Poor Design

[Humboldt]

Friendly Giant
When I said better argument, I meant that it was better because it didn't try to do too much. It is not a better argument at "proving" evolution, but rather a better way to bring the notion of good or bad design into the debate. It's actually just making the obseravtion that bad designs are consistent with the way natural selection acts. It doesn't rest on an appeal to ignorance. Your statement

The structure makes sense if it was created as a complete system.

is a similar statement, though doesn't really break much new ground. It's not simply an appeal to ignorance (we don't know how it could have happened, therefore the designer must have done it). Unfortunately, the sentence that immediately preceeds it

In order for it to develope, it needed a reason to be there, other system to be in place to use it and is now fatal to the system if it is removed.

does work down to such an appeal. The point that I'm trying to make here is that many others have addressed the ID version of appeal to ignorance I'm postulating that one version from the evolution side of the debate is actually a similar appeal. The argument is generally framed as the statement "I can't see why an intelligent designer would have created that particular bad design. Therefore there is no designer"

 

[TheFriendlyGiant]

Friendly Giant
It's actually just making the obseravtion that bad designs are consistent with the way natural selection acts. It doesn't rest on an appeal to ignorance. r"

So you are telling me that because to me it looks deigned it must be is appealing to ignorance...

by definition ignorance n : the lack of knowledge or education

But because something seems to be a poor design you are telling me that its random chance...and random chance has no knowledge of previous events...therefore appealing to more ignorance.

So your argument kind of goes both ways here.

 

[Randall McNally]

So because you decide that a couple of parts are poorly designed. And seing as how you went to great lengths to look at the problem on the other side just to say...ahh, stupid (science with an open mind). So, in order for evolution to be true,(by your poor design therefore statement) shouldn't the entire body and world seem poorly designed?

No, why would you even think so? An organism that survives and reproduces has to be well-adapted relative to its competitors in its niche. If there are some components that appear jury-rigged, it's because evolution has to work with the raw materials of mutation. But overall, a species that persists is going to be comparatively well-designed.

 

[TheFriendlyGiant]

How can something be well-designed if it is done by a random, directless process. By definition...

de·sign
v. de·signed, de·sign·ing, de·signs

1. 1. To conceive or fashion in the mind; invent: design a good excuse for not attending the conference.
   2. To formulate a plan for; devise: designed a marketing strategy for the new product.
2. To plan out in systematic, usually graphic form: design a building; design a computer program.
3. To create or contrive for a particular purpose or effect: a game designed to appeal to all ages.
4. To have as a goal or purpose; intend.
5. To create or execute in an artistic or highly skilled manner

 

[Randall McNally]

How can something be well-designed if it is done by a random, directless process.

Because natural selection, although probably directionless, is not random.

 

[TheFriendlyGiant]

Not random? Then who is setting the course for these changes. Random is somthing without a governing design, method, or purpose. To say it is not random would imply that somthing has to direct the changes.

 

[Randall McNally]

Not random? Then who is setting the course for these changes. Random is somthing without a governing design, method, or purpose. To say it is not random would imply that somthing has to direct the changes.

Something is directing the changes - natural selection. Organisms don't survive randomly. That's what natural selection means - there's a method that determines what survives and what doesn't.

 

[TheFriendlyGiant]

Hmm, so your telling me that natural selection can create things that intelligent scientists cannot even come close to and have copied their designs for decades.

So in a nutshell, are you not telling me that the world and everything in it is created by an intelligent designer...I refer to mine as God and you call yours natural selection.

 

[CypressLB]

You know the Bible says at the start of Genesis that not only was everything perfect, minus the two trees, all animals ate from the plants.
1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

What that means is that [size=-1]all animals were originally herbivores. Tapeworms, vampire bats, mosquitoes, and barracudas -- all were strict vegetarians, as created by God. So, I know what the snake did to go toward meat eating, and of course "eating dirt", but what did every other creature do? Why were they so drastically biologically changed?

Natural Selection isn't ID, it simply kills off things that don't work. There is no efficient in ID, it's all about luck and killing off really bad designs.
[/size]

 

[Randall McNally]

Hmm, so your telling me that natural selection can create things that intelligent scientists cannot even come close to and have copied their designs for decades.

Yes. Of course, natural selection has had a few billion years to operate, rather than just a few dozen.

So in a nutshell, are you not telling me that the world and everything in it is created by an intelligent designer...I refer to mine as God and you call yours natural selection.

No. If you want to be pedantic and demand that all instances of design be considered intelligently realized, I'll just stop using the word.

 

[TheFriendlyGiant]

I thought it wasn't random, now you are going to ask me to believe that its all about luck? Random, directless, luck can create things that intelligent people cannot even fathom. There are things in the world that you would not argue again design for...I am assuming you wouldn't disagree that a camera, computer, etc etc is designed. So what separates your logic from a bird, human, tree?

 

[napajohn]

Hmm, so your telling me that natural selection can create things that intelligent scientists cannot even come close to and have copied their designs for decades.

So in a nutshell, are you not telling me that the world and everything in it is created by an intelligent designer...I refer to mine as God and you call yours natural selection.

BINGO..in evo talk natural selection is God except it has no moral accountability

 

[TheFriendlyGiant]

Quote "No. If you want to be pedantic and demand that all instances of design be considered intelligently realized, I'll just stop using the word."

I'm not trying to nit pic the words, I'm just trying to understand your point. I'm not expecting to include every aspect of design, but you have to look at the good design in the same light that you referred to the bad design. Origionally there are some things in the body that are poorly designed and they are pointing towards evolution...so all I ask is that you then consider the same possibility that some incredible designs point away from evolution.

