Does science actually admit "design"?

[tas8831]

Prove that it doesn't.

Prove that it does.

You claim design in anatomy. Your 'evidence' is you see it. And then that you know it when you see it.

At absolute best, it is an argument from analogy, which isn't an argument at all.

Look, I get that you have a belief system you feel compelled to support even if it means making a fool of yourself, but you are not fooling anyone else.

It is almost like those phases of grief - 1st phase denial....

You are on phase 3 I think - 'oh, don't take it so seriously'.

Phase 1 is 'I am right and you are wrong'

Phase 2 is 'But I am totally intelligent, plus bible!'

Phase 4 is 'I was joking/I knew it all along'

Phase 5 is 'you're going to hell!'

Phase 6 is go to other forums, pretend it never happened, still believe you are totally right.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No, it's quite bad. The act that you have to resort to saying that the spotted hyena female giving birth through their vagina that is also a pseudo-penis is a 'metaphor' for Lucifer or whatever else you think it is, shows a VERY poor grasp on reality. And religion for that matter.

So, you know more about my beliefs than I do?

 

[pshun2404]

Webster and others define “design” as to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan. Thus by the actual definition of the term, design in biology should be obvious to anyone unless one is purposely ignoring reality.

For example, all primates have two arms in approximately the same place, and two legs in approximately the same place (exact as relative to each species), each has a head with two eyes above their nose with a mouth below, have a heart driven circulatory system, breathe with lungs, and so on, obvious design is comparative throughout their entire bodies (similar organs, functions, etc.).

In each case, these are the predetermined product of coded instruction in the genome from as early as the embryonic stage (already present in potentia). The plan for lungs will never produce gills, and likewise in fish, the plan to become gills will never produce lungs. Gibbon embryonic genomes always produce gibbons, human’s a human, and so on. The pre-coded plan is executed over time to produce the specific end result. This demonstrates design.

So science does admit design (in fact observation proves it) though some scientists refuse to admit design (for their own political or philosophical purpose).

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I can't believe you said that!
For an example, let's suppose A is in deep denial about having cancer, but doctors say he does.
Does his/her denial suddenly remove the unrestrained cell division in his body?

I meant prove that ID is false.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Wouldnt let it ruin your day.

Good advice. Tell that to tas8831. I think his head is about to explode.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

My mistake. Odd then that your 'home page' is an economics blog of some sort.



You've designed living things?

Cool! Let's see your stuff!


Just kidding - I think it is hilarious how many 'engineer' creationist types seem to think that their experience 'designing things' makes them experts on things that they have already admitted ignorance of.

It is weird - I would never dream of telling engineers that they are wrong about everything by virtue of my not being an engineer. I guess some people are just to prideful and egocentric to recognize their limitations. Dunning-Kruger and all that.

I also tinker with the designs of professional engineers, to make them work better. I reconfigured the very dangerous control switch on my splitter. The engineer's design required two-handed operation which requires the operator needing to be too close while splitting wood, not allowing a 'free hand' to protect from 'flying' firewood. My design allows one-handed operation and allows the operator to stand well away while operating it. I could install a longer handle to make it even safer.

One of the problems that engineers face is that they are not able to operate their designs in all the conditions that the users do, so they are limited in the total effectiveness of their designs.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Webster and others define “design” as to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan. Thus by the actual definition of the term, design in biology should be obvious to anyone unless one is purposely ignoring reality.

For example, all primates have two arms in approximately the same place, and two legs in approximately the same place (exact as relative to each species), each has a head with two eyes above their nose with a mouth below, have a heart driven circulatory system, breathe with lungs, and so on, obvious design is comparative throughout their entire bodies (similar organs, functions, etc.).

In each case, these are the predetermined product of coded instruction in the genome from as early as the embryonic stage (already present in potentia). The plan for lungs will never produce gills, and likewise in fish, the plan to become gills will never produce lungs. Gibbon embryonic genomes always produce gibbons, human’s a human, and so on. The pre-coded plan is executed over time to produce the specific end result. This demonstrates design.

So science does admit design (in fact observation proves it) though some scientists refuse to admit design (for their own political or philosophical purpose).

Thanks for this. I was going to incorporate the term "system", which reinforces the argument for design, but you presented it beautifully.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So, you know more about my beliefs than I do?

You seem to feel that you know more about my own and other peoples.

