Responding to Justa's Comments On Evolution

[whois]

Saying "Dawkins said it" doesn't help you at all, because I don't care what Dawkins says in his own personal writings; if it doesn't make sense and is not backed by evidence, it doesn't matter.

i'm not privy to the actual argument about dawkins, but if he said it then it seems it mattered, and made sense, to him.

you might be surprised at what a scientist would say on matters of biological evolution, IF they were guaranteed anonymity.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I reject the claim that we see deliberate design. Please demonstrate your claim or retract it. Saying "Dawkins said it" doesn't help you at all, because I don't care what Dawkins says in his own personal writings; if it doesn't make sense and is not backed by evidence, it doesn't matter. Stop trying to shift the burden of proof. It's been almost two months. This is getting ridiculous.

You are not only rejecting Dawkins, you are rejecting a common consensus by biologists around the world. If you wish to reject that living things have the appearance of deliberate design that is your problem the rest of the world is not so inclined. If you do not observe design, then you have no burden but I have renowned biologists that claim they do observe design in all living organisms and so my position is already supported by mainstream Science. Your position is not supported at all.



.

..Did you read The Blind Watchmaker?

Yes,...if you can use your imagination you can just imagine that Dawkins stories might have actually happened.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The mechanisms of natural selection, mutation, fitness testing and reproduction with heredity ...doesn't apply to biological evolution? Not at all? lol, ok, then.

In any case: perhaps you still didn't understand it, eventhough we have said it about a few dozen times....

The point of it was to demonstrate that the "appearance of deliberate design" can and does occur without "actual design".

I am seeing that you are conceding that there is an appearance of deliberate design that can be observed in all living things by claiming that this program also provides an appearance of deliberate design. The problem with your conclusions is that this program does not simulate actual natural evolution as I have shown by those who both know evolution and who know about the program. So this leave us with you admitting to the appearance of deliberate design with no evidence for it being in all living things.

 

[whois]

http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/htmlsite/1105/1105_feature1_lowres.html

this entire argument by dawkins is a strawman.
he presents evolution as some kind of "simple minded" process that creates the illusion of design.
nothing can be further from the truth.
it's being discovered, and more is being added, that the processes of evolution is far more complex than anyone has ever imagined.
accumulating small gradual changes, the adaptive nature of evolution, both of these are in error.
transposons, epigenetics, HGT, reverse coding, the ability of DNA to repair itself, ALL of these throws a serious monkey wrench into the "simple minded" process of darwinism.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I know what "deliberately designed" means.
What I'm asking you, is for an objective method and a null hypothesis on how to detect such.

On one hand you claim that you have provided evidence that show that evolution can produce the illusion of deliberate design in living forms and on the other you want to claim that there is no way to detect deliberate design...this is contradictory and self defeating.

Only because you refused to define it and then shifted the burden of proof to me to "prove" that "appearance" doesn't mean "actual".

The appearance of deliberate design implies we do know what deliberate design looks like or it wouldn't appear to be deliberately designed. The evidence is this appearance of deliberate design...living things appear like they were deliberately designed for a purpose. That is confirmation of design. If one wishes to claim that this confirmation of design is false and is only an illusion and not the real thing then it is your burden to support that with evidence. Evidence using real natural evolution.

So if you refuse to define it and then ask me to disprove it, the only think I can do is assume a definition myself and run with it.

See above.

Which, off course, opens the door for you for yet another moving of goalposts - since you can always say "no, that's not what I mean".

I have consistently said that it is your burden if you agree that there is an appearance of deliberate design in living things but the appearance is false and is an illusion produced by natural evolutionary processes.

Well, sorry that I'm not a mindreader.

You can always clear up these misunderstandings by, you know........ answer the questions that were put to you several months ago (and afterwards off course): an objective method on how to detect design + a null hypothesis.

Like I have been saying for months, it is not that we can't detect design...we do it is in all living things, it is that those who observe this deliberate design claim that it is false and only an illusion of actual deliberate design produced by evolution.

