Design...actual or not and why?

[Oncedeceived]

Because sight was an advantageous adaptation.

I wasn't specifically citing sight but understanding is more in line with what I was going for but I answered your post anyway.

 

[Loudmouth]

Category error. You put up a simple pattern recognition sample against complex and mechanical workings of the universe and biological life forms. It is hand waving. Address the actual issue.

I did address the actual issue. You just don't like the facts.

Human bias makes us see things that aren't there. That includes design in evolved species.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Cosmic teapots, dear. If you want to claim that there is a designer, present the positive evidence.

The evidence we do have is consistent with evolution. I have yet to see any evidence pointing to a supernatural designer.

If you are not willing or able to back up your position then this thread is not for you. If you hold the position that evolution supplies the needed explanation then explain how. Answer the question in the op.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I did address the actual issue. You just don't like the facts.

Human bias makes us see things that aren't there. That includes design in evolved species.

So the remarkable functions we see in the video are really not there?

 

[GrimKingGrim]

Explain?

Our brains intuitively connect dots that might not be there. We make A + B = C in our minds at times but it may not be that way. So when we first saw things like snowflakes up close they clearly look designed. Because look at the symmetry and complexity right? But that's just not how it is. But when we see things that look designed, our brains at first (before science) concluded they were designed.

 

[Loudmouth]

So the remarkable functions we see in the video are really not there?

And thus starts the run-a-round. It is the same as justlookinla's "elements of design".

Where is the evidence that those functions were designed by a supernatural deity?

 

[Loudmouth]

If you are not willing or able to back up your position then this thread is not for you. If you hold the position that evolution supplies the needed explanation then explain how. Answer the question in the op.

I said that the evidence is consistent with evolution. The evidence is the nested hierarchy. The types of eyes fall into lineages, not mixed and matched as we would expect from a design process. For example, all animals with notochords have a backwards facing retina. Invertebrates like squid and octopus have a forward facing retina. When we see adaptations that fall into nested hierarchies this is evidence for evolution.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Our brains intuitively connect dots that might not be there. We make A + B = C in our minds at times but it may not be that way. So when we first saw things like snowflakes up close they clearly look designed. Because look at the symmetry and complexity right? But that's just not how it is. But when we see things that look designed, our brains at first (before science) concluded they were designed.

I will ask you the same thing I asked Loudmouth, are the complex workings of the inner cell not really there? Are they an illusion?

 

[Oncedeceived]

And thus starts the run-a-round. It is the same as justlookinla's "elements of design".

Where is the evidence that those functions were designed by a supernatural deity?

Is that your position? No. It is your position that there is no actual design by an intelligent agent. i want your position not mine. This is a thread for you to explain why you think there is an appearance of design and why you think the evidence supports it not being actual. Read the question in the OP.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

I will ask you the same thing I asked Loudmouth, are the complex workings of the inner cell not really there? Are they an illusion?

That's a... really bad question. Lol what are you talking about?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I said that the evidence is consistent with evolution. The evidence is the nested hierarchy. The types of eyes fall into lineages, not mixed and matched as we would expect from a design process. For example, all animals with notochords have a backwards facing retina. Invertebrates like squid and octopus have a forward facing retina. When we see adaptations that fall into nested hierarchies this is evidence for evolution.

I am not asking for evidence of evolution. I am asking you:

So my question to non-believers is what do you attribute that design to and why? What evidence do you feel explains this obvious appearance of design?

 

[Oncedeceived]

That's a... really bad question. Lol what are you talking about?

Did you view the video?

 

[GrimKingGrim]

Did you view the video?

Just watched some of it. Not gonna view it all because I get the point. Your question is still terribly constructed. What are you talking about?

 

[Loudmouth]

I am not asking for evidence of evolution.

I am showing you the evidence.

So my question to non-believers is what do you attribute that design to and why? What evidence do you feel explains this obvious appearance of design?

I attribute the appearance of design to human bias. I attribute the features of living organisms to the mechanisms of evolution.

 

[HitchSlap]

So my question to non-believers is what do you attribute that design to and why? What evidence do you feel explains this obvious appearance of design?

I attribute the appearance of design to evolutionary processes, including the evolution of the mammalian brain to recognize patterns and develop creation myths to answer questions that would take thousands of years or more to discover.

 

[Loudmouth]

Is that your position? No. It is your position that there is no actual design by an intelligent agent.

Just as there is not an actual duck in this photo.

The human mind takes input and tries to associate it with animals, faces, and purpose, even when those things aren't there. Dawkins talks about this extensively in "Climbing Mt. Improbable". He uses the example of the coco de mer, but I thought I would use an example that was a little more family friendly.

https://books.google.com/books?id=g4gkhtRGSLgC&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=dawkins+coco+de+mer&source=bl&ots=U0EV62-U4K&sig=shSpXDQcYImEam38EUr7EsDyv38&hl=en&sa=X&ei=S_xlVcSnM4XZtQXw2YD4Aw&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=dawkins coco de mer&f=false

 

[Oncedeceived]

Just watched some of it. Not gonna view it all because I get the point. Your question is still terribly constructed. What are you talking about?

You claimed:

Our brains intuitively connect dots that might not be there. We make A + B = C in our minds at times but it may not be that way. So when we first saw things like snowflakes up close they clearly look designed. Because look at the symmetry and complexity right? But that's just not how it is. But when we see things that look designed, our brains at first (before science) concluded they were designed. Emphasis mine.

So in the video how are we intuitively connecting the dots that "might" not be there?

 

[Loudmouth]

So in the video how are we intuitively connecting the dots that "might" not be there?

Does your mind see a duck in those clouds, even though there really isn't a duck?

 

[HitchSlap]

Does your mind see a duck in those clouds, even though there really isn't a duck?

I see a duck in those clouds.

 

[Loudmouth]

I see a duck in those clouds.

The Death's Head Moth is another example that Dawkins' uses for how the brain is biased to see images of faces and design.