Some random discussion on evolution...

xianghua said:

for the simple fact that every gear we know about is the result of design and we never seen any natural process that can produce gears.

Click to expand...

By that logic, every gear we know about is the result of human manufacture, so any gear we find must be manufactured by humans.

All swans are white - until we find a black swan.

We've been through this argument before and demonstrated that your logic is fundamentally flawed.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

By that logic, every gear we know about is the result of human manufacture, so any gear we find must be manufactured by humans.

Click to expand...

no. it can be any type of of intelligent. including aliens. so its not realy a good counter argument.

pitabread said:

We have a known process (evolution) which we know changes populations of biological forms over time. Scientists can (and do) even investigate how specific features evolved via that process. Something like the 'gears' in Issus coleoptratus would make an interesting feature to study.

Click to expand...

great. so till you have an empirical explanation for these gears the best explanation is still design. so far we just have a belief that gears can evolve naturally.

xianghua said:

no. it can be any type of of intelligent. including aliens. so its not realy a good counter argument.

Click to expand...

No. We have no evidence of aliens, so there is no reason to think that any gears found on Earth were manufactured by aliens. If we found gears in a meteorite or a lunar rock, that might be a different matter.

Astrophile said:

No. We have no evidence of aliens, so there is no reason to think that any gears found on Earth were manufactured by aliens. If we found gears in a meteorite or a lunar rock, that might be a different matter.

Click to expand...

how is that different? we know that gears need intelligent. we know that it cant be human. thus we can conclude that non-human intelligent made these gears.

xianghua said:

no. it can be any type of of intelligent. including aliens. so its not realy a good counter argument.

Click to expand...

Just applying your logic. But we've already been there, done that, and showed it was fatally flawed.

xianghua said:

how is that different? we know that gears need intelligent.

Click to expand...

No, we don't. We conclude that some gears were designed based on indicators of intent.

we know that it cant be human. thus we can conclude that non-human intelligent made these gears.

Click to expand...

Which indicators of intent demonstrate non-human manufacture? You need to support this assertion.

Bungle_Bear said:

No, we don't. We conclude that some gears were designed based on indicators of intent.

Which indicators of intent demonstrate non-human manufacture? You need to support this assertion.

Click to expand...

you cant conclude design if you will see a real flying saucer?

xianghua said:

we know that gears need intelligent. we know that it cant be human. thus we can conclude that non-human intelligent made these gears.

Click to expand...

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 - we even use versions of that process to produce functional products for our own use.

For example, Evolutionary Algorithms in Design, Shape optimisation using evolutionary techniques in product design, COMBINING EVOLUTIONARY ALGORITHMS AND SHAPE GRAMMARS TO GENERATE BRANDED PRODUCT DESIGN, Automated Antenna Design with Evolutionary Algorithms, etc.

xianghua said:

great. so till you have an empirical explanation for these gears the best explanation is still design. so far we just have a belief that gears can evolve naturally.

Click to expand...

Which might also happen by design.

xianghua said:

you cant conclude design if you will see a real flying saucer?

Click to expand...

Not unless we can examine it closely enough to find evidence of design. For all you know, a "real" flying saucer (if there is such a thing) is a living creature which has evolved space flight.

xianghua said:

great. so till you have an empirical explanation for these gears the best explanation is still design. so far we just have a belief that gears can evolve naturally.

Click to expand...

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.

xianghua said:

you cant conclude design if you will see a real flying saucer?

Click to expand...

Show me an example and I'll tell you.

pitabread said:

We have a known process (evolution) which we know changes populations of biological forms over time. Scientists can (and do) even investigate how specific features evolved via that process. Something like the 'gears' in Issus coleoptratus would make an interesting feature to study.

Now if you want to argue they are the product of design, then the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that. You can start by showing us a plausible mechanism for such design.

Click to expand...

"We have a known process (evolution)"

Well we have one known process which can great gears (creative intelligence) and also a speculative theory...(evolution) which some argue might be able to also

we know that gears can be designed through creative agency- that is utterly unambiguous, and nobody disputes this, correct?

whether or not the same can be designed by natural processes... it's certainly an interesting claim, but can we say we know? with the same level of confidence? of course not.

Bottom line: we only have one definitely known cause for such things as this and digital information systems as we see in DNA required to build those gears. That's not to say natural processes are impossible, of course it's debatable- that's what we're here for! we just don't have the same level of scientific verification for that claim yet.

Guy Threepwood said:

"We have a known process (evolution)"

Well we have one known process which can great gears (creative intelligence) and also a speculative theory...(evolution) which some argue might be able to also

we know that gears can be designed through creative agency- that is utterly unambiguous, and nobody disputes this, correct?

whether or not the same can be designed by natural processes... it's certainly an interesting claim, but can we say we know? with the same level of confidence? of course not.

Bottom line: we only have one definitely known cause for such things as this and digital information systems as we see in DNA required to build those gears. That's not to say natural processes are impossible, of course it's debatable- that's what we're here for! we just don't have the same level of scientific verification for that claim yet.

Click to expand...

If you want direct empirical evidence that Darwinian evolutionary processes can produce effective and efficient results (I would call them 'designs' in a less teleologically oriented forum), a nice example is the NASA evolved antenna, a very efficient end product that no human would have designed:

Guy Threepwood said:

Bottom line: we only have one definitely known cause for such things as this and digital information systems as we see in DNA required to build those gears. That's not to say natural processes are impossible, of course it's debatable- that's what we're here for! we just don't have the same level of scientific verification for that claim yet.

Click to expand...

And yet we have more scientific verification for the claim than we do for the existence of a deity. On that basis if we withhold acceptance of evolutionary theory we should definitely withhold acceptance of a deity.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

If you want direct empirical evidence that Darwinian evolutionary processes can produce effective and efficient results (I would call them 'designs' in a less teleologically oriented forum), a nice example is the NASA evolved antenna, a very efficient end product that no human would have designed:

Click to expand...

It looks very much like what I have produced while fretting with paper clips. But surely not! That would mean random actions could produce something of value!!!

Ophiolite said:

And yet we have more scientific verification for the claim than we do for the existence of a deity. On that basis if we withhold acceptance of evolutionary theory we should definitely withhold acceptance of a deity.

Click to expand...

I would argue the opposite, but neither can be definitively proven.

That's where faith comes in, I acknowledge faith in my beliefs, I don't claim fact

'Blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself as such'

Guy Threepwood said:

That's where faith comes in, I acknowledge faith in my beliefs, I don't claim fact

Click to expand...

Neither does the theory of evolution.

Guy Threepwood said:

"We have a known process (evolution)"

Well we have one known process which can great gears (creative intelligence) and also a speculative theory...(evolution) which some argue might be able to also.

Click to expand...

"Creative intelligence" is not a process.