Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 51 of 51

Thread: Random mutation, please, what is an example today in everyday circumstances?

  1. #41
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    87
    Spidergoat says:

    The hand of the designer is evident in these things, while it is not evident in living things. This is a variation on the watchmaker argument, and evolution explains it.

    Well, I must take exception to your statement that the hand of the designer is not evident in living things.

    You and I are living things.

    While you doubt that you are designed, I am on my part am sure that I am designed by some conscious intelligence of tremendous power to live and propagate with another human of the opposite sex.

    Is that evident?

    As evident as for example my kidneys are the exemplars for medical scientists to fashion dialysis machines so that people with end stage renal disease can continue to stay alive with these dialysis machines, otherwise they would die.

    My heart is an exemplar for medical scientists and engineers to manufacture a heart machine which can be used in place of my heart while my heart is being operated on to correct a trouble spot like for example a leaking valve.

    And my eye is an exemplar for scientists and engineers to fashion cameras which take pictures like my eye does of images outside my eye into a screen called a retina.


    In other words there are many human designers who follow the designs of my organs to make up mechanical devices which will perform to a limited but still effective extent the functions of these life organs, should these organs in man be injured or disabled by diseases.




    Pachomius

  2. #42
    Heute der Enteteich... Oli's Avatar
    Posts
    11,890
    Quote Originally Posted by Pachomius View Post
    Well, I must take exception to your statement that the hand of the designer is not evident in living things.
    Spidergoat happens to be correct.

    While you doubt that you are designed, I am on my part am sure that I am designed by some conscious intelligence of tremendous power to live and propagate with another human of the opposite sex.
    You're sure?
    Okay that's good enough evidence for me.

    Yeah yeah.
    You are aware that, for example, the eye was described by a camera designer/ manufacturer as nearly worthless (or words to that effect) as a valid system?

    There is no evidence of design in nature.

    Oh wait! I just remembered that a banana is a perfect example being designed to fit our hand.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4
    Excuse me, I'm just going to lie down for an hour.
    The crackpots are starting to sound convincing...

  3. #43
    had a mod but let him go spidergoat's Avatar
    Posts
    46,431
    Quote Originally Posted by Pachomius View Post
    Spidergoat says:

    Well, I must take exception to your statement that the hand of the designer is not evident in living things.

    Is that evident?
    What is your evidence? The fact that such organs are masterful design solutions? I said evolution explains such structures. Evolution explains how organs advance through small variations that are then tested by the environment. Less than ideal solutions do not lead to proliferation of that solution in the gene pool. Better solutions survive, become numerous, and their variations are selected or not. Our organs took billions of years to evolve. If God did it, God has an IQ of about 1, that is, only slightly smarter than pure randomness.

    Software programs have been developed the same way, through a pattern of evolution. They often solve problems in an elegant way that no humans have thought of. This proves in theory that evolution can be a better designer than any intelligent entity, which presumably runs through this trial and error design process in their brain.

  4. #44
    Heute der Enteteich... Oli's Avatar
    Posts
    11,890
    Quote Originally Posted by spidergoat View Post
    This proves in theory that evolution can be a better designer than any intelligent entity, which presumably runs through this trial and error design process in their brain.
    "Better" only in the sense that evolution
    A) runs for a slightly longer time than the average designer has available to him and
    B) hides its "mistakes" by losing them from the current generation. Evolution can run through different "designs" simultaneously, "testing" multiple "projects" together.

    In addition to which, most designers work from what they've been taught and have experienced: essentially a very limited starting position, and subject to pre-judgement and personal prejudices/ preferences.
    Compared to an individual designer (or even a team of designers) evolution has near-infinite resources and opportunities for trial and error testing.
    There's no customer waiting for delivery next week...

  5. #45
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by Oli View Post
    Spidergoat happens to be correct.


    You're sure?
    Okay that's good enough evidence for me.

    Yeah yeah.
    You are aware that, for example, the eye was described by a camera designer/ manufacturer as nearly worthless (or words to that effect) as a valid system?

    There is no evidence of design in nature.

