Atheistic evolutionists.....

[BananaSlug]

But natural selection is an emergent phenomenon, not a thing unto itself. It's not irreducibly complex insofar as it doesn't physically exist.

I'm also hesitant to say that it 'designs', since that smacks of forethought and purpose.

Natural selection is description of an actual phenomena. It may not exist as a physical entity, but it exists as a process. "Design" may smack of forethought and purpose but it is still the best description. Though it may lack forethought we can make general predictions of what natural selection can "create."

Cold, Snowy environment- White fur/feathers, smaller extremities, thick insulation.

Desert- brown/tan/red coloration (depending on color of soil), larger extremities to help heat loss, etc.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Natural selection is description of an actual phenomena. It may not exist as a physical entity, but it exists as a process.

Then in what way is it 'actual'? Natural selection is where the odds of reproduction are manipulated by external factors ('nature') to the extent that some individuals just so happen to be better off than others at reproducing (though I'm sure you know this already). It's a statistical trend; powerful, sure, but nothing more than a trend.

"Design" may smack of forethought and purpose but it is still the best description. Though it may lack forethought we can make general predictions of what natural selection can "create."

We can all make predictions using any number of scientific or mathematical models, but I still feel that it is wrong to say that the equation f(x) = x² 'designs' a parabola. We design f(x), insofar as we can make it describe whatever curve we like, but the function itself just does what it does.
Likewise, natural selection is just a description of physical events (or rather, a trend; you say you can predict the colour of animals based on their environment, but could you have predicted sickle cell anaemia? Cancer? Old age?).

Cool pictures, btw.

 

[tanzanos]

The being that Designed everything was not very intelligent.

Ask any engineer and he will definitely give a resounding FAIL on the human body design!

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Ironically, god-of-the-gaps theology is wrong theology. According to Christianity, there should be no gaps. So atheists are reacting to theology that is wrong. But many react anyway because they don't know the theology is wrong.

There is no *right* or *correct* theology.

 

[Hespera]

The being that Designed everything was not very intelligent.

Ask any engineer and he will definitely give a resounding FAIL on the human body design!

Ask someone who has studied anatomy for a bit and they will pretty much agree with that. Or someone with backache, for that matter. Or nearsighted me, ask me about it.

But really, it is fascinating to look at how well everything manages to work, considering some of the material there was to work with. Listening to Bach with bones from a reptile jaw.

IF there was an intelligent designer I want to ask why we didnt get rigid lenses in our eyes, like a SQUID for (heaven's) sake, that can be focused by moving it back and forth, instead of this soft lens that you have to change its shape with little muscles. A design that starts to go bad no matter what by middle age. That wasnt nice. I want a better lens system.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

IF there was an intelligent designer I want to ask why we didnt get rigid lenses in our eyes, like a SQUID for (heaven's) sake, that can be focused by moving it back and forth, instead of this soft lens that you have to change its shape with little muscles. A design that starts to go bad no matter what by middle age. That wasnt nice. I want a better lens system.

Or why our retina's blood and nerve supply is on top of it, as opposed to being underneath (like squid...).
Or why our pupils and microvilli aren't 'w' shaped to detect the polarisation of light (like squid...).
Or why we aren't squid.

I like squid.

 

[BananaSlug]

Then in what way is it 'actual'? Natural selection is where the odds of reproduction are manipulated by external factors ('nature') to the extent that some individuals just so happen to be better off than others at reproducing (though I'm sure you know this already). It's a statistical trend; powerful, sure, but nothing more than a trend.

Natural selection is the force of environmental factors upon individuals in a population. I'm not arguing for intelligent design, merely stating that natural selection can create what appears to be design. Let me try to clarify what I meant; NatSel doesn't exist as a physical entity like a god or alien, it does exist as a process, a statistical trend in which traits that help an individual (population) survive to produce successful offspring.

We can all make predictions using any number of scientific or mathematical models, but I still feel that it is wrong to say that the equation f(x) = x² 'designs' a parabola. We design f(x), insofar as we can make it describe whatever curve we like, but the function itself just does what it does.
Likewise, natural selection is just a description of physical events (or rather, a trend; you say you can predict the colour of animals based on their environment, but could you have predicted sickle cell anaemia? Cancer? Old age?).

f(x)=x2 does not 'design' a parabola but it is the equation that shows what forms a parabola. It "designs" in the fact that whatever numbers you insert the resulting form will still be a parabola.
In terms of predictions of evolution, we cannot predict every thing, only generalizations (fur color in environment, etc). We can find where sickle cell anaemia arose and why but can only study it after the fact. Evolution can take so many different paths it is next to impossible to predict the exact direction it will take.

