Biological Design Argument?

[Bradski]

Except nothing is explained, just named and presumed to have occurred.

Presumed to have occurred? You have just pointed out yourself that it has occurred.

If there were some master plan for flight, then all things that fly would have the basic structure and method locked down and everything would use it. For example, all fixed wing planes use the same wing configuration to give lift. But insect wings are completely and utterly different to a birds wing and use a completely different method of staying airborne. And the structure of a bat’s ‘wing’ and that of a bird is completely different (web between fingers v feathers off the arm).

The only thing that you have pointed out that is common to all (including your ‘flying fish’) is that they can all stay airborne for some time. And what about birds that fly very badly and birds that don’t fly at all? Kinda weird master plan that designs something which will enable flight then gives it to something that can’t use it to get off the ground. Like putting little wings on a Chevy.

But hang on, that’s divergent evolution. Looks like another tick for Darwin and his chums to me.

 

[Bradski]

Posted in error…

 

[tonyrey]

Stephen Meyer’s book Signature in the cell: DNA and the evidence for intelligent design

A false and unsubstantiated assertion!

but enough of the obvious. everyone writes books. there are books telling me space aliens dragged life from somewhere else and seeded earth. I’ve read sci fi with more coherent science than ID.

Unsubstantiated assertion!

where’s the debate in the peer-reviewed scientific literature?

One example is the discussion of *Signature in the cell. *Have you even read it?

Chance is a hopelessly inadequate explanation of the transition from inanimate molecules to rational beings.

 

[tonyrey]

It is not the variables that are controlled but the overall trend and direction

The extinction of species is insignificant compared with the survival of life on this planet has survived **in the face of overwhelming odds. **Design does not imply success in every aspect of life.

How does the Book of Genesis figure in this scenario?

It is an allegorical account of creation and development.

 

[rossum]

I am aware of both your points. Unless you are prepared to argue that flying fish, birds, bats and insects have a common ancestor, a common design plan (re: wings) would seem a more credible explanation.

Wings as aerofoils are constrained by the physics, like the shape of sharks and dolphins.

Powered flight has evolved once in insects, once in birds, once in pterosaurs and once in bats. Gliding flight has evolved more times: flying fish, flying squirrels, flying frogs, and even a gliding snake.

Looking at powered flight, the wing structures are very different. Birds use a single digit and feathers, pterosaurs used a single digit and skin, bats use multiple digits and skin while insects possibly developed their wings from external gills. While all organisms do have a common ancestor, that common ancestor did not have wings. We know that because we have fossils of wingless ancestors of all the flying lineages. In the case of birds, we have wingless, featherless dinosaurs followed by feathered but flightless dinosaurs followed by feathered inefficient flying birds followed by modern birds. At which point did your proposed designer intervene, and what evidence do you have to support that specific point of intervention?

rossum

 

[rossum]

A false and unsubstantiated assertion!

A true and substantiated assertion. Google “cdesign proponentsists” (sic) for the evidence substantiating the assertion.

A creationism textbook was reworked after Edwards v. Aguillard and the word “creationist” replaced by “design proponents”. Unfortunately, one of the replacements was sloppily done and the resulting “cdesign proponentsists” was left in one of the drafts.

ID is merely an attempt by creationists to get round the Edwards v Aguillard ruling.

Chance is a hopelessly inadequate explanation of the transition from inanimate molecules to rational beings.

Correct, which is why the creationist strawmen of abiogenesis and evolution are completely wrong. Abiogenesis includes chemistry, and chemistry is not chance. Evolution includes natural selection, and natural selection is not chance.

rossum

 

[Peter_Plato]

Presumed to have occurred? You have just pointed out yourself that it has occurred.

If there were some master plan for flight, then all things that fly would have the basic structure and method locked down and everything would use it. For example, all fixed wing planes use the same wing configuration to give lift. But insect wings are completely and utterly different to a birds wing and use a completely different method of staying airborne. And the structure of a bat’s ‘wing’ and that of a bird is completely different (web between fingers v feathers off the arm).

The only thing that you have pointed out that is common to all (including your ‘flying fish’) is that they can all stay airborne for some time. And what about birds that fly very badly and birds that don’t fly at all? Kinda weird master plan that designs something which will enable flight then gives it to something that can’t use it to get off the ground. Like putting little wings on a Chevy.

But hang on, that’s divergent evolution. Looks like another tick for Darwin and his chums to me.

An expression of an opinion is not anything like an argument.

The fact that there are different solutions to flight does not argue against a common designer and certainly not against their being designed. If it did then yurts, igloos, wigwams, bungalows, Victorian houses, tree houses and multi-story apartment buildings argue against humans as designers. Clearly, that you are of the opinion that different solutions argue against design is not sufficient to establish that contention.

