The Common Designer Challenge

[Mallon]

Similarity among organisms is one of the evidences used in support of common descent; however, special creationists would have it that this is evidence instead of a common designer. It has always struck me that this common designer argument was little more than an ad hoc, knee jerk reaction intended to explain away organismal similarity rather than to simply explain it. So I thought I would introduce this challenge.
Below are six inventions (designs) created by two independent inventors. Assuming that there is something to the common designer argument beyond some Pavlovian anti-evolutionary response, it should be possible to classify these objects according to who invented them. Note that I'm not looking for names, either of the inventions or the inventors. I'm only looking to see whether these can be grouped correctly, and for an explanation as to the methodology involved (presumably, some appeal to similarity in design).
I will display these images in two separate posts, given there's a limit of pictures per post.

(a)

(b)


(c)

 

[Mallon]

continued...

(d)

(e)

(f)

And remember: we're all Christians, so no cheating.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

a. appears to be a boiler or heater of some sort.

b. (indistinct)

c. bifocals

d. (indistinct)

e. a steam engine, or possibly an early barometer.

f. a treadle operated machine possibly a 'gin' of some sort to 'prepare' fiber or separate seeds from trash?

As presentation is incomplete not possible to group these.

 

[anonymous1515]

Hahaha. Excellent. Purely genius! The common designer argument is total and complete rubbish.

 

[shernren]

Goddidit.

 

[Mallon]

As presentation is incomplete not possible to group these.

What more would you need to know?

C'mon, special creationists! You're all so quick to play the "common designer" card when it comes to equivocating the evidence for evolution, this should be a breeze!

 

[NathanCGreen]

I don't use the 'common designer' argument in reaction to so-called 'common ancestor'.

I rather say that the design similarity between various organisms is there simply because of a similar need or function for them. Fish live in water, right? Well then, we would expect most, if not all, to have similar structures to them to enable them to live and swim underwater... Please tell me of an example of similarity between creatures that you think upholds the evolutionary hypothetical nonsense.

By the way, I shall point all that come across this thread to this website: http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/myht_of_homology_01.html


This section obviously deals with homology, but feel free to take a look around the rest of the site.

 

[anonymous1515]

I don't use the 'common designer' argument in reaction to so-called 'common ancestor'.

I rather say that the design similarity between various organisms is there simply because of a similar need or function for them. Fish live in water, right? Well then, we would expect most, if not all, to have similar structures to them to enable them to live and swim underwater... Please tell me of an example of similarity between creatures that you think upholds the evolutionary hypothetical nonsense.

By the way, I shall point all that come across this thread to this website: http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/myht_of_homology_01.html


This section obviously deals with homology, but feel free to take a look around the rest of the site.

Haha, what a funny site. Let me quote a part of it:

The homology thesis of the evolutionists is based on the logic of building an evolutionary link between all living things with similar morphologies (structures), whereas there are a number of homologous organs shared by different groups that are completely unrelated to each other. Wings are one example. In addition to birds, we find wings on bats, which are mammals, and on insects and even on some dinosaurs, which are extinct reptiles. Not even evolutionists posit an evolutionary relationship or kinship among those four different groups of animals.

I'm not even sure of the author's point. Is he/she trying to assert that bird wings are identicle to insect wings, and that evolutionists are just saying that they are different so that these organisms fit into our phylogenies nice and easily?

 

[shernren]

I rather say that the design similarity between various organisms is there simply because of a similar need or function for them. Fish live in water, right? Well then, we would expect most, if not all, to have similar structures to them to enable them to live and swim underwater...

Ooh, ooh, that looks like a logically consistent argument! Can I try?

Fish live in water, right?
And dolphins live in water, right?
Now fish have gills, scales, and mucus; they have a lateral line system to figure out their orientation in water.
So dolphins have gills, scales, and mucus, and a lateral line -
​

Hey! It's not working! I must be doing something wrong! Let me try something a little more specific.