Webster and others define “design” as to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan. Thus by the actual definition of the term, design in biology should be obvious to anyone unless one is purposely ignoring reality.

For example, all primates have two arms in approximately the same place, and two legs in approximately the same place (exact as relative to each species), each has a head with two eyes above their nose with a mouth below, have a heart driven circulatory system, breathe with lungs, and so on, obvious design is comparative throughout their entire bodies (similar organs, functions, etc.).

In each case, these are the predetermined product of coded instruction in the genome from as early as the embryonic stage (already present in potentia). The plan for lungs will never produce gills, and likewise in fish, the plan to become gills will never produce lungs. Gibbon embryonic genomes always produce gibbons, human’s a human, and so on. The pre-coded plan is executed over time to produce the specific end result. This demonstrates design.

So science does admit design (in fact observation proves it) though some scientists refuse to admit design (for their own political or philosophical purpose).

Yeah, here's the main nub of your comment: you have to show that there is a plan for their to be design.
Just saying "Hey, look! Everything is designed!" does not cut it. At all.

 

[tas8831]

Webster and others define “design” as to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan. Thus by the actual definition of the term, design in biology should be obvious to anyone unless one is purposely ignoring reality.
...
The plan for lungs will never produce gills, and likewise in fish, the plan to become gills will never produce lungs.

No knowledgeable biologist has ever indicated that gills become lungs or vice versa - in all your decades of study, you never once cracked a book on embryology?

Gibbon embryonic genomes always produce gibbons, human’s a human, and so on. The pre-coded plan is executed over time to produce the specific end result. This demonstrates design.
So science does admit design (in fact observation proves it) though some scientists refuse to admit design (for their own political or philosophical purpose).

So awesome - argument via dictionary and analogy!

Almost as awesome as MISREPRESENTING a paper and then running off to avoid having to admit that you got caught.Like happened when you posted this:

pshun:
American Journal of Physical Anthropology 60:279–317, 1983, clarifies that all australopithecine fossils are totally ape and nothing more. They do NOT represent apes on their way to becoming human. The myth that they do is politically necessary not scientifically factual.

You'd think an autodidact may have taught himself NOT to misrepresent published science when there are many people active on a forum that have a tendency to check creationist sources due to a history of creationists misrepresenting science.


Because I checked that source (which, uncharacteristically, you did not link to or quote), and found that your characterization of it was, shall we say, bovine feces:

The locomotor anatomy of Australopithecus afarensis. - PubMed - NCBI

Am J Phys Anthropol. 1983 Mar;60(3):279-317.
The locomotor anatomy of Australopithecus afarensis.
Stern JT Jr, Susman RL.


Abstract

The postcranial skeleton of Australopithecus afarensis from the Hadar Formation, Ethiopia, and the footprints from the Laetoli Beds of northern Tanzania, are analyzed with the goal of determining (1) the extent to which this ancient hominid practiced forms of locomotion other than terrestrial bipedality, and (2) whether or not the terrestrial bipedalism of A. afarensis was notably different from that of modern humans. It is demonstrated that A. afarensis possessed anatomic characteristics that indicate a significant adaptation for movement in the trees. Other structural features point to a mode of terrestrial bipedality that involved less extension at the hip and knee than occurs in modern humans, and only limited transfer of weight onto the medial part of the ball of the foot, but such conclusions remain more tentative than that asserting substantive arboreality. A comparison of the specimens representing smaller individuals, presumably female, to those of larger individuals, presumably male, suggests sexual differences in locomotor behavior linked to marked size dimorphism. The males were probably less arboreal and engaged more frequently in terrestrial bipedalism. In our opinion, A. afarensis from Hadar is very close to what can be called a "missing link." We speculate that earlier representatives of the A. afarensis lineage will present not a combination of arboreal and bipedal traits, but rather the anatomy of a generalized ape.​

Imagine that - earlier specimens a more generalized ape, but later ones "missing links."

Right there in the abstract.

Did you even read THAT?

My gosh - your "interpretation" was just about 100% WRONG.

Was it intentional - was that why you did not provide a quote?



You HAVE provided quotes the last times you misused this paper - each time only mentioning things like:

"They said “the hands and feet of A. afarensis are devoid of the normal human qualities” assigned to hands and feet."

So, you clearly had to have read the paper, right? So when you declare that this very paper shows that "all australopithecine fossils are totally ape and nothing more. They do NOT represent apes on their way to becoming human. The myth that they do is politically necessary not scientifically factual." - you have to be.....

