Design implies that the optimum, can be achieved, no matter what state the species is in

If it was a choice between originality and contingency...

  • ...I would choose design, for originality

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • ...I would choose evolution, for contingency

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • ...I would be happy to subsist, for familiarity

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • ..it would be hard to maintain an ordinance, for developmentality

    Votes: 1 100.0%

  • Total voters
    1

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also
Supporter
Aug 3, 2006
11,380
704
45
✟276,687.00
Faith
Messianic
Hi there,

So it seems like forever, since I have set out to understand this, but now it is finally in sight. The advantage of design, is species wide. Why? Because design implies that the optimum for the species, can be achieved no matter what state the species is in. A newly conceived giraffe, is able to reach for the higher branches once born, simply because the nuance given to the newly conceived giraffe, takes into account, that branches that were once lower, are now higher - the only thing that has changed is the interpretation of the height aspect of the giraffe's design. The same goes for all other species, but for those whose design is contingent.

For species whose design is contingent, for example predators, the availability of prey to the species, is something the species can hunt, on the assumption that design for its own sake, is outmoded - say because multiplying indefinitely detracts from the "ripeness" of the nuance passed on, in conjunction with information about the species' design. This contingency then applies a more aggressive evolution, on species that waste the opportunity, to grow in optimum ways around their design; the contingency that a species will struggle to perfect its optimum, simply enhances the efficacy of design, once the difference needed is found.

This back and forth is able to continue, near indefinitely, because there is always more motive to be optimum, when contingent pressures are applied to the perfection of the result. It really isn't any more complicated, than you might think. Design simply enhances the optimum, whereever the optimum can be nuanced, moreso if it can be nuanced in relation to contingent pressures. The whole argument that a species has to fight it out, no matter how much they evolve: doesn't hold water. If a predator is not able to apply a contingent pressure, design ensures that the optimum will be spread, more easily and more lightly, as long as it is able to. Without design, this would just collapse.

This requires diligence and application, but it is not undoable and for species that are only ever contingent, the loss against design, is pronounced. This is a resurrection of the idea of survival, to a designed degree, that where design is lost, to predation, yet it can come back in even more strength, if the accord between optimum and design is found.

I leave it to you, to decide, whether you are on the side of contingency or design or the impasse between both (if you can simply subsist irrespective of both) - the test that Evolution poses to this ecology, is simpy that (in principle): a test of one's ability to understand design and contingency on it, is not trumped by anything short of extinction, as indeed the soul may transcend the impasse between species, to readvent (in principle) with greater nuance (to design) yet (a successful cat, may come back the soul of a rhinoceros, for example - not that the soul hunts a host, but that by design, accord can be found between them, for which greater optimum across species is achieveable).

You could argue "optimum for optimum" as a justification of predation regardless of a particular design - but Creation as a whole, answers that the more pacified contention of designs in general, overcome the familiarity of contingent predation (in a specific case) - because specific predation is irrelevant, across numbers of optimums (as throwbacks to established optimums demonstrates).
 

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,200
3,821
45
✟917,556.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
Hi there,

So it seems like forever, since I have set out to understand this, but now it is finally in sight. The advantage of design, is species wide. Why? Because design implies that the optimum for the species, can be achieved no matter what state the species is in. A newly conceived giraffe, is able to reach for the higher branches once born, simply because the nuance given to the newly conceived giraffe, takes into account, that branches that were once lower, are now higher - the only thing that has changed is the interpretation of the height aspect of the giraffe's design. The same goes for all other species, but for those whose design is contingent.

For species whose design is contingent, for example predators, the availability of prey to the species, is something the species can hunt, on the assumption that design for its own sake, is outmoded - say because multiplying indefinitely detracts from the "ripeness" of the nuance passed on, in conjunction with information about the species' design. This contingency then applies a more aggressive evolution, on species that waste the opportunity, to grow in optimum ways around their design; the contingency that a species will struggle to perfect its optimum, simply enhances the efficacy of design, once the difference needed is found.

