If there is "no evidence" for evolution...

[Skreeper]

If it shows evidence of human manufacture we can conclude design. If we cannot find evidence of human manufacture we cannot conclude design. We have been giving you the same answer for a year. It's not going to change, no matter how many whacky examples of imaginary objects you present to us, or cartoons of real objects.

When determining the presence of design in any object or phenomena there are only two possible outcomes:

1. There is evidence of human manufacture, therefore we conclude design.
2. There is no evidence of human manufacture, therefore we can come to no conclusion about design.

Design may be present, but we cannot detect it without evidence of human manufacture.

I think I'm saving this so I can post it every time he compares objects designed by humans to biological structures.

 

[DogmaHunter]

does it ever disturb you to see?

Don't answer my question with another question that wanders off into irrelevancy.

You made a claim. You said that our backwards eye with the blind spot "improves vision".
I asked you how.

Explain.

 

[xianghua]

A flagellum looks like a motor, and motor is something designed by humans.

right.

Therefore, flagellum is designed by a human.

not by human but by any intelligent. when we see a spinning motor we know that someone design it. we cant know who made it but we know for sure that someone did . right?

 

[xianghua]

Don't answer my question with another question that wanders off into irrelevancy.

You made a claim. You said that our backwards eye with the blind spot "improves vision".
I asked you how.

Explain.

here is how:

https://phys.org/news/2014-07-fiber-optic-pipes-retina-simple.html

"Having the photoreceptors at the back of the retina is not a design constraint, it is a design feature. The idea that the vertebrate eye, like a traditional front-illuminated camera, might have been improved somehow if it had only been able to orient its wiring behind the photoreceptor layer, like a cephalopod, is folly"

or:

Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 158102 (2010) - Retinal Glial Cells Enhance Human Vision Acuity

"The retina is revealed as an optimal structure designed for improving the sharpness of images"

or:

Evolution gave flawed eye better vision

"IT LOOKS wrong, but the strange, “backwards” structure of the vertebrate retina actually improves vision"

 

[Speedwell]

right.



not by human but by any intelligent. when we see a spinning motor we know that someone design it. we cant know who made it but we know for sure that someone did . right?

Wrong. If it shows evidence of human manufacture we can conclude design. If we cannot find evidence of human manufacture we cannot conclude design. We have been giving you the same answer for a year. It's not going to change, no matter how many whacky examples of imaginary objects you present to us, or cartoons of real objects.

When determining the presence of design in any object or phenomena there are only two possible outcomes:

1. There is evidence of human manufacture, therefore we conclude design.
2. There is no evidence of human manufacture, therefore we can come to no conclusion about design.

Design may be present, but we cannot detect it without evidence of human manufacture.

 

[xianghua]

Wrong. If it shows evidence of human manufacture we can conclude design. If we cannot find evidence of human manufacture we cannot conclude design. We have been giving you the same answer for a year. It's not going to change, no matter how many whacky examples of imaginary objects you present to us, or cartoons of real objects.

When determining the presence of design in any object or phenomena there are only two possible outcomes:

1. There is evidence of human manufacture, therefore we conclude design.
2. There is no evidence of human manufacture, therefore we can come to no conclusion about design.

Design may be present, but we cannot detect it without evidence of human manufacture.

as far as i remember you already said that even this shape on the beach cant prove design. right?:

(image from Summer Word Made By Various Sea Shells On The Beach Sand Backgro Stock Photo - Image of word, shell: 94851754)

 

[DogmaHunter]

here is how:

https://phys.org/news/2014-07-fiber-optic-pipes-retina-simple.html

"Having the photoreceptors at the back of the retina is not a design constraint, it is a design feature. The idea that the vertebrate eye, like a traditional front-illuminated camera, might have been improved somehow if it had only been able to orient its wiring behind the photoreceptor layer, like a cephalopod, is folly"

or:

Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 158102 (2010) - Retinal Glial Cells Enhance Human Vision Acuity

"The retina is revealed as an optimal structure designed for improving the sharpness of images"

or:

All I read here is that if you would take the eye as-is and then flip the retina, then you would end up with lesser vision.

