Responding to Justa's Comments On Evolution

[justlookinla]

WHAT DESIGN?!?!

I have yet to see any convincing scientific evidence that there is design.




Was merely a bit o'fun to show how many posters feel about circular reasoning.

Claims are made of illusion of design. It has the elements of design, but it's just an illusion they say. There's no evidence offered for their positive claim of illusion of design though.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You haven't shown that it is design. No scientific evidence at all.

This seems to be escaping you.

1. Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method.

The Scientific Process

A scientific process or scientific method requires observations of nature and formulating and testing the hypothesis. It consists of following four steps.

1. Observe something and ask questions about a natural phenomenon (scientific observation)
   
   
2. Make your hypothesis
   
   
3. Make predictions about logical consequences of the hypothesis
   
   
4. Test your predictions by controlled experiment, a natural experiment, an observational study or a field experiment
   
   
5. Create your conclusion on the basis of data or information gathered in your experiment.
   

https://explorable.com/scientific-observation


We observe living forms have apparent design with a purpose in living forms. We observe how they work together, we see how they interact in their environment and observe if the behavior is affected by the environment. We observe their structure, their features, systems and functions and how that interact with other elements and with the entire organism.


We hypothesize that we observe design and implies they were deliberately designed. We predict that if organisms structure, features, systems and functions if designed will resemble what we experience as design by intelligent agents. We predict that if design is deliberate there will be functions that are in place that perform specific and purposeful actions. We predict that the structure of systems should be recognizable as those of human design.


We do experiments using strong microscopes and new technology to observe the inner workings of the organism and the findings show that indeed there are structures that resemble human structures in their designs. We find features used in human designs. We find functions that work in the same way human's design things to work and we see production lines, as we do in human design, we observe assembly lines as we do in human design, we observe systems that interact with other subsystems that we find in human design.


The conclusion is that living forms have the design elements seen in human design and appear to be designed by intelligence.


The claim: This evidence of design is not a deliberate design by intelligence but an illusion of deliberate design but produced by evolutionary processes. This is another hypothesis regarding the evidence found by scientific method of design in living forms. Evidence must be provided that shows this design observed in living forms is an illusion.


Note: The evidence is the design...the hypothesis is that if we observe design it should resemble or be recognized as the design by the experience and appearance of design created by humans. The test is to see if the structures, features, systems and functions in living organisms do resemble and are recognized to be designs used by humans. The conclusion is yes, we do observe structures, features, systems and functions that do resemble human design and recognized as such

From the link above

Then take it up with Dawkins. I don't really care about what he happened to say in a book and I have no need to defend him. Again, you haven't shown that there is design.

Are you going to ignore him and all other biologists that claim that biological organisms show design with a purpose in their makeup?

Bruce Alberts, biochemist and former president of the National Academy of Sciences, "The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists," Cell, 92 (February 8, 1998), 291: We have always underestimated cells. . . . The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines. . . . Why do we call the large protein assemblies that underlie cell function protein machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts.

Stephen Grocott, chemist, "Stephen Grocott," in John F. Ashton, ed., In Six Days (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2001), 149: The complexity of the simplest imaginable living organism is mindboggling. You need to have the cell wall, the energy system, a system of self-repair, a reproduction system, and means for taking in "food" and expelling "waste," a means for interpreting the complex genetic code and replicating it, etc., etc. The combined telecommunication systems of the world are far less complex, and yet no one believes they arose by chance.

Jeremy Walter, mechanical engineer, "Jeremy L. Walter," in John F. Ashton, ed., In Six Days (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2001), 17: "The most basic processes of living things are accomplished by molecular engines as complex as man's greatest inventions."

Richard Strohman, microbiologist, in David Suzuki and Holly Dressel, rev. ed., From Naked Ape to Superspecies (Vancouver: Greystone Books, 2004), 172: "Molecular biologists and cell biologists are revealing to us a complexity of life that we never dreamt was there. We're seeing connections and interconnections and complexity that is mindboggling. It's stupendous. It's transcalculational. It means that the whole science is going to have to change."

Robert M. Hazen, geophysicist, Genesis: The Scientific Quest for Life's Origin (Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press, 2007), 9: "We [know] that the simplest living cell is intricate beyond imagining, because every cell relies on the interplay of millions of molecules engaged in hundreds of interdependent chemical reactions. Human brains seem ill suited to grasp such multidimensional complexity."

Alonso Ricardo, biochemist, and Jack W. Szostak, geneticist, "The Origin of Life on Earth," Scientific American (August 19, 2009), 54: Every living cell, even the simplest bacterium, teems with molecular contraptions that would be the envy of any nanotechnologist. As they incessantly shake or spin or crawl around the cell, these machines cut, paste and copy genetic molecules, shuttle nutrients around or turn them into energy, build and repair cellular membranes, relay mechanical, chemical or electrical messages—the list goes on and on, and new discoveries add to it all the time.

