Because that's a textbook argument from ignorance and a textbook argument from incredulity.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Because that's a textbook argument from ignorance and a textbook argument from incredulity.In considering what might show design, consider how it is that you have a mind which can come to know what is true, which is so in reality. How is this possible, for the most abstract concepts, from natural processes? Is it explained just from that? Why not call something like that design which is not explained from natural processes?
In considering what might show design, consider how it is that you have a mind which can come to know what is true, which is so in reality. How is this possible, for the most abstract concepts, from natural processes? Is it explained just from that? Why not call something like that design which is not explained from natural processes?
No, I'm saying that the predators are eliminating all designs that don't put them off (e.g. eyes, bird droppings, nasty flies, etc). It's a co-evolutionary race, where ever more discriminating predators drive the evolution of ever more deceptive patterns, by a process of elimination, where patterns change by random modification of the current (most successful) pattern and the predators selectively remove variations that don't fool them.So this indicates design patterns. Otherwise your saying random mutations are choosing particular patterns, colors and shapes which is pointing to design anyway.
You will have to point out where I am wrong about what the experts say. Its easy to make accusations. All I have said about the experts is that they are experts and they know how to decern design better than most. The papers I posted on design compared to random occurrences is straight forward and describes the qualities of design against no ordered events. 9quote]For every correction made, he makes two more errors.[/quote] So now your assuming you are right by saying you are correcting things. What evidence do you have for this or are you doing what you are accusing me of.There's nothing else for me to say. Steve's cognitive dissonance is hot enough to boil tungsten. There's simply too much wrong to address everything, both in his assumptions, his conclusions, and his rampant misrepresentation of experts.
I have already explained the difference between rare events and fine tuned. You obviously havnt read it yet. There are actually no rare events. A rare event is part of a bigger sequence of events. It can only be a rare event because there are many other events that are related to that rare event as well. Because there are many events its a bit like the multiverse argument.He hasn't answered my question about how he discerns a finely-tuned outcome from a tremendously rare yet inevitable outcome.
The problem is if you calculated the odds for totaling random blotches or marks to build that specific picture it would be impossible odds. The calculations would have to be all the many colors , all the many color combinations, all the many shapes, all the many shape combinations, all the many locations on the wings, all the many combinations of locations on the wings, all the many locations and shapes put together, all the many combinations of shapes, colors and locations put together ects ect ect. The odds would be impossible to randomly create.No, I'm saying that the predators are eliminating all designs that don't put them off (e.g. eyes, bird droppings, nasty flies, etc). It's a co-evolutionary race, where ever more discriminating predators drive the evolution of ever more deceptive patterns, by a process of elimination, where patterns change by random modification of the current (most successful) pattern and the predators selectively remove variations that don't fool them.
How many times has this misconception been addressed? Yet you still persist...The problem is if you calculated the odds for totaling random blotches or marks to build that specific picture it would be impossible odds. The calculations would have to be all the many colors , all the many color combinations, all the many shapes, all the many shape combinations, all the many locations on the wings, all the many combinations of locations on the wings, all the many locations and shapes put together, all the many combinations of shapes, colors and locations put together ects ect ect. The odds would be impossible to randomly create. The fact is the moths would be eaten or the random pattern or mark or color would have no selective advantage and be either left as is or have no benefit well before any chance of even a fraction of any meaningful picture was formed..
All I have said about the experts is that they are experts and they know how to decern design better than most. The papers I posted on design compared to random occurrences is straight forward and describes the qualities of design against no ordered events.
I'm talking about random mutations. Natural selection can only work what it is given. So to create that water color mural on the moths wings it will take random mutations throwing up random blotches and marks in any location of the moths wings. Natural selection will only keep what has a strong selective advantage. Chances are a blotch that doesn't mean much will not have a strong selective benefit so will be lost. This could go on forever with random combinations of colors, shapes and locations.How many times has this misconception been addressed? Yet you still persist...
I tinker in electronics and that field there is something of a hierarchy. Components ->circuits->system.The easiest way is to see if species fall into a nested hierarchy or not.
Human designs do not fall into a nested hierarchy. Evolved things do.
I dont think its a black and white as that. No one is saying that absolutely everything is designed. There is random things everywhere. A comet hurtling through space and smashing into a planet is random. Something may be initially designed but that doesn't mean it cant act randomly. I guess it all comes down to odds and probabilities. All I know is if you have something that is random the odds of a certain thing happening can be great. So it may never happen and when it does its just luck without any controlling factors causing it to happen. But there are things that will happen in specific times and places and they have controlling factors that make it happen that way. So this is what has to be determined to see whether it has design or is subject to chance and random circumstances.The funny thing is, Steve: If the universe is designed there isn´t anything undesigned. So these experts must be wrong when they conclude that they can determine something to be undesigned. The entire distinction would be obsolete. The conclusion ruins the method.