I have no issue with that.

But off course, if the original vertebrate eye wouldn't have evolved "backwards", then the present eye would function differently. It would have been optimised in context of a "forward" eye instead of a backwards one.

You seem to have missed the point.
Your statements seem to say that your "designer" had no choice and that backwards eye are objectively better then "forward" eyes.
So you seem to be saying that ONLY a backwards eye with a blind spot could result in clear sharp images. Is that really the case? Your all intellectual designer could not find a way to engineer an eye capable of "seeing" in sharp high resolution, WITHOUT a blind spot?

Then how come the octopus has exactly that: a sharp high resolution vision, without a backwards design which includes a blind spot?

Isn't it objectively true that an eye WITh sharp high def vision and WITHOUT a blind spot is objectively better then an eye with eaqually sharp high def vision but WITH a blind spot???

Evolution gave flawed eye better vision

Hilarious article title to refer to when you are trying to argue against evolution by pointing at the eye.................................................

 

[Speedwell]

as far as i remember you already said that even this shape on the beach cant prove design. right?:

(image from Summer Word Made By Various Sea Shells On The Beach Sand Backgro Stock Photo - Image of word, shell: 94851754)

Of course, you don't understand my reasons and will blow off any attempt on my part to explain them.

You have to have functional organization = design to advance your political agenda so you are not going to listen to anything else.

 

[DogmaHunter]

as far as i remember you already said that even this shape on the beach cant prove design. right?:

(image from Summer Word Made By Various Sea Shells On The Beach Sand Backgro Stock Photo - Image of word, shell: 94851754)

It spells an english word, which is a language that is developed and actively used by humans. It's safe to say that a human arranged those shells in that order (and not a cat or beaver or dog).

Is it possible that just random scattering of shells happened to result in the above?
Theoretically, yes. Yet it is immensly more likely that it was a human that did that.
So immensly more likely that we might as well just assume it and call it a fact that it was an english speaking human that did it.

 

[xianghua]

Your all intellectual designer could not find a way to engineer an eye capable of "seeing" in sharp high resolution, WITHOUT a blind spot?

since no one ever agrue that this blind spot interrupt him to see, its actually not even a problem.

Then how come the octopus has exactly that: a sharp high resolution vision, without a backwards design which includes a blind spot?

are you aware that octopus is actually a colorblind and live underwater?

Hilarious article title to refer to when you are trying to argue against evolution by pointing at the eye.................................................

since this structure actually improve vision its not realy a flaw.

 

[DogmaHunter]

since no one ever agrue that this blind spot interrupt him to see, its actually not even a problem.

I didn't say it was a problem.
Obviously our eyes function well enough to not be a problem. Well, unless we factor in the need for 2 to 3 opticians in every village since so many people need to wear corrective glasses... But that's another issue.

I'm just questioning your statement....

Is it not true that a blind eye which provides a sharp HD image WITHOUT a blind spot, is objectively better then an eye which provides a sharp HD image WITH a blind spot?

It's a simple yes/no question. However, I de understand your emotional need to avoid answering the obvious.

are you aware that octopus is actually a colorblind and live underwater?

That may actually not be correct. Studies indicate that celaphods can perceive colors.
In any case, the colorblindness, assuming it is the case, is not a result of not having a blind spot, but rather a result of not having cones and only the equivalent of rods.

since this structure actually improve vision its not realy a flaw.

Hilarious ignoring of me pointing out that you, to argue against evolution of the eye, are pointing to an article with as title "Evolution gave the eye...."

 

[eleos1954]

I do look a

Yes. It's also called the germ "theory" of desease.
And atomic "theory".
Plate tectonics "theory".
"theory" of relativity.

