Why Do I Have To Wear Glasses If Eyes Are So Well Designed?

[Log]

Yes but dog breeding acknowledges the lines and descent. So this would not be a valid comparison.

Actually, it's not a comparison. The biological evidence of artificial selection is empirically indistinguishable from the evidence of natural selection, in the absence of direct observation. Evidence which simultaneously supports a hypothesis and its logical negation is not evidence for either.

Edited April 19, 2012 by Log

[altersteve]

yea yea, I know, this is a fallen world with all that goes along with it, must needs be opposition in all things and all that!

Why did you ask the question if you already knew the answer?

[shalamabobbi]

The biological evidence of artificial selection is empirically indistinguishable from the evidence of natural selection.

That isn't the point. The evidence shows common descent whether or not it was due to natural selection or a higher intelligence doing something similar to dog breeding. Your mind is really shut off to this point that I can't even seem to communicate the idea to you. Maybe we should drop it.

[changed]

There is natural selection(where man is not involved), and selective breeding(where man is). However I don't know what you mean by DI unless it is Deseret Industries.

LOL - discov institute

the term artificial selection vs. natural selection, I don't like the term "artificial" for anything, artificial food coloring, or artificial flowers... yes, it means it was manipulated by man I guess - ID seems to be a better description of the artificial part of it... or call it genetic engineering... do animals intelligently decide who to mate with? some do... do animals intelligently decide where to migrate to? or what food to eat? I mean there is thought involved in all of it...

what I want to know, is why do only living things evolve? if it's all just random atomic packing defects, those happen in everything... the crystal structure of iron, and copper, etc. etc. don't evolve with time... if evolution does not require intelligence to progress, seems like the unintelligent rocks would evolve too... atomic interaction potentials seem to be constant, the laws of physics seem to be constant - nice repeatable results... so when you get something that is not repeatable (which is what evolution is, it's not repeating the same old structures over and over again...) it makes sense that some sort of creative intelligence is involved - something new is being created... call the intelligence God, or just our own preference for who to mate with, but intelligence is obviously part of the "how" of it all imo...

Edited April 20, 2012 by changed

[Log]

The evidence shows common descent whether or not it was due to natural selection or a higher intelligence doing something similar to dog breeding. Your mind is really shut off to this point that I can't even seem to communicate the idea to you. Maybe we should drop it.

Does this picture illustrate common descent?

[Mariner]

Log,

Bottom line is that ID is, in fact, creationism warmed over. As already mentioned on this thread, a federal court judge has stated as much in an important ruling against the teaching of ID in public school science classes.

Behe and Demski and the Discovery Institute and their various ID related assertions are the antithesis of science. Magic and the supernatural do not lend themselves to hypothesis generation and testing because they cannot be used as the basis for falsifiable claims. ID is magic. It is a barren and bankrupt concept that contributes nothing to science or to useful human knowledge.

If one wants to contemplate, study and discuss ID as a religionist, no problem. But don't expect these concepts to get any traction with the mainstream scientific community, because ID is not science, by definition.

Edited April 20, 2012 by Mariner

[Log]

Log,

Bottom line is that ID is, in fact, creationism warmed over. As already mentioned on this thread, federal court judge has stated as much.

Yes, I forgot. Federal judges are, and should be, the arbiters of reality. They're really smart, too, and understand the issues. I completely agree.

[Design theory] is a barren and bankrupt concept that contributes nothing to science or to useful human knowledge.

Design inferences - the sole business of design theory - are how we catch scientific fraud, arsonists, murderers, insurance fraud, plagiarism, and cheating on tests, among other everyday uses. I can see how you'd view detection of scientific fraud kinda dimly.

Edited April 20, 2012 by Log

[shalamabobbi]

Does this picture illustrate common descent?

That's a deep arguement. I realize it isn't something you could have come up with on your own so I searched around to find the source. I believe it is Hovind's from some remarks made in the following debate. (scroll down to the middle of the page)

http://www.proof-of-evolution.com/

[Log]

That's a deep arguement.