Again, you haven't shown that there is design.

“We may say that a living body or organ is well designed if it has attributes that an intelligent and knowledgeable engineer might have built into it in order to achieve some sensible purpose… any engineer can recognize an object that has been designed, even poorly designed, for a purpose, and he can usually work out what that purpose is just by looking at the structure of the object.” {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 21}

I'm astonished a ID proponent can say that with a straight face.

Really if you look into this thread and I the one providing the evidence and the materialists are just making assertions and ad hominem remarks.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The circular charge is simply evasion.

I agree, when all else fails.

Not only does Dawkins propose this unsubstantiated claim, but others do also. They may not be forthright as Dawkins, but illusion of design is at the heart of their worldview.

Agreed.

And after dozens of requests, we can rest assured it's not going to be provided.

Exactly.

 

[The Cadet]

We observe living forms have apparent design with a purpose in living forms.

Appeal number 1,556 for you to please demonstrate that there is "purpose" in living forms, or even to explain what you mean.

We hypothesize that we observe design and implies they were deliberately designed. We predict that if organisms structure, features, systems and functions if designed will resemble what we experience as design by intelligent agents. We predict that if design is deliberate there will be functions that are in place that perform specific and purposeful actions. We predict that the structure of systems should be recognizable as those of human design.

Okay, firstly, not only is this as clear an example of HARKing as I've ever seen (the predictions came after the results were known in every case I am aware of), but it's missing an important step: the null hypothesis. What would we predict if organisms were not designed? What predictions can we make on the basis of "not designed"? Can we make any? Is there any set of conditions that your "designer" could not achieve? In science, the important step is not "what can we predict if my hypothesis is true". It's "what tests could conceivably prove my hypothesis wrong, let's find those and do them".

And of course, you have still completely and utterly failed to demonstrate that we actually observe design in any objective way. Unless you want to claim that we subjectively observe design, but that opens up an entirely new can of worms, doesn't it? Subjectivity screws basically any scientific idea, as whether or not the evidence exists in the first place is entirely up to the observer! No matter how many times I ask, you will not give me the model that lets us go from an object to whether or not that object was designed. All you ever do is appeal to "it looks designed". But that's not an objective measure of whether it was actually designed. That's your opinion. And if I disagree with you (as I have on numerous occasions), you have nothing to work with. You have no way forward. All you have is "well, you're wrong".

Let me show you the difference. Let's say that I think that the earth and all other planets go around the sun, and you think that the sun and all the other planets go around the earth. The evidence I provide of retrograde planetary motion is not subjective. It's not only there if you believe in it. It's present whether or not you want it to be! The conclusions reached as a result are not subjective either. It doesn't care how much you want to deny it, the evidence remains real whether you want it to or not. While if I want to deny your "evidence of design", all I have to do is say, "I don't think that looks designed", and I'm done. Because you have not shown anything objective.

We do experiments using strong microscopes and new technology to observe the inner workings of the organism and the findings show that indeed there are structures that resemble human structures in their designs.

Superficially, and with many of the analogies stretched to the breaking point. "The power plant of the cell!" Except that power plants really look nothing like that and do not work anything like that. "The eye is like a pinhole camera!" Except in every single aspect of its construction including the core functionality of how the image is received. "It's a motor!" Except that it looks and performs like no motor we have ever constructed.

The claim: This evidence of design is not a deliberate design by intelligence but an illusion of deliberate design but produced by evolutionary processes.

Can you defend your hypothesis without shifting the burden of proof? Your evidence of design is not valid. Please provide valid evidence. Never mind that there is strong and convincing evidence (genetic homologies, phylogenetic reconstructions, living and fossil intermediaries, et cetera) that many of these "designed" systems actually were evolved, and never mind that we can use evolutionary algorithms to "design" things that could easily fool people like you. None of that detracts from the fact that all that is going on here is a massive smokescreen to shift the burden of proof. Please demonstrate that your "evidence" is objectively valid.

Are you going to ignore him and all other biologists that claim that biological organisms show design with a purpose in their makeup?

Bruce Alberts, biochemist and former president of the National Academy of Sciences, "The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists," Cell, 92 (February 8, 1998), 291: We have always underestimated cells. . . . The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines. . . . Why do we call the large protein assemblies that underlie cell function protein machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts.

