Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[DogmaHunter]

You are deflecting. Design conveys a designer.

Or a natural design process.

Like evolution.

Life forms appear to be designed which conveys they are the product of a designer. That is a fact.

No, the fact is that you rule out a natural process, only by playing semantic games.
"Design => designer" is nonsense.

An automated process on a computer can design robots that have some type of locomotion. This algorithm will spew out designs, none of which will be the product of designers. The "designer" is just a mindless algorithm.


Evolution is a natural process which "produces" "designs" through the following algorithm:
- survive
- find a mate
- reproduce with random variation
- repeat

Design is in evidence, it is up to those who claim that it is only an illusion to show the evidence that it is in fact an illusion.

See above.

 

[RickG]

Schweitzer is extrapolating a laboratory environment-controlled 2 year experiment to 70,000,000 years with natural exposure to the elements. If that isn't speculation, I would like to know what your idea of speculation is.

Fossilization is not completely understood; however, what is known is that rapid burial is a requirement. Fossilization for 70Ma is not natural exposure to the elements.

 

[RickG]

Yes, sources of contamination are studied in some cases. That doesn't really change my argument, that old-earth geologic dating models are constructed based on whether or not the data agrees with evolution. Data that does not fit with the evolutionary model will be discarded whether or not contamination is identified. It has to be.

You know very well that that is not true and that you have been called on it many times with examples showing how those accusations are false by myself and others as well. Furthermore, you have been given the opportunity numerous times to show where data has been discarded because it doesn't fit what you label as the model, in which you have completely failed to show.

 

[Oncedeceived]

In the morning you can provide evidence of design.

If life forms did not have evidence of design as Dawkins, Crick, Paul Davies and others have concurred why would the need for an illusion be necessary?

 

[Oncedeceived]

The only thing that will change my mind is evidence, magic never solves any problems, it might solve them in your head but never in reality.

Do you agree with Richard Dawkins when he says: "Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning. The purpose of this book is to resolve the paradox to the satisfaction of the reader, and the purpose of this chapter is further to impress the reader with the power of the illusion of design."

 

[Oncedeceived]

As I said, it's all happening in your head, nothing happened outside of your head so there is nothing for anyone else to see.

Do you deny that life forms appear to have been designed?

 

[RickG]

Do you deny that life forms appear to have been designed?

What do you mean by designed?

 

[Oncedeceived]

/facepalm

Natural selection explains exactly that.

Actually Richard Dawkins explains that with no evidence of how it does.

Because through this filter, organisms become more specialised for the habitat they find themselves in.

You are looking at adaptations of life forms already compiled with cells that have the equivalent of minute factories within them. Evolution explains how life forms modify and change but it does not explain the complexity seen in the cell itself or the molecular machines needed to even be alive.

This is why the flower looks like a bee.
This is why certain creatures have a tongue exactly long enough to reach the sweet nectar in the ridiculously deep flower.
This is why to our biased eyes, these things look made for eachother.

That's exactly what evolution explains.

This is EXACTLY what evolution explains! We agree, what it doesn't even come close to explaining is how complex molecular machines necessary for living things to exist. The first life we have evidence of is complex and contain even more complex systems with no explanation or evidence prior to them. How can evolution explain something that has no evidence for a gradual accumulation of those features?

The thing is that what you took from dawkins and crick is not all they have to say on the matter.

If you check out their writings, you'll find that they'll also state that evolution explains why this illusion of design is there.

I don't know of any explanations Crick gives but Dawkins provides speculation and stories and no evidence to back it up.

If there is an illusion of design the evidence of design must be there to even be an illusion.

 

[Oncedeceived]

What do you mean by designed?

I will use Dawkins own words:

Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning. Emphasis mine.

"Biology is the study of complex things that appear to have been designed for a purpose. Physics books may be complicated, but ...The objects and phenomena that a physics book describes are simpler than a single cell in the body of its author. And the author consists of trillions of those cells, many of them different from each other, organized with intricate architecture and precision-engineering into a working machine capable of writing a book. " p1-3. Emphasis mine.

