AoD; NHs & CD

[Ray Martinez]

Appearance of design; Nested Hierarchies & Common Descent

I intend to answer replies from the other topic in this topic because messages posted in the other topic have not posted.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Thursday, February 19, 2015 at 6:05:37 PM UTC-8, Robert Camp wrote:

[....]

> > Ray Martinez:
Both false appearance examples and their conclusions are based on short-term observations. These observations exposed a previous observation as false or illusory. We are not in the same predicament. We observe species on a long-term basis. Therefore the short-term examples cannot be used to harm long-term observations. It is not possible for very many persons to observe a false appearance on a long term basis.
> >

> Robert Camp:
First, that's nonsense. "Long" and "short" term are relative, and
entirely unquantified, evaluations in this case. Who's to say what is
long enough, or too short, for a determinative conclusion regarding
"appearance of design?"
>

You're reply says one or many can observe phenomena for a long time and not discover that it's not real but illusory. This is not how illusions work. There must be a way to tell----that's why the concept exists. Long term observation guarantees that an illusion cannot survive in the sense of concealing, indefinitely, what really exists.

>
Second, you've ignored the important point about how your conclusion can
be objectively established - providing evidence of design.
>

And you've repeatedly evaded and/or misrepresented and/or misunderstood the answer: observation of a noun (in this case "design") is the evidence. **Very many people** see the noun; therefore design exists.

> >
The idea that appearance isn't real or doesn't presuppose actual design is an invent of Darwinism. Words, as everyone knows, could convey several different valid meanings or valid senses. Paley's use of "appearances," as seen in his title, presupposes something real and genuine. It would be blatant misrepresentation to suggest the author had any other meaning in mind. As if Paley was timidly suggesting and keeping the door ajar for a false appearance.
> >
>
>
I said nothing about Paley, Ray. I characterized your argument. If you
feel I've done so unfairly then respond directly - tell me where I've
gotten it wrong. Stop the evasion by way of your continued
misunderstanding of Paley (the man wasn't an idiot, after all).
>

The only one "misunderstanding" Paley is you----his opponent and enemy the Evolutionist. You've continually misrepresented "appearance of design." The reason you misrepresent (not misunderstand) is because you can't address effectively and because you're obligated to perpetuate the misrepresentations seen in evolutionary literature. Paley intended "appearances" as presupposing design observed; instead you and a host of evolution scholars have spammed knowledge banks with an intelligence-insulting definition of "appearance" that Paley never intended.

Appearance presupposes design observed; meaning: why do species look designed? It (= "appearances") is a rhetorical device. But suddenly you don't understand? As if a Creationist scholar intended any other meaning! The evidence, as argued, is observation of a noun (= design). Your response, denying existence of an observed noun, while asking for evidence, is nonsense, corruption, and illegitimate. Equivalent to asking for evidence of your own existence or evidence of the post you're reading.

Because your request for evidence is exposed as delusional, you will undoubtedly dig in your heels and pretend that you don't understand. For you surely won't admit to any errors, as usual.

> >
So all opposition is either misrepresentation; and assumption that observation of a noun is somehow deficient.
> >
>
>
Oh yeah, and your misuse of the English language counts for nothing as well.
>

That was obviously a botched sentence on my part.

Ray

[czeba...@gmail.com]

Consider the source...

gregwrld

[Robert Camp]

On 2/22/15 3:15 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Thursday, February 19, 2015 at 6:05:37 PM UTC-8, Robert Camp wrote:
>
> [....]
>
>>> Ray Martinez:

<snip extended evasion and misunderstanding of Paley, none of which
matters if Ray's argument is incoherent>


Ray, here's the crux. I contend your central thesis, paraphrased below,
is a tautology, and therefore impotent.

(a) - The appearance of design in life cannot be illusory because
appearance of design - correctly observed - equals actual design,
(b) - Although appearance of design in other circumstances *may* be
illusory, we can know when it is equivalent with actual design because
it is something that persists day after day, week after week,
(c) - I [Ray] observe that the appearance of design in species persists
in just such a way because species still look designed to me day after
day, week after week, therefore,
(d) - The appearance of design in life is confirmed as actual design
because I [Ray] still see the appearance of design.

