How We Detect Design

[Oncedeceived]

lol.....yep you read that right. He's actually arguing that the law of thermodynamics leads to the conclusion that abiogenesis must be true. Your eyes did not deceive you.

Amazing.

 

[bhsmte]

To help ID/creationists understand why they are not presenting evidence by merely asserting that something is designed, perhaps this analogy will help.

There is a murder case, and the prosecution thinks they have a slam dunk argument. They argue that Joan Doe, the murder victim, was killed by John Smith. Their evidence? Joan Doe is dead. They argue that since Joan Doe is dead that John Smith had to kill her. As their evidence, they cite the inability of anyone else to provide evidence that someone else did it.

That is equivalent to the argument that ID/creationists are giving us. They give us nothing other than the repetition of the claim.

It's all they got, what else can they do?

 

[Oncedeceived]

It's all they got, what else can they do?

You all are the ones holding the empty bag.

 

[Davian]

This is nonsense and purely a straw man. Burn Burn Burn.

Does it produce life from non-life? Yes or no?

I cannot make sense of the question. Life is a process. Did oxidation come from non-oxidation?

 

[[serious]]

Prove it.

 

[[serious]]

You are dodging. Did photons, carbon dioxide, oxygen and water that produces sugars produced the first life on earth? Yes or no?

Shifting goal posts.

"leads to life" =/= "led to first life on earth"

 

[DogmaHunter]

Very very very easy to test. Add non-living ingredients to water, add heat.

How do you know that another combination of chemicals wouldn't lead to life?

This "test" smells a lot like taking scooping a cup of water form the ocean, not seeing any fish in the cup and then conclude that there are no fish in the ocean.

 

[SkyWriting]

To help ID/creationists understand why they are not presenting evidence by merely asserting that something is designed, perhaps this analogy will help.There is a murder case, and the prosecution thinks they have a slam dunk argument. They argue that Joan Doe, the murder victim, was killed by John Smith. Their evidence? Joan Doe is dead. They argue that since Joan Doe is dead that John Smith had to kill her. As their evidence, they cite the inability of anyone else to provide evidence that someone else did it.That is equivalent to the argument that ID/creationists are giving us. They give us nothing other than the repetition of the claim.

Perhaps they are failing to mention that there are no designers of new systems in nature,
specifically non-living natural elements. So the source of intelligence and design must be
supernatural as natural is ruled out.

It's like living in LEGO city and noticing that the blocks are not bright enough to have
designed themselves and built the city as well.

 

[SkyWriting]

How do you know that another combination of chemicals wouldn't lead to life?This "test" smells a lot like taking scooping a cup of water form the ocean, not seeing any fish in the cup and then conclude that there are no fish in the ocean.

We can't get THIS combination to form life, on this planet, under these conditions.
Besides, there are infinite combinations on THIS planet.....not forming new life.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So? They do not give any evidence that shows the design seen in all living forms is false, incorrect or an illusion.

Evolution explains why life looks the way it does.
The evidence supports evolution. To that, you say "so?".
That "so?" is a flat out denial of the evidence.

Once more: evolution explains why life looks like it does.
The evidence supports evolution.

What is the problem?

No it doesn't.

Yes, it does.

Natural doesn't supply how features of design are present but that they are an illusion.

Yes, it does.

Because systems that work better are going to have a higher chance of being selected.
This inevitably leads to systems that work well.

I can't help it that you are unwilling to properly understand how the mechanism of evolution works, how it inevitably works like a natural optimisation system.
That's on you, not on me.

It's one thing to disagree with what evolution says, but what do you hope to gain by simply denying that evolution says what it says? By misrepresenting it?
The mechanism of evolution according to the theory works like a natural optimisation modules. That's just the way it is. Disagree with the theory all you want, but don't deny what it actually says. It says what it says.

If so, please provide the evidence that show how organisms and functions are show design in the same manner as that which is produced by humans.

They don't show design in the same manner as that which is produced by humans.
Not at all, actually.

When I buy a computer, it isn't stuffed with a bunch of wires that aren't connected to anything.

When I install digital TV at home, I don't run the wire 7 times around the house, up to the attic, down to the basement only to then end up 5 inches from the modem into the TV.

When I buy a camera, the wiring is not placed in front of the lens which requires additional software to "fill in the blanks" of the blind spot.

The productline of a single company doesn't fall into a nested hierarchy. Let alone from multiple companies.

There's nothing about the "design" of life that is similar to the "design" of humans.
Really nothing.

Natural selection has no properties of design.

It doesn't need to.
Natural selection is the core mechanism of the natural "optimisation" process.
It is that process that "molds" organisms to become better at what they do.
You asked the question. If you don't like the answer, that's not my fault.
If you don't put in the effort to understand the answer, that's not my fault either.

That's all on you.

Demonstrated.

How have you demonstrated that there is actual design in living things?

I provided videos.

Try to provide actual science instead.
Any idiot with a camera can make a video and post it on the interwebs.