Flatfish live as bottom-feeders preying on small animals, right?
And stingrays live as bottom-feeders preying on small animals, right?
Now flatfish begin life as flukes with eyes and gill slits on both sides of their body, and then as they settle to the sea floor an eye and a gill slit migrate to the top side.
Therefore stingrays begin life as flukes with eyes and gills on both sides of their body -
​

Oh, come on! Third time's a charm.

Sharks are large marine predators, right?
And orcas are large marine predators, right?
Now sharks need to swim constantly to pass new, aerated water over their gills, and sharks' fin tastes delicioius.
Therefore orcas need to swim constantly to pass new, aerated water over their gills, and orcas' fin -
​

Alright, I was kidding about the last bit, but you get the point. Maybe the first half of the fifth day was a design competition between Father, Son, Spirit and Angels United, is that why we get such weird biology in the sea? Surely this has to work in the air ...

Birds fly, right?
And bats fly, right?
Now birds have feathers that improve the aerodynamic profile of their wings tremendously.
Therefore bats have feathers that -
​

Wow, the whole of the fifth day is pretty messy. It's ok, here comes the sixth day!

Triceratops had huge horns, right?
Rhinoceros had huge horns, right?
Now Triceratops' horns were bony outgrowths.
Therefore rhinoceros' horns are bony -
​

Wow, even now?

Your hypothesis is amazing, Nathan. It produces so many predictions about nature that we would never have guessed from silly old evolutionary theory alone.

 

[anonymous1515]

Hahaha. I'm glad you had the energy to type that out, because I sure didn't. Kudos you shenren! I thought about it for a few minutes, but then I realized that the argument Nathan is presenting is just too stupid in the first place.

 

[NathanCGreen]

Your hypothesis is amazing, Nathan. It produces so many predictions about nature that we would never have guessed from silly old evolutionary theory alone.

You seem to be fairly clueless for a supposedly intelligent person don't you shernren... just like to make jokes? You should have known very well what I was saying...

You extrapolated what I said way out of the intention.
Obviously there are creatures living in the seas that have differing methods for living and swimming in the water... But the point I was making, was about similarities between fish, not underwater mammalia or crustaceans.

Also, the original argument of mine is simply that common design structures are found throughout creation. If there is a similarity between any creature, it is because of a similar function that needs to be carried out (flying for example).

Your responses detract more and more credibility from your hypothesis. Since you have no evidence to back up the evolution hypothesis, you revert to jokes which don't even properly address the issue that was raised.

There is no evidence that any creature has to be related to another outside of its own kind. It is just wishful imaginings of the evolutionistic faith mindset.

 

[birdan]

There is no evidence that any creature has to be related to another outside of its own kind. It is just wishful imaginings of the evolutionistic faith mindset.

To discuss this assertion, we first need a definition of "kind". Please provide a definition so we can more clearly understand your method of categorization.

 

[gluadys]

Obviously there are creatures living in the seas that have differing methods for living and swimming in the water... But the point I was making, was about similarities between fish, not underwater mammalia or crustaceans.

Also, the original argument of mine is simply that common design structures are found throughout creation. If there is a similarity between any creature, it is because of a similar function that needs to be carried out (flying for example).

But there isn't. Insect wings are very different from vertebrate wings. There is no common design for this function that includes the wings of both insects and vertebrates.

Furthermore, vertebrate wings differ substantially from one another depending on whether the flying creature is a reptile, a bird or a mammal. While they do all share the same vertebrate forelimb, it is modified in quite different ways for flying. No common design.

And that is what shernren was saying about sea creatures. Take creatures with the same function (bottom feeding) and you do not find a common design, but several different designs.

There is no evidence that common function elicits common design.

So what does common design look like? It looks like common design is inherited with modifications in particular groups. But wait..... that's evolution.

 

[shernren]

You seem to be fairly clueless for a supposedly intelligent person don't you shernren... just like to make jokes? You should have known very well what I was saying...

