Conclusive evidence for Design!

[Peter_Plato]

No they’re not. They are “examples” of how a particular “component” is used in the same way in different “structures” (using quotes when they’re not required really looks odd, doesn’t it).

You shouldn’t make “fun” of the way other people “talk.”

Parahomology refers to the similarity of a component which has evolved to be used* in a different way in different structures.*

A gear is a gear is a gear. It doesn’t do anything else other than act like a gear (unless you want to hit someone on the head with it, then it’s like a rock or you could use it as a paper weight etc). But a component that was, for example, originally an arm has now evolved into a wing. And you can see the gradual transformation from one to the other in the fossil record. This is what TTWWCD predicts.

That’s one way to see it.

Parahomology refers to the similarity of a component which has evolved to be used* in a different way in different structures.*

For example, in the manner in which a steering wheel has evolved to be used in a different way from a wheel or tire and used in different structures (wagon and car)?

There have been all manner of changes in the evolution of the wheel over time and some are even quite useless (a steering wheel on a playground climber) and others discarded (old tires in the dump).

It also predicts redundancy which means that the original claw on the end of the original arm which would be pretty handy for tearing flesh is now a pretty useless nub of bone on the end of a wing. Some salamanders have vestigial legs, as do whales. Humans have a vestigial tail, the cocckyx. If these had had been designed, then they wouldn’t have any useless features.

Unless maybe God threw in a few now and then to make it look like it had evolved so He could test us. Or you have another explanation.

This assumes that you have reverse-engineered all of nature adequately and have the competency to determine how “useless” these parts really are. I noticed you didn’t mention junk DNA. Why not?

 

[buffalo]

You shouldn’t make “fun” of the way other people “talk.”

That’s one way to see it.

For example, in the manner in which a steering wheel has evolved to be used in a different way from a wheel or tire and used in different structures (wagon and car)?

There have been all manner of changes in the evolution of the wheel over time and some are even quite useless (a steering wheel on a playground climber) and others discarded (old tires in the dump).

This assumes that you have reverse-engineered all of nature adequately and have the competency to determine how “useless” these parts really are. I noticed you didn’t mention junk DNA. Why not?

Aaahhhhh - how could i have forgotten the Junk DNA failed prediction. :banghead:

 

[Peter_Plato]

Evolution is as much a fact as gravity is a fact
Natural explainations beat all others each and every time.

First a theory, now a fact!

I didn’t realize that science was that malleable.

Did you threaten to take it up to the top of a high building in Chicago to make it adapt to your opinion?

Apparently, your persistence makes it a fact. Pests are persistent, ergo they are facts.

 

[Bradski]

That’s one way to see it.

No, that’s the only way to see it. That’s the definition of the term.

For example, in the manner in which a steering wheel has evolved to be used in a different way from a wheel or tire and used in different structures (wagon and car)?

That’s a better example. Not great, but it could do. But I wasn’t arguing that morphology only occurs in nature – maybe I could think of some man-made ones myself, although none spring to mind. I was explaining that you’d used man-made objects that didn’t work as examples of what has happened in nature.

This assumes that you have reverse-engineered all of nature adequately and have the competency to determine how “useless” these parts really are.

Legs on a whale are as useful as **** on a bull. Do you know anyone who has suggested a use for them? They are vestigial limbs, as predicted we’d find. As ID does not. Any idea why there are such things if they didn’t evolve? Can you tie them in with design without implying they are some design error?

I noticed you didn’t mention junk DNA. Why not?

Good grief, there a million and one things I haven’t mentioned. I’ve been busy correcting your interpretations of evolutionary terms.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Unless maybe God threw in a few now and then to make it look like it had evolved so He could test us. Or you have another explanation.

Perhaps God threw in a few useless parts to stump those uppity, know-it all scientists who think they know better than he how things “should” work!

He might just have a delightful sense of humour!

A few useless parts here, a coccyx there!

Who knows? It might give a few scientists a bad case of coccydynia! A little swelling there might offset the swelling at the top end.

 

[JDaniel]

You think science stops after thinking about stuff?

Wanstonian:

Is that what I said, or is it what you divine that I said? Go back and re-read.

A thousand years ago maybe. What about experimentation, observation, prediction, modelling, objectivity, repetition?

All of these are steps that may, or may not, be taken after a rigorous dialectic and a rational conclusion. I point you to Walter Reed and his scientific conclusions concerning how yellow fever was spread.

Yes, and he didn’t close the loop. He thought about it, concluded that God exists, and stopped right there. Philosophy never proved anything.

What loop? Wanstonian, c’mon. When Walter Reed posited that it was mosquitoes that transmitted yellow fever, can you imagine how many experiments he had to perform on healthy volunteers to prove it? I got it: let’s infect a few hundred healthy subjects just so that we can say we followed some “scientific method!” Good grief, man!