This back and forth is able to continue, near indefinitely, because there is always more motive to be optimum, when contingent pressures are applied to the perfection of the result. It really isn't any more complicated, than you might think. Design simply enhances the optimum, whereever the optimum can be nuanced, moreso if it can be nuanced in relation to contingent pressures. The whole argument that a species has to fight it out, no matter how much they evolve: doesn't hold water. If a predator is not able to apply a contingent pressure, design ensures that the optimum will be spread, more easily and more lightly, as long as it is able to. Without design, this would just collapse.

This requires diligence and application, but it is not undoable and for species that are only ever contingent, the loss against design, is pronounced. This is a resurrection of the idea of survival, to a designed degree, that where design is lost, to predation, yet it can come back in even more strength, if the accord between optimum and design is found.

I leave it to you, to decide, whether you are on the side of contingency or design or the impasse between both (if you can simply subsist irrespective of both) - the test that Evolution poses to this ecology, is simpy that (in principle): a test of one's ability to understand design and contingency on it, is not trumped by anything short of extinction, as indeed the soul may transcend the impasse between species, to readvent (in principle) with greater nuance (to design) yet (a successful cat, may come back the soul of a rhinoceros, for example - not that the soul hunts a host, but that by design, accord can be found between them, for which greater optimum across species is achieveable).

You could argue "optimum for optimum" as a justification of predation regardless of a particular design - but Creation as a whole, answers that the more pacified contention of designs in general, overcome the familiarity of contingent predation (in a specific case) - because specific predation is irrelevant, across numbers of optimums (as throwbacks to established optimums demonstrates).

You can't choose for something to be designed or not.

And whether something is designed or not has no effect on whether optimum is achieved or is achievable.

In the example of life, there isn't any generic test for design because even in the situation of there being evidence against design, it could still have been designed to look like it wasn't. (This makes the design hypothesis very difficult to demonstrate).
 
  • Like
Reactions: muichimotsu
Upvote 0

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also
Supporter
Aug 3, 2006
11,380
704
45
✟276,687.00
Faith
Messianic
If you want to argue for design, you have to first show that things are designed, by a designer.

I beg to differ.

I think the argument, is that the designer gave what the designed needed, to live with or without the designer, as the designed chose.

Your argument, one way or the other, is that the designed is purely "designed" in the imagination or that it is without imagination - thus putting it in the position that the optimum cannot be, whatever the state of the species may have been.

EDIT: many words, which were a distraction, forgive me...

[...]

"If you are to further evolve, you will have to face the inevitable" - that much is true.

I know better than to join you, in the development of your theory, until you say "blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord".
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
12,128
6,377
29
Wales
✟346,888.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
I beg to differ.
<snip>

Again, if you want to argue for a designer, you have to show that things are actually designed, and that there was a designer behind them.

Just saying "I believe things are designed" is admittedly an actual claim, but if you don't actually back that claim with actual evidence for design, then you all you have is a claim. Nothing more.

You talking about you theological beliefs is not evidence for design.
 
Upvote 0

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also
Supporter
Aug 3, 2006
11,380
704
45
✟276,687.00
Faith
Messianic
Again, if you want to argue for a designer, you have to show that things are actually designed, and that there was a designer behind them.

Just saying "I believe things are designed" is admittedly an actual claim, but if you don't actually back that claim with actual evidence for design, then you all you have is a claim. Nothing more.

You talking about you theological beliefs is not evidence for design.

A perfect choice, is not uninspired.

That is simply the point.

If God is inspired, when no one else is: God is God.

For everyone else, the choice is merely a choice.
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
12,128
6,377
29
Wales
✟346,888.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
A perfect choice, is not uninspired.

That is simply the point.

If God is inspired, when no one else is: God is God.

For everyone else, the choice is merely a choice.

That's certainly a response to my comment, but not the right one.

So, again, if you want to argue for a designer, you have to show that things are actually designed, and that there was a designer behind them.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,675
51,422
Guam
✟4,896,890.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Upvote 0

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also
Supporter
Aug 3, 2006
11,380
704
45
✟276,687.00
Faith
Messianic
That's certainly a response to my comment, but not the right one.