It is a question. It is interesting that you believe a single interrogative statement, appended with a question mark, could be a deep argument.

I realize it isn't something you could have come up with on your own so I searched around to find the source. I believe it is Hovind's from some remarks made in the following debate. (scroll down to the middle of the page)

http://www.proof-of-evolution.com/

True, my graphical editing skills are not up to par, not that you have any basis to judge them on, but no, as a matter of fact, that's not where I lifted the picture from, as can be ascertained by right-clicking on the picture and examining its URL. In any event, why does it matter which website I lifted the picture from?

Edited April 20, 2012 by Log

[Mariner]

Design inferences - the sole business of design theory - are how we catch scientific fraud, arsonists, murderers, insurance fraud, plagiarism, and cheating on tests, among other everyday uses. I can see how you'd view detection of scientific fraud kinda dimly.

Log,

Thanks for changing the subject of my post (description of intelligent design / creationism) to something you felt you could actually respond to (description of "design inferences").

Well done.

Actually, it doesn't matter what kind of lipstick you try to put on the ID pig, it still grunts, snorts and roots around in the muck.

I note that you still have not addressed the central issues of testable (falsifiable) hypotheses arising from ID.

(Good luck with that by the way.)

[Log]

Log,

Thanks for changing the subject of my post (description of intelligent design / creationism) to something you felt you could actually respond to (description of "design inferences").

Intelligent design theory, or, more simply, design theory, is an information-theoretic tool used to make inferences to design. That you foolishly, and consistently, choose to conflate intelligent design with creationism is not my problem.

I note that you still have not addressed the central issues of testable (falsifiable) hypotheses arising from ID.

It is quite simple to falsify a design inference. All you have to do is come up with a known, specific chance hypothesis which provably confers a 50% chance of occurrence, or greater, upon the phenomenon in question. Let's choose one such phenomenon at random... say, the mammalian eye?

Want to go smaller? Let's try the bacterial flagellum.

Speaking of not addressing things, you've yet to substantiate your claim of evolutionary convergence with respect to eyes:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I want to see the whole chain of organisms - from the initial single-celled organism to the current state of affairs, accounting for each mutation, selection event, and lateral gene transfer (and a full Darwinian account for that which was transferred). Then, and only then, shall I concede that "the real answer of course, is that the two eye forms evolved in different ways (and probably several times).

Edited April 20, 2012 by Log

[shalamabobbi]

I don't have a problem with God using Evolution to Create everything. IOW The Scriptures tell me WHY God did it, and Science tells me the HOW.

And the gish-gallop side-step master tells us neither..

Edited April 20, 2012 by shalamabobbi

[Log]

And LOG tells us neither..

Gee, thanks. I guess. Dunno where I said I would tell you either.

What does "the gish-gallop side-step master" that you threw in a later edit mean, since you apparently meant me?

Edited April 20, 2012 by Log

[Mariner]

Intelligent design theory, or, more simply, design theory, is an information-theoretic tool used to make inferences to design. That you foolishly, and consistently, choose to conflate intelligent design with creationism is not my problem.

Speaking of not addressing things, you've yet to substantiate your claim of evolutionary convergence with respect to eyes:

Log,

First of all, you do not seem to be paying attention. I responded to your demand to know every single mutation leading from an eyespot in a simple multi-cell organism to the human eye in my post #42. Your question provides evidence that you would rather talk than listen.

It is quite simple to falsify a design inference. All you have to do is come up with a known, specific chance hypothesis which provably confers a 50% chance of occurrence, or greater, upon the phenomenon in question.

You have just verified, again and beyond any doubt, that you really have no clue (or at least will not admit that you have a clue) about what evolution theory is or how it works. Furthermore, you seem to do what so many science-challenged creationists do, which is to copy and paste nonsense from creationist websites to defend your indefensible position.