In other words, 'Appearance of design equals appearance of design.'

If the above does not accurately characterize your chain of argument,
please show me where I have gotten it wrong.

[Dana Tweedy]

On 2/22/15 4:15 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Thursday, February 19, 2015 at 6:05:37 PM UTC-8, Robert Camp wrote:
>
> [....]
>
>>> Ray Martinez:
> Both false appearance examples and their conclusions are based on short-term observations. These observations exposed a previous observation as false or illusory. We are not in the same predicament. We observe species on a long-term basis. Therefore the short-term examples cannot be used to harm long-term observations. It is not possible for very many persons to observe a false appearance on a long term basis.
>>>
>
>> Robert Camp:
> First, that's nonsense. "Long" and "short" term are relative, and
> entirely unquantified, evaluations in this case. Who's to say what is
> long enough, or too short, for a determinative conclusion regarding
> "appearance of design?"
>>
>
> You're reply says one or many can observe phenomena for a long time and not discover that it's not real but illusory. This is not how illusions work. There must be a way to tell----that's why the concept exists. Long term observation guarantees that an illusion cannot survive in the sense of concealing, indefinitely, what really exists.

Ray, the amount of time someone holds to a mistaken perception is not
determined by how long one looks at something, but on whether or not the
person is willing to accept that their perception might be wrong.

As long as you continue to refuse to admit your commitment to your
personal beliefs blinds you to the possibility you are mistaken, you
will never be able to rid yourself of this particular illusion.

>
>>
> Second, you've ignored the important point about how your conclusion can
> be objectively established - providing evidence of design.
>>
>
> And you've repeatedly evaded and/or misrepresented and/or misunderstood the answer: observation of a noun (in this case "design") is the evidence. **Very many people** see the noun; therefore design exists.

Very many people see a resemblance to design in natural things. None of
them have actually seen design in those natural objects. Most people
understand that mere appearances don't translate into reality, and that
"looks like" and "is" are separate thing.

>
>>>
> The idea that appearance isn't real or doesn't presuppose actual design is an invent of Darwinism.

No, Ray, it's not. "Darwinists" don't have the ability to change the
meaning of words used by English speakers that were in use long before
Darwin lived. The word "appearance" in the context that Paley used it
is the same as used today, ie. likeness, or resemblance.

> Words, as everyone knows, could convey several different valid meanings or valid senses. Paley's use of "appearances," as seen in his title, presupposes something real and genuine. It would be blatant misrepresentation to suggest the author had any other meaning in mind. As if Paley was timidly suggesting and keeping the door ajar for a false appearance.
>>>
>>
>>
> I said nothing about Paley, Ray. I characterized your argument. If you
> feel I've done so unfairly then respond directly - tell me where I've
> gotten it wrong. Stop the evasion by way of your continued
> misunderstanding of Paley (the man wasn't an idiot, after all).
>>
>
> The only one "misunderstanding" Paley is you----his opponent and enemy the Evolutionist.

I don't know of any "evolutionist" who considers Paley to be either an
opponent, or an enemy. That's just part of your own paranoia.

> You've continually misrepresented "appearance of design." The reason you misrepresent (not misunderstand) is because you can't address effectively and because you're obligated to perpetuate the misrepresentations seen in evolutionary literature.

Ray, everyone here has correctly understood what Paley meant, except for
you. You are the on trying to impose a meaning Paley did not intend,
and you are the one who is misrepresenting what Paley said.

> Paley intended "appearances" as presupposing design observed;

Please present any evidence that your interpretation is correct.

> instead you and a host of evolution scholars have spammed knowledge banks with an intelligence-insulting definition of "appearance" that Paley never intended.

It's amazing that you imagine that "evolution scholars" over the last
200 years have totally re-defined a common word, just to confound you.
That's not only paranoia, but narcissism on an epic scale! Isn't it
just possible, that you've badly misunderstood what Paley meant? Isn't
it possible that your own assumption about what Paley was getting at is
mistaken?