In science, an explanation is not just a "theory".
It is rather triumphally a THEORY.




Yes, I guess it is theoretically possible that that the millions upon millions of independent data points are all "misinterpreted" in the exact same way.

How you wish to demonstrate that such is the case though, is rather unclear.




The fossil record.
Comparative genetics.
Comparative anatomy.
Phylogenies.
Geographic distribution of species.

These are all independent lines of evidence (each consisting themselves of many independent lines of evidence), which all converge on the same answer.


Except that there is.

Look at the nostril location on skulls of the whale lineage for example. You can literally see it moving from the front of the face, to the top of the head through the ages.

Look at cranial capacity of human lineage. You can literally see it expand through the ages.
The oldest skulls have the smallest brain sizes.


That's like saying that you don't age, if the only photographs you can show are 4 pics of when you were 8 years old and 7 pics from when you were 19 years old.
This point here, is you pointing at those 4 first pictures and then claiming "see? he remains 8 years old throughout the series of photo's"



I'll refer to the first 4 pictures again in the previous example. This second point of yours, is the assertion of "see? humans aren't born! instead, they just appear as 8-year olds". While completely ignoring the baby pictures.



I don't "believe" evolution. I accept the accuracy of the explanatory power of evolution, based on the actual evidence.



There's nothing there to consider. It's just creationism disguised in a lab coat.
It's a gigantic argument from ignorance, motivated by fundamentalist theistic beliefs.



Science doesn't "prove" any theory.
Theories are only ever supported by evidence, never "proven".



Evolution isn't random.
Evolution has random components. That doesn't make it random.



Complexity is not an indicator of design and it is easily demonstrated how it is not.
I can design a walking cane, which is basically just a stick. It doesn't get much simpler then that.

Now a hurricane, THAT is quite complex. To describe a hurricane - let alone predict its manifestation and path - it takes an ENORMOUS amount of parameters. But hurricanes are naturally occuring and not designed.

So there you go....
Complexity is NOT an indicator of design.

At all.



Try a scientific source instead of a known and exposed fundamentalist religious propaganda platform.



What evidence? All you have given me so far is the fallacious assertion of "it's complex".

Essentially an argument from ignorance / incredulity.
As in: "my evidence against evolution, is that I don't understand it".



The actual science is kind of settled on the matter... the accepted explanation is evolution.



Why would I waste my time doing that?

I do look at science in relation to evolution, age of the earth etc. and ... a lot of things.I also look at the creation side as well (scientifically). I do know science is progressive ... that is new things are learned, new ways of "testing" are developed. Things are "proven" and also "disproven" or at least not able to be scientifically explained all the time and there are many scientific approaches.

[/QUOTE] Why would I waste my time doing that?[/QUOTE]

There are credible scientists, who through science bring forth "science" that supports creation. If one is a "believer" in science, why wouldn't one be interested in what they have to say as well? Also, interesting to research archeology.

I do not believe there is a high percentage to support either way and never will be .... but think it "prudent" and also interesting to look at both sides --- evolution verses creation .... so that is "why" it is not a "waste of time" .... a "waste of time" would be not to consider creation as well. Otherwise, by not looking at both ... one is putting themselves in "one box" by means of preference of a already pre-formed bias one way or another. If one only looks at one thing .... that's all you see.

Like I said .... I look at both .... knowing this mystery will never be solved by mankind.

 

[Jjmcubbin]

right.



not by human but by any intelligent. when we see a spinning motor we know that someone design it. we cant know who made it but we know for sure that someone did . right?

You skipped some part of my argument about analogous organs.
Tbh, I still don't get what you are trying to say.
Also, when I see a motor, I know a human made it because no else can. A human didn't design a flagellum.
A flagellum isn't a motor, it just looks like it.
This is like saying an orange ball looks like an orange (the fruit), and a human designed the ball, therefore the fruit must also be designed. It makes no sense.
Well, evolution kind of designed the flagellum. So...

