Parallel traits question.

[SelfSim]

As opposed to what? taxing us to fund SETI?

SETI funding ends up being more about developing deep space communications technologies (using astronomical tools) .. as opposed to what you're inferring it ends up being used for.
If and when ETI signals may be detected, at least we know SETI will produce hard objective data .. and not more belief based stories.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

snowflakes look designed , they aren’t . Their shapes are a predictable result of the shape of the water molecules, temperature, wind speed, and air humidity . You think living organisms look designed because they’re a little more complex chemical factories than snowflakes. God-did-it is a belief and as of right now there is no scientific way to test to see if thatbelief is accurate . Belief has nothing to do with science

There's a bit more to my observations than form. Purposeful, elegant function is the best evidence for design.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Your observations aren't taken seriously because they are based on emotional reaction.

They're based on observation, not emotion. I'm particularly fascinated by the way injuries heal.

 

[Brightmoon]

Injuries heal through a process of targeted cell proliferation. Even simple multicellular organisms have the processes . Some also can use the process to produce viable healthy clones from pieces that fall off .

 

[SelfSim]

I understand your point. I am trying to point out the paradox of natural vs. intelligent design.

There is no paradox if you're willing to re-orient your view away from the base assumption of philosophical Realism.
'Design' isn't some object that exists floating around in space someplace .. its a process devised by humans.

Perhaps I am playing games with definitions, but when someone says that there is no way to detect intelligent design in biological organisms, the truth is, the only way to detect design, intended or not, is by understanding what goes into intelligently designing a system. Our understanding of design is the only tool available for us to judge the functionality of biological systems.

No .. 'design' is not a thing' (or object) .. its a process. Understanding 'design' is acquisition of knowledge experienced from having undertaken that process.
The 'functionality of biological systems' is what we choose it to mean .. (and that changes over time, too).

It is the only thing we know of in this universe that has been verified to produce such complex, interdependent systems, but if we use such abilities to understand nature, those who use intelligent design are apparently unscientific.

We don't use 'intelligent design' ... we undertake the process defined by humans. Again, 'design' is not something that exists independently from those who undertake it .. we own what design means at any given time .. and not 'the universe' (the latter of which is a testable object .. and not a process .. as an example).

 

[R.J. Aldridge]

The way we detect "design" as functional arrangement of components is by observing a functional arrangement of components. We need not understand a priori how that arrangement has been brought about.

I think you could clarify this point a little more because it works for me as well. The way we detect "design"(insert definition of design) is by observing (insert definition of design). Your argument is the same argument that is used by ID proponents.

As for your second point, I do admit my a prior assumption, the reason I admit it is because if a designer is the conclusion of the argument, it must also be the premise.

Also, the "how" question is precisely what science tries to discover.

Randomly distributed variation followed by selection can also create such systems.

Although I disagree, I understand your point in relation to evolutionary biology. Philosophically, however, I have a hard time attributing design to randomness. If randomness is responsible for complex life that is capable of creating designs, randomness is the ultimate designer.

Intelligent Design is "unscientific" only because at this point it is nothing but an unfalsifiable assertion which contributes nothing to our understanding of nature. Unfalsifiable propositions are by definition unscientific.

I disagree that ID contributes nothing to our understanding of nature because it is literally an idea that seeks to understand the functionality of nature as if it was intentional.

I don't know if ID falls into the category of "unfalsifiable". We can at least understand intelligent design when it is the result of human effort. because we understand what it takes to design a system, it is hard not appreciate nature when viewed through that lens.

 

[Sanoy]

As far as the original post . Early fish like organisms had a single fin running down the center on top or bottom . The genes that controlled that make-this-here just turned on in two areas rather than in just one central area. It evolved because having left and right fins made it easier to steer . You can see this in the fossil record too.

Heres the thing, a single fin on the top or bottom I think would help keep the fish straight given the movement of the tail. But then at some point two identical fins, or fin nubs have to show up with bilateral symmetry and then evolve symmetrically with nerves wiring up to the vertebrae and then the brain and finally the cognitive function to control those two fins fluidly. Until that last step, to me, it would seem that they are going to slow the fish down and misdirect it's motion until they can be cognitively controlled. So it's more than just a gene that controls a "make this here" there is a novel "make these", and the "here" is actually a bilateral position, and then there is all the other things that seem to need a physical process to push them ahead of random acquisition.