No, I am kind when I critique arguments and blunt (in one sense) the force of my rebuttals with humor. I do not stoop to the level of calling people clueless or supposedly intelligent until such labels are self-evident.

You extrapolated what I said way out of the intention.
Obviously there are creatures living in the seas that have differing methods for living and swimming in the water... But the point I was making, was about similarities between fish, not underwater mammalia or crustaceans.

But flatfish and stingrays are both fish: why such different approaches to bottom-feeding? And why does the flatfish take such a torturous approach? Factories don't start manufacturing a motorcycle by chopping a car in half, nor do they start manufacturing a trailer by sticking four cars together back-to-front. Why should the flatfish pretend for half its life to be a fish that will swim through the oceans with eyes on both sides of its head? ... Unless it evolved from fish that did swim through the oceans with eyes on both sides of its head for their entire lives?

Besides, the examples show that you really aren't able to explain anything. Alright, so fish in order to live in water have gills and scales and mucus. And dolphins, in order to live in water, have lungs and blowholes and smooth skin. If living in water can cause one group of living beings to take up adaptations so different from another group of living beings' adaptations - well, what does "living in water" explain? If you tell me that something "lives in water", I can't predict from that whether it will have gills or lungs, scales or skin. What's the point?

Also, the original argument of mine is simply that common design structures are found throughout creation. If there is a similarity between any creature, it is because of a similar function that needs to be carried out (flying for example).

Really? Why, then, are birds' wings similar in structure to the arm structures of all sorts of vertebrates?

You've eaten a complete chicken wing before, haven't you? So you know that first up there's this quasi-drumstick kind of bit where the wing joins up to the main body. Then there's this piece with the two bones stuck together, and finally there's the endpiece which is pretty much skin and bones and the occasional sliver of meat. Well, feel your arms. Flex your biceps - that's the equivalent of the quasi-drumstick. Can you feel the two long bones stretching from your elbow to your wrist? And the bone structure of the last piece of the chicken wing looks like fingers squashed together and elongated - indeed, the little spur near where the last bit joins the two-bones bit is equivalent to a sort of mini-thumb.

So. Why should birds' wings be essentially modified arms? Similar structures, different purposes. Are your theories really able to explain anything ... or can they at best explain things away?

Your responses detract more and more credibility from your hypothesis. Since you have no evidence to back up the evolution hypothesis, you revert to jokes which don't even properly address the issue that was raised.

There is no evidence that any creature has to be related to another outside of its own kind. It is just wishful imaginings of the evolutionistic faith mindset.

Have fun confronting biology in the real world.

 

[NathanCGreen]

If living in water can cause one group of living beings to take up adaptations so different from another group of living beings' adaptations - well, what does "living in water" explain? If you tell me that something "lives in water", I can't predict from that whether it will have gills or lungs, scales or skin. What's the point?

You see, your whole problem lies with your pre-suppositions in your evo-mindset. You expect that there must have been creatures that adapted to the water in various manners by evolving their needed apendages, etc... however, have you even thought about the possibility that God made them different for variety sake? If He didn't, I suppose that would then be used as a reason for attacking God, from the atheists of the world.

If a creature lives in water, it only explains that it lives in water... nothing more. Also, you only have to examine a creature first-hand to find out whether it has gills, lungs, skin, and whatever else... there is no need to 'predict' anything like that. Observing, dissecting, and cataloguing why a creature has certain features of its being and how they use them and what for, is a science.

However, take snake venom for example.. I do not believe that God intended any snake to harm anything, for in the beginning everything was good. So, originally the 'venom' was not harmful, but acted as a protein of sorts, even. I mentioned this in another post, but basically, certain atmospheric conditions were reproduced and that gave the venom a property that effected the same results as an injection of protein would. The venom looks like clumped spaghetti normally, but after a few hours under different conditions, the venom eventually formed into an ordered structure that resembled the honeycomb form.

So. Why should birds' wings be essentially modified arms?

That question should not be asked of me, because I don't see how a bird wing could be a modified arm in the first place. They aren't modified anything. They are birds' wings. And arms of a human are just arms of a human.

