Evidence of design

[Speedwell]

Ok. Prove it.
1. that the gears you showed are designed by man
2. that the gears on the planthoppers legs aren't designed.

First of all, the term "design" is used in two different senses. Design can mean organization towards a function, or it can mean intention or purpose. In the first sense, both sets of gears are "designed." Design in the second sense is not directly detectable. In the case of the watch gears it can be inferred from the appearance of the gears as objects of human manufacture. In the case of the planthopper's gears it is indeterminate.

 

[Vaccine]

Same as yours in the OP.

I claimed it, that settles it.

We haven't even got to the "that settles it" part. I just want to see how many people will hedge, dodge or flat out deny design exists in nature.
Do you deny design exhists in nature?

 

[Vaccine]

Let's suppose I agree that they can't be explained.

Then it amounts to nothing but an argument from ignorance.

If it can't be explained, then don't pretend that you can explain it.

Seems to me it could be explained with an operating theory using the scientific method. But people think it's ok to a priori preclude some theories from even being used.

 

[Vaccine]

Support your own claims.

I could using intelligent design theory.
Do you acknowledge ID is a valid scientific theory?

 

[Speedwell]

I could using intelligent design theory.
Do you acknowledge ID is a valid scientific theory?

No. ID theory depends on biological systems exhibiting the the property of irreducible complexity, in other words that there exist biological structures which could not, in principle, be produced by an iterative process of variation and selection. So far, no such structures have been successfully identified.
ID theorists have advanced no useful definition of "design" or any repeatable test for its presence, and it appears that they have intentionally conflated the two ordinary usages of the term for rhetorical purposes.
What it boils down to is nothing but the argument from incredulity: "This is sooo complex that evolution couldn't have done it." There is no more substance to it than that.

 

[Vaccine]

Very well, but I hope this is not going to end up in silly sophistry.

1. 
   I can go to the very factory that makes the watch with the gears. I can look at the blueprints and machining instructions for those gears. I can look at the parts being made and the complete watch being assembled. In some cases (not sure about this particular watch), I can even talk to the designer himself.

The question wasn't whether people can make gears. The question was how do you know the gears you showed are designed?

1. Apart from that it obviously is impossible to prove a negative, I can do none of the things above. What I can do is look at how similar features occur in nature and in the nested hierarchy of evolution. I can study the creatures DNA and figure out precisely what mutations led to the formation of those gear like structures.

Does that answer your questions?

I'm not asking you to prove a negative here. I originally asked does design exist in nature? You made the claim some gears are designed others aren't, as if there is some way to determine it. How do you know?

 

[Vaccine]

First of all, the term "design" is used in two different senses. Design can mean organization towards a function, or it can mean intention or purpose. In the first sense, both sets of gears are "designed."

Finally someone acknowledges design in nature exists. There was a video from another thread here where some creationist denied what was plainly in front of them: a fossil. I'm sure a lot of Darwinists got a kick out of such a display of willful ignorance. But they will also deny what is plainly before them: design.

Design in the second sense is not directly detectable.

Nonsense. Fire inspectors detect design (in the sense of intention or purpose) all the time, it's called arson. Archaeologists detect design whenever they find stone tools. That is just an attempt to preemtively dismiss intelligent design theory.

In the case of the watch gears it can be inferred from the appearance of the gears as objects of human manufacture. In the case of the planthopper's gears it is indeterminate.

Quite a contradiction there, it CAN be inferred in one case but CANNOT in another. How do you KNOW it can't be inferred in the planthoppers gears? What method or evidence did you use?

 

[Speedwell]

The question wasn't whether people can make gears. The question was how do you know the gears you showed are designed?

Design as organization towards a function is obvious. Design as intention or purpose is inferred by observing that the gears are objects of human manufacturer.

I'm not asking you to prove a negative here. I originally asked does design exist in nature? You made the claim some gears are designed others aren't, as if there is some way to determine it. How do you know?

Design as intention or purpose is not directly detectable in an object. If I'm out camping and pick up a rock to pound in my tent stakes, I have "designed" a hammer. After I move on, you would be hard-pressed to find out which rock I had used. Even if I shape the rock for the purpose by banging it against another rock you might have a hard time picking it out--ask any paleontologist who is trying to find stone tools in a rockpile. In fact, what he is looking for are traces of human manufacture from which he may infer human design, and when he finds them he may still not be sure of the purpose of the object, what is was designed for.
Considering the gears of your example, both the watch gears and the insect gears exhibit design as organisation towards function.
I would infer design as purpose or intention--and a human designer--in the case of the watch not because of its functionality or its complexity but because it was obviously a product of human manufacture. If I could not conclude that the object was of human manufacture, then I could draw no inference one way or another about the existence of a purposeful designer.