"All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics, albeit deployed in a very special way. A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs and plans their interconnections, with a future purpose in his mind's eye. Emphasis mine.

 

[RickG]

I will use Dawkins own words:

I could care less about what Dawkins said. I want to know what you mean by designed, preferably in one sentence.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Actually Richard Dawkins explains that with no evidence of how it does.

You can lead a horse to water.....

Again, it's what the process of natural selection inevitably does.
Compete & survive, compete & find a mate, reproduce with random variation, repeat.
It inevitably leads to illusion of design, because it will inevitably lead to systems (= organisms) that are well adapted to the environment in which they live.

Wich results in it looking like it was designed specifically to be in that environment.
And you know what? IT WAS!! By a natural process of selection based on fitness.

You are looking at adaptations of life forms already compiled with cells that have the equivalent of minute factories within them.

No, I'm not. I'm looking at any lifeform. This would apply to the most simple self-replicating molecule as well as the most complex multi-cellular life form.

Adaptions accumulate.

Evolution explains how life forms modify and change but it does not explain the complexity seen in the cell itself or the molecular machines needed to even be alive.

Except that it does, since one-cellular organisms are also competing systems that reproduce with variation.

This is EXACTLY what evolution explains! We agree, what it doesn't even come close to explaining is how complex molecular machines necessary for living things to exist.

No, the exact same principles apply to any competing lifeform that reproduces with variation. Big, small, simple and complex.

Nothing escapes evolution for as long as systems compete for resources and reproduce with variation.

The first life we have evidence of is complex and contain even more complex systems with no explanation or evidence prior to them. How can evolution explain something that has no evidence for a gradual accumulation of those features?

If you are going to point to the frontier of scientific study, where answers are still waiting to be found, in order to try and claim that a designer-dun-it, then you're making a giant argument from ignorance.

I don't know of any explanations Crick gives but Dawkins provides speculation and stories and no evidence to back it up.

Evolution is a very well-evidenced theory.

If there is an illusion of design the evidence of design must be there to even be an illusion.

And it is. As I tried to explain several times now.
The evidence is the evidence for evolution.
The explanation of why things look designed for their niche is natural selection.

Do you disagree that those that fit their environment better have a higher chance of survival and reproduction, then those who fit their environment not that well?

If not... then what are you objecting to, really?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Do you agree with Richard Dawkins when he says: "Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning. The purpose of this book is to resolve the paradox to the satisfaction of the reader, and the purpose of this chapter is further to impress the reader with the power of the illusion of design."

Did you actually read the rest of the book and chapter?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Or a natural design process.

Like evolution.

Evolution is not a natural design process. It is a process of survival. Only that which survives can go on.

No, the fact is that you rule out a natural process, only by playing semantic games.
"Design => designer" is nonsense.

Design:
: to plan and make decisions about (something that is being built or created) : to create the plans, drawings, etc., that show how (something) will be made

: to plan and make (something) for a specific use or purpose

: to think of (something, such as a plan) : to plan (something) in your mind

Designer:

Dictionary
1designer



noun de·sign·er \di-ˈzī-nər\
: a person who plans how something new will look and be made : a person who creates and often produces a new product, style, etc.



48 words to make in SCRABBLE®
with Q and no U »

Full Definition of DESIGNER
: one that designs: as

a : one who creates and often executes plans for a project or structure <urban designers> <a theater set designer>

b : one that creates and manufactures a new product style or design; especially : one who designs and manufactures high-fashion clothing <the designer's new fall line>

An automated process on a computer can design robots that have some type of locomotion. This algorithm will spew out designs, none of which will be the product of designers. The "designer" is just a mindless algorithm.

A computer program is Intelligently Designed...nuf said.

Evolution is a natural process which "produces" "designs" through the following algorithm:
- survive
- find a mate
- reproduce with random variation
- repeat

Original program ID. How did the first replicating cell arise? You need life to evolve. You need not only a simple cell but all the complexity included to reproduce and survive.