Let's choose one such phenomenon at random... say, the mammalian eye?

Want to go smaller? Let's try the bacterial flagellum.

Both of these "challenges" are nonsense. As for the bacterial flagellum as evidence for ID, please see

http://www.millerand...n2/article.html and the references cited. As for the eye, I guess I will have to go dig up those references as well, not for you especially, but for those readers who might be swayed by your brittle silliness.

Since, based on your behavior so far on this thread, I see the chances of your reading this excellent explanation of a academician at Brown University as to why the bacterial flagellum does not represent "irreducible complexity" (or now that ID'ers have been forced to abandon that terminology, perhaps "evidence of intelligent design"), I have pasted a passage for you below.

[The intelligent design proponents] views demand not a universe in which the beauty and harmony of natural law has brought a world of vibrant and fruitful life into existence, but rather a universe in which the emergence and evolution of life is made expressly impossible by the very same rules. Their view requires that the source of each and every novelty of life was the direct and active involvement of an outside designer whose work violated the very laws of nature he had fashioned. The world of intelligent design is not the bright and innovative world of life that we have come to know through science. Rather, it is a brittle and unchanging landscape, frozen in form and unable to adapt except at the whims of its designer.

Edited April 20, 2012 by Mariner

[changed]

no one ever answers my questions

to those who believe evolution is a purely materialistic process, that there is no intelligence involved, in your opinion, why doesn't everything evolve? why do only living things evolve? what atomic interaction potential is changing to create new structures? what fundamental force is changing with time to create something new? really, I'm genuinely curious. usually science deals with things that are repeatable & predictable... can anyone predict what the next new species will be? is it predictable? Given the same change in environment, will the exact same changes occur within a strain of bacteria? is it repeatable? what is the difference between dead things (iron, copper, quartz) that behave predictably/do not evolve, and living things that evolve?

survival driven? the rocks seem to survive better than we do, and they survive without evolving...

Edited April 20, 2012 by changed

[changed]

I don't have a problem with God using Evolution to Create everything. IOW The Scriptures tell me WHY God did it,

I agree.

and Science tells me the HOW.

I'm not satisfied that the "how" of evolution has been adequately explained... (unless you incorporate intelligence into the process)

[thesometimesaint]

changed:

Evolution, the science, has nothing to with nonliving things. The process of CHANGE is pretty much everywhere. The sun is CHANGING right now. It is using up its hydrogen CHANGING it to Helium. Eventually our sun will go out having CHANGED to Carbon and Iron in about 4-5 Billion years. ALL the Transuraninium elements will eventually CHANGE to lead. Protons eventually disintegrate(CHANGE) to Quarks. In about 100 Trillion Trillion Trillion years there will be no Protons and that will be the end of everything in this physical universe.

Many non living things don't have the capacity to CHANGE, at least fast enough to be measured, beyond some astronomically high number of years.

Environment is just one of the factors in evolution albeit a big one. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8

Yes it is repeatable. The Antibiotics you take when sick are a good example of it.

The difference is DNA.

Man is creating new species everyday. We're discovering new species quite regularly. I don't know what you mean by predicting a new species. As a general rule large species change at such a slow rate that predicting when, and what those changes will be enough to make a new species that is not able to reproduce with the parent population, is currently impossible to do. That being said humans are evolviing right now.

Edited April 20, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[thesometimesaint]

changed:

I'm not either. I'm in a constant quest to know more than I already do. The scientists that I know are also.

By definition science can't use a Supernatural force/beign to explain the how of anything. That said; I know of several scientists that are religious.

[Log]

Log,

First of all, you do not seem to be paying attention. I responded to your demand to know every single mutation leading from an eyespot in a simple multi-cell organism to the human eye in my post #42. Your question provides evidence that you would rather talk than listen.