As to large flightless birds, they might be evidence that their designer has a sense of humor or might be somewhat eccentric as far as creativity is concerned. He did caution us to not read our intentions or ways of thinking into his actions (My ways are not your ways.)

Need I point out to you that Chevys in the late 1950s did have little wings; and gull wing doors are useless as far as flight goes. These were not designed?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Wings as aerofoils are constrained by the physics, like the shape of sharks and dolphins.

Powered flight has evolved once in insects, once in birds, once in pterosaurs and once in bats. Gliding flight has evolved more times: flying fish, flying squirrels, flying frogs, and even a gliding snake.

Looking at powered flight, the wing structures are very different. Birds use a single digit and feathers, pterosaurs used a single digit and skin, bats use multiple digits and skin while insects possibly developed their wings from external gills. While all organisms do have a common ancestor, that common ancestor did not have wings. We know that because we have fossils of wingless ancestors of all the flying lineages. In the case of birds, we have wingless, featherless dinosaurs followed by feathered but flightless dinosaurs followed by feathered inefficient flying birds followed by modern birds. **At which point did your proposed designer intervene, and what evidence do you have to support that specific point of intervention?
**
rossum

Why assume a specific point of intervention? There may have been hundreds of millions of tiny points of intervention. A creative artist does not throw paint at a canvas in one fell swoop, but rather adds thousands and millions of small strokes to compose the entire work. Design need not preclude artistry; including the use of “dark” colours to add certain emotional tones to the piece.

Your problem is that you are anthropomorphizing design in the universe by constraining it to human standards and very limited ones (technical efficiency to the exclusion of creativity among other possibilities) at that.

 

[Peter_Plato]

A true and substantiated assertion. Google “cdesign proponentsists” (sic) for the evidence substantiating the assertion.

A creationism textbook was reworked after Edwards v. Aguillard and the word “creationist” replaced by “design proponents”. Unfortunately, one of the replacements was sloppily done and the resulting “cdesign proponentsists” was left in one of the drafts.

ID is merely an attempt by creationists to get round the Edwards v Aguillard ruling.

Correct, which is why the creationist strawmen of abiogenesis and evolution are completely wrong. Abiogenesis includes chemistry, and chemistry is not chance. Evolution includes natural selection, and natural selection is not chance.

rossum

Chemistry and natural selection demonstrate that those creatures which have survived were capable of survival, but neither of these, on their own or together, have been shown to originate the wide array of living things extant on this planet without huge presumptive leaps of fancy.

 

[rossum]

Why assume a specific point of intervention? There may have been hundreds of millions of tiny points of intervention.

So, what is the evidence from the design side in favour of one hypothesis or the other? Single point of design or multiple interventions?

The design side is notably lacking in evidence to support their assertions. Which of these two possibilities does the evidence support?

rossum

 

[rossum]

Chemistry and natural selection demonstrate that those creatures which have survived were capable of survival, but neither of these, on their own or together, have been shown to originate the wide array of living things extant on this planet without huge presumptive leaps of fancy.

Evolution happens. We have evidence of that in the fossil record, in our DNA and from observing the evolution of immunity in many organisms.

Your personal disbelief does not carry any scientific weight, unless you can provide evidence to support your ideas. Evolution has Archaeopteryx, Hox genes and MRSA. What evidence can your side provide?

rossum

 

[nmgauss]

Chemistry and natural selection demonstrate that those creatures which have survived were capable of survival, but neither of these, on their own or together, have been shown to originate the wide array of living things extant on this planet without huge presumptive leaps of fancy.

After wings appeared on insects in the Paleozoic, why wouldn’t wings have instantly appeared on all small vertebrates? According to researchers, the air was a lot denser then. Hence, giant insects developed. Vertebrates originated in the Paleozoic. No fossils of Paleozoic flying vertebrates have been found? If giant insects could fly then, why not vertebrates?

 

[Aloysium]

I recognize that this is a philosophy subforum, but there is only so much of this that I can take.

Rom 1: 20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable. 21 Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God, or given thanks; but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. 23 And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of fourfooted beasts, and of creeping things.

May the Holy Spirit illuminate these people’s minds.

 

[nmgauss]

I recognize that this is a philosophy subforum, but there is only so much of this that I can take.

Rom 1: 20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable. 21 Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God, or given thanks; but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. 23 And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of fourfooted beasts, and of creeping things.

If God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” did he leave out the “corruptible” aspect of man, which is different from God?

 

[Bradski]

As to large flightless birds, they might be evidence that their designer has a sense of humor…

And the design of something like the ebola virus would be evidence of…?

Why assume a specific point of intervention? There may have been hundreds of millions of tiny points of intervention.

This is odd. You keep describing the way evolution works as a way of trying to deny it.

 

[Aloysium]

If God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” did he leave out the “corruptible” aspect of man, which is different from God?

I would say that Jesus is the perfect image of God.