Stephen Grocott, chemist, "Stephen Grocott," in John F. Ashton, ed., In Six Days (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2001), 149: The complexity of the simplest imaginable living organism is mindboggling. You need to have the cell wall, the energy system, a system of self-repair, a reproduction system, and means for taking in "food" and expelling "waste," a means for interpreting the complex genetic code and replicating it, etc., etc. The combined telecommunication systems of the world are far less complex, and yet no one believes they arose by chance.

Jeremy Walter, mechanical engineer, "Jeremy L. Walter," in John F. Ashton, ed., In Six Days (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2001), 17: "The most basic processes of living things are accomplished by molecular engines as complex as man's greatest inventions."

Richard Strohman, microbiologist, in David Suzuki and Holly Dressel, rev. ed., From Naked Ape to Superspecies (Vancouver: Greystone Books, 2004), 172: "Molecular biologists and cell biologists are revealing to us a complexity of life that we never dreamt was there. We're seeing connections and interconnections and complexity that is mindboggling. It's stupendous. It's transcalculational. It means that the whole science is going to have to change."

Robert M. Hazen, geophysicist, Genesis: The Scientific Quest for Life's Origin (Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press, 2007), 9: "We [know] that the simplest living cell is intricate beyond imagining, because every cell relies on the interplay of millions of molecules engaged in hundreds of interdependent chemical reactions. Human brains seem ill suited to grasp such multidimensional complexity."

Alonso Ricardo, biochemist, and Jack W. Szostak, geneticist, "The Origin of Life on Earth," Scientific American (August 19, 2009), 54: Every living cell, even the simplest bacterium, teems with molecular contraptions that would be the envy of any nanotechnologist. As they incessantly shake or spin or crawl around the cell, these machines cut, paste and copy genetic molecules, shuttle nutrients around or turn them into energy, build and repair cellular membranes, relay mechanical, chemical or electrical messages—the list goes on and on, and new discoveries add to it all the time.

How many of these believe that this is actually design?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Appeal number 1,556 for you to please demonstrate that there is "purpose" in living forms, or even to explain what you mean.

Purpose of the cell:
Re: What exactly is the purpose of a cell?
Date: Mon Nov 16 21:42:11 1998
Posted By: Jagesh Shah, Grad student, MEDICAL ENGINEERING, Massachusetts Inst. of Tech.
Area of science: Cell Biology
ID: 908851795.CbMessage:
Hi Brianna,

This is an excellent question and i'll try to answer as generally as
possible, you'll undoubtedly come across some exceptions to what I am about
to describe, but on the whole this is a good place to start.

Cells ... why ?

The purpose of a cell is to carry out a specific function through
interactions with its environment for the purposes of maintaining the
organism. In the case of single celled organisms such as amoebae or
bacteria, the cell is the organism and as such the cell/organism does all
the functions required for the life of the organism, e.g. eating, moving,
reproduction.
In the case of multicellular organisms, such as human beings, cells are
often specialized to carry out specific functions, e.g. nerve cells carry
electrical impulses around the body, muscle cells contract under
excitation, intestinal cells absorb nutrients from the digestive tract, red
blood cells carry oxygen to cells throughout the body, etc. In the case of
the human being there are thousands of specialized cells (properly called
differentiated cells) which carry out a function essential to the whole
organism. However, each of these cells themselves are also, in some sense,
an organism, they can be taken out of the body and grown outside the human
being and studied. These in vitro cells are often so specialized that they
carry out their specified function outside the body, but they do retain the
ability to move, eat and multiply (although in some cells this ability has
been turned off in the body).

So cells are biological units that can eat, move and reproduce. In single
cell organisms the single cell carries out all the functions requires to
keep the organism living. In multicellular organisms, the individual cells
can eat, move and reproduce, but they have a specialized function important
for keeping whole organism alive.

Mitosis ... what is it ?

Cells, as I described above, reproduce as a matter of survival, not of the
organism but of the genes that the organism carries. Again, in single
celled organisms, the reproduction gives rise to two new organisms. In the
case of the multicellular organism, mitosis gives rise to two new cells,
each capable of performing a new function within the organism.

Mitosis is carried out in cells which have nuclei (some cells do not have
nuclei ... another complicated question !!!). Mitosis follows replication,
in which the genetic material of the cell is replicated - two copies are
made, and represents the process in which 1) the copies of the genetic
material are separated and taken to opposite ends of the cell and 2) the
cell volume is divided into two new cells such that each contains one copy
of the genetic material. This process thereby has created two equal cells,
each with the same genetic material.

Thus, mitosis is the process by which individual cells divide. This
division is important is maintaining the cells in your body since
sometimes they get old and can no longer perform their specialized
function. Sometimes, however, the division can become uncontrolled,
nobody exactly knows why, but in the body such uncontrolled mitosis is
called cancer.

