Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

[Vonsalza]

Philosophy, with logic and reason can take one to the understanding there exists…

Talking about science, here, man.

Observation is what carries the day. The intelligent designer has none to support it.

Based on what we observe what can we reason about this uncaused cause?

Absolutely nothing other than it appears to have happened and the universe sprang from it.

That’s literally it.

 

[buffalo]

Observation is what carries the day. The intelligent designer has none to support it.

The signals of intelligent design are observed.

We see autos everyday and know they are designed. Yet, we do not see the designer. Yet we know he exists.

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

edwest:

interpreted by the purely human reason

That’s it in a nutshell.

ID is no different in that regard. So per the rules of marginal analysis, that objection isn’t worth the keystrokes to make it.

I’d also note that as the ToE doesn’t invoke a supernatural component, it is thus more rational than alternative claims that do.

I thought ID was about God and the Supernatural .

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

So let’s update your statement:

‘Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI and the odds of this happening by chance or randomly are very low.’

If you read up on ID literature that is what it says. Except it is fsci not just csi. Nothing new here, except perhaps your realization…

You quoted the DI yourself. It was emphatic.

‘Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI’.

That is directly from the DI’s FAQs under ‘Is ID a scientific theory’. Again, my italics. But no room for manouvre. Dna fullfills the criteria for CSI so according to the DI, if something contains dna it has been designed.

Of course, the search for CSI is nonsensically easy. In fact, as all life contains dna, CSI is an a priori feature of life. The next step: ‘Therefore design’ is a claim. No more. No less. And that ain’t science.

 

[buffalo]

The next step: ‘Therefore design’ is a claim. No more. No less. And that ain’t science.

Design in our everyday world is more than a claim. It is real and obvious.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

Observation is what carries the day. The intelligent designer has none to support it.

The signals of intelligent design are observed.

No, they’re willfully misinterpreted as such.

 

[buffalo]

No, they’re willfully misinterpreted as such.

Now you have to deny codes, language, symbols, instructions are designed. Will you?

 

[Vonsalza]

Bradskii:

The next step: ‘Therefore design’ is a claim. No more. No less. And that ain’t science.

Design in our everyday world is more than a claim. It is real and obvious.

No it isn’t.

Before real science defeated the notion fully, IDers used to like to say that the eye was irreducibly complex. Thus there is an Intelligent designer.

Actual science countered by saying “No, it evolved and we actually have living species today that exhibit each step in the evolution. We can literally show you the evolution of your eye. Moreover, we can show you species that have eyes that are even better than yours.”

And we can literally do this, buff.

 

[buffalo]

Actual science countered by saying “No, it evolved and we actually have living species today that exhibit each step in the evolution. We can literally show you the evolution of your eye. Moreover, we can show you species that have eyes that are even better than yours.”

Show me every successive proved step of eye development.

 

[rossum]

Show me every successive proved step of eye development.

You should know by now that using the word “proved” in science is an error. Do you think that Newton’s theory of gravity was ever “proved”?

Alternatively I could ask you to show me every successive proved Biblical patriarch from Adam to Abraham.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

The next step: ‘Therefore design’ is a claim. No more. No less. And that ain’t science.

Design in our everyday world is more than a claim. It is real and obvious.

No doubt. But the DI proposal is that if something contains dna it definitely has been designed. Not maybe or probably, but definitely. And your claim that dna itself is designed is nothing more than that. It’s not a proof. It’s not a theory. It’s a claim.

Nothing more than ‘Gee, it sure looks designed to me!’

 

[Bradskii]

Vonsalza:

Actual science countered by saying “No, it evolved and we actually have living species today that exhibit each step in the evolution. We can literally show you the evolution of your eye. Moreover, we can show you species that have eyes that are even better than yours.”

Show me every successive proved step of eye development.

And we are reduced to this. A question straight out of Techno’s play book. You’ll be asking why flowers look pretty next.

 

[buffalo]

You should know by now that using the word “proved” in science is an error.

Thank you. And what I said a few posts ago.

 

[buffalo]

And your claim that dna itself is designed is nothing more than that. It’s not a proof. It’s not a theory. It’s a claim.

Is is a claim with super high odds and confidence. We should continue to research to ratchet that up even more.

 

[buffalo]

And we are reduced to this. A question straight out of Techno’s play book. You’ll be asking why flowers look pretty next.

You admit it cannot be done. We just know it did. hmmmmmm

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

And your claim that dna itself is designed is nothing more than that. It’s not a proof. It’s not a theory. It’s a claim.

It is a claim…

There’s no need to qualify it. I just wanted confirmation.

 

[buffalo]

Nothing more than ‘Gee, it sure looks designed to me!’

Much better than that. We have real world evidence of things designed we can compare to. These real world designs you use everyday come from a mind. This is not in dispute.

 

[Vonsalza]

buffalo:

Show me every successive proved step of eye development.

You should know by now that using the word “proved” in science is an error. Do you think that Newton’s theory of gravity was ever “proved”?

Alternatively I could ask you to show me every successive proved Biblical patriarch from Adam to Abraham.

He!!, it’s not like it’s a very difficult challenge to meet.

You open your handy browser, type “evolution of the eye” and strap yourself in.

But I’ll agree that requests like that are just an indicator of intellectual laziness.

 

[buffalo]

You open your handy browser, type “evolution of the eye” and strap yourself in.

I have. Just so so stories. Add in convergent evolution and it gets worse for your claim.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Nothing more than ‘Gee, it sure looks designed to me!’

Much better than that. We have real world evidence of things designed we can compare to. These real world designs you use everyday come from a mind. This is not in dispute.

You do realise that you are confirming everything I say?

‘Based on what I know to be designed…Gee, it sure looks designed to me’.

That isn’t even a claim. You are going backwards. That’s just an opinion. Your position is based on claims, opinions and a sense of incredulity. Let me know when we get to the science, can you?