cloud and seeing a sperm whale! Except of course, the people you cited go on to say, "Yeah, it looks like a sperm whale, but it's actually just a random blobby shape that our overactive imaginations are reading.

Click to expand...

You don't even realize that you are equating the appearance of design to shapes and patterns that just have an appearance due to those shapes and patterns vaguely from which no function or structure is even present.

I could see all of that, and still not see design. Because you have provided no way for me to go from the object to "therefore the object was designed".

Click to expand...

Yet, you seem to have no problem with going to "therefore the object is there due to evolution" even those there is no objective evidence that shows that evolutionary processes produced this appearance that you deny you see but all biologists that I am aware of do see.

Of course, the analogy is rough at best.

Click to expand...

Again, all biologists I know view the molecular machines in organisms so efficient and human like in engineering that they are trying to mimic them for all sorts of applications.

The production lines, rotor systems, and assembly lines are all foreign and alien, bearing only the most cursory resemblance to the human systems that you claim they imitate.

Click to expand...

You are mistaken, there is no cursory to it at all. I really see your denial in action.

The function seems the same, but the structure is not, and no human ever designed anything like this (or, in many cases, would design anything like this - the example of bacterial chemotaxis comes to mind).

Click to expand...

No human has designed rotor systems? No human has designed assembly or production lines? Seriously. The fact that we can't design anything as efficient and spectacular even supports the notion of Intelligent Design all the more. We being the only intelligent designers on earth aren't even able to match the design excellence of those within the simple cell.

The artificial languages are not there. They just aren't. You can claim that DNA is a language until the cows come home; you are merely mistaking an abstraction from the object of its abstraction. It's chemistry.

Click to expand...

Everything is chemistry.

But none of this screams "design" to me. I look at this and think, "This is evolution". Why? Because we have absolutely no examples of anything like this ever being designed, but we know that evolution can produce phenomenally complex and intricate systems, systems that less informed people have called "designed".

Click to expand...

All you are doing is asserting your own personal beliefs. No evidence to support them...nothing...nada.

And if you can provide an objective model to determine design from non-design, or to objectively demonstrate design, then by all means. Let's have it. But the fact that you still refuse to offer this model is a sign to me that you don't have one. Because you can't produce one. Because it's really just your opinion. And it can be your opinion, Dawkins' opinion, Crick's opinion, the opinion of every other person on the planet, and the opinion of Grob Gob Glob Grod, but that does not make it objectively true in any way.

Click to expand...

So of course it isn't true because you just happen to deny it and you are the one true authority on the matter.

Maybe an analogy to another subjective, baseless belief is relevant. Race. It was long believed that "race" was an actual, biological grouping that could be meaningfully documented. However, modern genetics shows that this simply is not the case. You cannot meaningfully discern any particular number of races with anything resembling objectivity. It just doesn't work. And you can get all the people in the world to agree that one person is black, another is asian, another is hispanic white... But that doesn't make those groupings objective or real in any way.

Click to expand...

Race vs. design is a category error.

DogmaHunter said:

How is it false?

Do you understand the difference between knowledge and belief?

Knowledge is demonstrable. Mere belief isn't.
One is supported / demonstrated through evidence, the other isn't.

If people say that they know X exists, why is it a problem that they are asked to demonstrate what they think to know and how they know it?

Click to expand...

Demonstrate that knowledge must be demonstrable.

Oncedeceived said:

A whole bunch of excuses and no model

Click to expand...

Hmm. Guess I'm still waiting then.

Oncedeceived said:

Demonstrate that knowledge must be demonstrable.

Click to expand...

...Are you serious?

The Cadet said:

Seriously, we're going to bring solipsism into this? Let's assume for the moment that the person you're trying to demonstrate design to isn't a complete sophist, and work from there. It sort of comes with the territory that if you're talking about science, you've already accepted that you aren't a brain in a vat, and anyone coming in and saying, "You can't prove anything" is just wasting everyone's time.

Click to expand...

When you enter into a debate on a scientific subject, it's generally to be assumed that you at least generally accept the fundamental axioms of science! Otherwise, you are simply wasting everyone's time.

The Cadet said:

...Are you serious?


When you enter into a debate on a scientific subject, it's generally to be assumed that you at least generally accept the fundamental axioms of science! Otherwise, you are simply wasting everyone's time.

Click to expand...

Ok, how does science methodology demonstrate that knowledge must be demonstrable?

The Cadet said:

...Are you serious?


When you enter into a debate on a scientific subject, it's generally to be assumed that you at least generally accept the fundamental axioms of science! Otherwise, you are simply wasting everyone's time.

Click to expand...

Everyone has to figure out on their own, when continued discussions with certain folks is a waste of time. Everyone has their point of no return, when it comes to intellectual dishonesty.

Loudmouth said:

How many times have we observed a deity producing life in the lab?

Do you equally reject the idea that life was created by God?

Click to expand...