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/1998-11/911318863.Cb.r.html
That is just a cell's purpose. The inner workings of the cell has many many molecular machines that have purpose for the cell's purposes.

Okay, firstly, not only is this as clear an example of HARKing as I've ever seen (the predictions came after the results were known in every case I am aware of), but it's missing an important step: the null hypothesis. What would we predict if organisms were not designed? What predictions can we make on the basis of "not designed"? Can we make any? Is there any set of conditions that your "designer" could not achieve? In science, the important step is not "what can we predict if my hypothesis is true". It's "what tests could conceivably prove my hypothesis wrong, let's find those and do them".

You do realize that it has been centuries that people have recognized design in living forms. The problem was that all of that design observed was from the outside. It wasn't until technology was available to see the inner workings of an organism that we could observe design all the way down. Design in light of these new discoveries was not ad hoc, it was always predicted that life should appear designed if it were in fact designed. Thanks to new technologies it has been confirmed.

If there was no design apparent in living forms it would not confirm design. That is very obvious. There would be no evidence of design, no confirmation of design.

And of course, you have still completely and utterly failed to demonstrate that we actually observe design in any objective way. Unless you want to claim that we subjectively observe design, but that opens up an entirely new can of worms, doesn't it? Subjectivity screws basically any scientific idea, as whether or not the evidence exists in the first place is entirely up to the observer! No matter how many times I ask, you will not give me the model that lets us go from an object to whether or not that object was designed. All you ever do is appeal to "it looks designed". But that's not an objective measure of whether it was actually designed. That's your opinion. And if I disagree with you (as I have on numerous occasions), you have nothing to work with. You have no way forward. All you have is "well, you're wrong".

Design is demonstrated in life forms. That is the objective way to observe design. It is there whether or not you want to admit it, it is there and scientists observe it and admit that they do. They observe deliberate design for a purpose, they then claim that this observation of deliberate design is produced by evolutionary processes. That is not my opinion. This is MY OPINION...the design is not an illusion but is actual design. The evidence is the deliberate design observed in living organisms...the opinion of biologists and materialists is that it is produced by evolutionary processes...my opinion is that it is actual design and is not an illusion. Evidence = Design Opinion of materialists = produced by evolutionary processes
Opinion of theists and some non-religious biologists = actual design.

Let me show you the difference. Let's say that I think that the earth and all other planets go around the sun, and you think that the sun and all the other planets go around the earth. The evidence I provide of retrograde planetary motion is not subjective. It's not only there if you believe in it. It's present whether or not you want it to be! The conclusions reached as a result are not subjective either. It doesn't care how much you want to deny it, the evidence remains real whether you want it to or not. While if I want to deny your "evidence of design", all I have to do is say, "I don't think that looks designed", and I'm done. Because you have not shown anything objective.

The appearance of design is there whether or not you wish it to be. All biologists admit to observing the design in living forms. It is real, it is there and Biologists know this and have to have an explanation for it. If it were not there it would not be observed, it would not need an explanation and it could not mimic deliberate design if it did not appear as deliberate design. This refutes your "opinion" that it is a subjective appearance. No biologist I am aware of says that we are observing natural selection or evolution when they say they observe design.

Superficially, and with many of the analogies stretched to the breaking point. "The power plant of the cell!" Except that power plants really look nothing like that and do not work anything like that. "The eye is like a pinhole camera!" Except in every single aspect of its construction including the core functionality of how the image is received. "It's a motor!" Except that it looks and performs like no motor we have ever constructed.

You are in some serious denial.
One thing we agree on is that we who design magnificent machines and technologies can't touch the efficiency and precision of molecular machines. They appear engineered by an intelligence much much more intelligent than we are.

Can you defend your hypothesis without shifting the burden of proof? Your evidence of design is not valid. Please provide valid evidence. Never mind that there is strong and convincing evidence (genetic homologies, phylogenetic reconstructions, living and fossil intermediaries, et cetera) that many of these "designed" systems actually were evolved, and never mind that we can use evolutionary algorithms to "design" things that could easily fool people like you. None of that detracts from the fact that all that is going on here is a massive smokescreen to shift the burden of proof. Please demonstrate that your "evidence" is objectively valid.

You are the one being fooled. You see something intelligently designed "algorithms" and claim they are equivalent to actual natural processes that are suppose to be unguided and undirected.
The burden rests on those who claim the evidence of design is inaccurate or false due to illusion.

How many of these believe that this is actually design?

There are equally trained and educated biologists that believe it is actually design.

 

[justlookinla]

This seems to be escaping you.

1. Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method.

The Scientific Process

A scientific process or scientific method requires observations of nature and formulating and testing the hypothesis. It consists of following four steps.