Ok, so the universe is only partly designed. How was the rest shaped?I dont think its a black and white as that. No one is saying that absolutely everything is designed. There is random things everywhere. A comet hurtling through space and smashing into a planet is random.
Now, first you say it all comes down to odds and probabilities, and two sentences later you say that - regardless the probabilities - it all comes down to determining whether or not there are "controlling factors". That the tap-dance you have been performing for quite some time. First you are all about the odds/probabilities - when it is shown that it is not, you come up with a new idea....and some posts later you are back at pointing at the low probabilities.I guess it all comes down to odds and probabilities. All I know is if you have something that is random the odds of a certain thing happening can be great. So it may never happen and when it does its just luck without any controlling factors causing it to happen. But there are things that will happen in specific times and places and they have controlling factors that make it happen that way. So this is what has to be determined to see whether it has design or is subject to chance and random circumstances.
Well yes; in hindsight you could make exactly the same argument about your own existence: the chances of you having been born where and when you were; the chances that you grew up a Christian rather than a Muslim, or Hindu, or Sikh somewhere else in the world; the chances you survived to have access to the internet and enough intellect to make use of it; the chances of you being exactly the height and weight you are now; the chances of you having the preferences and dislikes you have; the chances of your parents meeting up when they did and having a relationship; the chances of each parent having been born where and when they were so that the relationship would be possible; and so-on. The retrospective probability of the specific causal chain behind any particular event or outcome is astronomically small. This is a variation on the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. Don't forget all the species of butterflies that ended up with entirely different patterns on their wings (I gave a link for those with 'eye spots'). The same fallacious argument can be used for each of them too - and for anything else your attention falls on, such as a pebble in the road - what are the chances of that pebble ending up just there?The problem is if you calculated the odds for totaling random blotches or marks to build that specific picture it would be impossible odds. The calculations would have to be all the many colors , all the many color combinations, all the many shapes, all the many shape combinations, all the many locations on the wings, all the many combinations of locations on the wings, all the many locations and shapes put together, all the many combinations of shapes, colors and locations put together ects ect ect. The odds would be impossible to randomly create.
If the random variation on the existing pattern wasn't more effective than the current one, yes - if it was no worse it would blend slowly into the population, or - if it was less effective - it would be snuffed out. The population would continue reproducing and being picked off until a slightly more effective variation appeared, which would spread quickly through the population, until the predator adapted to be better at spotting it.The fact is the moths would be eaten or the random pattern or mark or color would have no selective advantage and be either left as is or have no benefit well before any chance of even a fraction of any meaningful picture was formed.
You're ignoring all the artists that produce carefully crafted works that, to the untrained or uninformed eye, do look like a 'big mess'. Or the chimp paintings that wowed some art critics - until they discovered their origin. A university friend of mine is big in avant-garde improvised (saxophone) music; he draws crowds around the world and has had programmes on his life and work on the radio - yet to me, even with an appreciation of improvised jazz, it's just unstructured noises. Contrariwise, snowflakes, or the iteration of the Mandelbrot Set appear designed to the uninformed. Capabiity Brown was a landscape gardener famed for his realizations of landscapes that looked natural, yet were especially appealing to the appreciation of the time. So does or doesn't look designed or intended is not as clear as canonical exemplars would suggest; without prior knowledge of origin, it's subjective and cultural.But when you get a person who can design a picture putting everything in place you recognize that there was a designer straight away. An artists doesn't put a blindfold on and dab a blob on the paper and keep trying to paint his masterpiece that way. He would have all the parts and colors in the wrong place and be forever starting again. Either that or he'd end up with a big mess.
I tinker in electronics and that field there is something of a hierarchy. Components ->circuits->system.