It is clearly evident that the molecular machines that we viewed in the videos are engineered in the same way human's have designed only on a much more efficient and remarkable way.

Clearly, it isn't "clearly evident", since we are having this discussion.
Clearly, it isn't "clearly evident", or it would be common knowledge among the actual scientists working in the field. But that's not the case at all. In fact, actual working scientists don't agree with ID/creationism. Not even by a long shot.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Are you trying to change the subject?

I addressed your point.
I said that "pointing out that irrational people exist, is not an argument against science".

It's no conspiracy when man has worshiped nature throughout history.

That's a very empty statement.
What does it mean to "worship nature"?
That makes no sense in my ears.

By the way not all scientist believes design in nature is an illusion.

Publishing, working scientists (the extreme overwhelming majority) have no qualms with evolution theory.

And most christians have no problems with it either.

You are a minority among a minority.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So?



And here we go...no evidence so lets call the opponent dishonest. How predictable.

Funny... first you reply with "so?" when presented with evidence that supports evolution......

And then again crying about not being presented with evidence.

How can anyone still take you seriously?

 

[DogmaHunter]

We can't get THIS combination to form life, on this planet, under these conditions.

Ok. So what you really did is show that that particular combination doesn't lead to life.
Yet, the conclusion you seem to be pushing is "therefor, life having a natural origin is impossible".

I shouldn't have to explain how ridiculous that conclusion is.

Besides, there are infinite combinations on THIS planet.....not forming new life.

1. these combinations are not infinite
2. have you looked in every corner of the planet to test that assertion?
3. there is no reason to assume that this process still goes on. In fact, there is no reason to assume that this process is even still possible on this planet in its current state. Our atmosphere is completely different today. Also, there's good reason to believe that if such a process would still go on today, that "new life" would almost instantly be outcompeted or eaten by already existing modern life.

So to sum up......
The way you view this is actually very childish and short-sighted. Try to think it through a bit more with a nice scoop of intellectual integrity and honesty.

I'm sure you realise that you aren't being very rational here.
It's one thing to have your beliefs. It's one thing to say "I don't expect them to ever find a natural explanation for life".

But to simply assert that it is "impossible" based on such bad evidence and logical fallacies (= argument from ignorance)... that's simply childish.

 

[SkyWriting]

Once more: evolution explains why life looks like it does.
The evidence supports evolution.

I agree. You mate a brown dog with a white dog, you can expect one or the other or a mix of the two.
Evolution explains that things mix. Nobody denies what they can test.

 

[Smidlee]

Publishing, working scientists (the extreme overwhelming majority) have no qualms with evolution theory.

And most christians have no problems with it either.

You are a minority among a minority.

From what I've read this is false. They can't even agree on which "evolution" actually happened. Also the voice of the majority doesn't make something more true. You testify your belief to this by calling yourself an atheist.
Throughout history when you got a "extreme overwhelming majority" agreeing to something, especially dealing with man's origins, politics is usually involved.

 

[SkyWriting]

In fact, there is no reason to assume that this process is even still possible on this planet in its current state. Our atmosphere is completely different today. Also, there's good reason to believe that if such a process would still go on today, that "new life" would almost instantly be outcompeted or eaten by already existing modern life.

Well, changing the gas mixture and isolating an infinite number different mixtures is
what science is good at. Are you saying we don't have the needed materials?

Or that we don't have the investigative ability to show it happening now...or in the past?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Shifting goal posts.

"leads to life" =/= "led to first life on earth"

Loudmouth was implying that non-life became life in this way. Are you as well?

 

[bhsmte]

Funny... first you reply with "so?" when presented with evidence that supports evolution......

And then again crying about not being presented with evidence.

How can anyone still take you seriously?

Likely, very few except those that agree take the poster seriously.

At this point, it is all about watching just how far they can dig the hole and how much denial can be layered on top of existing denial. It is really entertaining to watch in action.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Evolution explains why life looks the way it does.
The evidence supports evolution. To that, you say "so?".
That "so?" is a flat out denial of the evidence.
Once more: evolution explains why life looks like it does.
The evidence supports evolution.

Evolution then evolution. When Darwin wrote the Origins Of Species evolution could explain how life could look as it did. It could provide a general explanation to why life was as life was then. I think that if Darwin had the information and technology today, the lack of transitional fossils and resources we have today even he would doubt about the ability of natural selection to create it all.

What is the problem?

The problem is that I have seen no evidence that can explain that evolution can provide evidence that the design seen in the structures and functions in living organisms can be produced by evolution alone. The problem is that no one has provided anything more than assertions and a general overall explanation that evolution is true so it explains everything even without evidence. Science doesn't and shouldn't work that way.

Yes, it does.

I disagree and I disagree because you have not given any evidence other than evidence for evolution is evolution and that is begging the question. Begging the question is not evidence. Evidence of natural selection and genetic change does not give evidence that natural selection and genetic change can explain the molecular machines that life depends upon.