Not sure I will call it, for I don't want to be reported for rule violations -

What is it called when a person ignores something and purposefully, repeatedly misrepresents it in order to prop up their faith beliefs?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

My mistake. Odd then that your 'home page' is an economics blog of some sort.

?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You seem to feel that you know more about my own and other peoples.

So we're even.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So we're even.

Meh.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Ah yes - antic 3 in the creationist-caught-blabbering-above-their-paygrade bag of face-saving tricks - it was all just jokes!

No, I mean you are taking this debate way too seriously, and by that I mean personally. I'm getting vibes that you are personally offended by the idea of creationism, and especially from one who insists on defending it. You are skating on the edge of ad homs with nearly every post. Perhaps you should retire from this thread.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Prove that it does.

You claim design in anatomy. Your 'evidence' is you see it. And then that you know it when you see it.

At absolute best, it is an argument from analogy, which isn't an argument at all.

Look, I get that you have a belief system you feel compelled to support even if it means making a fool of yourself, but you are not fooling anyone else.

It is almost like those phases of grief - 1st phase denial....

You are on phase 3 I think - 'oh, don't take it so seriously'.

Phase 1 is 'I am right and you are wrong'

Phase 2 is 'But I am totally intelligent, plus bible!'

Phase 4 is 'I was joking/I knew it all along'

Phase 5 is 'you're going to hell!'

Phase 6 is go to other forums, pretend it never happened, still believe you are totally right.

I'm not the one who's squirming for dominance here.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Webster and others define “design” as to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan. Thus by the actual definition of the term, design in biology should be obvious to anyone unless one is purposely ignoring reality.

For example, all primates have two arms in approximately the same place, and two legs in approximately the same place (exact as relative to each species), each has a head with two eyes above their nose with a mouth below, have a heart driven circulatory system, breathe with lungs, and so on, obvious design is comparative throughout their entire bodies (similar organs, functions, etc.).

In each case, these are the predetermined product of coded instruction in the genome from as early as the embryonic stage (already present in potentia). The plan for lungs will never produce gills, and likewise in fish, the plan to become gills will never produce lungs. Gibbon embryonic genomes always produce gibbons, human’s a human, and so on. The pre-coded plan is executed over time to produce the specific end result. This demonstrates design.

So science does admit design (in fact observation proves it) though some scientists refuse to admit design (for their own political or philosophical purpose).

Equivocation of 'plan'. That definition is very different depending on whether you take plan to mean arrangement or layout, or to mean a proposed sequence of action. Vertebrates are laid out according to a common plan (arrangement or layout) because they evolved from a common ancestor with bilateral symmetry and four limbs, by inheriting, with modifications, the genome of that common ancestor.

The shared and modified base 'plan' of multicellular creatures is actually evidence of evolution rather than intelligent design.

However, if you wish to call the sequential modifications of the evolutionary process 'design', I don't have a problem with that - evolutionary design programs are being used in many commercial and research organizations to produce results that human designers would not or could not produce.

 

[tas8831]

I meant prove that ID is false.

Seeing as how it appears that your standards of proof are that 'you know it when i see it', can we simply say 'we don't see design, so it is obviously false' and you will accept that?

And isn't it odd that someone with a 130 IQ doesn't understand the concept of burden of proof?

This is why I keep asking creationists for evidence for creation instead of their usually flailing and failing against evolution.

 

[tas8831]

I'm not the one who's squirming for dominance here.

No, you're the one making claims that you clearly cannot support, yet think all should accept because you are an "alpha male" with a 130 IQ who thinks tissues are molecules.

 

[tas8831]

No, I mean you are taking this debate way too seriously, and by that I mean personally. I'm getting vibes that you are personally offended by the idea of creationism, and especially from one who insists on defending it. You are skating on the edge of ad homs with nearly every post. Perhaps you should retire from this thread.

So sorry, didn't mean to hurt your precious feelings. It is just that among the characteristics of humans, arrogance and hypocrisy offend me the most.

But perhaps you should retire from this forum, seeing as how all you seem able to offer are silly unsupported assertions.

Of course, I would have to be responding to an actual argument in order for me to produce ad homs - unless you are among the multitude of creationists that don't actually understand what an ad hom is?

 

[tas8831]

?

You don't know what is on your own member page?

OldWiseGuy