I think you are still seeing things in black and white like there is only one way design works. Some say that God may have set all the laws and quantum physics in place to create the universe. The fact is its hard to explain how something can come from nothing and this makes sense. So everything we see now is the result of that creation. In other words the design blueprints were set in place for everything to operate in the beginning. Its like a computer operating system that you can then build system, add data and info into. Without the original operating software nothing else can be done. Even if God had created the planets and stars ect in place to begin with doesn't mean that everything stays the same. Things are still subject to random forces and this maybe the non designed part of existence.Ok, so the universe is only partly designed. How was the rest shaped
No I have spoken about both odds and probabilities and about determining the controlling factors. It all is part of determining if something is a random thing or designed. AS we have seen people can think a random process is designed and something that is designed is a natural process. So on the surface many people can be unsure about what is truly causing the effect. All I know is I have stated that its the experts who are the ones who can decern this through engineering and other principles for which I have posted evidence for on a number of occasions.Now, first you say it all comes down to odds and probabilities, and two sentences later you say that - regardless the probabilities - it all comes down to determining whether or not there are "controlling factors". That the tap-dance you have been performing for quite some time. First you are all about the odds/probabilities - when it is shown that it is not, you come up with a new idea....and some posts later you are back at pointing at the low probabilities.
This is what I was saying earlier. Even you are confused about what is what. This is where the experts have to investigate what is chance, the probabilities and odds ect as well as what has design qualities. This is a whole process of maths which has to be determined. But on the surface I would say that a comet flying through space is a regular occurrence. You are focusing on one comet but if you look at all the comets the individual event is not fined tuned as far as the reasons why comets end up flying through space and the random directions they may take.How do you determine that this unique, extremely unlikely event of cometA smashing into planetX (so many constants need to be exactly the way they are, so many conditions have to be met to make it happen) isn´t due to "controlling factors", IOW how do you determine that this event wasn´t the very purpose for which the universe is fine-tuned?
No one denies that there is a certain level of evolution at work. Creatures are able to change and adapt to their environments. Natural selection works within species. But what is in question is the level and capability that evolution can occur. Evolutionists give it more creative power than it has. They take what has been proven and is true and them spectulate that it can move beyond the species and create new types of animal.s In fact the process is said to have created every creature on earth from a micro organism. There is no direct evidence for this.Well yes; in hindsight you could make exactly the same argument about your own existence: the chances of you having been born where and when you were; the chances that you grew up a Christian rather than a Muslim, or Hindu, or Sikh somewhere else in the world; the chances you survived to have access to the internet and enough intellect to make use of it; the chances of you being exactly the height and weight you are now; the chances of you having the preferences and dislikes you have; the chances of your parents meeting up when they did and having a relationship; the chances of each parent having been born where and when they were so that the relationship would be possible; and so-on. The retrospective probability of the specific causal chain behind any particular event or outcome is astronomically small. This is a variation on the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. Don't forget all the species of butterflies that ended up with entirely different patterns on their wings (I gave a link for those with 'eye spots'). The same fallacious argument can be used for each of them too - and for anything else your attention falls on, such as a pebble in the road - what are the chances of that pebble ending up just there?[/quote But the pebble doesn't mean anything. The particular picture on the wings of the moth are designed to protect it. Out of all the possible flies that it could have painted it painted the very fly that other creatures knew was one that would make them sick. The pebble on the road doesn't signify anything like that so it is well just a random pebble on the road. So when you go into the finer detail you see that there is purpose and meaning for what is happening.
So the chances of the entire picture happening is impossible. Its the entire picture that works and not part of it or half of it. But even so if it was able to get to the point of getting half the picture, "which half". A scattering of half the picture makes a jumbled mess and means nothing but a scrambled pattern. But I believe it would even get that far. It would be a never ending process of blobs and marks all over the place which will never be selected.If the random variation on the existing pattern wasn't more effective than the current one, yes - if it was no worse it would blend slowly into the population, or - if it was less effective - it would be snuffed out. The population would continue reproducing and being picked off until a slightly more effective variation appeared, which would spread quickly through the population, until the predator adapted to be better at spotting it.
It's an incredibly simple process, and it's used on a daily basis in industrial design to optimize products. One classic result was when an evolutionary algorithm was used by NASA to generate a more effective radio antenna. Starting with a simple functional antenna, successive generations of random variations were selected for best performance, until performance plateaued. The result wasn't a symmetrical array as expected, but a strangely bent wire (see Evolved Antenna). No human could have designed an antenna like that, but a simple algorithm did, and it out-performed the best human designs. This kind of optimization for function is now widely used in industry. The principle is identical to that occurring in nature - heritable random variation with selection (filtering). It's so simple, it doesn't take much imagination to see that it's capable of producing the variations we see; what is hard to see is why you continue to assert your incredulity - it suggests a refusal to grasp it rather than an inability...