Yes, you aimed words at something, and, in that conversational sense can be said to have "responded," and no, you did not provide evidence. Do you understand that "just so" stories are a dime a dozen, or perhaps even cheaper? Endless hypothesizing sans evidence is all you have. What is more interesting to me is why you think providing a "just so" story somehow constitutes evidence for the evolutionary hypothesis.

You have just verified, again and beyond any doubt, that you really have no clue (or at least will not admit that you have a clue) about what evolution theory is or how it works. Furthermore, you seem to do what so many science-challenged creationists do, which is to copy and paste nonsense from creationist websites to defend your indefensible position.

So, when I said "it is simple to overturn a design inference," in response to your asinine (definition 2 at Webster) accusation of the lack of falsifiability of intelligent design, and explained exactly how to overturn a design inference, this is your response? Mariner, you have nothing to contribute to this conversation, and have had nothing all along.

Both of these "challenges" are nonsense. As for the bacterial flagellum as evidence for ID, please see

http://www.millerand...n2/article.html and the references cited. As for the eye, I guess I will have to go dig up those references as well, not for you especially, but for those readers who might be swayed by your brittle silliness.

Miller is out of date, and badly so. The argument has moved on without either of you.

http://www.designinf...er_Response.htm

Here's another response to a like-minded critic, which has been posted before in this thread:

http://www.designinf...Resp_to_Orr.htm

I invite you to show where, in your opinion, Dembski has not adequately refuted Miller, with specific citations from either article.

My prediction is you will read neither.

Since, based on your behavior so far on this thread, I see the chances of your reading this excellent explanation of a academician at Brown University as to why the bacterial flagellum does not represent "irreducible complexity" (or now that ID'ers have been forced to abandon that terminology, perhaps "evidence of intelligent design"), I have pasted a passage for you below.

As I note above, you are mistaken.

Expectedly.

Edited April 20, 2012 by Log

[changed]

changed:

Evolution, the science, has nothing to with nonliving things. The process of CHANGE is pretty much everywhere. The sun is CHANGING right now. It is using up its hydrogen CHANGING it to Helium. Eventually our sun will go out having CHANGED to Carbon and Iron in about 4-5 Billion years. ALL the Transuraninium elements will eventually CHANGE to lead. Protons eventually disintegrate(CHANGE) to Quarks. In about 100 Trillion Trillion Trillion years there will be no Protons and that will be the end of everything in this physical universe.

That kind of change makes sense to me. I guess what it really comes down to is the existence of free will. The deterioration of the sun/rocks over time is dictated by external forces / set laws. Although some of what controls our physical body lies under the same umbrella, part of how we change is proactive - act vs. acted upon. Part of our physical makeup is created through our will, we control our body through diet, or through exercise - we choose the DNA of our children by choosing who to mate with, we choose where to live and so choose the climate with the effects that go along with that, or if you consider placebo pills - http://www.karmatube.org/videos.php?id=2571

part (not all, but part) of evolution is dictated by our own thought/conscience/will/intelligence.

I don't know what you mean by predicting a new species. As a general rule large species change at such a slow rate that predicting when, and what those changes will be enough to make a new species that is not able to reproduce with the parent population, is currently impossible to do. That being said humans are evolviing right now.

we can predict what the sun will turn into, but we cannot as easily predict what we will turn into.... it seems predicting what the next species will be would be similar to trying to predict what the stock market will do, or what the next fashion trend will be, or what the next best-selling book will be written about - just that these things stem from our inner intelligence rather than from the unchanging predictable laws of physics.

[changed]

changed:

I'm not either. I'm in a constant quest to know more than I already do. The scientists that I know are also.

yea, it's fun to explore. Religion does not claim to know it all either...

we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things...

By definition science can't use a Supernatural force/beign to explain the how of anything. That said; I know of several scientists that are religious.

the term "supernatural" has always bothered me. intelligence exists, just like matter, energy, and the physical laws exist... I'm not sure why some shy away from admitting the existence and influence of intelligence...