    Oh wait! I just remembered that a banana is a perfect example being designed to fit our hand.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4
    Excuse me, I'm just going to lie down for an hour.
    The crackpots are starting to sound convincing...

    Yeah yeah.
    You are aware that, for example, the eye was described by a camera designer/ manufacturer as nearly worthless (or words to that effect) as a valid system? -- Oli

    I think he should have asked an ophthalmologist and an optometrist and an optician whether his eyes are a nearly worthless valid system for himself, so that if he should lose his eyes and thereby become blind he has lost only a worthless organ system without any valid usefulness to himself.




    Pachomius

  6. #46
    had a mod but let him go spidergoat's Avatar
    Posts
    46,431
    The eye works for us most of the time, but it is not an ideal design. For instance, the optical nerve is in front of some light sensing cells, forming a blind spot. In other animals this is not the case. The design does not look like something that was designed from scratch, but rather a comprimise that had to do what it could based on previous constraints.

  7. #47
    Heute der Enteteich... Oli's Avatar
    Posts
    11,890
    Quote Originally Posted by Pachomius View Post
    I think he should have asked an ophthalmologist and an optometrist and an optician whether his eyes are a nearly worthless valid system for himself, so that if he should lose his eyes and thereby become blind he has lost only a worthless organ system without any valid usefulness to himself.
    Mistakes are your forte aren't they?
    The eye is not efficient at its job, that doesn't alter the fact that it's what we have we have for seeing.

  8. #48
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by spidergoat View Post
    What is your evidence? The fact that such organs are masterful design solutions? I said evolution explains such structures. Evolution explains how organs advance through small variations that are then tested by the environment. Less than ideal solutions do not lead to proliferation of that solution in the gene pool. Better solutions survive, become numerous, and their variations are selected or not. Our organs took billions of years to evolve. If God did it, God has an IQ of about 1, that is, only slightly smarter than pure randomness.

    Software programs have been developed the same way, through a pattern of evolution. They often solve problems in an elegant way that no humans have thought of. This proves in theory that evolution can be a better designer than any intelligent entity, which presumably runs through this trial and error design process in their brain.

    You are talking of a law of evolution by which law living things which are capable of surviving and do survive and reproduce their own kind continue to exist and propagate themselves, and also give rise to new forms of living things distinctively different from themselves, so different that they cannot reproduce with their original kinds of living things.

    I would say that law of evolution then is the mother of design.


    You mention God.

    According to people who know God to exist for certain, He does not work in time because He is eternal; so what to man seems billions of years to Him it is all in a blink of the human eye.


    You see, from my own thinking there are different kinds and levels of reality, one kind and level of reality is the concern of science.

    And scientists tell us that they do not deny all other kinds and levels of reality, only they do not concern themselves with all other kinds and levels of reality.

    Do you accept that there are other kinds and levels of reality aside from the reality kind and level scientists concern themselves with?

    You are a scientist or an enthusiast of science?

    Anyway tell me what kind and level of reality do scientists concern themselves with, and inform me whether on your own impression about them, can you say with rational certainty that scientists who do science deny the existence of other kinds and levels of reality?


    What is one kind and level of reality that scientists do not concern themselves with but neither do they deny existence to?

    You mention God, that is correct from my on thinking.

    What about from your own thinking, is God a reality of a different kind and level distinctively dissimilar to us human beings of flesh and blood and are subject to death -- and captives of time and space?




    Pachomius

  9. #49
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    87

    Tell me, is the image in the post below of a design or of a designoid?

    Quote Originally Posted by spidergoat View Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Pachomius
    Would this kind of a sub-atomic conscious intelligent entities not also come to the idea of random mutation to account for the existence in their multiplicity and variety of chairs and wheeled transport vehicles?
    Basically no. Designed things have different qualities than designoid things. Designoid is a term used by Dawkins to denote things that appear to be designed but in fact are not. Things that are designed have certain special qualities. Chairs do not gradually evolve from previous chairs. Humans are able to make leaps of intuition, so that when fiberglass was invented, suddenly we get radically different chairs than ever appeared before.

    Evolved things are not able to make sudden and radical shifts in design, they cannot go backwards unless there is an environmental gradient of survival that leads them there. We can study any family of objects or animals and determine if they were designed or only designoid.