So, again, if you want to argue for a designer, you have to show that things are actually designed, and that there was a designer behind them.

God is God.

The choice is irrelevant to Him.

The proof of design is that it allows a species to be the optimum answer - to that choice - whatever the state of that species.

You're saying "let God put Himself, in the picture", when as He said Himself that 'would not prove anything, to someone who already has those who conduct themselves like Him (Moses and the Prophets)'.

Remember what they said to Jesus "if He is the Son, let God rescue Him" when that would not prove anything to people who have already seen the death of Moses and the Prophets and have not believed.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
12,128
6,377
29
Wales
✟346,888.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
God is God.

The choice is irrelevant to Him.

The proof of design is that it allows a species to be the optimum answer - to that choice - whatever the state of that species.

You're saying "let God put Himself, in the picture", when as He said Himself that 'would not prove anything, to someone who already has those who conduct themselves like Him (Moses and the Prophets)'.

Remember what they said to Jesus "if He is the Son, let God rescue Him" when that would not prove anything to people who have already seen the death of Moses and the Prophets and have not believed.

I'm just going to repeat myself on the very slim chance that this point gets through to you: if you want to argue for a designer, you have to show that things are actually designed, and that there was a designer behind them.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
I'm just going to repeat myself on the very slim chance that this point gets through to you

I'm wondering if OPs medical condition may make the processing of such information... difficult.
 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,525
9,496
✟236,500.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
I'm wondering if OPs medical condition may make the processing of such information... difficult.
Given that the forum administration are seemingly negligent, IMO, in their duty of care for that member it would, perhaps, behove the rest of us to cease interacting with him.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: sesquiterpene
Upvote 0

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also
Supporter
Aug 3, 2006
11,380
704
45
✟276,687.00
Faith
Messianic
Living things function according to their design.
Therefore they were designed.
Therefore a designer. :bow:

You're welcome. :D

I think it's simpler than that: I think God suggests a design and the way He suggests it is easy and light.

Something easy and light, is an irresistible welcome, when it's from God.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
Living things function according to their design.
Therefore they were designed.
Therefore a designer. :bow:

You're welcome. :D
Using that argument, one must also allow that the process evolution by natural selection is a kind of designer; not a directed and purposeful designer, but nevertheless, through trial and error, it produces functional designs.

The fact that we simulate evolutionary processes to produce commercial product designs reinforces this interpretation.
 
Upvote 0

Bungle_Bear

Whoot!
Mar 6, 2011
9,084
3,513
✟254,540.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Living things function according to their design.
Therefore they were designed.
Therefore a designer. :bow:

You're welcome. :D
God functions according to his design
Therefore he was designed
Therefore a designer who is not God

You're welcome.
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
The advantage of design, is species wide. Why? Because design implies that the optimum for the species, can be achieved no matter what state the species is in.
Tell us all, with exquisite detail, all about the "optimum design" and Divine input of the female hyena's pseudopenis, won't you?

And please - only facts and data, no farcical stories and stream-of-consciousness jibber jabber.
Thanks!
 
Upvote 0

Guy Threepwood

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2019
1,117
73
51
Midwest
✟18,520.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I beg to differ.

I think the argument, is that the designer gave what the designed needed, to live with or without the designer, as the designed chose.

Your argument, one way or the other, is that the designed is purely "designed" in the imagination or that it is without imagination - thus putting it in the position that the optimum cannot be, whatever the state of the species may have been.

EDIT: many words, which were a distraction, forgive me...

[...]

"If you are to further evolve, you will have to face the inevitable" - that much is true.

I know better than to join you, in the development of your theory, until you say "blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord".


I agree with there being evidence for design. And the capacity to adapt, is pretty much a necessary design feature, but not necessarily a design mechanism

Did anyone ever find that short-necked Giraffe yet?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,525
9,496
✟236,500.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Upvote 0