Evidence for Design (2)

[CabVet]

They are still dogs but now with numerous malfunctions and problems. They did not improve. They got worse. Which is the way all life is going. Not the magical, gradual, uphill change evolution theory proposes.

You have no idea what "improvement" means. Inside an apartment, a chihuahua is 10 times better than a wolf.

 

[lasthero]

They are still dogs but now with numerous malfunctions and problems. They did not improve. They got worse.

'Got worse'? How have they 'got worse'? How is, say, a German Shepard 'worse' than any of the dog breeds that came before it?

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

Evolution on it's basics, no. Evolution in the form of organisms drastically changing from some original form into a new complex form, yes. That would require something intelligent and supernatural.

You can obviously see, without science, that things are going the reverse way. We mucked about with dog breeds and we can see where that ended up.

So you if you still can't say what ID states then how could any test falsify such a vague notion?

 

[CabVet]

'Got worse'? How have they 'got worse'? How is, say, a German Shepard 'worse' than any of the dog breeds that came before it?

He is probably referring to genetic diseases that are more likely to occur in bred dogs than in wolves (due to inbreeding during artificial selection). What he forgets is that any breed is hundreds of times better at what they are specialized to do than a wolf. Just try to teach a wolf to fetch (retrieve) something.

 

[EternalDragon]

You have no idea what "improvement" means. Inside an apartment, a chihuahua is 10 times better than a wolf.

I would disagree.

Besides, an apartment does not represent a natural habitat. You can't breed a large fish to a small one and then say it is improved because it fits into a small bowl.

 

[CabVet]

I would disagree.

Of course you would, and for no reason other than just because it completely refutes your argument.

Besides, an apartment does not represent a natural habitat. You can't breed a large fish to a small one and then say it is improved because it fits into a small bowl.

Again, you have no idea what an improvement is. Of course small size is an advantage in some environments, why do you think dinosaurs went extinct and lizards didn't? Do you want to know what another advantage is? Having no eyes in caves. Here, evolution took care of that:

Now go on and say that having no eyes is not an improvement, and again you would be 100% wrong. Breathing water is only an advantage if you live in water. Breathing air is only an advantage if you live in water. When determining fitness, you cannot separate the character from the environment.

 

[lasthero]

Besides, an apartment does not represent a natural habitat

But dogs aren't breed to live in natural habitats, they're bred to live with humans. They're domesticated. So how are dogs being able to live with humans 'getting worse'?

You can't breed a large fish to a small one and then say it is improved because it fits into a small bowl.

Why not? If it's more fit to live in a smaller bowl, clearly it's an improvement over a bigger fish. Bigger doesn't necessarily mean better.

 

[biggles53]

I will provide you with four:

1. A scientist could take an organism without a flagellum or genes for one and study it in the lab to see if it will start to produce one on it's own.

More BS.....how would this falsify the concept of being designed...? And, in case you haven't noticed, you and I are organisms that don't have flagella...! Are you telling me that, if we don't grow one, we will falsify ID.....!!?

Works for me....!!

2. Find life on a gas planet with a different sun than ours.

And more BS........why couldn't an IDer simply argue that the particular life was 'designed' that way....??

3. Find a non-carbon based life form.

And the pile gets higher.........see the answer to 2......

4. Describe a realistic, continuously functional Darwinian pathway from simple ancestor to present flagellum motor.

Aah.......well, since that's already been done, I guess your theory's been debunked then...!

(Hint: falsifiable doesn't mean what you think it does....)

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

Eternal Dragon gave a good answer to this I would also like to add CSI,

read this article:

The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

from

Intelligent Design

CSI is a joke as a criteria for falsification. It's not measurable nor objectively definable and humans, the only designers of the type you want who we have evidence for, do not necessarily produce complex or specified designs.

 

[lasthero]

And it is on a microscopic level we can't begin to re-create.

Currently.

Say a thousand years pass, our understanding increases, and we can recreate such things with ease. What now?

Also, nothing in your post answered even one of my questions. What, exactly, is CSI, and how do we objectively determined how much is in a certain item? Looking at something and declaring 'it's complex!' is not, in any way, an actual measurement.

 

[CabVet]

Say a thousand years pass, our understanding increases, and we can recreate such things with ease. What now?

Yes, much like 100 years ago nobody knew what DNA was, and 200 years before that nobody knew what caused diseases.

 

[OllieFranz]

it is not in the supernatural, or metaphysical realm. I just gave a quote from the president of the leading ID organization. Now I think you are confusing many BC biblical creationists that use ID in their argumentation. And that MAY contain supernatural elements, but ID in itself does not.

If you are questioning this further I recommend a study of this article:

CSC - Intelligent Design is not Creationism

Then give me one specific possible non-supernatural designer. I gave two, aliens from another planet and "sliders" from another demension, and showed how they only push the question back a step, because life "there" would have been designed as well, either by another earlier natural designer ("It's turtles all the way") or by a supernatural Designer.

 

[OllieFranz]

OK, I read the link. Or rather I skimmed it. I'll read it again more carefully in the morning.

Two things jump out. One, it does not address the question of whether the designer is natural or supernatural, as you led me to believe it does. One of the things I'm going to be looking for on my re-read is evidence of a hidden assumption of a supernatural Designer. And two, it lies about what evolution involves.

That jumped out clear and strong when it claimed that Natural Selection is undirected, so it can't be a driving force in shaping the variety of life we see. There would be no selection in Natural Selection if it were undirected. Of course an undirected "selection" would not drive change in a population. That is why some populations remain unchanged for millenia after they fit their niche in the environment if their environment remains steady.

As I said, though, more in the morning when I read the piece for substance.

