• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Some random discussion on evolution...

xianghua

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2017
5,215
555
44
tel aviv
✟119,055.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Single
we can't observe or model macro evolution, we can only try to imagine it
we need to remember the antenna was made by design and not by a natural process. so its not realy "evolution" or something that support evolution.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

xianghua

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2017
5,215
555
44
tel aviv
✟119,055.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Single
Show me an example and I'll tell you.
here is one from wiki:
PurportedUFO2.jpg


say that its real for the sake of the argument. design or not?
 
Upvote 0

xianghua

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2017
5,215
555
44
tel aviv
✟119,055.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Single
How about we establish a clear definition of what criteria need to be met to satisfy the claim "designed", and then if we find any gears that DON'T meet those criteria, we can use them as an example of gears that aren't designed?
you are welcome.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
we need to remember the antenna was made by design and not by a natural process. so its not realy "evolution" or something that support evolution.
The antenna was made by the process of random variation and selection, a process you denounce. Whether the circumstances in which the process acted were contrived or not is besides the point. In fact you and other IDists here have been quite offensively nasty about the possibility that the process of evolution was itself designed rather than its individual products.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
here is one from wiki:
PurportedUFO2.jpg


say that its real for the sake of the argument. design or not?
A real what? An inanimate object falling from outer space? Some kind of a flying machine? A naturally evolved flying creature?
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
so if we will find such example (say a gene in 2 far species but not in some species between them) evolution will be false?

We've had this discussion before. I'm not going into this again with you. Just review your conversation history here for our prior discussions on this.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
here is one from wiki:
PurportedUFO2.jpg


say that its real for the sake of the argument. design or not?

That's likely a hubcap, lamp shade or other human manufactured object that was common in fake flying saucer photography back in the mid 20th century.

You've posted this before and been through all this already. Why are you posting this again?
 
Upvote 0

xianghua

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2017
5,215
555
44
tel aviv
✟119,055.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Single
A watch is always evidence of human design, and that is precisely BECAUSE we know 'how it was produced' - by humans.
actually you dont know. someone can made a watch by a different way than any other man. and yet you will conclude design. right?
 
Upvote 0

xianghua

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2017
5,215
555
44
tel aviv
✟119,055.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Single
That's likely a hubcap, lamp shade or other human manufactured object that was common in fake flying saucer photography back in the mid 20th century.

so you conclude design base on the object alone. thanks.
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,405
8,143
✟349,282.00
Faith
Atheist
The point is that it uses the same underlying principle of repeated selection from a reproducing population that has heritable variation. It demonstrates that a system implementing this principle can produce effective design-like products. Biological evolution is a process that is also an implementation of this principle.

How such systems originate is a different debate, but you're at liberty to start a thread on that.
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,405
8,143
✟349,282.00
Faith
Atheist
we need to remember the antenna was made by design and not by a natural process. so its not realy "evolution" or something that support evolution.
It was produced by implementing a process using the same principle as biological evolution.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
so you conclude design base on the object alone. thanks.

No. Once again you appear to be forgetting all the previous discussions about this.

The conclusion is based on knowledge of how flying saucer photos were faked back in the mid 20th century coupled with recognition of that particular photo.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
again: we dont need to know how gears were designed in order to know they were designed.

You need at minimum a plausible mechanism. You don't even have that. Therefore you can't suggest that the gears in issus coleoptratus are the result of deliberate design. You simply have no basis for that claim.
 
Upvote 0

sesquiterpene

Well-Known Member
Sep 14, 2018
745
618
USA
✟193,819.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
sorry- can you rephrase?





the overwhelming majority of random errors are deleterious to the function of any design- and observations of life support this- generally come from a loss of function, not a new feature- just as anyone can create a faster race car by throwing out the spare tire and back seat...
There is a problem with this - it's simply not true. The majority of mutations in humans are neutral, not deleterious. Why don't you try learning more about the actual properties of living systems, rather than inventing strained analogies?
 
Upvote 0

Guy Threepwood

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2019
1,143
73
52
Midwest
✟26,447.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
There is a problem with this - it's simply not true. The majority of mutations in humans are neutral, not deleterious. Why don't you try learning more about the actual properties of living systems, rather than inventing strained analogies?

where they have any impact at all- they are overwhelmingly more likely to be deleterious than beneficial- that's hardly controversial

yes it is true many are seemingly neutral- but that gets into what was functional code or not in the first place- and the degree to which errors are fixed by DNA- a wash either way

Same again in our own digital systems- errors in code can often appear in unused portions of memory, and/or be corrected by error checking systems- which are uncannily similar in DNA and our own software.

The substantive point here is that it's very difficult to create new functional digital information systems by throwing random mistakes at existing ones- you are infinitely more likely to fail than to succeed.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
The substantive point here is that it's very difficult to create new functional digital information systems by throwing random mistakes at existing ones- you are infinitely more likely to fail than to succeed.

With respect to biology though this is exactly how things like new functional proteins come about; genetic mutations of previous ones.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
The substantive point here is that it's very difficult to create new functional digital information systems by throwing random mistakes at existing ones- you are infinitely more likely to fail than to succeed.
If that's all that was happening you would probably be right. I think the point is that you really don't know quite enough yet to be looking for "gotchas." I'm not saying there aren't any, but that your search for them has been superficial.
 
Upvote 0