Isn’t it about time for you to swim across?

God bless,
jd

 

[StrawberryJam]

First a theory, now a fact!

I didn’t realize that science was that malleable.

Did you threaten to take it up to the top of a high building in Chicago to make it adapt to your opinion?

Apparently, your persistence makes it a fact. Pests are persistent, ergo they are facts.

ID has no scientific basis for it at all. It is creationism dressed up in sciency talk.
Evolution is as much a fact as anything can be a fact.
I wish I could give you some science tools so you wouldn’t look like a fool. But, I can not because this site has banned the topic.

 

[Peter_Plato]

ID has no scientific basis for it at all. It is creationism dressed up in sciency talk.
Evolution is as much a fact as anything can be a fact.
I wish I could give you some science tools so you wouldn’t look like a fool. But, I can not because this site has banned the topic.

I’m game! Let’s start with the science “tool” that isolates facts from theories.

All this “sciency” talk has me confused. I hate looking like a fool.

 

[StrawberryJam]

I’m game! Let’s start with the science “tool” that isolates facts from theories.

All this “sciency” talk has me confused. I hate looking like a fool.

Let’s start with what you consider facts. Like a literal Adam and Eve.

Go.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Let’s start with what you consider facts. Like a literal Adam and Eve.

Go.

Wait a minute! You said you would provide the science tools.

Recall:

I wish I could give you some science tools so you wouldn’t look like a fool.

I am the one being schooled. You are the teacher, remember. I is your willing student. You teach, I listen.

I don’t want to “look like a fool,” so I am taking the “dumb as a stump” seat back in the corner waiting for you to deliver “knowledge” to me.

I know I know nothing. :blushing:

 

[Bradski]

I know I know nothing. :blushing:

Very Socratic…

He might just have a delightful sense of humour!

I sincerely hope so.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Wait a minute! You said you would provide the science tools.

Recall:

I am the one being schooled. You are the teacher, remember. I is your willing student. You teach, I listen.

I don’t want to “look like a fool,” so I am taking the “dumb as a stump” seat back in the corner waiting for you to deliver “knowledge” to me.

I know I know nothing. :blushing:

I am giving you tools. Your use of reason.

Literal Adam and Eve is a fact or it is not a fact.

Let’s see how we can reason this out.

What tools will we use to do this?

 

[Peter_Plato]

I am giving you tools. Your use of reason.

Literal Adam and Eve is a fact or it is not a fact.

Let’s see how we can reason this out.

What tools will we use to do this?

Let’s suppose fact.

As in
reasons.org/articles/who-was-adam-an-old-earth-creation-model-for-the-origin-of-humanity

Or, perhaps, not fact
youtube.com/watch?v=faT8jYtfQlc&sns=em

reasons.org/articles/assumptions-circular-reasoning-and-a-literal-adam-and-eve

reasons.org/articles/assumptions-circular-reasoning-and-a-literal-adam-and-eve

A tough nut to crack given I know absolutely nothing about my great great great great great grandparents, except that they had to be or I wouldn’t. My level of knowledge about Adam and Eve, so much more distant in the past, unfortunately, is even more shallow.

I have a sharp foreboding that I am about to get dropped off a high building, because, of course, your certain knowledge about this is going to embarrass my ignorance.

I am giving you tools.

Where did you put them?

 

[pig]

No, that’s the only way to see it. That’s the definition of the term.

That’s a better example. Not great, but it could do. But I wasn’t arguing that morphology only occurs in nature – maybe I could think of some man-made ones myself, although none spring to mind. I was explaining that you’d used man-made objects that didn’t work as examples of what has happened in nature.

Legs on a whale are as useful as **** on a bull. Do you know anyone who has suggested a use for them? They are vestigial limbs, as predicted we’d find. As ID does not. Any idea why there are such things if they didn’t evolve? Can you tie them in with design without implying they are some design error?

Good grief, there a million and one things I haven’t mentioned. I’ve been busy correcting your interpretations of evolutionary terms.

legs on whales!

What makes you think whales shouldn’t have legs?
Look at the photo, if you can ignore the smiling skeleton, you’ll see fingers, - finger bones on the whales flipper/arm. Whales have flippers and do not need fingers, so that alone makes vestigial limbs arguments redundant/unnecessary.

But how do limbs prove anything one way or another. A designer seeing a niche for giant sea mammals would simply take a giant mammal design and allow/give its dna the necessary information to change rapidly to a fully ocean-going status.

If the creatures dna did not already have the information to change a vast set of characteristics at the same time to allow for a marine habitat then obviously the creature would lurch about on vestigial somethings and spectacularly fail to succeed.