Cool pictures, btw.

Thanks. I find pictures help people follow abstract ideas and facts much easier than just a bunch of words.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Natural selection is the force of environmental factors upon individuals in a population. I'm not arguing for intelligent design, merely stating that natural selection can create what appears to be design. Let me try to clarify what I meant; NatSel doesn't exist as a physical entity like a god or alien, it does exist as a process, a statistical trend in which traits that help an individual (population) survive to produce successful offspring.

Oh, I fully agree that the effects of natural selection can look designed. I just don't think that it's right to say it was designed. I catch myself now and then saying something like, "Well, our eyes were never designed to..."

f(x)=x2 does not 'design' a parabola but it is the equation that shows what forms a parabola. It "designs" in the fact that whatever numbers you insert the resulting form will still be a parabola.

Is that really 'design', though? There is a computer program which generates exceedingly complex patterns using very simple rules (e.g., "move forward, switch tile colour, turn right if the tile is black, and repeat"), but can we say that the 'ant' (the thing that does the moving and colour switching) is actually designing anything?

I guess it's just a semantic preference on my part. Most people know what you mean when you say that a particular biological thing is 'designed', but I like to be careful when dealing with people who might get the wrong impression.

 

[BananaSlug]

I understand. The appearance of design does not necessitate design. You could say that the environment "designed" the organism living within it. Not from any sort of conscious creation but just simple natural selection. You will not find a polar bear in an equatorial rainforest because such a thing would be selected against. The environmental factors influence the "design" of the organism.

 

[tanzanos]

I understand. The appearance of design does not necessitate design. You could say that the environment "designed" the organism living within it. Not from any sort of conscious creation but just simple natural selection. You will not find a polar bear in an equatorial rainforest because such a thing would be selected against. The environmental factors influence the "design" of the organism.

Function dictates form. If it lives underwater then: it either has to have gills or the ability to hold its breath. It needs to have a shape that help propel it in the water etc.

If a small disturbance causes a small stone to roll down a snowed hill and that stone ends up as a large round snowball; does it mean that a designer did it simply because it ended up having a spherical shape?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I understand. The appearance of design does not necessitate design. You could say that the environment "designed" the organism living within it. Not from any sort of conscious creation but just simple natural selection. You will not find a polar bear in an equatorial rainforest because such a thing would be selected against. The environmental factors influence the "design" of the organism.

True, but I'd still wince if someone said something like "Natural selection designed Polar bears to be white".

 

[Naraoia]

Desert- brown/tan/red coloration (depending on color of soil), larger extremities to help heat loss, etc.

You left out the most absurd ears of all Mammalia outside bats. Maybe even including bats.

(Sorry, I just had to share the long-eared jerboa. I saw the Tet Zoo post in my inbox and I was like, is this animal for real???)

Function dictates form. If it lives underwater then: it either has to have gills or the ability to hold its breath.

Or be small/thin enough to breathe by diffusion

It needs to have a shape that help propel it in the water etc.

Or help it float, or crawl, or burrow, or stick in one place and wait for food to be delivered. And I'm sure I forgot something

Thou shalt appreciate the diversity of underwater life

 

[tanzanos]

You left out the most absurd ears of all Mammalia outside bats. Maybe even including bats.

(Sorry, I just had to share the long-eared jerboa. I saw the Tet Zoo post in my inbox and I was like, is this animal for real???)

Or be small/thin enough to breathe by diffusion

Or help it float, or crawl, or burrow, or stick in one place and wait for food to be delivered. And I'm sure I forgot something

Thou shalt appreciate the diversity of underwater life

I shall whip myself till I loose consciousness for leaving out all the possible variations marine life can evolve.
I bow to your clarifications
attached photos of evolution in action: BAT EARED SHENZI DOG OF TANZANIA

 

[BananaSlug]

True, but I'd still wince if someone said something like "Natural selection designed Polar bears to be white".

I do too. When trying to explain such things to people I try as hard as I can to steer clear of such words.

 

[tanzanos]

True, but I'd still wince if someone said something like "Natural selection designed Polar bears to be white".

I do too. When trying to explain such things to people I try as hard as I can to steer clear of such words.

