The appearance of design

[theIdi0t]

The finch beak shift represents natural population variation based on conditions. My point is that it does not demonstrate evolution, but rather variation within limits.

You're playing with words labtoppop, you do understand that natural selection is causing the shifts in variation right?

i.e variation within limits = shifts in variation caused by natural selection.

 

[laptoppop]

Yes. YEC has no problem with natural selection. So? Let's get back on topic -- has anything disproved the design/watchmaker argument? The cell looks designed - everything works together wonderfully. The consensus view is that this appearance is illusion -- but can anyone offer a real argument against it?

 

[theIdi0t]

Yes. YEC has no problem with natural selection. So? Let's get back on topic -- has anything disproved the design/watchmaker argument?

A seeing watchmaker argument has long been disproved, there is actually a video floating around by punchy that shows this.

The cell looks designed - everything works together wonderfully. The consensus view is that this appearance is illusion -- but can anyone offer a real argument against it?

Hold your horses there buddy, we have to take care of the basics first, before you see the big picture. Patience is a thing of virtue.

Now did Noah carry various pairs of finches with various beak sizes, or just a pair with a particular beak size?

Do you agree that the change in the offspring of finches, beak sizes is the result of a change in the frequency of the gene/i.e mutation.

Natural process or supernatural process?

 

[laptoppop]

A seeing watchmaker argument has long been disproved, there is actually a video floating around by punchy that shows this.

Hold your horses there buddy, we have to take care of the basics first, before you see the big picture. Patience is a thing of virtue.

Do you have any data to add to the discussion? I'm pesky that way -- I want to discuss real information

 

[theIdi0t]

Do you have any data to add to the discussion? I'm pesky that way -- I want to discuss real information

Type in Richard Dawkins watchmaker in youtube, and you can see an easy to follow video, dissecting the watchmaker argument.

To some degree, it seems that you agree that the increased diversity from Noah's Ark, to today, is not the result of supernatural intervention, but natural process.

For the evolutionist the increased diversity from a single cell organism to today, is the result of a natural process, not a supernatural one.

Anything that does not come out of a supernatural process, is not the design of a supernatural watchmaker. It seems you believe that the supernatural watchmaker designed up to Noah's time, and then handed over his reigns to a blind natural watchmaker, perhaps with a few divine interventions here and there.

For the evolutionist the blind watchmaker has been in charge since the days of the single cell, and accounts for all present diversity today.

 

[shernren]

Define the actual process called "design", please. I am not saying that it can't be defined; but if it isn't designed* - oops, defined, then "design" simply becomes a catchphrase for "couldn't have come about through natural processes". Which of course is the good old argument from incredulity.

In terms of scientific evidence about human "design", we could dig up our good old friend GULOP. Ever heard of it?

And in terms of the theological place for Paleyism, listen to what Cardinal John Newman had to say about it in his time:

Gentlemen, let me press this point upon your earnest attention. I say Physical Theology cannot, from the nature of the case, tell us one word about Christianity proper; it cannot be Christian, in any true sense, at all:—and from this plain reason, because it is derived from informations which existed just as they are now, before man was created, and Adam fell. How can that be a real substantive Theology, though it takes the name, which is but an abstraction, a particular aspect of the whole truth, and is dumb almost as regards the moral attributes of the Creator, and utterly so as regards the evangelical?

Nay, more than this; I do not hesitate to say that, taking men as they are, this so-called science tends, if it occupies the mind, to dispose it against Christianity. And for this plain reason, because it speaks only of laws; and cannot contemplate their suspension, that is, miracles, which are of the essence of the idea of a Revelation. Thus, the God of Physical Theology may very easily become a mere idol; for He comes to the inductive mind in the medium of fixed appointments, so excellent, so skilful, so beneficent, that, when it has for a long time gazed upon them, it will think them too beautiful to be broken, and will at length so contract its notion of Him as to conclude that He never could have the heart (if I may dare use such a term) to undo or mar His own work; and this conclusion will be the first step towards its degrading its idea of God a second time, and identifying Him with His works. Indeed, a Being of Power, Wisdom, and Goodness, and nothing else, is not very different from the God of the Pantheist.
​

*the above typo actually happened.

 

[laptoppop]

Define the actual process called "design", please. I am not saying that it can't be defined; but if it isn't designed* - oops, defined, then "design" simply becomes a catchphrase for "couldn't have come about through natural processes". Which of course is the good old argument from incredulity.

Fair enough. The ID folks have done decent work in terms of information theory. For me, I am directing this more toward common perception. We look at complex human manufactured things and we see design. We look at things billions of times more complex and don't? Care to propose something more rigorous?

 

[shernren]

Fair enough. The ID folks have done decent work in terms of information theory. For me, I am directing this more toward common perception. We look at complex human manufactured things and we see design. We look at things billions of times more complex and don't? Care to propose something more rigorous?