1. Observe something and ask questions about a natural phenomenon (scientific observation)
   
   
2. Make your hypothesis
   
   
3. Make predictions about logical consequences of the hypothesis
   
   
4. Test your predictions by controlled experiment, a natural experiment, an observational study or a field experiment
   
   
5. Create your conclusion on the basis of data or information gathered in your experiment.

https://explorable.com/scientific-observation


We observe living forms have apparent design with a purpose in living forms. We observe how they work together, we see how they interact in their environment and observe if the behavior is affected by the environment. We observe their structure, their features, systems and functions and how that interact with other elements and with the entire organism.


We hypothesize that we observe design and implies they were deliberately designed. We predict that if organisms structure, features, systems and functions if designed will resemble what we experience as design by intelligent agents. We predict that if design is deliberate there will be functions that are in place that perform specific and purposeful actions. We predict that the structure of systems should be recognizable as those of human design.


We do experiments using strong microscopes and new technology to observe the inner workings of the organism and the findings show that indeed there are structures that resemble human structures in their designs. We find features used in human designs. We find functions that work in the same way human's design things to work and we see production lines, as we do in human design, we observe assembly lines as we do in human design, we observe systems that interact with other subsystems that we find in human design.


The conclusion is that living forms have the design elements seen in human design and appear to be designed by intelligence.


The claim: This evidence of design is not a deliberate design by intelligence but an illusion of deliberate design but produced by evolutionary processes. This is another hypothesis regarding the evidence found by scientific method of design in living forms. Evidence must be provided that shows this design observed in living forms is an illusion.


Note: The evidence is the design...the hypothesis is that if we observe design it should resemble or be recognized as the design by the experience and appearance of design created by humans. The test is to see if the structures, features, systems and functions in living organisms do resemble and are recognized to be designs used by humans. The conclusion is yes, we do observe structures, features, systems and functions that do resemble human design and recognized as such

From the link above





Are you going to ignore him and all other biologists that claim that biological organisms show design with a purpose in their makeup?

Bruce Alberts, biochemist and former president of the National Academy of Sciences, "The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists," Cell, 92 (February 8, 1998), 291: We have always underestimated cells. . . . The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines. . . . Why do we call the large protein assemblies that underlie cell function protein machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts.

Stephen Grocott, chemist, "Stephen Grocott," in John F. Ashton, ed., In Six Days (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2001), 149: The complexity of the simplest imaginable living organism is mindboggling. You need to have the cell wall, the energy system, a system of self-repair, a reproduction system, and means for taking in "food" and expelling "waste," a means for interpreting the complex genetic code and replicating it, etc., etc. The combined telecommunication systems of the world are far less complex, and yet no one believes they arose by chance.

Jeremy Walter, mechanical engineer, "Jeremy L. Walter," in John F. Ashton, ed., In Six Days (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2001), 17: "The most basic processes of living things are accomplished by molecular engines as complex as man's greatest inventions."

Richard Strohman, microbiologist, in David Suzuki and Holly Dressel, rev. ed., From Naked Ape to Superspecies (Vancouver: Greystone Books, 2004), 172: "Molecular biologists and cell biologists are revealing to us a complexity of life that we never dreamt was there. We're seeing connections and interconnections and complexity that is mindboggling. It's stupendous. It's transcalculational. It means that the whole science is going to have to change."

Robert M. Hazen, geophysicist, Genesis: The Scientific Quest for Life's Origin (Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press, 2007), 9: "We [know] that the simplest living cell is intricate beyond imagining, because every cell relies on the interplay of millions of molecules engaged in hundreds of interdependent chemical reactions. Human brains seem ill suited to grasp such multidimensional complexity."

Alonso Ricardo, biochemist, and Jack W. Szostak, geneticist, "The Origin of Life on Earth," Scientific American (August 19, 2009), 54: Every living cell, even the simplest bacterium, teems with molecular contraptions that would be the envy of any nanotechnologist. As they incessantly shake or spin or crawl around the cell, these machines cut, paste and copy genetic molecules, shuttle nutrients around or turn them into energy, build and repair cellular membranes, relay mechanical, chemical or electrical messages—the list goes on and on, and new discoveries add to it all the time.




“We may say that a living body or organ is well designed if it has attributes that an intelligent and knowledgeable engineer might have built into it in order to achieve some sensible purpose… any engineer can recognize an object that has been designed, even poorly designed, for a purpose, and he can usually work out what that purpose is just by looking at the structure of the object.” {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 21}



Really if you look into this thread and I the one providing the evidence and the materialists are just making assertions and ad hominem remarks.