 

[Randall McNally]

I thought it wasn't random, now you are going to ask me to believe that its all about luck?

If you want to call it that. Billions more organisms have died before reproducing than those that managed to have offspring.

The odds of your winning the lottery are astronomically poor; nevertheless, someone usually wins. Most people call that luck, but it's really just an expected outcome with extremely large numbers.

Random, directless, luck can create things that intelligent people cannot even fathom. There are things in the world that you would not argue again design for...I am assuming you wouldn't disagree that a camera, computer, etc etc is designed. So what separates your logic from a bird, human, tree?

I've seen people design computers and cameras. I've never seen anyone or anything design a tree.

 

[Randall McNally]

I'm not trying to nit pic the words, I'm just trying to understand your point. I'm not expecting to include every aspect of design, but you have to look at the good design in the same light that you referred to the bad design. Origionally there are some things in the body that are poorly designed and they are pointing towards evolution...so all I ask is that you then consider the same possibility that some incredible designs point away from evolution.

Show me some and I will.

Thing is, the reason this argument doesn't work nearly as well in reverse is that evolution is capable of both good design and bad design. With an intelligent designer unconstrained by physical limitations, however, bad design is much harder to account for.

 

[TheFriendlyGiant]

If you want to call it that. Billions more organisms have died before reproducing than those that managed to have offspring.

The odds of your winning the lottery are astronomically poor; nevertheless, someone usually wins. Most people call that luck, but it's really just an expected outcome with extremely large numbers.
I've seen people design computers and cameras. I've never seen anyone or anything design a tree.

True, you've never seen anyone design a tree. So is it because you have seen something designed the main criteria for you being able to make that assumption? A tree is alot more complex than a computer and camera. You tell me that a camera and computer are designed (I'm sure we can point out poor design in these, but that won't prove they evolved), but a unmeasurably more complex structure such as a tree isn't designed.

Also, granted people do win the lottery, but you are asking me to believe that the same group of people win over and over and over...or at least a realtive of theirs.

 

[TheFriendlyGiant]

Show me some and I will.

Thing is, the reason this argument doesn't work nearly as well in reverse is that evolution is capable of both good design and bad design. With an intelligent designer unconstrained by physical limitations, however, bad design is much harder to account for.

True, the theory of evolution can explain poor design...I'm not too sold on it being able to produce great design. But you are right in the sense that and ID argument would have a harder time explaining bad design. The only thing that comes to mind is in our lack of understanding of the purpose for the desgin. We are still discovering all sorts of things about the world we live in, and things that may appear to be poorly designed (yet completely functional) may have a whole different outlook later. I just can't see how a random act is going to produce the remarkable things we see in the world.

 

[Randall McNally]

True, you've never seen anyone design a tree. So is it because you have seen something designed the main criteria for you being able to make that assumption?

Not necessarily. In this case, however, it is a useful heuristic.

A tree is alot more complex than a computer and camera.

Maybe. I'm not of the opinion that complexity can be meaningfully compared across wholly different genres of object.

You tell me that a camera and computer are designed (I'm sure we can point out poor design in these, but that won't prove they evolved), but a unmeasurably more complex structure such as a tree isn't designed.

That's cute. I suppose we know differential complexity when we see it, yet we can't measure it?

Also, granted people do win the lottery, but you are asking me to believe that the same group of people win over and over and over...or at least a realtive of theirs.

That's hindsight bias. You're making the same error as before - looking at a particular state-of-affairs and marvelling at its occurrence given the remote possibility of its obtaining. What you don't get is that that SoA wasn't selected to obtain - it obtained because all the others did not.

 

[Randall McNally]

True, the theory of evolution can explain poor design...I'm not too sold on it being able to produce great design. But you are right in the sense that and ID argument would have a harder time explaining bad design. The only thing that comes to mind is in our lack of understanding of the purpose for the desgin. We are still discovering all sorts of things about the world we live in, and things that may appear to be poorly designed (yet completely functional) may have a whole different outlook later. I just can't see how a random act is going to produce the remarkable things we see in the world.

First, randomness is a relatively minor part of the appearance of some or other organism. It provides the raw material - mutation - but most mutations do not manifest an observable phenotypic trait; most are neutral, many result in embryonic death.

Most of the mutations that accumulate in populations, then, are the ones that provide some survival/reproductive advantage. And that is a decidedly non-random factor.

Second, your characterization of worldly phenomena as "remarkable" is subjective. Such a judgment is only ultimately meaningful to you, and only because you have the ability to attach meaning.

 

[TheFriendlyGiant]

Not necessarily. In this case, however, it is a useful heuristic.
Maybe. I'm not of the opinion that complexity can be meaningfully compared across wholly different genres of object.
That's cute. I suppose we know differential complexity when we see it, yet we can't measure it?
That's hindsight bias. You're making the same error as before - looking at a particular state-of-affairs and marvelling at its occurrence given the remote possibility of its obtaining. What you don't get is that that SoA wasn't selected to obtain - it obtained because all the others did not.

Not sure why me looking at the remote chance of something happening is an error. You are making an assumption that it happened. I would have to say..."God did it" and you would have to say..."pure luck, or no one did it".

If I came up to you and told you that I could flip a coin and get heads 50 times in a row...I'll bet you $1000 bucks that I can. I'm sure (betting man or not) you'd take that bet. What if I then got 50 in a row...what would your reaction be? You'd probably think it was fixed, or there was someone behind it. So why is it when you look at our discussion, am I looked at as being in error for thinking that something that is so impossible can happen...and did so very easily over and over again.

I agree that it is tough to compare things across the board, but you have to admit that a robot lawnmower is alot less complicated than a lawnmowing goat (sorry, the best comparison I can come up with right now).