 

[EternalDragon]

OK, I read the link. Or rather I skimmed it. I'll read it again more carefully in the morning.

Two things jump out. One, it does not address the question of whether the designer is natural or supernatural, as you led me to believe it does. One of the things I'm going to be looking for on my re-read is evidence of a hidden assumption of a supernatural Designer. And two, it lies about what evolution involves.

That jumped out clear and strong when it claimed that Natural Selection is undirected, so it can't be a driving force in shaping the variety of life we see. There would be no selection in Natural Selection if it were undirected. Of course an undirected "selection" would not drive change in a population. That is why some populations remain unchanged for millenia after they fit their niche in the environment if their environment remains steady.

As I said, though, more in the morning when I read the piece for substance.

Why would other scientists, with degrees, lie about a theory? Perhaps it needs updating? Perhaps evolution is simply a strong delusion that looks like the truth? As in man's ideas, not God's? Wouldn't Jesus have said something about the teachings of Moses if Genesis was not true? Rather than preaching directly from it?

Please pray on these matters and re-evaluate.

 

[FatBurk]

ID, I have lost quite a few brain cells just reading this tripe, just think how damaged my brain would need to be to get me to believed it?

 

[createdtoworship]

I've always found this part rather curious. Is there some objective way to measure how high a level of CSI something has? How many levels of CSI are there? Is there, like, a maximum and a minimum level of CSI? How much CSI does a natural object have to have before we can determine if it was designed or not? How do we reach that conclusion? How much CSI does, say, an apple have? Does a rock have? Does a snowflake have? If I take a statue and smash it to unrecognizable pieces, does it lose the CSI? Where the does the CSI go?

say you have redness of an apple, and you smash it. Does the red go away? Maybe, maybe not. Same with CSI, sometimes the indications of information goes away, sometimes not.

here is more on CSI

"Observation: Intelligent agents solve complex problems by acting with an end goal in mind, producing high levels of CSI. In our experience, systems with large amounts of specified complexity -- such as codes and languages -- invariably originate from an intelligent source. Likewise, in our experience, intelligence is the only known cause of irreducibly complex machines.21

Hypothesis (Prediction): Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns (including irreducible complexity) that perform a specific function -- indicating high levels of CSI.

Experiment: Experimental investigations of DNA indicate that it is full of a CSI-rich, language-based code. Biologists have performed mutational sensitivity tests on proteins and determined that their amino acid sequences are highly specified.22 Additionally, genetic knockout experiments and other studies have shown that some molecular machines, like the flagellum, are irreducibly complex.23

Conclusion: The high levels of CSI -- including irreducible complexity -- in biochemical systems are best explained by the action of an intelligent agent.
- See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/08/what_is_the_the075281.html#sthash.AyOhpotW.dpuf"

from:

Straw Men Aside, What Is the Theory of Intelligent Design, Really? - Evolution News & Views

 

[createdtoworship]

Can the claims made by ID be tested with the scientific method?

of course, it can be falsified as well. If it's wrong, then evolution is correct.

 

[createdtoworship]

Then give me one specific possible non-supernatural designer. I gave two, aliens from another planet and "sliders" from another demension, and showed how they only push the question back a step, because life "there" would have been designed as well, either by another earlier natural designer ("It's turtles all the way") or by a supernatural Designer.

we can theorize all day about the nature of the designer but I thought you wanted science?

 

[createdtoworship]

CSI is a joke as a criteria for falsification. It's not measurable nor objectively definable and humans, the only designers of the type you want who we have evidence for, do not necessarily produce complex or specified designs.

well that original quote I gave was a little outdated, see irreducible complexity has been overwritten with a new idea......specified complexity. DNA is a great example. See DNA if evolved would be useless unless the language was invented to read and write to build proteins. The language is almost more intricate than the DNA itself. Say you didn't read english. Then this post would be gibberish. It's useless but since you and I have agreed that "ENGLISH" is the accepted language here to speak, we can now communicate. Not that other languages are not welcome but the simply would not communicate to the vast majority here who are english speakers. Same thing with DNA it would evolve by chance having 100% right handed amino acids bonding in some liquid somewhere (which was not watery or it would fail), and somehow making itself come together by chance chemistry of only right handed amino acids. Taking all of this, it still would be useless without a language, a language with much more writing and language than 100's of libraries of books. In one DNA double helix.

this is an example of CSI.

 

[OllieFranz]

Why would other scientists, with degrees, lie about a theory? Perhaps it needs updating? Perhaps evolution is simply a strong delusion that looks like the truth? As in man's ideas, not God's? Wouldn't Jesus have said something about the teachings of Moses if Genesis was not true? Rather than preaching directly from it?

Please pray on these matters and re-evaluate.

Unlike the atheists, I have never claimed that there is nothing of truth in ID. The best lies work because they are wrapped around truths. The Teleologic Argument (Argument from Design) is one of the strongest arguments for God in Philosophy. But it is not, and does not pretend to be Science.

Science is built up using a naturalist methodology. This is by our design. Science is a study of the rules that Nature follows. Miracles bypass the normal rules of nature, and so can tell us nothing about how those rules work.

ID is not science because it depends on miracles. Miracles are the opposite of science. Worse, when an IDer encounters something unfamiliar, that does not seem to fit the way he thinks it should, his first reaction is that it is a miracle. That is not science. Science is looking at it and asking why it does not meet our expectations. Investigate it. Maybe we don't understand the principle involved. Maybe the math is more complicated than we thought. Maybe we saw a pattern in randomness like a face in a cloud, or Mary on a piece of toast.

"It's a miracle," should be our last resort, not our first. And that is even later than "We don't know, yet, but we are still looking."