Design:All faith aside.

C

clusteringflux

Version 1. OH!
Valued Senior Member
Many scientist feel that the eco system is a intricate balance where if one component is missing the rest in turn is affected much like a Swiss watch, let's say. If you remove a component it doesn't work anymore.
As amazing as a Swiss time piece is, with all of our intelligence , we can't come close what is done in nature.
Our most efficient known machine is a jet engine which is thousands of times less efficient than a single cell organism.

Isn't design a much more logical than lightning striking a tar pond or whatever?

Does evolution even posses the scientific criteria to be considered a theory?

Is there any proof of animals turning into other animals?




wait.....wait...wait.....


Go!
 
These intricate systems evolved. When pieces are gone, they will adapt, but it can take a long time to come to something as complex as a rainforest ecosystem. This is not an example of irreduceable complexity.

If animals were designed, there are certain features and comprimises that would not be there, there's the famous example of the Panda's thumb. It's an adapted hand bone, not a true finger. One would think if the Panda was designed, they would get a proper thumb. Then there's a whale's vestigal hip bones...
 
Great post -#1

I believe that to a certain extent the uncertainty factor makes people uncomfortable, perhaps even nervous.
 
the answer is not design or evolution, it's both. but not the darwinian evolution where animals turn into other animals. the darwinian evolution has only a minor part in evolution, the rest is design.

you don't have to believe in god to believe in design, because life/intelligence designed lifeforms. but if you want, you can also say that god did it, because god said that he is life...

lifeforms evolved similarly to planets. first they were gas, and they became matter later. lifeforms were not made of gas though, they were something else...

spidergoat said:
What uncertainty? Nothing in science is certain, but many things are highly probable.
Click to expand...

some things are certain, for example, it's certain that the earth is round.
 
cluster said:
Many scientist feel that the eco system is a intricate balance where if one component is missing the rest in turn is affected much like a Swiss watch, let's say. If you remove a component it doesn't work anymore.
Click to expand...
Few scientists say that. For one thing, it's false.
cluster said:
Isn't design a much more logical than lightning striking a tar pond or whatever?
Click to expand...
No. It's "or whatever", btw.

cluster said:
Does evolution even posses the scientific criteria to be considered a theory?
Click to expand...
Yes. The Darwinian theory is very well established, very powerful and useful and explanatory. It's even been modified and adopted by other fields, for various phenomena.

cluster said:
Is there any proof of animals turning into other animals
Click to expand...
There is a ton of evidence for it in the past, a couple of minor examples in the present, the mechanism established for the future. Given the time and the mechanism, one would have to show how it was prevented, now - the burden of proof has shifted.
 
iceaura said:
Few scientists say that. For one thing, it's false.
No. It's "or whatever", btw.

Yes. The Darwinian theory is very well established, very powerful and useful and explanatory. It's even been modified and adopted by other fields, for various phenomena.

There is a ton of evidence for it in the past, a couple of minor examples in the present, the mechanism established for the future. Given the time and the mechanism, one would have to show how it was prevented, now - the burden of proof has shifted.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the reply, Ice.
 
"Overall, the criteria for scientific theories can be loosely be summarized by a few basic principles. Scientific theories are:

1.Consistent (internally and externally)

2.Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations)

3.Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena)

4.Empirically Testable & Falsifiable

5.Based upon Controlled, Repeated Experiments

6.Correctable & Dynamic (changes are made as new data is discovered)

7.Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)

8.Tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty) "


I don't know if evolution meets all of this criteria. And this is just one overview I ran across.
 
clusteringflux said:
Many scientist feel that the eco system is a intricate balance where if one component is missing the rest in turn is affected much like a Swiss watch, let's say. If you remove a component it doesn't work anymore.
Click to expand...

I've never met a single scientist that beleives that.
Countless species have gone extinct over the years and it all still "works" doesn't it?
 
one_raven said:
I've never met a single scientist that beleives that.
Countless species have gone extinct over the years and it all still "works" doesn't it?
Click to expand...

How about "work the same".
And the environmentalists might disagree with both of us.