I am not sure about the so called expert opinion on these mish mashed paintings or musics. They have been presented with kids paintings and have declared them masterpieces. This says to me that there is a pretty big scope for misinterpreting things. But all this is more along the lines of a newly created appreciation for something different and may not necessarily indicate design. I think some of the abstract art does have some symmetry which can be seen when closely examining it. But the average person could see this and it needs an expert.You're ignoring all the artists that produce carefully crafted works that, to the untrained or uninformed eye, do look like a 'big mess'. Or the chimp paintings that wowed some art critics - until they discovered their origin. A university friend of mine is big in avant-garde improvised (saxophone) music; he draws crowds around the world and has had programmes on his life and work on the radio - yet to me, even with an appreciation of improvised jazz, it's just unstructured noises.
Snowflakes actually reflect the complexity of water molecules in that they have many different shapes. They will always form hexagonal shapes. So there us an element of pre set design in them which relects the world of physics.Contrariwise, snowflakes, or the iteration of the Mandelbrot Set appear designed to the uninformed.
Well first the gardener could be showing design in nature by copying the design in nature. There was a famous farmer who created landscapes that reflected the way nature worked. He used these methods in farming as well like mixed crops and using the natural terrain. He placed certain trees and plants in areas where they all supported each other. The end result was he could restore barren areas back to life and have some of the best crops in the world.Capabiity Brown was a landscape gardener famed for his realizations of landscapes that looked natural, yet were especially appealing to the appreciation of the time. So does or doesn't look designed or intended is not as clear as canonical exemplars would suggest; without prior knowledge of origin, it's subjective and cultural.
Thats right as it is a very hard thing to decern sometimes. I just think the original point of the fine tuned universe for life is a fairly strong one that has been acknowledge by many. Other examples are more ambiguous and need more investigation. But one thing that does come through and that is what appears on the surface isn't exactly what is going on underneath.I don't think trying to assert a means to distinguish purposeful design from natural patterns is likely to be a worthwhile pursuit for your argument, such as it is.
But you can't tell me what is designed and what isn't designed unless you (the directed *you*, not the general *you) have apparently been told whether or not there is a designer in the first place.I dont think its a black and white as that. No one is saying that absolutely everything is designed. There is random things everywhere. A comet hurtling through space and smashing into a planet is random. Something may be initially designed but that doesn't mean it cant act randomly. I guess it all comes down to odds and probabilities. All I know is if you have something that is random the odds of a certain thing happening can be great. So it may never happen and when it does its just luck without any controlling factors causing it to happen. But there are things that will happen in specific times and places and they have controlling factors that make it happen that way. So this is what has to be determined to see whether it has design or is subject to chance and random circumstances.
So far his answer was: You ask the experts.How do you discern something that is finely tuned from something that is the result of an rare yet inevitable outcome?
I dont understand what you mean by the directed me or the general me. But I dont think anyone needs to know there is a designer or not to determine intelligent design. When you see a distress message on a beach that says help or read a sentence that gives instructions we immediately recognize that it didn't come from a chance and random process that somehow lucked the letters and words into the right place to give meaning. We know it is the product of something that had intelligence enough to understand the meanings and instructions.But you can't tell me what is designed and what isn't designed unless you (the directed *you*, not the general *you) have apparently been told whether or not there is a designer in the first place.
I have answered this. I have posted peer reviewed papers which show the difference between design and events that come from chance and random situations whether rare or not. I have also posted info on how rare events are not really rare. When you consider all the factors that go into why an event will happen or not it puts it into perspective as to why it can happen. When you consider the rare event in the light of all the info available it is more likely to happen then not. So this doesn't compare to the over 122 physical constants that need to be in place within very restricted parameters. Some so exact that there is really no room to consider any alternatives. So to think that all these conditions are met by chance is impossible.And you still haven't answered my very simple and straightforward question, which I believe to be the most important and vital question your argument needs to overcome before anyone should offer it any more consideration than someone pitching a "free energy machine".
How do you discern something that is finely tuned from something that is the result of an rare yet inevitable outcome?
The best way to show that the protein picture you posted is designed or at least cannot be created by random mutations is from the tests done. Proteins have very complex 3D shapes which are necessary for that particular biological function. This is determined by the sequence of the different amino acids that make up that protein. So a mistake or a misshape in the folds will cause damage and therefore render it useless.Here is the crystal structure of a protein binding to DNA:
Using those equations, determine if that protein is designed.
Show us how they are objective and can be applied to biology.
Who said that natural forces are responsible for the ability for creatures to change. There is debate about how an animal gets the genetic info for that change. Some say that it comes from existing genetics or is gained from other creatures or microorganisms that the creature lives with. Or from other methods such as epigentics. This is part of the debate about whether the info is newly created through a naturalistic cause or is part of the blue print for life that has always been there.Species are also changing which shows that they are subject to natural forces.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?