Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

An argument with an intelligent design advocate/anti-evolutionist

Rate this topic


Black Wolf
 Share

Recommended Posts

I don't know anyone or anything now or in the past that can produce such things. Well except for humans perhaps but they would qualify as a poor candidate. I could guess, but that would be somewhat pointless.

I however believe that it isn't necessary to identify a concrete designer to know that it exists. It is sufficient to identify an object to be most likely the product of design and that would prove that there existed a designer in the past.

Even if we don't know who exactly built the Stonehenge and why there had to be someone who built it if we agree that it was built.

It works like saying that there had to be a common ancestor of apes and humans if evolution is true even though we can't prove that there was or what it was.

If I had to pick a designer I would not be able to pick anything in the known World, however that doesn't mean I have to accept any naturalistic explanation with vague definitions and arguments supported by almost no real evidence since my knowledge of the World may be less than that what can be known.

If a person looks at the cell one will find a unbelievable efficient system that is much more advanced than ours. Is it the product of nature or the product of design? I do not know, but I don't think we should decide such questions based on what we think reality ought to be. Reality doesn't care what we want it to be especially if reality hat to be objective.

Edited by Dániel Boros
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know anyone or anything now or in the past that can produce such things. Well except for humans perhaps but they would qualify as a poor candidate. I could guess, but that would be somewhat pointless.

I however believe that it isn't necessary to identify a concrete designer to know that it exists. It is sufficient to identify an object to be most likely the product of design and that would prove that there existed a designer in the past.

Even if we don't know who exactly built the Stonehenge and why there had to be someone who built it if we agree that it was built.

It works like saying that there had to be a common ancestor of apes and humans if evolution is true even though we can't prove that there was or what it was.

Both examples you give are examples where the advocate of the existence of said entity can specify the causal process by which the proposed entity came about. The natural processes by which stone structures are constructed by humans, and by which speciation occurs are well understood. It is one thing to make claims like that, and quite another to make a claim without specifying a possible causal process. The second is akin to proposing magic.

If I proposed in a court of law that someone, I don't know who, stole a knife from a crime scene and replaced it with a gun, I am on much firmer ground than if I propose that someone transformed the murder weapon from a knife into a gun. Unless you specify a process by which *some* entity could reach into the DNA of a population and make designed alterations, you're in the second case.

Is it not? You can ignore that sentence if you don't think so...

Objective is an evaluation of a cognitive process. Reality is not objective, it just is. We can be objective or not in forming knowledge from reality, but reality itself just is.

Edited by Dante
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both examples you give are examples where the advocate of the existence of said entity can specify the causal process by which the proposed entity came about. The natural processes by which stone structures are constructed by humans, and by which speciation occurs are well understood.

Yes, but how did such a thing become understood and why is that the only way one can identify something to be the product of design. Is that the only way observation can work?

If there was not causal process known to man that could have created the Stonehenge than we would have to accept that it was made by nature?

Is the only way to identify a casual process is to experience it first hand and have record about it in books?

Intelligence is the cause of design and design has observable properties that match all designed objects.

Life would be the one and only exception if evolution was true... Isn't it rational to ask why it is irrational to believe that life was designed regardless of evolution being true or not?

It is one thing to make claims like that, and quite another to make a claim without specifying a possible causal process. The second is akin to proposing magic.

If I proposed in a court of law that someone, I don't know who, stole a knife from a crime scene and replaced it with a gun, I am on much firmer ground than if I propose that someone transformed the murder weapon from a knife into a gun. Unless you specify a process by which *some* entity could reach into the DNA of a population and make designed alterations, you're in the second case.

You seem to claim that evolution was observed... it was not. It is as much in the air as any magic I propose.

Mutations have been observed, change was observed (for the most part because of variation and not mutation), increase in complexity was not observed which would be required for evolution to work.

And no copying the same letter or a gene a billion times does not increase complexity... Also one would need to observe a very high rate of increase of complexity to prove that evolution works.

Edited by Dániel Boros
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>

<br />

Would The Greatest Show On Earth by Richard Dawkins be good?