Thanks for the post!
 
But it does still work the same - that's the thing.
That's the beauty of evolution.
Take a cog out of your swiss witch, and it's a worthless hunk of metal and glass.
Take a species out of the ecosystem, and it adapts.
Another specioes will come in and take it's place - or perhaps a few, or perhaps a dozen more will die off as a result, but evolution keeps working teh same way, and relative balance will again be restored.
 
Complexity is not built into the system at all.
The system is actually fairly simple and straight forward.
The complexity comes in as a natural effect of competing smaller systems, individual species and individual beings seeking to grow, progress and survive causing a constant push and pull of balance of power.

I honestly don't understand why the concept is terribly difficult to grasp for so many.
 
cluster said:
I don't know if evolution meets all of this criteria. And this is just one overview I ran across.
Click to expand...
Go back to the people who handed you that, and ask them why they are deliberately sending innocents out into the world with big "Kick me hard" signs taped to their rears.

Unless you want to throw out geology, astronomy, climatology, oceanography, paleontology, and half a dozen more fields most everyone calls "science".

When you want to know what defines something as a science, the best people to ask are wise old scientists. Telling scientists what they are and are not allowed to call science, and do as science, and so forth, just labels you a nutcase.
 
iceaura said:
Go back to the people who handed you that, and ask them why they are deliberately sending innocents out into the world with big "Kick me hard" signs taped to their rears.

Unless you want to throw out geology, astronomy, climatology, oceanography, paleontology, and half a dozen more fields most everyone calls "science".

When you want to know what defines something as a science, the best people to ask are wise old scientists. Telling scientists what they are and are not allowed to call science, and do as science, and so forth, just labels you a nutcase.
Click to expand...

Ha, ha! It was the fist list on google. I'm no scientist but I don't think you should label people who ask questions about your system as crazy.
 
cflux said:
Ha, ha! It was the fist list on google. I'm no scientist but I don't think you should label people who ask questions about your system as crazy.
Click to expand...
I didn't. I labeled you "innocent", and advised you to go back to whoever was sending you out into the big world to get kicked and ask them what they thought they were doing.

But if you're OK getting embarrassed in public for boosting other people's worthless causes, no problem.
 
one_raven said:
I've never met a single scientist that beleives that.
Countless species have gone extinct over the years and it all still "works" doesn't it?
Click to expand...

Lets move beyond that fiasco over the Jesus magnets. I am responding to you posts merely so you may consider revisions.

Perhaps he is taking snippets from stuff he has read, even still he is much more articulate than i am. I will do my best to express myself here in this thread.

Originally Posted by clusteringflux
Many scientist feel that the eco system is a intricate balance where if one component is missing the rest in turn is affected much like a Swiss watch, let's say. If you remove a component it doesn't work anymore.
Click to expand...

He never said anything about species. He specifically used the term components and in that way he is 100% correct. A give away is using the word ecosystem, we all know an ecosystem operates within specific parameters that cannot be substituted and allow for limited deviation to what would be considered optimal. But taking away one component means it collapses, IT DIES.

one_raven said:
But it does still work the same - that's the thing.
That's the beauty of evolution.
Take a cog out of your swiss witch, and it's a worthless hunk of metal and glass.
Take a species out of the ecosystem, and it adapts.
Another specioes will come in and take it's place - or perhaps a few, or perhaps a dozen more will die off as a result, but evolution keeps working teh same way, and relative balance will again be restored.
Click to expand...

Again some organisms are absolutely VITAL and some are not. Still just an aspect of an ecosystem (one component)

one_raven said:
Complexity is not built into the system at all.
The system is actually fairly simple and straight forward.
The complexity comes in as a natural effect of competing smaller systems, individual species and individual beings seeking to grow, progress and survive causing a constant push and pull of balance of power.

I honestly don't understand why the concept is terribly difficult to grasp for so many.
Click to expand...

It is very complex, another point is that we are more aware of what the requirements are but take everything away and consider the ability required to envision such a concept and it become clear that we are not really talking about genius in human terms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top