Surely they understand the concept of scientific evidence? The seem to be uncomfortable, and unwilling, in applying it to their claim of illusion of design though.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Surely they understand the concept of scientific evidence? The seem to be uncomfortable, and unwilling, in applying it to their claim of illusion of design though.

Once again I agree.

 

[The Cadet]

Purpose of the cell:
Re: What exactly is the purpose of a cell?

This, while interesting, commits what I feel is a rather dubious equivocation. When we design something, it has a purpose in the sense that we mean it to do something. We have a goal in mind when we design. We want to achieve something through our design. This paints "purpose" with a far broader brush, seeming to imply that the purpose of life is to live. Well that's interesting, but going back to how "purpose" is used in terms of design, what purpose would imply in that context is that life has some set purpose from a designer. And simply hearing about the function of various lifeforms and molecular machines therein gets you no closer to demonstrating that purpose. Because at the end of the day, what this guy is describing as "purpose" really boils down to function. The cell is not meant to do this, the cell does this. It's not purpose in the sense of design.

(FWIW, I emailed the guy, and he said he's out of the office until the 17th of august.)

You do realize that it has been centuries that people have recognized design in living forms.

And they did so after observing the complexity present. Nobody from the intelligent design movement stood up and said, "We should expect the insides of our cells to be phenomenally complex machines" before we actually saw the insides of our cells!

If there was no design apparent in living forms it would not confirm design. That is very obvious. There would be no evidence of design, no confirmation of design.

Then, once you realize that this is the case, the onus is on you to demonstrate the appearance of design in living forms. And I do mean demonstrate. Because all you do is assert. You assert and assert and assert that this shows the appearance of design without offering anything to back it up. "It looks like X". So what. The eye looks like a pinhole camera to you creationists, and we know it evolved. We know how it evolved. We know that evolutionary algorithms produce the illusion of design over and over and over again. The cars in boxcar2d look like designed cars with the designed purpose of traversing the track... But they aren't. Although you still don't get the point:

You are the one being fooled. You see something intelligently designed "algorithms" and claim they are equivalent to actual natural processes that are suppose to be unguided and undirected.

This is just as misguided as the claim that because the Miller-Urey experiment was "designed", therefore any results it got bolster intelligent design. You completely miss the point of the algorithm. It's not supposed to be equivalent, it's supposed to be a rough model of an evolutionary system. Like all evolutionary algorithms. It uses the mechanisms at the basis of evolution (descent with modification and natural selection) to gradually breed out those cars which are "less fit" to the environment. The fact that the algorithm itself was designed is completely irrelevant. The cars themselves evolved within the system, and eventually, they started to look an awful lot like design. And we see this in numerous genetic algorithms. For example, here's one that "designed" novel types of antennae. Now, excuse my presumption, but if I had told you "these antennae were designed", you would have looked at them and said, "Yep, looks like design to me!".

Again, please demonstrate that your evidence is valid by providing an objective methodology to demonstrate it to someone who does not believe that it exists. If I didn't believe in the retrograde motion of the planets, you could sit my ass down in front of a telescope every night for a month, and at the end I would be forced to admit, "Yes, I saw Mars moving in sort of a weird spiral thingy instead of a nice clean line the way you might expect". What is your analogue with the appearance of design?

The appearance of design is there whether or not you wish it to be.

Well, then it should be very easy to prove it. Because right now, when I look at ATP Synthase in the cell, it looks about as much like intentional design as it looks like the wikipedia article on Pareidolia.

All biologists admit to observing the design in living forms.

No. They don't. They admit to observing the appearance of design. The subjective appearance that something looks designed. Because we, as humans, are inherently predisposed to seeing design, even when there is none. Look, I'm sorry, but to any earnest scientist, the realization that there's a huge amount of overlap between his supposed evidence and a well-known, well-understood cognitive bias would be a huge red flag, and they would stop. They'd say, "Okay, so at this point, none of my evidence cannot be explained away with the help of this well-known cognitive bias. I need some objective manner to determine whether there's actually anything there, or if it's just a cognitive bias."

It is real, it is there and Biologists know this and have to have an explanation for it. If it were not there it would not be observed, it would not need an explanation and it could not mimic deliberate design if it did not appear as deliberate design. This refutes your "opinion" that it is a subjective appearance.

Are you kidding me? This is exactly where you get it wrong. These biologists "observe design", but they recognize that it is a subjective appearance based on a well-known cognitive bias. Otherwise, they wouldn't be out searching for other explanations!

You are in some serious denial.

Yeah yeah. Find me a way to objectively distinguish observed design from observed pareidolia, then get back to me on "denial".

There are equally trained and educated biologists that believe it is actually design.

List 'em.