 

[Speedwell]

I do look at science in relation to evolution, age of the earth etc. and ... a lot of things.I also look at the creation side as well (scientifically). I do know science is progressive ... that is new things are learned, new ways of "testing" are developed. Things are "proven" and also "disproven" or at least not able to be scientifically explained all the time and there are many scientific approaches.



There are credible scientists, who through science bring forth "science" that supports creation. If one is a "believer" in science, why wouldn't one be interested in what they have to say as well? Also, interesting to research archeology.

I do not believe there is a high percentage to support either way and never will be .... but think it "prudent" and also interesting to look at both sides --- evolution verses creation .... so that is "why" it is not a "waste of time" .... a "waste of time" would be not to consider creation as well. Otherwise, by not looking at both ... one is putting themselves in "one box" by means of preference of a already pre-formed bias one way or another. If one only looks at one thing .... that's all you see.

Like I said .... I look at both .... knowing this mystery will never be solved by mankind.

No, it's a waste of time. Just like it's a waste of time to continue to promote other theories which have long since been falsified. Do you want us to also give equal consideration to the miasma theory of disease, the phlogiston theory of heat or the luminiferous aether?

 

[Jjmcubbin]

as far as i remember you already said that even this shape on the beach cant prove design. right?:

(image from Summer Word Made By Various Sea Shells On The Beach Sand Backgro Stock Photo - Image of word, shell: 94851754)

To me, it proves design by a human.

 

[Speedwell]

To me, it proves design by a human.

"Design" is an unfalsifiable proposition and can never be proven. The presence of design can sometimes be inferred from appropriate evidence, but it can never be ruled out and never "proven." Those shells on the beach allow for a strong inference of design for reasons already given, but natural forces cannot be absolutely ruled out.

 

[eleos1954]

No, it's a waste of time. Just like it's a waste of time to continue to promote other theories which have long since been falsified. Do you want us to also give equal consideration to the miasma theory of disease, the phlogiston theory of heat or the luminiferous aether?

Things change as (scientific) knowlege increases. No one can ... or should put a "period" on scientific discoveries. Pursuing science is important, many discoveries are made .... but science is not the end all answer to all things. Yes, scientifically things are "proven", until they are disproven as knowledge increases through technology. You can't put a period on science. Like I said, science is progressive and things change over time. Nobody has all the answers .... but we do pursue "answers" and learn many things in the process and will continue to do so.

 

[Speedwell]

Things change as (scientific) knowlege increases. No one can ... or should put a "period" on scientific discoveries. Pursuing science is important, many discoveries are made .... but science is not the end all answer to all things. Yes, scientifically things are "proven", until they are disproven as knowledge increases through technology. You can't put a period on science. Like I said, science is progressive and things change over time. Nobody has all the answers .... but we do pursue "answers" and learn many things in the process and will continue to do so.

No doubt, but once a scientific theory is falsified it stays falsified. The acquisition of new knowledge, the falsification of subsequent theories won't bring it back. It's already too late for the world to have been created in 4004 BC or entirely covered with water in 2600 BC. Those propositions can never be revived by new discoveries.

 

[HitchSlap]

I do look a


I do look at science in relation to evolution, age of the earth etc. and ... a lot of things.I also look at the creation side as well (scientifically). I do know science is progressive ... that is new things are learned, new ways of "testing" are developed. Things are "proven" and also "disproven" or at least not able to be scientifically explained all the time and there are many scientific approaches.

There are no “credible” creation scientists.

 

[eleos1954]

No doubt, but once a scientific theory is falsified it stays falsified. The acquisition of new knowledge, the falsification of subsequent theories won't bring it back. It's already too late for the world to have been created in 4004 BC or entirely covered with water in 2600 BC. Those propositions can never be revived by new discoveries.

There are no “credible” creation scientists.

There are many many things we will never know. Past and future.