</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Most Dawkins books are good, though I haven&#39;t read that one specifically. Any book against ID/creationism by a working biologist is likely to be good - I&#39;d check out Amazon and read the reviews.<br />

<br />

<br />

I have looked high and low but my questions have never been answered. Also I may be not satisfied with any kind of answer like: photosynthesis evolved because grass is green and such...

</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Sorry to have to say this, but much as I like to give people the benefit of the doubt you are making me think you&#39;re just trolling. You can&#39;t have searched very high or low if you think <em>anyone</em> gives an reason like &quot;photosynthesis evolved because grass is green.&quot; That&#39;s the kind of bizarre parody not seen outside the most klutzy creationist pamphlet.<br />

<br />

Can you name any aspect of the evidence that is there for evolution but is not their for artificial advancement? Like cars or computers?<br />

If it is absolutely convincing why am I not convinced?

</p>

<p> </p>

<p>All the reasons I gave, where the backup data is in the places I&#39;ve mentioned. You are not convinced because you don&#39;t know the evidence, as you have stated.<br />

<br />

Give me an example..[of bad design] I am tired of the books...
</p>

<p>I believe the book &quot;The Panda&#39;s Thumb&quot; discusses this kind of thing. But there are plenty of examples. One that springs to mind is the male reproductive system. Fond as I am of it, the way the tubes curve up, down, round and about (purely because of how things shifted around during evolution especially when mammals became warm-blooded and the testes, rather than simply becoming heat-resistant instead migrated outside the body) has resulted not only in its legendary vulnerability, but in otherwise unnecessary medical problems like Inguinal hernia and prostate problems. &quot;God hates men&quot; doesn&#39;t cut it as an explanation :-)<br />

 </p>

<div id="myEventWatcherDiv" style="display:none;"> </div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most Dawkins books are good, though I haven&#39;t read that one specifically. Any book against ID/creationism by a working biologist is likely to be good - I&#39;d check out Amazon and read the reviews.

I have read The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution about two years ago.

If you have something better I am willing to try, but I heard that The God Delusion was not mainly about ID or Evolution.

I wonder where you got your info of ID from. Did you read: Darwin's Black Box, The Edge of Evolution, Signature in the Cell, The Design Inference or The Evolution Deceit ?

Sorry to have to say this, but much as I like to give people the benefit of the doubt you are making me think you&#39;re just trolling. You can&#39;t have searched very high or low if you think <em>anyone</em> gives an reason like &quot;photosynthesis evolved because grass is green.&quot; That&#39;s the kind of bizarre parody not seen outside the most klutzy creationist pamphlet.

I do no troll...well not more than you do.

I could just say what you say to me too you know. Say that you haven't read any of the books I mentioned and that you clearly do not understand how things work...

It is very easy to claim such things.

You are not convinced because you don&#39;t know the evidence, as you have stated.

I do not remember stating such a thing. I did say I have looked "high and low" though. Reading books, listening to lectures, learning genetics...

I believe the book &quot;The Panda&#39;s Thumb&quot; discusses this kind of thing. But there are plenty of examples. One that springs to mind is the male reproductive system. Fond as I am of it, the way the tubes curve up, down, round and about (purely because of how things shifted around during evolution especially when mammals became warm-blooded and the testes, rather than simply becoming heat-resistant instead migrated outside the body) has resulted not only in its legendary vulnerability, but in otherwise unnecessary medical problems like Inguinal hernia and prostate problems. &quot;God hates men&quot; doesn&#39;t cut it as an explanation :-)

The male reproductive system has achieved its role the last few thousand years I believe. If someone uses a preexisting animal to create a new but different one things like this may happen the same way similar things happen in software engineering all the time. There is no such thing as a template that is one size fits all. That doesn't mean programs evolve from one to another.

Maybe making testes heat resistant isn't as simple as making them migrate them outside the body. Maybe if it was even evolution could have done it.

By the way how did the two sexes evolved? Which one evolved first or did they evolve at the same time even though the opposite sex for either did not yet exist?

