Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[Loudmouth]

I have provided biologists claiming that life forms appear to be designed and not only life forms but the molecular machines within them appear designed for a purpose.

Yet you don't listen to them. You ignore their conclusions and claim that it is more than just an appearance of design, and do so in contradiction to all of the evidence.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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

No kidding.

Again, it's what the process of natural selection inevitably does.

How did the first replicating cell inevitably do it? Explain and present your evidence.

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.

We are not talking about adaptation to the environment which is where you have been led to always go. The first replicating cell is packed full of complexity and molecular machines just to get to that first replication. The very first replicating cell had to have such complexity just to be able to replicate.

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.

So we can agree that the life forms throughout history have the appearance that they were designed with purpose and planning...correct?

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.

How did they adapt and accumulate without the cell being able to replicate to make the replicating cell?

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

How did the adaptations and accumulations needed for replicating adapt and accumulate without replicating?

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

Yes, after we have life and a way to replicate. Yet to replicate we require complexity and systems that have purpose...how did they do that without being able to reproduce with variation?

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

You don't even realize that you are repeating a mantra without really thinking about the real issue. Evolution could not occur without the complexity within the first replicating cell, how did that complexity arise?

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.

This is what you are claiming, that you know that the design we see in that first replicating cell is an illusion provided by adaptations and accumulations but that is impossible before the first replicating cell. You are claiming there is all this evidence that I am ignoring but there is no evidence to explain even that first replicating cell being endowed with complex functional design with purpose.

Evolution is a very well-evidenced theory.

Repeat mantra....
Evolution: any genetic change in a population that is inherited over several generations. Tons of evidence for genetic change in a population that is inherited over several generations...but it does not explain how the first replicating cell was endowed with complex functional design with purpose.

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.

See above.

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?

Certainly...but see above.

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

See above.

 

[crjmurray]

Looks like no evidence has been presented to support id. Shocking.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yet you don't listen to them. You ignore their conclusions and claim that it is more than just an appearance of design, and do so in contradiction to all of the evidence.

They have a materialistic bias that demands that design is not actual. So the question is not that there is evidence of design, it is whether that evidence is just an illusion as they claim. There is no evidence that they present that would confirm it is an illusion.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

The claim is that there is an appearance of design in the life forms on earth. Not only design in the life itself but the makeup of the cell. So the evidence points to design or it would not be necessary to claim it is an illusion. So the evidence is there for design, they are countering that the design with saying it is an illusion.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Looks like no evidence has been presented to support id. Shocking.

So the evidence of design...appearing to be design for a purpose or plan is no evidence for ID? Dogma much?

 

[RickG]

So the evidence of design...appearing to be design for a purpose or plan is no evidence for ID? Dogma much?

Why do things that can be connected to natural design process have to be perceived to have been done by an ID, especially when there is absolutely no physical evidence showing any influence to an ID?

 

[Oncedeceived]

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

You haven't shown that it can be. No evidence has been provided for the complexity we see in the first replicating cell which is where much of the design in living forms exists.

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

It was Dogma's analogy so tell him.

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.

Evasion.

You have yet to show that it requires complexity.

Ok, so are you really implying that the first replicating cell would not require complex systems? Even the very first replicating cell would have to accomplish the same functions as the cell of today does.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why do things that can be connected to natural design process have to be perceived to have been done by an ID, especially when there is absolutely no physical evidence showing any influence to an ID?

The evidence is the design that even the most simple life forms on earth possess.

 

[bhsmte]

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.

Your last sentence is off limits for questioning, it just is.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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

The point is not that I personally think there is design in living things but that those in the current scientific arena think so.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

I am not the one claiming it is an illusion. It is the one making the claim that has the burden of proof. You all have a real problem with that. You would think that those who declare on a daily basis that evolution has mountains of evidence that when you are asked to provide it for the claims being made you cry foul and claim the burden is on us. You are not free from having to support claims.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

I am not discussing intelligent design. I am discussing evolution which is your position which needs explanation just as any other premise. The fact that you won't address your own position and continually derail any discussion of evolution to ID speaks volumes.

 

[RickG]

The point is not that I personally think there is design in living things but that those in the current scientific arena think so.

No, the point is I am trying to understand "your" perception of what you mean by design so I can respond properly in context to your posts concerning "design". If you do not wish to provide your specific perception, then please say so and dispense with the obfuscation. Thank you.

 

[DogmaHunter]

How did the first replicating cell inevitably do it? Explain and present your evidence.

What kind of answer are you looking for here?
Do you expect me to line out the exact evolutionary pathway of every corner of a cell - which would span a time period of about 2 to 3 billion years before multi-cellular life existed?

We are not talking about adaptation to the environment

Yes, we are. Or at least... I am.

The first replicating cell is packed full of complexity and molecular machines just to get to that first replication. The very first replicating cell had to have such complexity just to be able to replicate.

What is your evidence for these claims?

So we can agree that the life forms throughout history have the appearance that they were designed with purpose and planning...correct?

/facepalm

Whenever I end up in a discussion with you, eventually we always come to a point where you seem to have complete amnesia of everything that was said.
And then this picture goes through my mind:

As I have said several times in the last 2 posts........
Natural selection is what is responsible for the perceived design of living organisms. There is no designer, there is no purpose and there is no planning.

There is only the natural process of competing systems who reproduce with variation. Which inevitably leads to the systems becoming "optimised" or "specialised" for the environment in which they live.

The very real inevitable consequences of this inevitable process, combined with the much dreaded mountains of evidence for evolution, does not suggest any planning or purpose whatsoever.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, the point is I am trying to understand "your" perception of what you mean by design so I can respond properly in context to your posts concerning "design". If you do not wish to provide your specific perception, then please say so and dispense with the obfuscation. Thank you.

I am not sure what you mean by my perception but I'll give it a go. My perception of design is recognition of those elements that show an inner complexity in function and structure that interact with other systems of the same which interact with more of the same within the whole that appear to have planning to achieve a set purpose.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It was Dogma's analogy so tell him.

You complete missed the point of my analogy, which you still haven't addressed.

The point was not the design of the algorithm.
The point was that a mindless algorithm is perfectly capable of producing designs of things that work.

The designers of the software have no idea whatsoever what kind of designs the program will come up with.

It just generates random 3d shapes and uses evolutionary algorithms to turn it into something that is capable of loco-motion.
The input is random (=mutation).
The test is not random (= natural selection).

The result of this program is a file wich contains the information on how the robot is to be build up. A design. No designer, but a mindless algorithm.

This is a direct refutation of your claim that designs must have a designer.

EDIT: here, an online example: http://boxcar2d.com/

It's not the first time I linked you to this.
Leave your browser open for half an hour and then watch the cars drive over your screen. If designs need a designer... who designed those cars?

 

[Loudmouth]

They have a materialistic bias that demands that design is not actual.

Where is the evidence that it is actual design?

 

[Loudmouth]

I am not discussing intelligent design. I am discussing evolution which is your position which needs explanation just as any other premise. The fact that you won't address your own position and continually derail any discussion of evolution to ID speaks volumes.

Then I don't know how that specific protein came about.

Now what?

 

[RickG]

I am not sure what you mean by my perception but I'll give it a go. My perception of design is recognition of those elements that show an inner complexity in function and structure that interact with other systems of the same which interact with more of the same within the whole that appear to have planning to achieve a set purpose.

Thank you!

I'm with you until you get to: "...that appear to have planning to achieve a set purpose." How does something inanimate have a purpose?