Now why would a deity produce life in a lab? How foolish. Is that your argument? God produced all life during a six day period and now you say "how many times have we observed a deity producing life in the lab?"

After the original creation life can only be passed on from two organisms to others in their offspring. Or in asexual reproduction, one can pass it's life on to others. Nobody is creating any new life anywhere.


God operates by His plan. He will always operate on His plan. There will be no life on this new planet. The chances are not better. It's like a loto ticket. One person could buy a ticket and the odds are the same for that one person if they are the only one or if a billion people bought a ticket.

bhsmte said:

Everyone has to figure out on their own, when continued discussions with certain folks is a waste of time. Everyone has their point of no return, when it comes to intellectual dishonesty.

Click to expand...

Indeed.

Oncedeceived said:

Ok, how does science methodology demonstrate that knowledge must be demonstrable?

Click to expand...

The Cadet said:

...Are you serious?


When you enter into a debate on a scientific subject, it's generally to be assumed that you at least generally accept the fundamental axioms of science! Otherwise, you are simply wasting everyone's time.

Click to expand...

I wonder if fstdt.com is still taking submissions.

DogmaHunter said:

For the gazillionth time: that is exactly what evolution does.
Those that fit there environments best (whatever that means depends on the organism and the actual habitat) are those that reproduce, making the next generation a slightly better fit then the previous one.

Click to expand...

Here is where you go wrong with evolution. At best, this only staves off degeneration of the species. It introduces nothing new. This also tends to weed out anything that might be construed as evolution. Over time, the trend is always downward toward sterility, death and extinction.

pat34lee said:

Here is where you go wrong with evolution. At best, this only staves off degeneration of the species. It introduces nothing new. This also tends to weed out anything that might be construed as evolution. Over time, the trend is always downward toward sterility, death and extinction.

Click to expand...

*sigh*

Why do you think that genetic mutations cannot introduce anything new? We've known they can since the 70s.

pat34lee said:

Here is where you go wrong with evolution.

Click to expand...

Really?
So, those that are the least likely to survive and reproduce are those that actually do?

How does one defend such nonsense?

At best, this only staves off degeneration of the species. It introduces nothing new.

Click to expand...

Tibetans, who have unique gene sequences that aren't found in any other human (unless that human has tibetan ancestry) and which allows them to live safely at high altitudes without becoming ill, would disagree.

People that evolve an immunity to certain deseases would disagree.

Turtles on the galapagos who can life their heads slightly higher then their peers, and thus can reach more food, would disagree.

Bacteria that exlusively feed on Nylon, a fabric that is only recently created, disagree.

Insects that evolved immunity to certain pestecides, disagree.

Bacteria now immune to anti-biotics, disagree.

This also tends to weed out anything that might be construed as evolution. Over time, the trend is always downward toward sterility, death and extinction.

Click to expand...

I dare to say that you believe that, not because you have evidence, but rather because you happen to believe in a specific interpretation of the bible that says that everything is going to break down and stuff. Right?

Davian said:

I wonder if fstdt.com is still taking submissions.

Click to expand...

Can you scientifically demonstrate that knowledge must be demonstrable?

Davian said:

I wonder if fstdt.com is still taking submissions.

Click to expand...

I know it sounds ridiculous but my point is that we take demonstrable to extremes when we claim that the only knowledge is that which can be demonstrated, even the premise is not possible to demonstrate.

DogmaHunter said:

For the gazillionth time: that is exactly what evolution does.
Those that fit there environments best (whatever that means depends on the organism and the actual habitat) are those that reproduce, making the next generation a slightly better fit then the previous one. And so it continues for as long as living systems reproduce.

Click to expand...

This sounds reasonable, but complexity and design are in evidence when something has the ability to evolve at all. You have this scenario in your head that discounts that even to be capable of evolution the necessary requirements themselves must be already complex and ordered. Natural selection presupposes a vast amount of order and some kind of life before it can do anything at all. The a priori of order and life are not just aside issues but of absolute necessity. Imagining that small increments that are advantageous to the organisms and long periods of time allow us to imagine great feats in outcomes that might have come about through the ages is poetic but not demonstrable anymore than the first reproducing life which is not in evidence. It reasonably has had an affect on all life but to conclude that the design apparent in the very first forms of life we have fossil evidence for does not lend itself to this step-to-step gradual development of order from disorder or simple to complexity. If one relies on evidence as the required element to determine something is true or in this case evolution did it, it is sorely missing from the equation.

I've explained plenty of times how evolution is like a natural optimisation module and how practical applications of this process are actually used as optimisation modules.

Evolution actually really explains the "design" we see in living systems.
Your claim doesn't explain anything about anything.

Click to expand...

Yes, you have asserted over and over that natural selection is a natural optimization module without giving any evidence for how this order and optimizing "module" started it all. For evolution to happen at all the complexity was necessary, the order was necessary. Evolution didn't evolve. What set that process up?