Aaaaaaaaand go.

Aaaaaaaaaand go for it.

Still spewing anti-"controlled conditions" rethoric I see.

I've supported my conclusions with others who know evolution and the program who say it is not reflective of actual evolution. You just refuse to accept what others are clearly claiming about both.

 

[The Cadet]

You are not only rejecting Dawkins, you are rejecting a common consensus by biologists around the world.

Great, then it should be easy to pick out one of them and find out what objective mechanism they used to determine if something appeared designed or not. Is any of this published in the scientific literature?

Accept your burden of proof or retract your argument.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Is now a bad time to point out that we've been asking for this since june?

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...tific-consensus.7890889/page-57#post-68183275

June. That's just the first time I could find that specifically I asked you, @Oncedeceived, for this information - this information that is crucially important to any scientific idea. Since then, for almost two months, we've been doing this silly little dance where we ask you for a clear definition and objective criteria, and you scramble for excuses to avoid having to offer us something you already should have had before making the assertion to begin with. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm getting sick and tired of it. Doubly so when we accept your burden of proof, prove you wrong on multiple counts (both in a simulated experiment and with the help of a natural "designed" mechanism that we know very well evolved), and you still won't accept it!

Deliberate design observed in living things is the evidence. The fact that you don't observe it is not significant when there are a majority in mainstream science that do. YOU have provided NOTHING. If you don't see design, then it is not your burden but it most certainly is not mine. The claim is a positive claim that Dawkins and others make about the design observed in living things being an illusion. If you don't see it then go your own way. But don't claim that something you don't observe can be produced by a simulated program that provides evidence of something that doesn't exist.

Please back up your assertions or give it a rest already. Because at this point, if I say "I see no appearance of design in the bacterial flagellum", my statement has exactly nothing to stand against it. What, you want to say there is? Well great, show me why you say that! Provide an objective criteria for the appearance of design! Then, once you've done that, you, me, and the sentient AI I built while waiting can discuss what those criteria mean and how well they apply. And please, for the love of whatever god you happen to believe in, do not shift your burden of proof again. I think I might fly into a blind rage and I don't think any of us want that.

If you assert that you do not observe the appearance of design in the BF, then you have made no claim and have no burden. However, Dawkins and others do observe design in the BF and claim it is an illusion. They have the burden. The design is the evidence and the claim that it is false is a positive claim that has the burden of proof. If you don't like that I am sorry but that is how this thing works. Everyone has to support their assertions and claims even those who do not believe in any God.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Great, then it should be easy to pick out one of them and find out what objective mechanism they used to determine if something appeared designed or not. Is any of this published in the scientific literature?

Accept your burden of proof or retract your argument.

It is their burden not mine.

 

[Oncedeceived]

this entire argument by dawkins is a strawman.
he presents evolution as some kind of "simple minded" process that creates the illusion of design.
nothing can be further from the truth.
it's being discovered, and more is being added, that the processes of evolution is far more complex than anyone has ever imagined.
accumulating small gradual changes, the adaptive nature of evolution, both of these are in error.
transposons, epigenetics, HGT, reverse coding, the ability of DNA to repair itself, ALL of these throws a serious monkey wrench into the "simple minded" process of darwinism.

I absolutely agree.

 

[bhsmte]

I don't have the time to check right now, but I'm quite certain I've seen RickG and SFS having similar complaints, neither of whom are atheists.

But sure, if it makes you feel better, it's not any problem you have. It's just the mean, evil atheists picking on you.

Some folks need an enemy. If one isn't clear, just manufacture one.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Some folks need an enemy. If one isn't clear, just manufacture one.

Enemy? Really? Is this how you really see this?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Still trying to get the thread closed with your flaming I see. I am not lying I have provided his quote prior to this but I will do so again to show everyone how you always call people liars.