I think you need to come out of fantasy land, quite honestly.

Have fun confronting biology in the real world.

Thank you.

 

[anonymous1515]

However, take snake venom for example.. I do not believe that God intended any snake to harm anything, for in the beginning everything was good. So, originally the 'venom' was not harmful, but acted as a protein of sorts, even. I mentioned this in another post, but basically, certain atmospheric conditions were reproduced and that gave the venom a property that effected the same results as an injection of protein would. The venom looks like clumped spaghetti normally, but after a few hours under different conditions, the venom eventually formed into an ordered structure that resembled the honeycomb form.

I think you need to come out of fantasy land, quite honestly.

You said something about fantasy land?

 

[NathanCGreen]

You said something about fantasy land?

It's amazing isn't it, just because of the seemingly 'out there' and unexpected result, you think it must be fantasy?
However, it (snake venom experiment) was done, and was a reality. It is therefore now 'knowledge' (science).
Too bad for you evos...

 

[anonymous1515]

It's amazing isn't it, just because of the seemingly 'out there' and unexpected result, you think it must be fantasy?
However, it (snake venom experiment) was done, and was a reality. It is therefore now 'knowledge' (science).
Too bad for you evos...

Oh, you have it quite backwards. I believe that snake venom could quite well be protein. And, evolution would predict that at one point, it actually WASN'T poisonous, but rather evolved to become more poisonous because those snakes with toxic venom were at a fitness advantage relative to those that had non-toxic "venom".

My point about your fantasy land is that you're statement "I don't believe snakes were meant to be poisonous, but when Adam ate the apple they suddenly became poisonous and evil and bad and yucky" is absolutely ridiculous. Funny, but ridiculous.

 

[shernren]

Do you see how far you have retreated from your original pretensions?

You first responded to the OP by saying:

I rather say that the design similarity between various organisms is there simply because of a similar need or function for them. Fish live in water, right? Well then, we would expect most, if not all, to have similar structures to them to enable them to live and swim underwater...

Note the clear element of prediction as you used the word "expect": if we take organisms A, B, and C, and find that they have gills and all shared, that must be because they live underwater. But when I pointed first to fish and dolphins you said:

You extrapolated what I said way out of the intention. Obviously there are creatures living in the seas that have differing methods for living and swimming in the water... But the point I was making, was about similarities between fish, not underwater mammalia or crustaceans.

So now it can't apply across all organisms? Only fish? Gee, I thought the same God made them all. And now when I further press the point of flatfish and stingray you are reduced to:

If a creature lives in water, it only explains that it lives in water... nothing more. Also, you only have to examine a creature first-hand to find out whether it has gills, lungs, skin, and whatever else... there is no need to 'predict' anything like that. Observing, dissecting, and cataloguing why a creature has certain features of its being and how they use them and what for, is a science.

Wonderful. Now the only thing that "living in water" can predict is, well, living in water. Just a few days ago you could confidently "expect" certain structures based on habitat and feeding ... now you are reduced to saying "well, if we look at them, we'll tell what they have, but we can't do anything better than that." And why the differences? Well:

You see, your whole problem lies with your pre-suppositions in your evo-mindset. You expect that there must have been creatures that adapted to the water in various manners by evolving their needed apendages, etc... however, have you even thought about the possibility that God made them different for variety sake? If He didn't, I suppose that would then be used as a reason for attacking God, from the atheists of the world.

You have to resort to "God likes variety" to try to rescue your version of divine design. How come God doesn't like variety enough to make, say, a pegasus? Or even a bird which has the structures of bat wings instead of bird wings. It's just an engineering difficulty, after all, a matter of hooking up systems to each other. Can't God do everything? Why, then, does His creation look peculiarly like it evolved - couldn't God have tried harder to create just that exception, just that chimera which would falsify evolution?