 

[Herman Hedning]

The question wasn't whether people can make gears. The question was how do you know the gears you showed are designed?

Let's say I can do those things I mentioned in regards to the gears I showed.

I'm not asking you to prove a negative here. I originally asked does design exist in nature? You made the claim some gears are designed others aren't, as if there is some way to determine it. How do you know?

I maintain that what I stated previously conclusively shows that some gears are designed. If you think otherwise, please explain why.

 

[Speedwell]

Quite a contradiction there, it CAN be inferred in one case but CANNOT in another. How do you KNOW it can't be inferred in the planthoppers gears? What method or evidence did you use?

Design as organization towards a function? Or design as purpose or intention?

 

[-57]

I can study the creatures DNA and figure out precisely what mutations led to the formation of those gear like structures.

Then why has this not been done? Anywhere????

 

[-57]

No. At least not by a conscious mind. I'd say they are designed by the process of evolution though.

Do you think you can explain that process?

 

[Speedwell]

Then why has this not been done? Anywhere????

Nowhere that you know about. You won't even read a basic genetics text.

 

[-57]

Nowhere that you know about. You won't even read a basic genetics text.

Why do you reply with empty post...meaningless post?

 

[SteveB28]

I could using intelligent design theory.
Do you acknowledge ID is a valid scientific theory?

No.

 

[SteveB28]

Finally someone acknowledges design in nature exists. There was a video from another thread here where some creationist denied what was plainly in front of them: a fossil. I'm sure a lot of Darwinists got a kick out of such a display of willful ignorance. But they will also deny what is plainly before them: design.




Nonsense. Fire inspectors detect design (in the sense of intention or purpose) all the time, it's called arson. Archaeologists detect design whenever they find stone tools. That is just an attempt to preemtively dismiss intelligent design theory.




Quite a contradiction there, it CAN be inferred in one case but CANNOT in another. How do you KNOW it can't be inferred in the planthoppers gears? What method or evidence did you use?

Evidence. In the case of the watch gears, we can collect evidence to show that the gears were designed by some intelligent being.

No such evidence is available to show that the grasshopper 'gears' were so formed.....unless you have some to show us, of course.....?

 

[-57]

Is this natural?

 

[Nia Jenkins]

View attachment 184406 Is this natural?

You are just repeating what you have been told to repeat.

 

[Vaccine]

No. ID theory depends on biological systems exhibiting the the property of irreducible complexity, in other words that there exist biological structures which could not, in principle, be produced by an iterative process of variation and selection. So far, no such structures have been successfully identified.
ID theorists have advanced no useful definition of "design" or any repeatable test for its presence, and it appears that they have intentionally conflated the two ordinary usages of the term for rhetorical purposes.
What it boils down to is nothing but the argument from incredulity: "This is sooo complex that evolution couldn't have done it." There is no more substance to it than that.

Would you say using causes now in operation to explain events in the past is an argument from incredulity?

 

[Vaccine]

Design as organization towards a function is obvious. Design as intention or purpose is inferred by observing that the gears are objects of human manufacturer.




Design as intention or purpose is not directly detectable in an object. If I'm out camping and pick up a rock to pound in my tent stakes, I have "designed" a hammer. After I move on, you would be hard-pressed to find out which rock I had used. Even if I shape the rock for the purpose by banging it against another rock you might have a hard time picking it out--ask any paleontologist who is trying to find stone tools in a rockpile. In fact, what he is looking for are traces of human manufacture from which he may infer human design, and when he finds them he may still not be sure of the purpose of the object, what is was designed for.
Considering the gears of your example, both the watch gears and the insect gears exhibit design as organisation towards function.
I would infer design as purpose or intention--and a human designer--in the case of the watch not because of its functionality or its complexity but because it was obviously a product of human manufacture. If I could not conclude that the object was of human manufacture, then I could draw no inference one way or another about the existence of a purposeful designer.

So you say design as intention or purpose is not directly detectable in an object, then proceed to do just that with gears of human manufacture. Quite the contradiction. But one object is human manufacture you'll say. When you conclude an object is of human manufacture, like it or not you're employing the principles of intelligent design theory to draw that conclusion. It's just an arbitrary line to use those principles to conclude design in one object but avoid using them with another object.