He said it mimics deliberate design which is what I claimed:
Charles Darwin moved in the other direction. He discovered a way in which the unaided laws of physics—the laws according to which things “just happen”—could, in the fullness of geologic time, come to mimic deliberate design. Emphasis mine.
http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/htmlsite/1105/1105_feature1_lowres.html

1. funny how "Dawkins" suddenly became "Darwin".
2. funny how this, again, doesn't support your point. The quote doesn't say that there is deliberate design. You understand what the word "mimic" means, right?

He says it mimics deliberate design. If something mimics something it has to be there to do so.

So if I mimic Johny Depp, then I AM JOHNY DEPP????

I have not misrepresented him...that is a lie.

You did and now you are doing the same with Darwin.
Not a single one of these people said that there IS "deliberate design".

One talks about "mimics" and the other talks about the "illusion" thereof.

I've clearly and without misrepresenting his position said that he provides stories, maybe's and could have been's in his assertions that the mimicking of deliberate design is an illusion produced by evolutionary processes.

Yes, you've been spewing anti-science rethoric and obections to intellectual honesty and experiments under controlled conditions for quite a few weeks now, that is correct.

No, you provided a program that does not reflect evolution.

I'm not getting into that again.
I'll just stick to the main point: I showed you a blind process that does exactly what you claim isn't "evidenced": that the appearance of design can exist without it actually being designed.

The evidence is design

The evidence of design is....design. Right.




So.... how do we objectively test that?

, if you or others wish to claim that the design observed in living organisms is an illusion of the real thing then you and they must provide evidence that natural evolution produced it. A program that does not reflect true evolution is not evidence for natural evolution.

As I have made clear, not a single one of the people you quoted are of the opinion that we observe actual design.

You're the one who's claiming that, not them.

The positive claim is coming from those who claim that the deliberate design observed in living organisms is an illusion produced by natural selection. The burden is on you and them.

None of these people claim that we observe deliberate design.

It is not my burden.

If you claim something is designed, you need to support your claim.
Can you?

The design is the evidence

Yes, yes......

design is evidence of design because design is evidence of design because design is evidence of design because.......................

 

[bhsmte]

Has it ever entered your mind that there might be some kernel of truth to what they say about you?

The list of people, appears to be growing.

 

[bhsmte]

Is now a bad time to point out that we've been asking for this since june?

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...tific-consensus.7890889/page-57#post-68183275

June. That's just the first time I could find that specifically I asked you, @Oncedeceived, for this information - this information that is crucially important to any scientific idea. Since then, for almost two months, we've been doing this silly little dance where we ask you for a clear definition and objective criteria, and you scramble for excuses to avoid having to offer us something you already should have had before making the assertion to begin with. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm getting sick and tired of it. Doubly so when we accept your burden of proof, prove you wrong on multiple counts (both in a simulated experiment and with the help of a natural "designed" mechanism that we know very well evolved), and you still won't accept it!

Please back up your assertions or give it a rest already. Because at this point, if I say "I see no appearance of design in the bacterial flagellum", my statement has exactly nothing to stand against it. What, you want to say there is? Well great, show me why you say that! Provide an objective criteria for the appearance of design! Then, once you've done that, you, me, and the sentient AI I built while waiting can discuss what those criteria mean and how well they apply. And please, for the love of whatever god you happen to believe in, do not shift your burden of proof again. I think I might fly into a blind rage and I don't think any of us want that.

Many have seen this movie before and it always ends the same way. Lot's of reruns though.

 

[The Cadet]

Deliberate design observed in living things

Demonstrate that this is objectively present. Don't dodge, don't shift the burden of proof, this is your claim. Own it.

If you don't see design, then it is not your burden but it most certainly is not mine.

Are you making the claim that we can objectively observe the appearance of design with nature? Yes or no. (Actually, feel free to correct the wording if you feel it misrepresents your position, but I would really appreciate it if you told me whether or not you were making this claim.)

It is their burden not mine.

I don't care what Dawkins or Crick said in their personal musings about this subject. I care that you have been promoting an idea for two months and you cannot adequately define or demonstrate. So please provide:

• A definition of "appearance of design"
• An objective mechanism to detect "appearance of design"
• A null hypothesis which we could expect in the absence of any objective "appearance of design".

