A mutation ceases to provoke adaptation, to a particular selection pressure: design to the rescue?

[SkyWriting]

No, you asked 'how would?'
I asked 'how could?'Admittedly, my barometer for showing design is fairly low. Like, I don't expect you to show me an infinitesimally microscopic image of a DNA which has a little plaque going "Made in Heaven". That would be cool, but silly. So, really almost anything you suggest, I could agree to saying "Yup, that's evidence of design." Almost.

SkyWriting said: ↑
A person could design a leaf or pick one off a tree. So......how would I actually show design?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

SkyWriting said: ↑
A person could design a leaf or pick one off a tree. So......how would I actually show design?

That's not showing design. You can't just pick up a leaf and go "This leaf was designed."
To show design, you have explain HOW it was designed. Not the whole process, of course, but even a single how, that puts it outside of the idea of it being a process of evolution.

 

[SkyWriting]

One does not need faith to affirm a scientific conclusions when their is a preponderance of evidence. Faith is when you assume a conclusion without evidence.

Wrong. "A preponderance of evidence" is a fictional lie to yourself that has no basis in reality.
You might be color blind. You never know.

 

[SkyWriting]

That's not showing design. You can't just pick up a leaf and go "This leaf was designed."
To show design, you have explain HOW it was designed. Not the whole process, of course, but even a single how, that puts it outside of the idea of it being a process of evolution.

Scientists define processes every day. It proves nothing.

 

[Frank Robert]

The research is all the same. Intelligent design assumptions just make the work more fascinating knowing that thought went into what you are researching.

Scientific research uses a standard method that lessens the potential of error, science is never proven and is subject to further research that makes self-correcting. ID makes assumptions on faith. If faith were correct there would not be beliefs in 10,000+ deities.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Scientists define processes every day. It proves nothing.

Cute, but again: to show design, you have to explain how it was designed.

 

[Frank Robert]

Wrong. "A preponderance of evidence" is a fictional lie to yourself that has no basis in reality.
You might be color blind. You never know.

Perhaps I am color blind but that does not change the scientific method and it's ability to confirm and falsify hypothesis. ID is faith and not science because it can not be falsified. Until ID can be falsified it remains a figment of imagination irregardless of belief.

No matter how firm your belief is, it thoroughly fails to falsify the evidence. Your belief that scientists are color blind is not a problem for science.

 

[SkyWriting]

Perhaps I am color blind but that does not change the scientific method and it's ability to confirm and falsify hypothesis.

As far as colors go, it would, completely.
You don't know, what you don't know.

"A preponderance of evidence" is a lie.

 

[Larniavc]

As far as colors go, it would, completely.
You don't know, what you don't know.

It’s not good analogy, though. Some one who is colour blind could use a device to identify colour.

There is no device to identify Design.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

"A preponderance of evidence" is a lie.

Irreducibility fallacy. There is a lot of evidence for the theory of evolution, so there is a preponderance of evidence.
There is no evidence for design. Or even ideas of what can be counted as design.

 

[SkyWriting]

Cute, but again: to show design, you have to explain how it was designed.

But do I really?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

But do I really?

When it's something that we know that human's have made and have been doing so for millennia and world wide, showing design in man-made things is easy.

Showing design in nature is MUCH harder.

 

[SkyWriting]

Irreducibility fallacy. There is a lot of evidence for the theory of evolution, so there is a preponderance of evidence.
There is no evidence for design. Or even ideas of what can be counted as design.

I guess. But a preponderance of the evidence is still just lying to yourself.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I guess.

You're just showing man-made designs, not the designs of God in nature. It's easy to show man-made design, but MUCH harder to show God-made design.

 

[SkyWriting]

You're just showing man-made designs, not the designs of God in nature. It's easy to show man-made design, but MUCH harder to show God-made design.

You are assuming those are man-made. It's all in your mind. There is nothing real about your evaluation. Why should mine be any different? You keep offering "preponderance of evidence" which is nothing at all. As if your "preponderance of evidence" is better than mine. Not the case.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You are assuming those are man-made. It's all in your mind. There is nothing real about your evaluation. Why should mine be any different? You keep offering "preponderance of evidence" which is nothing at all.

And you offer nothing to say that my assumptions are incorrect. You just going "But you don't know!" doesn't mean that I am wrong in my knowledge.
Just because you don't understand the evidence, does not mean that everyone is as ignorant about science as you show yourself to be.

 

[SkyWriting]

"Design" is not limited to maintaining the same outlook to every selection pressure.

Correct. The result was either an accident or an intentional outcome.

 

[SkyWriting]

- And you offer nothing to say that my assumptions are incorrect. You just going "But you don't know!" doesn't mean that I am wrong in my knowledge.
- Just because you don't understand the evidence, does not mean that everyone is as ignorant about science as you show yourself to be.

I seek nothing on either issue.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I seek nothing on either point.

You're seeking nothing but you're also doing nothing to show that my claims are incorrect. You haven't shown an example of evidence in nature that isn't clearly something man-made and based on historical and global evidence of being man-made. You just keep going "But you're wrong! You could be wrong! You don't know everything!".

 

[Frank Robert]

As far as colors go, it would, completely.
You don't know, what you don't know.From the news it appears that many creationists will be refusing Covid vaccines.

What has color blindness have to do with the "scientific method."

"A preponderance of evidence" is a lie.

Another red herring. Claiming something is a lie does not make it so.

Regardless, you are entitled to your beliefs in red herrings and logical fallacies that have zero effect on science, the rest of us will benefit from the actual evidence.

A present day example of evolutionary biology is in how well it is serving as a guide to develop drugs and vaccines to beat Covid. In a little over a year several successful vaccines have been produced from predictions of how the virus protects itself and mutates. From the news it appears that many creationists are vaccine hesitant because of their beliefs, if so I do hope they get over their hesitancy.