Some random discussion on evolution...

[pitabread]

a real flying machine fron other world.

Such as thing has never been found and consequently we have no idea what such a thing would look like.

 

[xianghua]

It was produced by implementing a process using the same principle as biological evolution.

so its irrelevant to biological evolution. even if evolution was false we can still create that antenna.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

a real flying machine fron other world. so can you conclude design if you will see such a thing or not?

I asked you to provide an example, but for some reason you haven't done so. I'm inclined to think it's because you cannot provide such an example and therefore your argument is destroyed. However, in the interest of being fair I'm happy to be wrong if you can produce the goods. I'll even go on record to admit that you win the argument. Are you prepared to make the same commitment? Shall we agree that your failure to produce the evidence is an admission of dishonesty and you lose the argument?

 

[xianghua]

it is a good example of supported adaptation I'd say- which relies on a very specific and limited range of options being searched, and a platform specifically designed in advance to do so- the bounds cannot be broken and that's why the random input works-

so it highlights the clear distinction between adaptation as a limited design feature and adaptation as a comprehensive design mechanism

i hope that i got you point. we can think about variations that we can see even in a regular car over time (the car color is changing because of the sun). but that car will never evolve say a gps.

 

[xianghua]

That's not a real UFO, it is a well-known fake. So for the sake of argument, let's admit that we know what it is. Now, how do you tell that it's designed?

because its too complex to evolve naturally.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

because its too complex to evolve naturally.

OK. How do we know that? Talk us through your thought process.

 

[Speedwell]

because its too complex to evolve naturally.

How are you going to demonstrate that? What do do mean by "too complex?" How are you measuring it? Remember, from the standpoint of evolution, complexity is a mathematical concept and any argument from complexity which has no math with it is garbage.

 

[xianghua]

And yet you remain incapable of providing such criteria.

can you do that?

 

[xianghua]

Pulsars (rotating neutron stars) are as accurate time-keepers as any watch. Do you think that that fact implies that pulsars were designed for measuring time?

im talking about hand watch you know.

 

[xianghua]

If, as I suspect, it is a hub-cap or a saucepan lid, it is designed.

so we can detect design by looking at the object alone. right?

 

[pitabread]

so we can detect design by looking at the object alone. right?

You really want this to be true don't you?

 

[Speedwell]

so we can detect design by looking at the object alone. right?

Yes, if by looking at it we can determine that it is of human manufacture then we can conclude that it is of human design.

 

[pitabread]

Yes, if by looking at it we can determine that it is of human manufacture then we can conclude that it is of human design.

Keep in mind that per xianghua's comment, it wouldn't strictly be by looking at the object alone. We would still be relying on pre-existing knowledge of what those signs of manufacture would look like.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Keep in mind that per xianghua's comment, it wouldn't strictly be by looking at the object alone. We would still be relying on pre-existing knowledge of what those signs of manufacture would look like.

But that's the part he will never admit. On any route he will jump from A to D and deny that B & C are required steps.

 

[pitabread]

But that's the part he will never admit. On any route he will jump from A to D and deny that B & C are required steps.

Oh, of course. He's stubbornly refused to accept how design is *really* detected because that precludes concluding that biological organisms are a result of design.

 

[xianghua]

I asked you to provide an example, but for some reason you haven't done so. I'm inclined to think it's because you cannot provide such an example and therefore your argument is destroyed. However, in the interest of being fair I'm happy to be wrong if you can produce the goods. I'll even go on record to admit that you win the argument. Are you prepared to make the same commitment? Shall we agree that your failure to produce the evidence is an admission of dishonesty and you lose the argument?

what are you talking about? it was a theoretical question about a flying UFO. if we can conclude design base on such object then it means that we can detect design base on the object alone.

 

[Speedwell]

what are you talking about? it was a theoretical question about a flying UFO. if we can conclude design base on such object then it means that we can detect design base on the object alone.

Not on the object alone. It also requires knowledge of human manufacturing processes.

 

[xianghua]

OK. How do we know that? Talk us through your thought process.

so you dont know that a flying machine cant evolve naturally?

 

[Speedwell]

so you dont know that a flying machine cant evolve naturally?

What do you mean by "machine?"

 

[Bungle_Bear]

so you dont know that a flying machine cant evolve naturally?

No, I don't. That's why I asked you to talk us through your thought process. How do you recognise something that is too complex to evolve naturally? Here's your chance to show everyone how to do it - the world is waiting, Nobel prizes are waiting. Please, share your knowledge.