    Designoid is a term used by Dawkins to denote things that appear to be designed but in fact are not.


    May I just submit that there are designed things that appear to be designed and are actually designed.

    They only appeared to be designed to people who do not know what they are designed for.

    But once they find out what they are designed for and see the ends for which they are designed for, then they are not only seen to be designed but are actually designed, because they do serve a purpose, the purpose of their designer.

    That they only appear to be design to some people is because these people do not have the intelligence and experience to discern design when there is really design and not only the appearance of a design.

    Is the image below a 'designoid' or a genuine design?





    Pachomius

  10. #50
    Heute der Enteteich... Oli's Avatar
    Posts
    11,890
    Quote Originally Posted by Pachomius View Post
    They only appeared to be designed to people who do not know what they are designed for.
    Examples?

    Is the image below a 'designoid' or a genuine design?
    It's a genuine design.
    Obviously.

  11. #51
    had a mod but let him go spidergoat's Avatar
    Posts
    46,431
    Quote Originally Posted by Pachomius
    You are talking of a law of evolution by which law living things which are capable of surviving and do survive and reproduce their own kind continue to exist and propagate themselves, and also give rise to new forms of living things distinctively different from themselves, so different that they cannot reproduce with their original kinds of living things.

    I would say that law of evolution then is the mother of design.
    Yes.



    Quote Originally Posted by Pachomius
    According to people who know God to exist for certain, He does not work in time because He is eternal; so what to man seems billions of years to Him it is all in a blink of the human eye.
    But they accomplish this "knowing" by faith, which is belief in the absense of evidence. Do you or they have any evidence of this eternal nature of God? Are these concepts anything more than just made up?


    Quote Originally Posted by Pachomius
    You see, from my own thinking there are different kinds and levels of reality, one kind and level of reality is the concern of science.
    You are incorrect. Science does not limit it's study to one level of reality. This is the old argument of non-overlapping magisteria, that science can say nothing about God, since God exists outside of any rational examination. If that were even possible, how can anyone say anything about it? No, they say all kinds of things about it because God is supposed to interact with this reality. If he interacted to guide evolution or anything else, his actions could be detected. If they cannot be detected, then God can be said not to exist to the best of our knowledge.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pachomius
    And scientists tell us that they do not deny all other kinds and levels of reality, only they do not concern themselves with all other kinds and levels of reality.
    They do not deny it, but they are concerned with it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pachomius
    Do you accept that there are other kinds and levels of reality aside from the reality kind and level scientists concern themselves with?
    As I said, scientists do not limit their fields of study like that. The supernatural is a field of scientific study, but so far there is no evidence to support the existence of the supernatural. If that were to change, the supernatural would be a vibrant and exciting new field of study.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pachomius
    You are a scientist or an enthusiast of science?
    Yup.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pachomius
    Anyway tell me what kind and level of reality do scientists concern themselves with, and inform me whether on your own impression about them, can you say with rational certainty that scientists who do science deny the existence of other kinds and levels of reality?
    They do not deny the possibility, only that there is so far no evidence of such.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pachomius
    What is one kind and level of reality that scientists do not concern themselves with but neither do they deny existence to?
    None.


    Quote Originally Posted by Pachomius
    What about from your own thinking, is God a reality of a different kind and level distinctively dissimilar to us human beings of flesh and blood and are subject to death -- and captives of time and space?
    It is my firm interpretation of reality that nothing exists outside of time and space, that the material universe is all there is.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Similar Threads

  1. By Mr. Hamtastic in forum Free Thoughts
    Last Post: 08-03-09, 04:49 PM
    Replies: 392
  2. By joepistole in forum Politics
    Last Post: 04-19-09, 05:07 PM
    Replies: 53
  3. By AmishRakeFight in forum Physics & Math
    Last Post: 04-15-09, 10:04 AM
    Replies: 3
  4. By jessiej920 in forum Free Thoughts
    Last Post: 09-09-08, 09:15 AM
    Replies: 4
  5. By Asguard in forum World Events
    Last Post: 02-12-08, 10:52 PM
    Replies: 28

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •