Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[Loudmouth]

We would examine the structure and take note whether the properties being examined show the properties that we know are intelligently designed or those that do not have those properties.

What design would produce and what nature would produce are not mutually exclusive. Just because humans can do it is no indication that nature can not.

If the evidence shows that this type of structure, the type that begins as a sea cliff, the ocean pounds this structure eroding the weaker and softer rock and leaves the harder and stronger rock behind. This erosion is a known process that is sufficient in creating the outline in the rock and no other properties of an intelligent agent are present, it would be determined that the face was not produced by an intelligent design and the natural processes or mechanisms to produce it show it is an illusion.

So you are saying that the actions of basic physical laws is not intelligent design?

 

[Astrophile]

It is also a product of pareidolia:

"Pareidolia (/pærɨˈdoʊliə/ parr-i-DOH-lee-ə) is a psychological phenomenon involving a stimulus (an image or a sound) which is perceived as significant."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

It is a human bias that causes us to see faces in clouds and make other false associations. This is why we have the scientific method, to reduce the effects of these human biases. The last thing you want to do is use this human bias as the foundation of your entire argument as the ID/creationists have done.

I think that we may be arguing somewhat at cross purposes. When I spoke of the appearance of design I meant what Dawkins calls adaptive complexity, the adaptation of living things to their environments. This adaptive complexity is not the same thing as seeing clouds that look like camels or weasels, or human faces in trees or rock outcrops; it is a real characteristic of living things.

Dawkins explains the adaptive complexity of living things and emphasises both its reality and its importance in 'The Blind Watchmaker' and 'Climbing Mount Improbable'. Paley used this appearance of design as an argument for the existence of his god, using the famous example of discovering a watch on a heath. However, and this is the crucial point, Darwin showed that Paley's argument is false, and that evolution by natural selection is sufficient to explain the origin of this appearance of design without requiring a supernatural designer.

 

[Loudmouth]

I think that we may be arguing somewhat at cross purposes. When I spoke of the appearance of design I meant what Dawkins calls adaptive complexity, the adaptation of living things to their environments. This adaptive complexity is not the same thing as seeing clouds that look like camels or weasels, or human faces in trees or rock outcrops; it is a real characteristic of living things.

Dawkins also speaks of coincidental mimicry as just an appearance of design. He cites the suggestive shape of the coco de mer, and such things as the skull on the back of the death's head moth:

Dawkins explains the adaptive complexity of living things and emphasises both its reality and its importance in 'The Blind Watchmaker' and 'Climbing Mount Improbable'. Paley used this appearance of design as an argument for the existence of his god, using the famous example of discovering a watch on a heath. However, and this is the crucial point, Darwin showed that Paley's argument is false, and that evolution by natural selection is sufficient to explain the origin of this appearance of design without requiring a supernatural designer.

I am always careful to point out that if life were designed, then why would the watch stick out amongst so many other designed things on the heath?

 

[Oncedeceived]

It demonstrates that what you claim appears designed is actually the product of common ancestry and evolution.
No, it all it shows is common ancestry or at least supports that conclusion.

Your subjective opinion of appearances is not objective evidence.

It is not my subjective opinion, the evidence shows that life has the appearance of being designed for a purpose. It has properties that we recognize as those that are produced by an intelligent agent. The fact that they do have these properties it is up to those claiming that those are an illusion to provide evidence to support that conclusion.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Which is the very description of a philosophical argument, which we all have been trying to get you to understand.

No, the evidence is the evidence. Life forms appear to be designed with a purpose. The philosophical argument is outside of that evidence. Actual design creates properties that we recognize as design, if one wishes to conclude it is an illusion in life forms that is a philosophical view unless there is evidence that shows that claim.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Even more amusing, I haven't argued against a designer, rather evidence connecting to a designer.

Did I ever claim that you were arguing against a Designer? IF so provide my post. I said you were using an argument atheists use which is the case. I can prove that by looking it up on atheists websites and it has been presented many times here by atheists. Unless you can provide a peer reviewed paper that has used that argument to show that "scientists" use it, please concede the point.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I think that we may be arguing somewhat at cross purposes. When I spoke of the appearance of design I meant what Dawkins calls adaptive complexity, the adaptation of living things to their environments. This adaptive complexity is not the same thing as seeing clouds that look like camels or weasels, or human faces in trees or rock outcrops; it is a real characteristic of living things.