[Log]

the term "supernatural" has always bothered me. intelligence exists, just like matter, energy, and the physical laws exist... I'm not sure why some shy away from admitting the existence and influence of intelligence...

That we can scientifically tell objects are designed - that is, issue warranted design inferences - so long as a putatively unevolved intelligence is not the implicated designer, is passing curious, is it not?

Edited April 20, 2012 by Log

[thesometimesaint]

changed:

No problem with free will or as the LDS say Agency. When given the option of more than one actions of a person. It is right now impossible to say what an individual will do, within certain constraints. Say I go to a aboriginal tribe that has never heard of a lawyer. and come up to a member of that tribe and hit him in the nose. He ould run away, hit me back, or even put a spear through me, but it is highly unlikely that he would file a lawsuit against me. That is Agency but it does have certain constraints. Of course nonliving things don't have Agency, at least AFAIK. Nonhuman animals and plants AFAIK don't either.

To a limited extent we do coose the phsical characteristics of our children. We don't choose their eye or hair color. Neither one of mny parents had the same eye color I color do; very light Hazel. There is no gene for Hazel. The Brown and Blue genes just gets expressed that way. No parent that I know chooses their child to be developmentally disabled but it does happen. We still all count the fingers and toes when our babies are born, and see if it is a boy or girl.

Our heads are geting smaller, particularly our jaws, but our brains are staying about the same size. Overall we're getting taller, and women are becoming fertile earlier. The science just isn't there yet to tell when or if we will ever change enough that we can't reproduce with te parent population. We've got plenty to learn.

We still don't know how to walk on water, change water into wine, or how Resurrection works. But I am confident that God knows all the necessaary laws to do it.

http://news.yahoo.com/humans-still-evolving-study-says-190641886.html

[thesometimesaint]

changed:

Supernatural just means pertaining to God. Say I burn Hydogen in the presence of Oxygen. I expect to get ordinary water. What I don't expect is to get miniture flying pink elephants. If I tried to explain that in terms of God doing it. You'd laugh me out of the building, and rightly so. Neither one of us would/should tolerate that from a scientist, because quite frankly science can't use God, or a Godlike force, to explain anything in the natural world/universe.

[Mariner]

Yes, you aimed words at something, and, in that conversational sense can be said to have "responded," and no, you did not provide evidence. Do you understand that "just so" stories are a dime a dozen, or perhaps even cheaper? Endless hypothesizing sans evidence is all you have. What is more interesting to me is why you think providing a "just so" story somehow constitutes evidence for the evolutionary hypothesis.

So, when I said "it is simple to overturn a design inference," in response to your asinine (definition 2 at Webster) accusation of the lack of falsifiability of intelligent design, and explained exactly how to overturn a design inference, this is your response? Mariner, you have nothing to contribute to this conversation, and have had nothing all along.

Miller is out of date, and badly so. The argument has moved on without either of you.

http://www.designinf...er_Response.htm

Here's another response to a like-minded critic, which has been posted before in this thread:

http://www.designinf...Resp_to_Orr.htm

I invite you to show where, in your opinion, Dembski has not adequately refuted Miller, with specific citations from either article.

My prediction is you will read neither.

As I note above, you are mistaken.

Expectedly.

Log,

I have read everything you have provided to me as a reference. You must realize that the belief that " the argument is moving on" is important only in the eyes of ID'ers. This is because they have to keep coming up with new terms and ways of describing creationism as "scientific". The shelf life for these hair-brained assertions seems to be getting shorter and shorter. What is it about "ID (creationism) is not science, by definition" that you cannot understand?

Tell you what, when one of your pseudoscientific ID idols comes up with a major NIH or NSF grant to investigate ID-based approaches to cancer therapy, or in fact for anything ID based at all, then we can talk. Until then, ID remains a desperate fringe attempt to legitimize a religious myth by trying to label it as science, and unfortunately such will always be the case.

Edited April 20, 2012 by Mariner