Because evolution predicts that traits travel together - rather, that not only are species similar, but they are similar in very specific ways. For example, insects will always be insects, and birds will always be birds. Because genetic information cannot cross between those lineages, insects' wings will always have insect wing structures and birds' wings will always have bird wing structures. The fossil record preserves dragonflies with foot-long wings, IIRC - couldn't God have pasted those wings onto a hummingbird? And yet He didn't. And so something that God could have created, but that evolution cannot predict the existence of, is missing. And that's not just true for birds, it is true across the entire biological spectrum: peculiar animal forms which evolution would forbid but creative divinity would certainly be able to create are completely absent.

Why, it looks almost as if God wants us to believe evolution did it ...

However, take snake venom for example.. I do not believe that God intended any snake to harm anything, for in the beginning everything was good. So, originally the 'venom' was not harmful, but acted as a protein of sorts, even. I mentioned this in another post, but basically, certain atmospheric conditions were reproduced and that gave the venom a property that effected the same results as an injection of protein would. The venom looks like clumped spaghetti normally, but after a few hours under different conditions, the venom eventually formed into an ordered structure that resembled the honeycomb form.

Ok. Let me make sure that you know what you think you know. Define protein, and tell me why proteins cannot be harmful.

That question should not be asked of me, because I don't see how a bird wing could be a modified arm in the first place. They aren't modified anything. They are birds' wings. And arms of a human are just arms of a human.

I explained the homology to you. Have you never eaten a chicken wing before? How can you prove to me that the two structures are not parallel to each other?

I think you need to come out of fantasy land, quite honestly.

Well, that will happen when you can finally come up with creationist hypotheses that aren't discarded merely three posts down the thread ...

 

[NathanCGreen]

Well, that will happen when you can finally come up with creationist hypotheses that aren't discarded merely three posts down the thread ...

Hahaha! You're funny aren't you... I have done the same with your arguments. After all, you can't get very far without evidence... and the onus is certainly on you.

If I could converse with you in person I'm sure I could explain things more coherently. But anyway, when I'm talking about fish, I'm usually referring to creatures such as a flathead, pike, trout, clown fish, you know, those types of fish... Similarity between them doesn't prove a thing except that God decided to create these in a similar way. Not too hard to imagine, right?

You said: You have to resort to "God likes variety" to try to rescue your version of divine design. How come God doesn't like variety enough to make, say, a pegasus? Or even a bird which has the structures of bat wings instead of bird wings. It's just an engineering difficulty, after all, a matter of hooking up systems to each other. Can't God do everything? Why, then, does His creation look peculiarly like it evolved - couldn't God have tried harder to create just that exception, just that chimera which would falsify evolution?

I reply: I'm sure glad He likes variety. After all, I'm sure you would agree that we look nothing like fish.

If God made a pegasus, that would definitely be used by evos to push their doctrine. Same goes for a bird with bat wings instead of bird wings.
The creation does not look like it evolved. It does to you however, because you are wearing those evo glasses and have apparently glued them on with a very strong apoxy resin. And so I suppose it would hurt you far too much to attempt to take them off...


In the fossil record we do indeed have creatures far larger than we do today of the same species... the example of the dragonfly is a great start...
However, I thought I heard that evo caused things to progress in an upward fashion... doesn't seem the evidence fits with the hypothesis once again...


You said: Because evolution predicts that traits travel together - rather, that not only are species similar, but they are similar in very specific ways. For example, insects will always be insects, and birds will always be birds. Because genetic information cannot cross between those lineages, insects' wings will always have insect wing structures and birds' wings will always have bird wing structures. The fossil record preserves dragonflies with foot-long wings, IIRC - couldn't God have pasted those wings onto a hummingbird? And yet He didn't. And so something that God could have created, but that evolution cannot predict the existence of, is missing. And that's not just true for birds, it is true across the entire biological spectrum: peculiar animal forms which evolution would forbid but creative divinity would certainly be able to create are completely absent.

I said: What kind of reasoning is this? Now I know you are confused.. or you are deliberately messing around here... This is utter trash of an argument and is not worth even responding to in a proper manner!