Yes, it does.
Because systems that work better are going to have a higher chance of being selected.
This inevitably leads to systems that work well.

This sounds reasonable and seems to cover the complexity and systems that work well. However, many many systems have so many parts and interwoven subsystems that when separated do not do the job at all. Each system has parts and those parts all have to function prior to coming together in this system that needs every part to work. Selection works on function. Function has to be in every selection that evolution makes. When we developed the technology we have today to actually observe these systems and subsystems and test them by reverse engineering and by knockout experiments we can see that function is not there to select for in many cases, there are so many of these systems that don't function if even one protein is knocked out that completely dismantles the entire systems and subsystems that they depend upon. Selecting that increases and makes organisms better has to have a function that is selected for and one that contributes to the overall systems already in use is something that doesn't always work in reality even if it sounds reasonable overall.

I can't help it that you are unwilling to properly understand how the mechanism of evolution works, how it inevitably works like a natural optimisation system.
That's on you, not on me.

Oh I understand, I wonder if you do. You seem to think that life is always getting better and more complex by selection but we have no evidence that these very critical systems that are irreducibly complex (they can't function without all parts are there at the same time) can arise and have function in every step towards their eventual function. Seeing that they must have all their parts that function in the way that they function we must recognize the problem this makes for natural selection.

It's one thing to disagree with what evolution says, but what do you hope to gain by simply denying that evolution says what it says? By misrepresenting it?
The mechanism of evolution according to the theory works like a natural optimisation modules. That's just the way it is. Disagree with the theory all you want, but don't deny what it actually says. It says what it says.

It has to put its ability to where its symbolic mouth is then. You can believe what it says all you want but if it can't be proven or shown by the the mechanisms it is known for it is not being misrepresented but being shown insufficient.

They don't show design in the same manner as that which is produced by humans.
Not at all, actually.

That is simply false. NO biologist agrees with this statement in anyway.

When I buy a computer, it isn't stuffed with a bunch of wires that aren't connected to anything.

This shows your inability to understand the molecular systems in which we speak. They are so precise and so efficient that even humans are unable to match their ingenuity. Research is working very hard to discover and use the same principles that are shown in the systems of which we speak. DNA is the most remarkable storage system known to man and is now even being used by us to store information. You seem to have a minimal knowledge about the actual biology involved in the discussion.

When I install digital TV at home, I don't run the wire 7 times around the house, up to the attic, down to the basement only to then end up 5 inches from the modem into the TV.
When I buy a camera, the wiring is not placed in front of the lens which requires additional software to "fill in the blanks" of the blind spot.

Science has always found certain things that looked like bad design and those things have continued to become less and less due to new understandings about the forms we study. There used to be hundreds of these vestigial structures early on but now there are very few and even those are shown to have some form of function are not totally unused.

The productline of a single company doesn't fall into a nested hierarchy. Let alone from multiple companies.

Sorry but this is nonsense. The nested hierarchy was first created without any evolutionary principles included. It was devised to show common design.

There's nothing about the "design" of life that is similar to the "design" of humans.
Really nothing.

This is so false that I don't even know how you can say it. Are you laughing behind the screen? My pictures of the rotor system of the helicopter and the bacterial flagellum alone show your statement to be false.

It doesn't need to.
Natural selection is the core mechanism of the natural "optimisation" process.
It is that process that "molds" organisms to become better at what they do.
You asked the question. If you don't like the answer, that's not my fault.
If you don't put in the effort to understand the answer, that's not my fault either.

It is obvious that your understanding of the issue is not in accordance with the scientists themselves nor that you understand the systems of which we speak.

That's all on you.

I think if anyone understands the biology and biochemistry behind this issue it is obvious who it is on.

How have you demonstrated that there is actual design in living things?

Considering that you are so biased as to not even be able to admit to how these systems resemble human design (even atheist scientists in the field admit this) it would be a useless endeavor to try to communicate any reasonable argument that you would accept as demonstration of even the appearance of design actual or not.

Try to provide actual science instead.
Any idiot with a camera can make a video and post it on the interwebs.

I have provided video's that are created by scientists and you don't even know that because you don't care enough to look at them. What does that say about you and your position?

Clearly, it isn't "clearly evident", since we are having this discussion.
Clearly, it isn't "clearly evident", or it would be common knowledge among the actual scientists working in the field. But that's not the case at all. In fact, actual working scientists don't agree with ID/creationism. Not even by a long shot.

See this is your problem. Real scientists working in the field do see it. Those who have a bias towards materialism say it is an illusion and those who have a bias towards design believe it is true design. Regardless of what interpretation is placed upon it, all see the appearance of design.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Likely, very few except those that agree take the poster seriously.

At this point, it is all about watching just how far they can dig the hole and how much denial can be layered on top of existing denial. It is really entertaining to watch in action.

You, who never....never present any evidence or any argument other than ad hominem remarks saying that I am not taken seriously is so amusing that I can hardly contain myself.