 

[tonyrey]

legs on whales!

What makes you think whales shouldn’t have legs?
Look at the photo, if you can ignore the smiling skeleton, you’ll see fingers, - finger bones on the whales flipper/arm. Whales have flippers and do not need fingers, so that alone makes vestigial limbs arguments redundant/unnecessary.

But how do limbs prove anything one way or another. A designer seeing a niche for giant sea mammals would simply take a giant mammal design and allow/give its dna the necessary information to change rapidly to a fully ocean-going status.

If the creatures dna did not already have the information to change a vast set of characteristics at the same time to allow for a marine habitat then obviously the creature would lurch about on vestigial somethings and spectacularly fail to succeed.

 

[tonyrey]

This is a little frustrating and I think someone mentioned it earlier. It’s not hard to poke a few holes in ID. For example, as we are currently discussing, it doesn’t predict anything.

Repetition does not falsify the verifiable predictions I have listed regardless of any theory whatsoever. They are true regardless of whether they are accepted or rejected.

 

[JDaniel]

That would be testable predictions, Tony. Not your personal opinions.

Bradski:

But they’re not “personal opinions.” They’re conclusions based upon unfettered processes of pre-inductive dialectical reasoning by almost everyone. Remember, Walter Reed made certain predictions that were, for all intents and purposes, “untestable!”

It seems to me that you are a “thinker,” so, do it.

God bless,
jd

 

[buffalo]

Predictions of ID

1. High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found. - http://www.cepr.net/images/M_images/small_checkmark.jpg
2. Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors. http://www.cepr.net/images/M_images/small_checkmark.jpg
3. Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms. http://www.cepr.net/images/M_images/small_checkmark.jpg
4. The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless “junk DNA”. http://www.cepr.net/images/M_images/small_checkmark.jpg
5. The re-use of basic building blocks will be found - http://www.cepr.net/images/M_images/small_checkmark.jpg
6. Sophisticated programming will be found -http://www.cepr.net/images/M_images/small_checkmark.jpg
7. More early complexity will be found - http://www.cepr.net/images/M_images/small_checkmark.jpg

 

[Peter_Plato]

I am giving you tools. Your use of reason.

Literal Adam and Eve is a fact or it is not a fact.

What tools will we use to do this?

I suggest that we take this discussion to another thread so as not to derail the current one which has little or anything to do, specifically, with your question.

The following thread exists to discuss precisely this question:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=721102&page=5

 

[Bradski]

…you’ll see fingers, - finger bones on the whales flipper/arm. Whales have flippers and do not need fingers.

Then you’d say that if they were designed, it wasn’t very good effort.

A designer seeing a niche for giant sea mammals would simply take a giant mammal design and allow/give its dna the necessary information to change rapidly to a fully ocean-going status.

And guess what you’ve just described. For ‘designer’, substitute ‘natural environment’ and you’re on to a winner. Just can the term ‘rapidly’.

Bradski:But they’re not “personal opinions.”

OK, let’s look at them…

False! Design predicts:

1. The laws of nature will continue to provide a reliable basis for living organisms and rational existence…

This is a Mom and Apple Pie statement. Who is going to argue with it? It is a prediction but not one that in any way relates to ID.

1. Persons will always be regarded as free, responsible agents whose activity is not caused entirely by physical events and will never be scientifically explained in every respect.

This is philosophical statement about free will and a shot across the bows of materialism. It is a prediction but not one that in any way relates to ID.

1. The power of reason will always be more valuable, trustworthy and significant than purposeless processes.

More Apple Pie. Who is going to disagree? It is a prediction but not one that in any way relates to ID.

1. Everyone except lunatics will continue to live as if life is objectively valuable, purposeful and meaningful - in stark contrast to the materialists’ endorsement of futility with their claim that life is **objectively **valueless, pointless and meaningless.

Another philosophical statement. It is a prediction but not one that in any way relates to ID.

Let’s be clear about what we mean when we say a theory makes predictions. If it is a scientific theory, and ID makes such a claim, then it has to make scientific predictions. You can’t use the theory of relativity to make predictions about sociology for example.
But what Tony is doing is making philosophical predictions – statements in actuality, that have zero connection with ID from a scientific perspective.

He is well known for coming out with one liners that have only a fleeting connection with the posts they purport to address. They’re just his philosophical position being repeated. The quotes above are a case in point.

He could learn something from Buffalo, who has brought some valid predictions to the table that he suggests are scientific predictions based on what is argued to be a scientific theory (post 390). At least, valid in the sense that they actually relate to ID in a scientific and testable manner.

I don’t think he’s correct and if I’ve time later I’ll address that post, but he at least knows what we’re looking for.