 

[The Cadet]

Actually, @Oncedeceived , ignore everything else in the above post when responding. Just respond to this challenge: please demonstrate that your evidence is valid by providing an objective methodology to demonstrate it to someone who does not believe that it exists; find me a way to objectively distinguish observed design from observed pareidolia.

I'm just tired of this. Same question for the last three weeks, and you will not offer a valid answer.

 

[justlookinla]

The eye looks like a pinhole camera to you creationists, and we know it evolved. We know how it evolved.

No, you don't know HOW it evolved.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, you don't know HOW it evolved.

Indoctrinated.

 

[florida2]

This seems to be escaping you.

1. Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method.

The Scientific Process

A scientific process or scientific method requires observations of nature and formulating and testing the hypothesis. It consists of following four steps.

1. Observe something and ask questions about a natural phenomenon (scientific observation)
   
   
2. Make your hypothesis
   
   
3. Make predictions about logical consequences of the hypothesis
   
   
4. Test your predictions by controlled experiment, a natural experiment, an observational study or a field experiment
   
   
5. Create your conclusion on the basis of data or information gathered in your experiment.

https://explorable.com/scientific-observation

https://explorable.com/scientific-observation

I'm delighted you seem to want to understand about scientific evidence because you've yet to provide any empirical evidence.

We observe living forms have apparent design with a purpose in living forms. We observe how they work together, we see how they interact in their environment and observe if the behavior is affected by the environment. We observe their structure, their features, systems and functions and how that interact with other elements and with the entire organism.

We hypothesize that we observe design and implies they were deliberately designed. We predict that if organisms structure, features, systems and functions if designed will resemble what we experience as design by intelligent agents. We predict that if design is deliberate there will be functions that are in place that perform specific and purposeful actions. We predict that the structure of systems should be recognizable as those of human design.


We do experiments using strong microscopes and new technology to observe the inner workings of the organism and the findings show that indeed there are structures that resemble human structures in their designs. We find features used in human designs. We find functions that work in the same way human's design things to work and we see production lines, as we do in human design, we observe assembly lines as we do in human design, we observe systems that interact with other subsystems that we find in human design.


The conclusion is that living forms have the design elements seen in human design and appear to be designed by intelligence.

That's nice, but where's the evidence?

The claim: This evidence of design is not a deliberate design by intelligence but an illusion of deliberate design but produced by evolutionary processes. This is another hypothesis regarding the evidence found by scientific method of design in living forms. Evidence must be provided that shows this design observed in living forms is an illusion.

You haven't provided any evidence and shown no mechanism for this design. There are known mechanisms for evolution and plenty of evidence (a quick google search will show this).

Note: The evidence is the design...the hypothesis is that if we observe design it should resemble or be recognized as the design by the experience and appearance of design created by humans. The test is to see if the structures, features, systems and functions in living organisms do resemble and are recognized to be designs used by humans. The conclusion is yes, we do observe structures, features, systems and functions that do resemble human design and recognized as such

All you're saying is 'it looks like it might be designed therefore design.' You don't show any methodology, you have no data or analysis etc etc. All the stuff you would expect from a scientific proposition.

Are you going to ignore him and all other biologists that claim that biological organisms show design with a purpose in their makeup?

Bruce Alberts, biochemist and former president of the National Academy of Sciences, "The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists," Cell, 92 (February 8, 1998), 291: We have always underestimated cells. . . . The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines. . . . Why do we call the large protein assemblies that underlie cell function protein machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts.

Stephen Grocott, chemist, "Stephen Grocott," in John F. Ashton, ed., In Six Days (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2001), 149: The complexity of the simplest imaginable living organism is mindboggling. You need to have the cell wall, the energy system, a system of self-repair, a reproduction system, and means for taking in "food" and expelling "waste," a means for interpreting the complex genetic code and replicating it, etc., etc. The combined telecommunication systems of the world are far less complex, and yet no one believes they arose by chance.

Jeremy Walter, mechanical engineer, "Jeremy L. Walter," in John F. Ashton, ed., In Six Days (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2001), 17: "The most basic processes of living things are accomplished by molecular engines as complex as man's greatest inventions."

Richard Strohman, microbiologist, in David Suzuki and Holly Dressel, rev. ed., From Naked Ape to Superspecies (Vancouver: Greystone Books, 2004), 172: "Molecular biologists and cell biologists are revealing to us a complexity of life that we never dreamt was there. We're seeing connections and interconnections and complexity that is mindboggling. It's stupendous. It's transcalculational. It means that the whole science is going to have to change."

Robert M. Hazen, geophysicist, Genesis: The Scientific Quest for Life's Origin (Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press, 2007), 9: "We [know] that the simplest living cell is intricate beyond imagining, because every cell relies on the interplay of millions of molecules engaged in hundreds of interdependent chemical reactions. Human brains seem ill suited to grasp such multidimensional complexity."