Edited by Dániel Boros
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way how did the two sexes evolved? Which one evolved first or did they evolve at the same time even though the opposite sex for either did not yet exist?

You could try looking at wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction Short answer, they don't really know for sure yet.

But the fact that you are raising the old silly creationist chestnut that one sex might have evolved without the other one being present indicates to me that you probably don't actually understand what evolutionary theory is saying, yet you presume to denounce it as false. (It would have to be simultaneous, both sexes inhabit the same gene pool. Asking the question usually demonstrates that the questioner is perhaps unwittingly assuming they are two separate species with two separate gene pools. On the plus side at least you didn't raise the so-called issue of "what if one sex evolves faster than the other?" which is just as absurd as this is, and if you think about it, equivalent, since one sex evolving first would imply different rates.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it is such a silly question could you explain to me how the mixing of bases that is necessary for sexual reproduction to have any kind of positive effect evolved?

It is one thing to take DNA from the environment and integrate into the cells body and it is another to evolve a mechanism that can mix two full sets of DNA.

Until the mechanism evolved there could have been little advantage to have sexual reproduction and even once evolved there wouldn't be two different sets of DNA that could have been mixed.

To me it seems natural selection only works if it is convenient for someone arguing for Darwinism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To observe that an object has been designed it needs to have two properties. It has to be complex and it has to be specific (specified complexity). We can measure these properties...

For example:

erdo Teno siGh

is complex, but no specified

There is no God

Is complex and specified

Both sentences have equal chance to appear in a computer that randomly generates words, but only one of them has a meaning.

An infinite number of 'A'-s would be also complex but not specified the same way as an infinite number of random letters is as well.

You may read The Design Inference for a better explanation if you like.

Intelligence embodied in what entity in this case?

All I can say that intelligence is the property of humans but humans aren't necessarily the only beings gifted with this property. Humans also have mass, location, life and other properties that aren't unique to them.

Intelligence of other entities other than ourselves can be observed by what they produce. You can't measure Intelligence by measuring someones or somethings height or weight. The only way you could find other intelligent beings is by looking at what they produced. Looking at the results of tests or tools that they produced.

What if we found a high tech weapon on Mars and no other evidence that would prove that someone who could have deigned such a thing ever existed?

Do we just accept that it was not designed and walk away?

How can we suggest that an object's designer is such and such even without realizing that the object was most likely designed?

Edited by Dániel Boros
Link to comment
Share on other sites

even without realizing that the object was most likely designed?

In this case, I assume by "the object", you mean a Creator Being, who - as an intelligent entity - must necessarily possess your property of "specified complexity". So since your Creator Being clearly shows evidence that it was designed, we must ask - who designed the Designer?

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

New Buddha you need to be a little more specific.

Denying ID would be denying the possibility that designed objects can be identified in nature through observation.

If we are talking about life than proving that evolution works would be sufficient.

However as I said before not any kind of proof is acceptable.

The problem with evolution is that people simply assume that there are pathways that can be taken step by step without asking how likely the existence of such pathways really are.

With the exception of self reproduction there is absolutely no difference between the computer world and the living world, and self reproduction alone proves nothing so why should something impossible in the computer world be possible in the living one?

In this case, I assume by "the object", you mean a Creator Being, who - as an intelligent entity - must necessarily possess your property of "specified complexity". So since your Creator Being clearly shows evidence that it was designed, we must ask - who designed the Designer?

While it would necessarily have the property of specified complexity it would not necessarily be the product of design. ID is not philosophy it is science based on observation and the induction fallacy. Just because all known specified complex objects have been designed doesn't mean all specified complex objects have been designed especially if designed objects require the presence of a specified complex designer. It only means that a specified complex object was most likely designed. The same way not everyone charged with a crime is a criminal not everything that looks designed was designed. Maybe the designer always existed or maybe there is process (like evolution) that can create it. However the same way as not any kind of evidence will convince a judge not any kind of evidence should convince us regarding such a process.