(And if you can find someone else who already did this, by all means, feel free to link to them.)

Stop trying to hide behind scientists who disagree with you. Stop trying to shift the burden of proof onto them. Dawkins said it? I don't care. I do not care at all what Dawkins said on this subject any more than I care about his opinion on feminism or racism unless he published it in the scientific literature. You are making a claim. Stop pretending you aren't.

 

[bhsmte]

The only thing I'm frustrated about is your total inability to get simple points, your continued intellectual dishonesty, your total failure of justifying your own claims and the continued attempt at shifting the burden of proof.

Yes, stubborness in people I try to explain simply concepts to frustrate me a LOT.

All of the above are required, to protect a belief.

 

[DogmaHunter]

i'm not privy to the actual argument about dawkins, but if he said it then it seems it mattered, and made sense, to him.

She is quote-mining the dude from the book called "The Blind Watchmaker".
Which is a book that literally explains why evolution produces the appearance/illusion of design.

She then continues to state that he doesn't back that statement up. It's almost like she believes that that quote is the only sentence in the entire book.

Or, off course, she only read the back cover.

you might be surprised at what a scientist would say on matters of biological evolution, IF they were guaranteed anonymity.

Haaa, yes. It's a conspiracy!!!!

Millions of biologists all over the world need to swear a blood oath when they start their studies that they will pledge allegiance to Great Darwin God.

And this has been going on for 200 years!!!!

It's a plot I tell you, A PLOT!!!!


/endsarcasm

 

[Oncedeceived]

The list of people, appears to be growing.

No, pretty much the same group of people.

 

[The Cadet]

No, pretty much the same group of people.

Well, I'm relatively new here, so I guess +1?

 

[Oncedeceived]

1. funny how "Dawkins" suddenly became "Darwin".

Dawkins is making the statement about Darwin and what he did to explain the mimicking of deliberate design. You do understand that right?

2. funny how this, again, doesn't support your point. The quote doesn't say that there is deliberate design. You understand what the word "mimic" means, right?

I have repeatedly pointed out that they claim it is mimicking and an illusion of design...are you having a hard time following the conversation?

So if I mimic Johny Depp, then I AM JOHNY DEPP????

If someone claimed you were mimicking Johnny Depp that would mean there was a Johnny Depp to mimic...get it.

You did and now you are doing the same with Darwin.
Not a single one of these people said that there IS "deliberate design".

Provide one quote where I have claimed that they said it was deliberate design. I have consistently said that they say it is an illusion of deliberate design. You know that so why pretend that I am misrepresenting them? Is it that you have nothing else except false accusations and straw men argument perhaps?

One talks about "mimics" and the other talks about the "illusion" thereof.

Yes, why are you pretending I haven't made that abundantly clear...see above.

Yes, you've been spewing anti-science rethoric and obections to intellectual honesty and experiments under controlled conditions for quite a few weeks now, that is correct.

And you have been spewing straw man arguments and false accusations for as long as you have been posting here.

I'm not getting into that again.
I'll just stick to the main point: I showed you a blind process that does exactly what you claim isn't "evidenced": that the appearance of design can exist without it actually being designed.

And I have showed you that those who understand evolution and the program disagree.

The evidence of design is....design. Right.

Right.

So.... how do we objectively test that?

You provide evidence that shows the design observed in all living things is false.

As I have made clear, not a single one of the people you quoted are of the opinion that we observe actual design.

And you are pretending that I have claimed otherwise which I have not.

You're the one who's claiming that, not them.

You are pretending that I have not made clear their position which is false.

None of these people claim that we observe deliberate design.

Pretending I have claimed otherwise is this not dishonest? I think it is dishonest.

If you claim something is designed, you need to support your claim.
Can you?

The evidence is design. That is the support to my position.

Yes, yes......

design is evidence of design because design is evidence of design because design is evidence of design because.......................

The evidence is design. IF that evidence is false it is your burden to show how that how the appearance is false.