 

[Speedwell]

I think you could clarify this point a little more because it works for me as well. The way we detect "design"(insert definition of design) is by observing (insert definition of design). Your argument is the same argument that is used by ID proponents.

The way ID Proponents do it is to assume two different definitions of "design" in that sentence, making it an equivocation fallacy. "The way we observe intentional creation is to observe functional organisation." Do you see why that is problematic?

Also, the "how" question is precisely what science tries to discover.

But ID proponents do not. ID was originally created to discredit the theory of evolution in order to rehabilitate biblical creationism. They have no answer as to how the designer gets the design into the designed object and don't really care very much about it.

Although I disagree, I understand your point in relation to evolutionary biology. Philosophically, however, I have a hard time attributing design to randomness. If randomness is responsible for complex life that is capable of creating designs, randomness is the ultimate designer.

It works well enough that engineers use so-called "genetic algorithms" based on the same kind of randomly distributed variation and selection process as employed in evolution to let their computers autonomously design new complex semiconductor circuits.

Randomly distributed variation followed by selection can indeed produce biological complexity--the mathematics of stochastic process proves it to be possible, and the biosphere has enough information-processing capacity to do it. Purpose, intention, can only come from God.

I don't know if ID falls into the category of "unfalsifiable". We can at least understand intelligent design when it is the result of human effort. because we understand what it takes to design a system, it is hard not appreciate nature when viewed through that lens.

It is unfalsifiable because you can claim that anything at all is intentional and I can't disprove it. In that sense I can say that the entire universe is "designed" (that is, intentionally created) including the fully naturalistic theory of evolution and you can't disprove my assertion. And, in fact, that is what I believe. I do not believe that God needs to tinker with genetic molecules in order to infuse all life with divine Telos.

 

[pitabread]

They're based on observation, not emotion. I'm particularly fascinated by the way injuries heal.

Like I said, if you could really demonstrate what you claim, call up the Discovery Institute and they'll put you on staff.

 

[xianghua]

I think the question you raise is a good one. Can we apply our experience of what we produce, our experiential knowledge of design, to biological systems themselves, and ultimately to nature itself?

what about gears? we know that gears are a product of design:

(image from Creature with Interlocking Gears on Legs Discovered)

 

[Speedwell]

what about gears? we know that gears are a product of design:

(image from Creature with Interlocking Gears on Legs Discovered)

Gears can be the product of design. How do you know they need to be?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Like I said, if you could really demonstrate what you claim, call up the Discovery Institute and they'll put you on staff.

I have nothing new to show them.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

what about gears? we know that gears are a product of design:

(image from Creature with Interlocking Gears on Legs Discovered)

Clearly a product of design.

 

[Speedwell]

Clearly a product of design.

So you assert that there is no natural process capable of producing functional structures like that? That even God himself is incapable of creating such a process?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So you assert that there is no natural process capable of producing functional structures like that? That even God himself is incapable of creating such a process?

All processes are created by God, or allowed by God to be created by man. Our biggest problem is that we aren't in harmony with many of those processes.

 

[Speedwell]

All processes are created by God, or allowed by God to be created by man.

But you deny that God could create a process which would produce those gear-like structures and insist that He must have done it directly.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

But you deny that God could create a process which would produce those gear-like structures and insist that He must have done it directly.

It is my sense that he did it directly, although he might have spent considerable 'God-time' in it's design before bringing it into physical existence suddenly. A gradual process would indicate that he didn't exactly know where he was going with this organism. Why go through a bazillion complex iterations before concluding the project (meaning the whole biosphere of course).

 

[pitabread]

I have nothing new to show them.

Nothing, exactly.

 

[pitabread]

Why go through a bazillion complex iterations before concluding the project (meaning the whole biosphere of course).

Perhaps because it's an interesting thing to do?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Nothing, exactly.

I could show them those gears. Of course they would probably have me escorted out of the building.