It's nothing but an assertion, which - when questioned - amounts to nothing more then arguments from ignorance, cognitive bias, subjective opinions and, off course, dogmatic a priori beliefs.

Click to expand...

You point your finger at me and claim I have nothing but assertion, but what do you have? Sure life adapts and evolution happens but this is after the fact that life was present and order was already present before it did happen. You have no evidence that you can bring forward as to how this complex and apparent design that is present even working within one cell arose from anything simpler; and that cell is packed full of design features that we recognize as design of intelligent agency because we are the only intelligent agents that design with purpose and planning just as each molecular machine shows inside the cell. You hold your own cognitive bias, subjective opinion and whether or not you believe it dogmatic beliefs.

You know, it's fine by me if you wish to believe in your religion and take up a dogmatic stance that biology can't possibly be correct because it contradicts your religion... Really, that's fine...

Click to expand...

Biology can't be correct about what? What are you claiming I am claiming that says Biology can't be correct?

But stop sticking your head in the sand when it comes to what biology really about.
Stop denying that evolution is an explaination of the "design" we see in nature.
Stop pretending that the principles of this process aren't used in practical application to literally evolve better solutions for certain design problems.

Click to expand...

Who are you to tell me that evolution explains design when you have given only assertions and opinion. You have no evidence that shows the design within even one cell is produced by evolution. You have given no evidence that supports that evolution came out of disorder and simpler forms. You are the one pretending and making assertions that you can't support.

I really wonder what you hope to accomplish by this...

This tactic might work on people who are ignorant of basic principles of biology and who've been raised as perhaps creationists etc.

But the people you are talking to here are not in that position.
We are actually informed on the basics of the natural sciences.

Click to expand...

You are indoctrinated into beliefs about the basics of the natural sciences. You are indoctrinated into the belief that evolution is all there is working in life forms. Yet, you can't show scientifically how design is seen in even one cell's molecular machines within it.

And, as I said before, I can't take you seriously if you insist on misrepresenting evolution like this, and insist on denying that evolution as a mechanism literally explains how the designs we see in living things actually come about.

Click to expand...

I am not misrepresenting anything. YOU and no one else including Richard Dawkins have shown how design is evident in living forms. You and Dawkins both spin stories on how it might have or could have happened, but no evidence is in existence that shows how even one cell in the most simple life on earth has the ear marks of design. Those who actually know what goes on in a cell...one tiny little cell can recognize the immense complexity and design present. It is only those who hold a dogmatic naturalistic materialistic view who claim this design is an illusion. An illusion that mimics deliberate actual design. It is only their a priori views of only naturalistic explanations are worthy of consideration that won't allow them to admit to actual design.

Yes, you quote-mined Dawkins and Crick. Both of whom will go on to tell you that evolution explains who such designs in nature come about.

Click to expand...

They assert how design in nature comes about but they neglect that the design and complexity had to be present "before" evolution could even start. They neglect to give evidence that shows how this design actually is produced by evolutionary processes. They spin stories, how it could have happened, how it might have happened but no evidence is given ever showing it did happen.

But hey.... who cares about facts ey?

Click to expand...

It is obvious you don't, you believe hook line and sinker that evolution happens so it must have created the design in living organisms but you don't have evidence of that or how the order and complexity for it to happen is not explained by evolution as evolution did not evolve.

The best explanation we currently have is Evolution.

Click to expand...

No Evolution is the best explanation that goes with your materialistic view of the world. It doesn't explain how the process of evolution got started, it doesn't explain the order and complexity required for it to start nor is it shown by any evidence that it did.

Except that that isn't true. You have been shown the evidence.

http://boxcar2d.com/

Evolutionary processes naturally result in designs that are optimised for the habitat they need to survive in.

Click to expand...

This is not a natural process and is produced by intelligent design. The parts are already there within the program to use to make the finished product.

And that burden has been met a couple centuries ago. The evidence has been piling on ever since.

Click to expand...

You really believe that don't you? There is evidence for evolution there is no evidence of how the order and complexity necessary for it to begin...in even one cell of the most simple life form known on earth appears designed.

It's called evolution

Click to expand...

No it is called materialism and evolution is used to promote that view.

Oncedeceived said:

Can you scientifically demonstrate that knowledge must be demonstrable?

I know it sounds ridiculous but my point is that we take demonstrable to extremes when we claim that the only knowledge is that which can be demonstrated, even the premise is not possible to demonstrate.

Click to expand...

No, once. What is ridiculous is how you are arguing about words.

Words have meaning.
"Knowledge" and "beliefs" and "delusions" don't mean the same thing.
The word "knowledge" has a certain definition.

Things you believe on faith, like religious things, do not meet the criteria to be labeled as "knowledge".

At the end of the day, some type of demonstrability (depending on subject) is a criteria for the label "knowledge".

One of the definitions listed in the dictionary is this: the body of truths or facts accumulated in the course of time

Facts/truths are demonstrable. That's what distinguishes them from mere claims and beliefs.