Everyone knows that white animals are animals that the Designer has not yet painted!

I am surrounded by atheists, and amateurs, skaters, and C&C players.

 

[lucaspa]

But natural selection is an emergent phenomenon, not a thing unto itself.

Natural selection is the name given to a two-step process. It would be more accurate to say "Darwinian selection" and yes, it is a thing unto itself.

I'm also hesitant to say that it 'designs', since that smacks of forethought and purpose.

That is because you are attaching the silent prepositional phrase "by an intelligent entity" to "design". You are doing just what the creationists want you to do.

Now that we have discovered an unintelligent process that does design, that silent prepositional phrase is no longer valid.

Don't run away from design. Darwin didn't.

 

[lucaspa]

True, but I'd still wince if someone said something like "Natural selection designed Polar bears to be white".

Then get over the wince. That's exactly what natural selection did. Here, look at this statement:

""GO!" barks the researcher into the microphone. The oscilloscope in front of him displays a steady green line across the top of its screen. "Stop!" he says and the line immediately drops to the bottom.

Between the microphone and the oscilloscope is an electronic circuit that discriminates between the two words. It puts out 5 volts when it hears "go" and cuts off the signal when it hears "stop".

It is unremarkable that a microprocessor can perform such a task--except in this case. Even though the circuit consists of only a small number of basic components, the researcher, Adrian Thompson, does not know how it works. He can't ask the designer because there wasn't one. Instead, the circuit evolved from a "primordial soup" of silicon components guided by the principles of genetic variation and survival of the fittest. "

Isn't this saying that natural selection designed the circuit?

 

[lucaspa]

Yeah well what about irreducible complexity huh? And how about the fact that things are just TOO COMPLEX to have "just happened by random chance" huh?

Welcome to 2 creationist attempts to get the Argument from Design back. This is saying that natural selection isn't capable of making some designs in plants and animals: the IC ones and those "too complex" (whatever that means).

First, natural selection isn't "just happened by random chance". That attempt is a strawman.

Second, yes, natural selection can get irreducibly complex structures: http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/dave/JTB.html

 

[lucaspa]

Um, can't Argument from Design be simply refuted by asking "who designed the designer?"

No. For every answer you get 3 or 4 new questions always pop up out of that answer. You can't use the inability to answer the new question as an argument against the answer.

The question is: what is the origin of the designs in living organisms?
Answer: God made them.
New question: Where did God come from?
Answer: Don't know.
That "don't know" doesn't negate the answer "God made them" because "don't know" applies to a different question.

As an example in science:
Question: What is the origin of the spacetime/matter/ energy in the universe?
Answer: The Big Bang.
Question: What is the origin of Big Bang?
Answer: don't know.

You can't use the "don't know" to negate all the arguments and data for the Big Bang.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Natural selection is the name given to a two-step process. It would be more accurate to say "Darwinian selection" and yes, it is a thing unto itself.

Then please, show me this Natural Selection. Is it framed in a museum? Does it patrol the wild, inciting mutation?

That is because you are attaching the silent prepositional phrase "by an intelligent entity" to "design".

it's anything but silent. Look at my previous posts, and you'll see I was quite explicit in what I meant.

You are doing just what the creationists want you to do.

Now that we have discovered an unintelligent process that does design, that silent prepositional phrase is no longer valid.

Don't run away from design. Darwin didn't.

It is semantics, nothing more. What you call 'design', I do not.

Then get over the wince. That's exactly what natural selection did. Here, look at this statement:

""GO!" barks the researcher into the microphone. The oscilloscope in front of him displays a steady green line across the top of its screen. "Stop!" he says and the line immediately drops to the bottom.

Between the microphone and the oscilloscope is an electronic circuit that discriminates between the two words. It puts out 5 volts when it hears "go" and cuts off the signal when it hears "stop".

It is unremarkable that a microprocessor can perform such a task--except in this case. Even though the circuit consists of only a small number of basic components, the researcher, Adrian Thompson, does not know how it works. He can't ask the designer because there wasn't one. Instead, the circuit evolved from a "primordial soup" of silicon components guided by the principles of genetic variation and survival of the fittest. "

Isn't this saying that natural selection designed the circuit?

No. If such a scenario were possible, the circuitry arose without guidance of forethought. it is no more 'designed' than a rock. That it performs some identifiable function (besides sitting there, rock-like) is an aside. Performing a specific actions is not that hallmark of design.