So in other words, if something "looks complex", then it is designed? How do you quantify "looks complex"?

About bacterial resistance: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9332013

Policies aimed at alleviating the growing problem of drug-resistant pathogens by restricting antimicrobial usage implicitly assume that resistance reduces the Darwinian fitness of pathogens in the absence of drugs. While fitness costs have been demonstrated for bacteria and viruses resistant to some chemotherapeutic agents, these costs are anticipated to decline during subsequent evolution. This has recently been observed in pathogens as diverse as HIV and Escherichia coli. Here we present evidence that these genetic adaptations to the costs of resistance can virtually preclude resistant lineages from reverting to sensitivity. We show that second site mutations which compensate for the substantial (14 and 18% per generation) fitness costs of streptomycin resistant (rpsL) mutations in E. coli create a genetic background in which streptomycin sensitive, rpsL+ alleles have a 4-30% per generation selective disadvantage relative to adapted, resistant strains. We also present evidence that similar compensatory mutations have been fixed in long-term streptomycin-resistant laboratory strains of E. coli and may account for the persistence of rpsL streptomycin resistance in populations maintained for more than 10,000 generations in the absence of the antibiotic.
​

(emphases added) There goes your point about antibiotic resistance. Which is shredded in a far less friendly way over at http://mikethemadbiologist.blogspot.com/2005/04/antibiotics-creationism-and-evolution.html .

 

[laptoppop]

So in other words, if something "looks complex", then it is designed? How do you quantify "looks complex"?

That is a basic problem -- again, which ID attempts to address rigorously. Again -- do you care to propose something more rigorous? I'm satisfied with something like appearance of organized complexity -- particular parts doing particular things as part of an organized system that functions together.

About bacterial resistance: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9332013

Policies aimed at alleviating the growing problem of drug-resistant pathogens by restricting antimicrobial usage implicitly assume that resistance reduces the Darwinian fitness of pathogens in the absence of drugs. While fitness costs have been demonstrated for bacteria and viruses resistant to some chemotherapeutic agents, these costs are anticipated to decline during subsequent evolution. This has recently been observed in pathogens as diverse as HIV and Escherichia coli. Here we present evidence that these genetic adaptations to the costs of resistance can virtually preclude resistant lineages from reverting to sensitivity. We show that second site mutations which compensate for the substantial (14 and 18% per generation) fitness costs of streptomycin resistant (rpsL) mutations in E. coli create a genetic background in which streptomycin sensitive, rpsL+ alleles have a 4-30% per generation selective disadvantage relative to adapted, resistant strains. We also present evidence that similar compensatory mutations have been fixed in long-term streptomycin-resistant laboratory strains of E. coli and may account for the persistence of rpsL streptomycin resistance in populations maintained for more than 10,000 generations in the absence of the antibiotic.
​

(emphases added) There goes your point about antibiotic resistance. Which is shredded in a far less friendly way over at http://mikethemadbiologist.blogspot.com/2005/04/antibiotics-creationism-and-evolution.html .

You bolded it yourself -- there's a HUGE difference between "anticipated to decline" and "observed to decline". I have had this problem before -- it seems that often it is considered adequate to propose a possible solution, and I (stubbornly <grin>) keep looking for actual data. I'm much more interested in the examples cited -- I want to look into these more. Thanks!

 

[shernren]

That is a basic problem -- again, which ID attempts to address rigorously. Again -- do you care to propose something more rigorous? I'm satisfied with something like appearance of organized complexity -- particular parts doing particular things as part of an organized system that functions together.

Well, since I think the idea of "design" is really quite useless the way ID proponents or creationists try to use it, I naturally can't come up with anything rigorous if there's nothing rigorous to the concept itself.

But let's make it concrete (heh heh). What's the difference between:

and

that would make you conclude that one is designed and the other isn't?

You bolded it yourself -- there's a HUGE difference between "anticipated to decline" and "observed to decline". I have had this problem before -- it seems that often it is considered adequate to propose a possible solution, and I (stubbornly <grin>) keep looking for actual data. I'm much more interested in the examples cited -- I want to look into these more. Thanks!

Huh? The costs were observed to decline. Just because I bold some parts doesn't mean you don't have to read everything else!

While fitness costs have been demonstrated for bacteria and viruses resistant to some chemotherapeutic agents, these costs are anticipated to decline during subsequent evolution. This has recently been observed in pathogens as diverse as HIV and Escherichia coli. ...

(emphases and underline added)

Anticipated: Evolutionary costs of antibiotic resistance decline.
Observed: Streptomycin-sensitivity became 4-30% more disadvantageous than streptomycin-resistance, even in the absence of streptomycin.
Observed: Streptomycin-resistance persists for over 10,000 generations even when streptomycin is removed, showing that it confers additional benefits.

Beneficial mutations, right there and then.