In the case of criminals we call it the presumption of innocence in the case of ID we would call it the presumption of design. (There's also a presumption of atheism advocated by the late philosopher Anthony Flew).

Yes evolution or a different natural process can defeat the presumption of design the same way evidence can defeat the presumption of innocence, but it must be proven!

I know I know it is very radical... scientific theories are needed to be proven... Until evolution has not been properly proven the idea of design should prevail.

But those are the rules of the game and I wasn't the one who made them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe my answer was quite clear and simple as well.

There are two things that could change my mind:

a ) the simplest living being does not fulfill the requirement of specified complexity

b ) there is an observable or provable process that can create the complexity at the rate necessary for the living beings to exist.

If single celled organisms that reproduce a lot rapidly than animals would evolve (increase complexity) at a rate necessary for evolution to be true than I would be convinced.

Is there ANY evidence that would cause you to conclude that evolution is not a valid hypothesis?

Edited by Dániel Boros
Link to comment
Share on other sites

New Buddha, there is only one set of evidence to appeal to. I don't see it as the selection from the available evidence, but the ability to distinguish between the designed and the natural within it. The I.D. proponents see patterns that exist naturally and point those patterns out as being similar to a designers use of patterns in developing man-made objects and conflate the two.

Geometry, a man derived science, permits the development of gears, springs, circles, square and triangles that are seldom seen directly in nature, allowing the development of a watch.

As we continue to identify patterns in nature (causal connections) such as electrons, protons, neutrons making up a multitude of different atoms - which further interact to become a greater multitude of compounds and so on, the issue becomes one of interpretation of the evidence: is it simply discovering the nature of eternal existence, or do we apply the fundamental alternative of life (existence or non-existence) to inanimate indestructible matter and try to force fit an explanation that more or less aligns with the I.D. proponents (unchallengeable?) premise in this case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with evolution is that people simply assume that there are pathways that can be taken step by step without asking how likely the existence of such pathways really are.

Name a biological structure that you think is irreducibly complex.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not believe that it is my job to prove that such pathways do not exist.

Irreducible complexity was the idea of Michael Behe and it isn't really part of the mainstream of ID.

The idea is that if you take the parts of a complex machine sooner or later you will arrive at a point where the machine can't function at all, however it is really unclear what constitutes a irreducible complex machine and whether founding one would prove anything at all.

Behe said that the Bacterial flagellum (a sort of microscopic motor) and any mousetrap would be irreducibly complex structure.

Darwinists responded to that with the co-option theory asserting that evolution can pick the genetic data from different parts of the genome and put them together in one or in a few steps creating complex structures.

Of course as usual there's absolutely no evidence whether such a thing can happen or did happen in the past. They just made it up like everything else.

If anything can account as irreducible complex than that would be the self reproducing capability of living organisms.

To self reproduce the organism need a ) information b ) a data storage to store the information and c ) machines that can use the information.

Without these things replication or at least evolution becomes impossible.

Self replicating RNA will never gain molecular machinery that will read out its own content.

For one there's no content and two self replicating RNA - assuming such things are possible - have already achieved everything that the RNA reading machines and the genetic code would be required for.

So why read out the non existent content of RNA if that is not necessary for the organism to survive? Also at which point will these readers become incorporated into RNA? How will this species survive long enough for that to happen?

Also why do scientists believe RNA was the thing that needed to self replicate? RNA for the most is part only good at temporarily storing genetic information? Is it blind luck that the structure that somehow started to self replicate also works perfectly as a storage device? What a coincidence...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering that Darwinism almost died with the advent of genetics I'm not sure how much of that is true. In Darwin's time change was self evident, but genetics proved not just that change was not self evident, but that evolution was not responsible for the changes observed by Darwin. And so the idea that change takes too long to be observable and that genetic mutations are the driving force of evolution were created and became known as Neo-darwinism. The idea of natural selection predates Darwin, so the only thing that was Darwin's idea and later supported by evidence was the tree of life or common descent. Which doesn't really prove evolution since any set of objects can be organized based on similarity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...