Exactly. We do agree on something.

Dawkins explains the adaptive complexity of living things and emphasises both its reality and its importance in 'The Blind Watchmaker' and 'Climbing Mount Improbable'. Paley used this appearance of design as an argument for the existence of his god, using the famous example of discovering a watch on a heath. However, and this is the crucial point, Darwin showed that Paley's argument is false, and that evolution by natural selection is sufficient to explain the origin of this appearance of design without requiring a supernatural designer.

He explained but where is the evidence? That is what is needed to show that natural selection is sufficient and that is not in the explaining.

 

[RickG]

No, the evidence is the evidence.

Yes, evidence is evidence. When are you going to present the evidence.

Life forms appear to be designed with a purpose.

That is a philosophical assessment, and only that.

The philosophical argument is outside of that evidence.

Yes, I know, but do you really understand that and that a philosophical argument does not constitute evidence?

Actual design creates properties that we recognize as design, if one wishes to conclude it is an illusion in life forms that is a philosophical view unless there is evidence that shows that claim.

The exact point we have been trying to get across to you.

 

[Oncedeceived]

But when this "pareidolia" satisfies a faith belief, away we go...............

Thank you hobby Dr. bhsmte. However, this is not the same as pareidolia and the fact that you and others are not understanding that shows your lack of knowledge on the subject.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, it all it shows is common ancestry or at least supports that conclusion.

It shows that humans are the product of common ancestry and evolution.

It is not my subjective opinion, the evidence shows that life has the appearance of being designed for a purpose.

The appearance of design and purpose is your subjective opinion. When you have objective evidence, let us know.

 

[Smidlee]

And yet, I don't see the design in the bacterial flagellum, any more than I see design in the various rock faces posted earlier. The problem here is overactive pattern recognition.

Ok but I do see design in bacterial flagellum as I would for any other motor. As that engineer said when he looks at the simplest bacteria is looks as if it was built by someone a million time smarter than him. He seeing design where he doesn't want to.

 

[Smidlee]

I see no reason why a stationary eyeball would have to make the giant leap to a fully movable eyeball all in one step.

What good are muscles attach to an eyeball that can't move and what good is a eyeball loose in it's eye socket without muscles to move them.

And again with the name calling. Instead of throwing mud, why don't you address what Darwin wrote.

That what I did. What Darwin wrote is nothing but a fairy tale.

We need more than assertions. Where is the evidence that these observations were the result of design?



Why can't nature produce something that an engineer struggles with?

Natural laws of themselves lacks direction and intelligence and can't plan ahead.

That's a circular argument.

By definition something that is design has a designer.

 

[justlookinla]

Ok but I do see design in bacterial flagellum as I would for any other motor. As that engineer said when he looks at the simplest bacteria is looks as if it was built by someone a million time smarter than him. He seeing design where he doesn't want to.

Not only does the bacterial flagellum look like a designed motor, it has the design elements of a designed motor.

 

[Loudmouth]

Not only does the bacterial flagellum look like a designed motor, it has the design elements of a designed motor.

If a cloud looks like a duck, it doesn't make it a duck. Looking like something is nothing more than a subjective opinion. It isn't objective opinion.

Also, if we had found the structure of bacterial flagellum BEFORE we invented those motors, would you have said that it was not designed?

 

[justlookinla]

If a cloud looks like a duck, it doesn't make it a duck. Looking like something is nothing more than a subjective opinion. It isn't objective opinion.

Cloud. Rocks. Water. You're certainly consistent in your attempt to change the focus from design elements in humanity.

Also, if we had found the structure of bacterial flagellum BEFORE we invented those motors, would you have said that it was not designed?

Complexity, functionality and purpose are basic elements of design, bacterial flagellum or not.

 

[HitchSlap]

ERV is used to show common ancestry, it doesn't provide any evidence for life forms appearring to be designed for a purpose is an illusion.

Design or illusion of design?

 

[justlookinla]

Design or illusion of design?

Rocks?

 

[HitchSlap]

Rocks?

Shark

 

[justlookinla]

Shark

Paper, scissors.

 

[HitchSlap]

Paper, scissors.

Are you ok with Once using Dawkins quote that describes all who accept the illusion of design as being gullible?