Some random discussion on evolution...

[Kylie]

well it does work, on a limited platform- the one we can actually scientifically observe, Finch beaks, hair length etc, because there are genetic controls specifically set up to allow a degree of adaptation that is essential in a changing and varied environment. i.e. that's an extremely useful design feature, not a design mechanism.

Okay, a few notes:

You're poisoning the well by calling it "design", thus suggesting a designer.

And are you suggesting that reality is limited? Or are you suggesting that there are non-real things that we can observe?

Just to illustrate the principle:
This software allows us to vary the size, shape and color of text. We can throw random values at these parameters and get mostly viable results- because the options are designed to allow for this variation within a limited viable range.

if you understand why no amount of tweaking these parameters can ever write a new software program, you understand, in principle at least, why no amount of tweaking control genes can ever create a new body plan

and likewise, mutating code at a deeper layer in the hierarchy, will crash the entire system, just as in DNA

Except you are completely ignoring the thing that allows parts of the gene to duplicate. These duplicated parts can then be acted upon by natural selection.

If there was part of the program that was duplicated, it could then evolve a new function. For example, the line of code that controls colour could be duplicated, and then we could have text with two colours, forming a gradient of colour.

 

[Speedwell]

Archaeologists and forensic scientists routinely use scientific methods to determine between an artifact of creative intelligence and a natural cause- without necessarily knowing how it was done or by who. people still argue about how the pyramids were constructed- that doesn't leave us with 'natural erosion' as a default explanation!

Because creative intelligence is a real phenomena- a unique one with objectively unique fingerprints. The only thing that throws of the objectivity- is the profound implications in some cases..

Which points up one of the great weaknesses of ID--the lack of an objective method of detecting intelligent design. Perhaps you could explain what method you use to determine that the Pyramids were intelligently designed rather than produced by erosion.

 

[SLP]

'the modern synthesis of the theory of evolution as first proposed by Charles D' ?

Charles D. did not propose the Modern Synthesis.

You're just trolling and goading now.

 

[SLP]

2) Blatant chimeric organisms.

Like a Duck Billed Platypus?

Ok, this guy is just a troll of the YEC non-science type.

Here is a platypus skull:

and a duck skull:

Only a fool, a troll, or a creationist would think the two are similar enough to be problematic for evolution.

I think ya'll wasted a lot of time engaging this one.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Okay, a few notes:

You're poisoning the well by calling it "design", thus suggesting a designer.

I'm not trying to 'surreptitiously suggest' intelligent design here, I'm deliberately pointing out a common feature of intelligent design; an inbuilt capacity to adapt to different conditions.

And are you suggesting that reality is limited? Or are you suggesting that there are non-real things that we can observe?

sorry- can you rephrase?

Except you are completely ignoring the thing that allows parts of the gene to duplicate. These duplicated parts can then be acted upon by natural selection.

If there was part of the program that was duplicated, it could then evolve a new function. For example, the line of code that controls colour could be duplicated, and then we could have text with two colours, forming a gradient of colour.

still controlling color- but aside from the hierarchy problems,
the overwhelming majority of random errors are deleterious to the function of any design- and observations of life support this- we see fish losing sight, birds losing flight- it's very hard to see examples of anything gradually gaining useful adaptations- not just directly but in the fossil record also. and that was the observation of David Raup- Chicago Field Museum, one of the world's foremost paleontologists.

the few 'advantages' we do see appearing generally come from a loss of function, not a new feature- just as anyone can create a faster race car by throwing out the spare tire and back seat... This is what we see in the 'evolution' of bacteria strains also- increased resistance also means a generally less varied and hence ultimately less fit population that has reduced it's options- not increased them- nothing new has been created.

Kinda like dropping the redundant 'u' from the word colour-

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Which points up one of the great weaknesses of ID--the lack of an objective method of detecting intelligent design. Perhaps you could explain what method you use to determine that the Pyramids were intelligently designed rather than produced by erosion.

Not at all- again ask an archaeologist or forensic scientist- the methods are absolutely objective.

So you tell me, what method do you use to determine intelligent design in pyramids- assuming you don't believe them to be natural?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Kinda like dropping the redundant 'u' from the word colour-

You think evolution is about making political points?

That's an interesting idea.

 

[Speedwell]

Not at all- again ask an archaeologist or forensic scientist- the methods are absolutely objective.

