Does science actually admit "design"?

[DogmaHunter]

no camera can clean itself (the eye can). no camera can protect itself (the eye can). no camera can replicate itself by external system (the eye can). no camera can get its own energy source (the eye can) and so on.

The eye itself, can't do any of these things

the eye is far more sophisticated than a video camera.

It's also far more natural.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The goal of science is to find documentable
causes for every effect one sees.

I missed this, but this is astounding: how is that a bad thing?

 

[SkyWriting]

I missed this, but this is astounding: how is that a bad thing?

That's an explanation.
I give. How is that a bad thing?

 

[SkyWriting]

I'm not buying it.

That doesn't change anything.
You can search my posts for my previous places of employment.
I currently run sample runs of new polymer products under development
for prospective customers based on their desired properties and
document all aspects of the test runs. I use experimental design
studies to optimise the physical properties using the needed
number of test runs and evaluate the samples properties.

Some are just interested in color variations but some need strength
and UV resistance for resin window frames for example. We chack all
the needed properties in our on-site lab.

 

[SkyWriting]

Biological evolution.

And running under or guided by what principles?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That's an explanation.
I give. How is that a bad thing?

No, I'm asking you since I'm not the one who says that science is purposefully excluding the supernatural because it's opposed to God.
And that's not even an explanation.

 

[SkyWriting]

No, I'm asking you since I'm not the one who says that science is purposefully excluding the supernatural because it's opposed to God.
And that's not even an explanation.

OK got it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

OK got it.

So are you going to answer my question?

 

[SkyWriting]

So are you going to answer my question?

That was my answer.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That was my answer.

It was anything but an answer.
So let's take this from the top: you said: "The goal of science is to find documentable
causes for every effect one sees."
My question in response: how is this a bad thing? Please actually answer the question.

 

[SkyWriting]

It was anything but an answer.
So let's take this from the top: you said: "The goal of science is to find documentable
causes for every effect one sees."
My question in response: how is this a bad thing? Please actually answer the question.

Your question is a leading question. I don't believe it is a bad thing.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Your question is a leading question. I don't believe it is a bad thing.

You made it sound like a bad thing.

 

[xianghua]

The eye itself, can't do any of these things

eye+external features.

 

[PsychoSarah]

eye+external features.

-_- there are self cleaning cameras. Always do a quick Google search before claiming something doesn't exist Choose your Orlaco Self cleaning camera

two brands right off the bat with the Google search ExcelSense Technologies Corp.

 

[DogmaHunter]

And running under or guided by what principles?

Descend with modification and natural selection based on fitness in context of the habitat.

 

[tas8831]

Still nothing on the aorta sending motor impulses to the larynx via the RLN? Shocking...

 

[SkyWriting]

Descend with modification and natural selection based on fitness in context of the habitat.

And that is, running under or guided by what principles?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And that is, running under or guided by what principles?

Natural selection.

 

[tas8831]

Poor creationists...

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?



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:




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?

People are so mean to point out their dishonesty and/or malice...

This one has made all manner of wacky claims about the coccyx, and of course we have the thread starter - the King of Made-Up Anatomical Gibberish to prop up DESIGN.

Odd thing - both of these folks claimed to have 'studied' the relevant material.

 

[DogmaHunter]

And that is, running under or guided by what principles?

I just told you.
Descend with modification followed by natural selection.

Which word are you having trouble with?