 

[notto]

We look at complex human manufactured things and we see design.

No, we see things that are manufactured because they have signs of the process that manufactured them or we can look the the actual process used to manufacture them.

We don't assume that snowflakes are individually designed but if I see a picture of one, I know it is. Why is that?

We don't assume that trees are individually designed but if I see a carving of a tree, I know it is manufactured. Why is that?

(hint - unlike snowflakes and trees, there are not naturally occurring processes that we can see that create pictures of snowflakes and carvings of trees).

If we couldn't observe processes that can design living organisims (or if we couldn't see them produce and have new traits) , then design would be a valid conclusion but at this point, we know that natural algorithms can design life and modify it over time.



Unless you can objectively answer and provide a criteria for how to determine design that isn't based you incredulity, then it really isn't a useful tool, at least to science.

What looks designed to you certainly doesn't look designed to another.

 

[laptoppop]

Yes, again - I thank you for the examples and want to look into them more. Since its not my typical area, its going to take longer. I'm not saying I can't get it -- just gotta take the time.

In terms of the pictures -- good question. Again, I do not have a rigorous definition at this time. Have you looked at the video with the cheesy music from the OP? The design of the molecular machines inside each and every cell is truly amazing. By anyone's definition -- it looks designed.

Is there any argument against the watchmaker argument other than asking for more rigor in the definition of design? So far, the argument strikes me as compelling on a common sense level -- but I admit I am predisposed towards it.

 

[Dannager]

Is there any argument against the watchmaker argument other than asking for more rigor in the definition of design? So far, the argument strikes me as compelling on a common sense level -- but I admit I am predisposed towards it.

You need to realize that when dealing with logic, the first thing you have to avoid is making decisions based on what you consider to be "common sense". The human mind works in odd ways, and is often responsible for making odd connections where none should be made either because of past experience or predisposition. You need to analyze an argument like the watchmaker fallacy through the tenets of logic, not common sense. They overlap in many places, but you can run into trouble if you assume that common sense is always correct.

 

[laptoppop]

If we couldn't observe processes that can design living organisims (or if we couldn't see them produce and have new traits) , then design would be a valid conclusion but at this point, we know that natural algorithms can design life and modify it over time.

Know? I wasn't aware of any experimental *proof* of this.

What looks designed to you certainly doesn't look designed to another.

So you deny the appearance of design in molecular machines? I am not saying the reality of design -- I am asking about the appearance of design.

 

[Dannager]

I am asking about the appearance of design.

People who are uneducated in how molecules function say that it appears designed. To people who are educated in molecular evolution, it does not appear designed. The appearance of design exists or doesn't exist depending on who you talk to. The fact that it doesn't appear designed to the experts should tell you something, though.

 

[theIdi0t]

So you deny the appearance of design in molecular machines? I am not saying the reality of design -- I am asking about the appearance of design.

You do mean supernatural design right? if so then no?

If you're taking about naturally "designed", then even the shapes of snow flakes are naturally "designed".

Design to me just means created, the shapes of snowflakes are naturally created.

How are you defining design?

 

[laptoppop]

People who are uneducated in how molecules function say that it appears designed. To people who are educated in molecular evolution, it does not appear designed. The appearance of design exists or doesn't exist depending on who you talk to. The fact that it doesn't appear designed to the experts should tell you something, though.

Did you read the OP? Many experts agree that it *appears* designed -- they just deny what they see.

 

[laptoppop]

You do mean supernatural design right? if so then no?

If you're taking about naturally "designed", then even the shapes of snow flakes are naturally "designed".

Design to me just means created, the shapes of snowflakes are naturally created.

How are you defining design?

Already answered at length in this thread -- have you read it?

 

[Dannager]

Did you read the OP? Many experts agree that it *appears* designed -- they just deny what they see.

That's just a matter of word choice, laptoppop. When it's mentioned that they have to remind themselves it's not designed, they mean that it's not obvious that it isn't designed. But to a scientist in the field, given the knowledge that they have, the molecules do not appear designed. It's not denial. It's knowing that what an uneducated mind initially perceives is not necessarily the way things actually are.

If you're having trouble conceptualizing this, imagine you lived in the Middle Ages, as a peasant farmer. Having experience with meat and the spoilage thereof, you have come to the conclusion that maggots are born of old meat (the concept known nowadays as spontaneous generation). Hundreds of years later, it is discovered that, upon much closer inspection, maggots actually come from tiny eggs planted in the meat. This is the same sort of situation scientists deal with today.

 

[theIdi0t]

Already answered at length in this thread -- have you read it?

Well, I went back and reread every single post you have on this thread, and I did not see one that addresed, how you are defining designed.

I've sought this clarification for sometime, and as of yet, it has not been made clear to me what you mean by "design"--particullary who or what is designing.

A ripple in a pond looks designed to me, is this the design you keep referring back to?