So you tell me, what method do you use to determine intelligent design in pyramids- assuming you don't believe them to be natural?

The same as an archaeologist would. I look for signs of intentional manufacture. Design itself is generally not detectable in a object. For example, if I go out camping and pick up a rock to pound in my tent stakes I have "designed" a hammer. Even if I shape it a little by pounding it against another rock you might not be able to pick it out after I have moved on. Ask any archaeologist looking for stone age tools in a rockpile how hard it is to distinguish them from ordinary rocks. In the case of the pyramids, obvious tool marks are a clue.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The same as an archaeologist would. I look for signs of intentional manufacture. Design itself is generally not detectable in a object. For example, if I go out camping and pick up a rock to pound in my tent stakes I have "designed" a hammer. Even if I shape it a little by pounding it against another rock you might not be able to pick it out after I have moved on. Ask any archaeologist looking for stone age tools in a rockpile how hard it is to distinguish them from ordinary rocks. In the case of the pyramids, obvious tool marks are a clue.

I agree- an objective mathematical measure is not necessarily definitive-

e.g. a loaded die-
coming up SIX, 2 or 3 times in a row is meaningless, 4 or 5 times is interesting, 10 times is highly suspicious, 50 times is definitive beyond reasonable doubt, right?

I would submit to you that the compounded improbabilities of all physics, chemistry and life creating a system that literally ponders it's own existence -- are sold very short by this analogy- but the point being, it is a quantitative mathematical measure at some point.


But to get to the root of the evidence for ID in any context- yes tool marks and familiar designs may be an intuitive guide- but consider what compelled the guy at SETI to write 'WOW' in the margin beside (I believe it was a sequence of 6) consecutive mathematically related radio frequencies. No familiar tool marks, no precedent, no hint as to what it might mean, just the smallest telltale fingerprint of specified information- inconclusive as may be

Because specified information exists as a consequence of anticipation, a phenomena unique to creative intelligence- the capacity to act according to desired future events, instead of merely reacting to past ones. That capacity can answer a lot of questions- without any appeal to the 'supernatural'

 

[xianghua]

Uh, no. You need to propose a mechanism by which biological gears could be designed. Until you do that, you don't even have the beginning of an explanation. You just have a belief.

Meanwhile, with evolution we have a demonstrable process by which biological organisms change over time.

Your above post is the exact opposite of what the situation is.

again: we dont need to know how gears were designed in order to know they were designed.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You think evolution is about making political points?

That's an interesting idea.

rather- a joke now and again doesn't hurt- not my forte I know!

 

[SLP]

The obsession with Raup as the ultimate authority is interesting, but trollishly annoying.

 

[Speedwell]

again: we dont need to know how gears were designed in order to know they were designed.

So what good does that do you?

 

[SLP]

again: we dont need to know how gears were designed in order to know they were designed.

And we don't need to know how gears evolved in order to know they evolved.

Say - that really IS a great way to debate!

 

[xianghua]

As many people have already explained to you, biological gears are different. Scientists already know that complex biological systems develop by a gradual process of descent with modification,

they dont know that but assume that. that is the big difference.

and there is no need for an intelligent designer to explain them. The fact that biological gears resemble man-made gears is irrelevant, since the processes by which they are produced are quite different.

irrelevant. a watch is always evidence for design. no matter how it was produced.

 

[xianghua]

What is a "real flying saucer"?

a real UFO.

 

[xianghua]

We don't know that, because we know a non-intelligent process can produce results that have useful functionality that can be mistaken for human design -

such as "Automated Antenna Design?" tell me, is this antenna evolved by a natural process or by human design?

 

[Speedwell]

a real UFO.

An unidentified flying object. In other words, a flying object about which we know nothing except that it's a object which is moving through the air. Do you really think that you know enough about it to pronounce that it is designed?

 

[SLP]

a watch is always evidence for design. no matter how it was produced.

A watch is always evidence of human design, and that is precisely BECAUSE we know 'how it was produced' - by humans.

 

[Speedwell]

such as "Automated Antenna Design?" tell me, is this antenna evolved by a natural process or by human design?

What difference does it make? You denounce evolution on the basis that the process of random variation and selection is in itself inadequate. You have further made it clear that the notion that the process of evolution is designed (rather than its products) is offensive to you.