You're playing with words labtoppop, you do understand that natural selection is causing the shifts in variation right?
i.e variation within limits = shifts in variation caused by natural selection.
Upvote
0
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.
The finch beak shift represents natural population variation based on conditions. My point is that it does not demonstrate evolution, but rather variation within limits.
Yes. YEC has no problem with natural selection. So? Let's get back on topic -- has anything disproved the design/watchmaker argument?
Hold your horses there buddy, we have to take care of the basics first, before you see the big picture. Patience is a thing of virtue.The cell looks designed - everything works together wonderfully. The consensus view is that this appearance is illusion -- but can anyone offer a real argument against it?
Do you have any data to add to the discussion? I'm pesky that way -- I want to discuss real informationA seeing watchmaker argument has long been disproved, there is actually a video floating around by punchy that shows this.
Hold your horses there buddy, we have to take care of the basics first, before you see the big picture. Patience is a thing of virtue.
Do you have any data to add to the discussion? I'm pesky that way -- I want to discuss real information
Fair enough. The ID folks have done decent work in terms of information theory. For me, I am directing this more toward common perception. We look at complex human manufactured things and we see design. We look at things billions of times more complex and don't? Care to propose something more rigorous?Define the actual process called "design", please. I am not saying that it can't be defined; but if it isn't designed* - oops, defined, then "design" simply becomes a catchphrase for "couldn't have come about through natural processes". Which of course is the good old argument from incredulity.
Fair enough. The ID folks have done decent work in terms of information theory. For me, I am directing this more toward common perception. We look at complex human manufactured things and we see design. We look at things billions of times more complex and don't? Care to propose something more rigorous?
That is a basic problem -- again, which ID attempts to address rigorously. Again -- do you care to propose something more rigorous? I'm satisfied with something like appearance of organized complexity -- particular parts doing particular things as part of an organized system that functions together.So in other words, if something "looks complex", then it is designed? How do you quantify "looks complex"?
You bolded it yourself -- there's a HUGE difference between "anticipated to decline" and "observed to decline". I have had this problem before -- it seems that often it is considered adequate to propose a possible solution, and I (stubbornly <grin>) keep looking for actual data. I'm much more interested in the examples cited -- I want to look into these more. Thanks!About bacterial resistance: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9332013Policies aimed at alleviating the growing problem of drug-resistant pathogens by restricting antimicrobial usage implicitly assume that resistance reduces the Darwinian fitness of pathogens in the absence of drugs. While fitness costs have been demonstrated for bacteria and viruses resistant to some chemotherapeutic agents, these costs are anticipated to decline during subsequent evolution. This has recently been observed in pathogens as diverse as HIV and Escherichia coli. Here we present evidence that these genetic adaptations to the costs of resistance can virtually preclude resistant lineages from reverting to sensitivity. We show that second site mutations which compensate for the substantial (14 and 18% per generation) fitness costs of streptomycin resistant (rpsL) mutations in E. coli create a genetic background in which streptomycin sensitive, rpsL+ alleles have a 4-30% per generation selective disadvantage relative to adapted, resistant strains. We also present evidence that similar compensatory mutations have been fixed in long-term streptomycin-resistant laboratory strains of E. coli and may account for the persistence of rpsL streptomycin resistance in populations maintained for more than 10,000 generations in the absence of the antibiotic.(emphases added) There goes your point about antibiotic resistance. Which is shredded in a far less friendly way over at http://mikethemadbiologist.blogspot.com/2005/04/antibiotics-creationism-and-evolution.html .
That is a basic problem -- again, which ID attempts to address rigorously. Again -- do you care to propose something more rigorous? I'm satisfied with something like appearance of organized complexity -- particular parts doing particular things as part of an organized system that functions together.
You bolded it yourself -- there's a HUGE difference between "anticipated to decline" and "observed to decline". I have had this problem before -- it seems that often it is considered adequate to propose a possible solution, and I (stubbornly <grin>) keep looking for actual data. I'm much more interested in the examples cited -- I want to look into these more. Thanks!
No, we see things that are manufactured because they have signs of the process that manufactured them or we can look the the actual process used to manufacture them.We look at complex human manufactured things and we see design.
You need to realize that when dealing with logic, the first thing you have to avoid is making decisions based on what you consider to be "common sense". The human mind works in odd ways, and is often responsible for making odd connections where none should be made either because of past experience or predisposition. You need to analyze an argument like the watchmaker fallacy through the tenets of logic, not common sense. They overlap in many places, but you can run into trouble if you assume that common sense is always correct.Is there any argument against the watchmaker argument other than asking for more rigor in the definition of design? So far, the argument strikes me as compelling on a common sense level -- but I admit I am predisposed towards it.
Know? I wasn't aware of any experimental *proof* of this.If we couldn't observe processes that can design living organisims (or if we couldn't see them produce and have new traits) , then design would be a valid conclusion but at this point, we know that natural algorithms can design life and modify it over time.
So you deny the appearance of design in molecular machines? I am not saying the reality of design -- I am asking about the appearance of design.What looks designed to you certainly doesn't look designed to another.
People who are uneducated in how molecules function say that it appears designed. To people who are educated in molecular evolution, it does not appear designed. The appearance of design exists or doesn't exist depending on who you talk to. The fact that it doesn't appear designed to the experts should tell you something, though.I am asking about the appearance of design.
So you deny the appearance of design in molecular machines? I am not saying the reality of design -- I am asking about the appearance of design.
People who are uneducated in how molecules function say that it appears designed. To people who are educated in molecular evolution, it does not appear designed. The appearance of design exists or doesn't exist depending on who you talk to. The fact that it doesn't appear designed to the experts should tell you something, though.
Already answered at length in this thread -- have you read it?You do mean supernatural design right? if so then no?
If you're taking about naturally "designed", then even the shapes of snow flakes are naturally "designed".
Design to me just means created, the shapes of snowflakes are naturally created.
How are you defining design?
That's just a matter of word choice, laptoppop. When it's mentioned that they have to remind themselves it's not designed, they mean that it's not obvious that it isn't designed. But to a scientist in the field, given the knowledge that they have, the molecules do not appear designed. It's not denial. It's knowing that what an uneducated mind initially perceives is not necessarily the way things actually are.Did you read the OP? Many experts agree that it *appears* designed -- they just deny what they see.
Already answered at length in this thread -- have you read it?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?