We are like God in that we have spiritual souls with qualities such as rationality, and will, a sense of the beautiful and the ability to love. As you would know from scripture, we are dependent on our Creator and subject to the laws of creation and those that govern our freedom. We were made with free will so that we might choose love freely. We are all corruptible in that with Adam we have demonstrated how we can choose ourselves over Him. But we are redeemed through Jesus Christ. I am not going to argue any of this; if you want to know more I would refer you to the Catechism.

 

[Peter_Plato]

And the design of something like the ebola virus would be evidence of…?

This is odd. You keep describing the way evolution works as a way of trying to deny it.

Those hundreds of millions of tiny points of intervention have resulted in keeping life as a natural phenonomena on a steady developmental course which has not merely kept living entities in existence but added more complexity with continually better and more diverse arsenals for survival and physiological betterment. To presume that the continued series of improvements could simply happen without “guidance” is to presume that a built in tendency towards survival brings about the improvements. That, however, is an example of a logical fallacy called circular cause and consequence. Claiming that survival is the consequence of change, and at the same instance the impetus for further change is fallacious. Survival could be the result of change, but it is highly presumptive to claim it to be the inventive instigator for novel and successful modifications. Modifications are much more likely to be detrimental to current development and the strong likelihood exists that those modifications in total could have lead inexorably to the cessation of life anywhere along the 3-4 billion year adventure.

The Ebola virus could be an intentional stressor designed to challenge the developmental cycle in order to improve it. Simply because the “system” might be designed is not a reason to claim it is simplistic in design.

There is no reason to think a possible cosmic designer would be less competent than human agents. The fact that we haven’t figured out anomalies does not mean the anomalies are necessarily defeaters. We haven’t yet figured out much of why the universe is the way it is and, therefore, we are far from a conclusion that guarantees it could not have been designed. Likely the designed “back end” is even more incomprehensible than the accessible “front end” that we have yet to completely grasp about the way the universe works.

 

[prodigalson2011]

To presume that the continued series of improvements could simply happen without “guidance” is to presume that a built in tendency towards survival brings about the improvements. That, however, is an example of a logical fallacy called circular cause and consequence. Claiming that survival is the consequence of change, and at the same instance the impetus for further change is fallacious.

Hmm. As much as I usually tend to agree with you, it seems to me that you’re misinterpreting the theory here. Survival is not understood to be the impetus for change. Mutations happen at random. Those organisms whose mutations are beneficial survive; those whose mutations are deleterious are phased out. There is no “tendency towards survival” involved in the changes themselves; they are just the result of an imperfect replication.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Hmm. As much as I usually tend to agree with you, it seems to me that you’re misinterpreting the theory here. Survival is not understood to be the impetus for change. Mutations happen at random. Those organisms whose mutations are beneficial survive; those whose mutations are deleterious are phased out. There is no “tendency towards survival” involved in the changes themselves; they are just the result of an imperfect replication.

There is an assumed “tendency” towards survival, in fact, a tendency towards continued improvement, which is why life has flourished and increased greatly in complexity over the past 3-4 billion years. Without the “presumed” tendency towards survival (I agree that it is unstated) why would random mutations continually tend towards betterment? Random changes mean that even species that show some improvement could just as likely show deleterious changes and become, in your words, “phased out.” Shouldn’t the life record of random mutations be a continual hit and miss, with some gains and just as many losses with a zero net gain? Why a continued series of gain upon gain, compexity added to complexity? It seems to me that a tendency “towards survival” is presumed as a kind of hidden premise in order to make the non-design “theory” credible. The onus is on the proponents to show random change could lead to inexorable improvement when they have really not supplied a reason for thinking that it would, except that things are rendered “more fit” to survive. It is not clear that random change would continue in that direction without some form of “guidance.”

 

[Bradski]

Without the “presumed” tendency towards survival (I agree that it is unstated) why would random mutations continually tend towards betterment? Random changes mean that even species that show some improvement could just as likely show deleterious changes and become, in your words, “phased out.”

Random mutations are just that – random. Some result in changes that suit the environment a little better, some that suit it a little worse and some have no affect at all. They don’t continually ‘tend toward betterment’. It’s just that the examples of the changes that were for the worse aren’t around to for you to see so we are left with the ones that were a better fit. As you say, ‘phased out’.

Shouldn’t the life record of random mutations be a continual hit and miss, with some gains and just as many losses with a zero net gain?

It is. Except that the misses don’t live as long as the hits. The ones with the gains get to pass on the benefits so there is generally a better fit. Seriously, this is about as basic as it gets and I’m pretty sure that you understand this so I’m at a loss to understand why you are pursuing this.

The onus is on the proponents to show random change could lead to inexorable improvement when they have really not supplied a reason for thinking that it would, except that things are rendered “more fit” to survive.

You are answering your own questions. You keep explaining how it works. You have all the answers.