Now who is playing semantics:

Evolution: any genetic change in a population that is inherited over several generations.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Did you actually read the rest of the book and chapter?

Actually yes and it was speculation and stories. Did I miss any evidence that you can present?

 

[bhsmte]

Did you actually read the rest of the book and chapter?

Those parts don't help her.

 

[Loudmouth]

Evolution is not a natural design process. It is a process of survival. Only that which survives can go on.

Why does being a process of survival exclude evolution from also being a natural design process? Why can't it be both?

A computer program is Intelligently Designed...nuf said.

Computer programs are not alive, do not reproduce, and do not evolve through the mechanisms that life does. Poor analogy.

Original program ID. How did the first replicating cell arise?

Doesn't matter. You might as well argue that we can't use a natural explanation for lightning unless we find a natural cause for the origin of the universe. We can infer proximal causes without needing to know ultimate origins.

You need not only a simple cell but all the complexity included to reproduce and survive.

You have yet to show that it requires complexity.

 

[Loudmouth]

I will use Dawkins own words:

Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning. Emphasis mine.

"Biology is the study of complex things that appear to have been designed for a purpose. Physics books may be complicated, but ...The objects and phenomena that a physics book describes are simpler than a single cell in the body of its author. And the author consists of trillions of those cells, many of them different from each other, organized with intricate architecture and precision-engineering into a working machine capable of writing a book. " p1-3. Emphasis mine.

"All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics, albeit deployed in a very special way. A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs and plans their interconnections, with a future purpose in his mind's eye. Emphasis mine.

If you disagree with Dawkins, then show how it is not an illusion. Otherwise, Dawkins is making our point for us. That entire book shoots massive holes in your argument.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Evolution is not a natural design process. It is a process of survival. Only that which survives can go on.

And every newborn has a bunch of mutations.
And those that better fit their environment have a higher probability of reproducing then those that fit their environment not that well.
And by doing so, they will pass on their own mutations to their off spring. Additionally, the off spring will add mutations of its own.
Repeat.
The inevitable result: organisms specialised for the environment they are in.
A natural design process. It's nature's optimisation module.

Design:
: to plan and make decisions about (something that is being built or created) : to create the plans, drawings, etc., that show how (something) will be made

: to plan and make (something) for a specific use or purpose

: to think of (something, such as a plan) : to plan (something) in your mind

See? Semantics.
What evolution produces is what I would call "natural design".
It is not planned. It has no purpose. It has no specific use.

It's merely a natural process that results in organisms fitting their environment like a scoop of water fits the cup it finds itself in.

A computer program is Intelligently Designed...nuf said.

No, not enough said. You completely ignored the actual point.

The mindless algorithm produces designs for robots capable of loco-motion.
These designs were not made by a "designer".
They were made by a mindless process, an algorithm.

Which completely refutes your point that designs HAVE to be made by designers.

How did the first replicating cell arise?

The origins of life is not part of evolution theory. Surely this has been brought to your attention multiple times in previous threads.

You need life to evolve.

Yes. Exactly the reason why it's not part of evolution theory.
What doesn't exist can't evolve.
The process of evolution only kicks in once competing systems reproduce with variation.

Now who is playing semantics:
Evolution: any genetic change in a population that is inherited over several generations.

Ironically - you. Again.
Trying to "define" my points away. Laughable at best.

 

[Loudmouth]

How were the most frequent motifs transferred from the upstream to the downstream region of the transcription start sites of RP genes in mammals?

We aren't going to know the step by step evolutionary pathway of every single base in every single genome. That doesn't change the fact that all of the evidence we do have is consistent with evolution, and you can't present any evidence of intelligent design.

 

[Loudmouth]

I've already answered. I don't hold to a purely naturalistic view as do materialists. It is commonly accepted that if God exists He is capable of producing the inner working of the cell and the design of the cell reflects that design.

God is also capable of planting DNA at crime scenes. Doesn't mean he does.

God is also capable of making cows spring from trees, but he doesn't.

God is also capable of making it rain unicorns, but he doesn't.

If you are going to claim that God did something, then produce evidence that God actually did it.