Alonso Ricardo, biochemist, and Jack W. Szostak, geneticist, "The Origin of Life on Earth," Scientific American (August 19, 2009), 54: Every living cell, even the simplest bacterium, teems with molecular contraptions that would be the envy of any nanotechnologist. As they incessantly shake or spin or crawl around the cell, these machines cut, paste and copy genetic molecules, shuttle nutrients around or turn them into energy, build and repair cellular membranes, relay mechanical, chemical or electrical messages—the list goes on and on, and new discoveries add to it all the time.

“We may say that a living body or organ is well designed if it has attributes that an intelligent and knowledgeable engineer might have built into it in order to achieve some sensible purpose… any engineer can recognize an object that has been designed, even poorly designed, for a purpose, and he can usually work out what that purpose is just by looking at the structure of the object.” {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 21}

Saying something is complex or mind-boggling doesn't mean design or any other supernatural explanation. Quotes from a few people aren't empirical evidence.

Really if you look into this thread and I the one providing the evidence and the materialists are just making assertions and ad hominem remarks.

I have looked and although you've presented some quotes and lots of 'the evidence for the design is the design' you haven't posted any empirical evidence.

 

[florida2]

No, you don't know HOW it evolved.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

This and the references in it might be a good starting point.

 

[The Cadet]

You know what I think looks designed?

Anyone else see the magnificent design present in that?

...No? They don't?

...Huh. Well, I still say it is. Because I say so, and I don't need no stinkin' methodology - the fact that I say it's so makes it so!

 

[Oncedeceived]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

This and the references in it might be a good starting point.

Where is the evidence for precursor's of the eye prior to the Cambrian?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I'm delighted you seem to want to understand about scientific evidence because you've yet to provide any empirical evidence.

Are you going with the denial that molecular machines and systems do not look deliberately designed?

That's nice, but where's the evidence?

The same evidence that the pyramids have for being deliberately designed. They appear to be deliberately designed for a purpose. The same evidence that a watch has for its deliberate design. We recognize deliberate design and those features we see in human design are seen in living organisms. If you believe that those deliberate designs observed are inaccurate, you need to provide evidence that shows how that appearance is produced other than by intelligent design as recognized by human design.

You haven't provided any evidence and shown no mechanism for this design. There are known mechanisms for evolution and plenty of evidence (a quick google search will show this).

Great! Now this is where you come in and show how the most simple cell in the most simple life on earth which encompasses many molecular machines and systems which function similarly to human machines and are human like in design was produced by evolution. I look forward to seeing it.

All you're saying is 'it looks like it might be designed therefore design.' You don't show any methodology, you have no data or analysis etc etc. All the stuff you would expect from a scientific proposition.

Do you deny that there is an appearance of deliberate design in all living things?

Saying something is complex or mind-boggling doesn't mean design or any other supernatural explanation. Quotes from a few people aren't empirical evidence.

Really? Isn't objective evidence that which can be demonstrated to others? I think having all biologists admitting to observing deliberate design with a purpose in all living things makes that accusation false.

I have looked and although you've presented some quotes and lots of 'the evidence for the design is the design' you haven't posted any empirical evidence.

In this case what would you think empirical evidence would entail?

 

[Oncedeceived]

You know what I think looks designed?

Anyone else see the magnificent design present in that?

...No? They don't?

...Huh. Well, I still say it is. Because I say so, and I don't need no stinkin' methodology - the fact that I say it's so makes it so!

What design are you claiming is present?

 

[RickG]

Where is the evidence for precursor's of the eye prior to the Cambrian?

How about eyes in the Precambrian?

http://www.researchgate.net/profile..._evolution/links/0c96052c29a839424e000000.pdf

 

[Oncedeceived]

How about eyes in the Precambrian?

http://www.researchgate.net/profile..._evolution/links/0c96052c29a839424e000000.pdf

If you don't mind please provide the information on the type of eye this is talking about. I try when I provide papers to copy the parts that are significant to the discussion. Thanks.

 

[RickG]

If you don't mind please provide the information on the type of eye this is talking about. I try when I provide papers to copy the parts that are significant to the discussion. Thanks.

The entire paper is about the evolution of the eye, which is seen in the Precambrian. Here's a short segment:

"The ancestral arthropods presumably consisted of a series of more or less identical segments, which may be
represented by recently discovered precambrian Lobopodia which have a pair of legs and a pair of eyes in each segment.
The progressive divergence of Hox genes has led to progressive cephalization and caudalization."
​

Again, the full paper is here: http://www.researchgate.net/profile..._evolution/links/0c96052c29a839424e000000.pdf