>
> Appearance presupposes design observed; meaning: why do species look designed? It (= "appearances") is a rhetorical device.

That may be your own rhetorical device, (it's bizarre, and ungrammatical
enough to be yours) but what makes you think that was the meaning
Paley wished to give to the term? Has anyone, in the history of
English literature (other than Ray) EVER used that meaning? Remember,
Paley was a literate, highly educated man, who wrote clearly. Why
would he have used the illogical and convoluted meaning you give above?

> But suddenly you don't understand? As if a Creationist scholar intended any other meaning!

Paley was, as mentioned, a literate, highly educated person. Why would
he have intended the meaning that a mostly illiterate, uneducated
internet loon gives it?

> The evidence, as argued, is observation of a noun (= design). Your response, denying existence of an observed noun, while asking for evidence, is nonsense, corruption, and illegitimate.

Since your entire argument depends on the "noun" being real based only
on slight resemblance to something that was designed, the denial is
reasonable. Asking for evidence that the "noun" is real, rather than
just assuming it to be real, is reasonable, and sensible.

> Equivalent to asking for evidence of your own existence or evidence of the post you're reading.

If you assume the existence of anything is real, based only a slight
resemblance with something you wish were true, you are being illogical,
and irrational. Asking for evidence that the thing is real is the
only way one can determine the reality of the situation.

>
> Because your request for evidence is exposed as delusional, you will undoubtedly dig in your heels and pretend that you don't understand.

Ray, speaking of "delusional", requesting evidence is not a delusion,
but way of overcoming a delusion. Assuming one's conclusion, which you
always do, is delusion.

> For you surely won't admit to any errors, as usual.

Again, the irony here is palpable. You are basing your entire argument
on your own inability to admit you might be wrong, and then accusing
others of not admitting their errors.

>
>>>
> So all opposition is either misrepresentation; and assumption that observation of a noun is somehow deficient.
>>>
>>
>>
> Oh yeah, and your misuse of the English language counts for nothing as well.
>>
>
> That was obviously a botched sentence on my part.

Which should give you an indication that it's not the "evolutionists"
who have misunderstood what Paley meant by "appearance"


DJT

[Greg Guarino]

On 2/22/2015 6:15 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> Both false appearance examples and their conclusions are based on
> short-term observations. These observations exposed a previous
> observation as false or illusory. We are not in the same predicament.
> We observe species on a long-term basis. Therefore the short-term
> examples cannot be used to harm long-term observations. It is not
> possible for very many persons to observe a false appearance on a
> long term basis.

I "observe" the sun to rise in the East every morning and move across
the sky over the (unmoving) Earth in pretty much exactly the same way as
human beings observed it as long as they have taken notice of the sky.

[Ray Martinez]

On Monday, February 23, 2015 at 9:30:24 AM UTC-8, Robert Camp wrote:
> On 2/22/15 3:15 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 19, 2015 at 6:05:37 PM UTC-8, Robert Camp wrote:
> >
> > [....]
> >
> >>> Ray Martinez:
>
> <snip extended evasion and misunderstanding of Paley, none of which
> matters if Ray's argument is incoherent>

Robert, an opponent of Paley, plays the misunderstanding card against a disciple of Paley. Good example of how Evolutionists operate.

> Ray, here's the crux. I contend your central thesis, paraphrased below,
> is a tautology, and therefore impotent.
> (a) - The appearance of design in life cannot be illusory because

> appearance of design - correctly observed - equals actual design....

For the sake of accuracy: not "correctly observed" because the modifier "correctly," an adverb, is unnecessary. Moreover, your argument contending my claims concerning design tautologous should not include the main claim of evolution scholars ("illusory") in the opening line. Inclusion of this claim presupposes its truth or accuracy.

Appearance of design in life means life appears or looks designed; rephrase: design observed in living things. Thus direct observation of a noun gives us no reason to believe or suspect that it is anything else or anything other than real or actual design.

The above paragraph conveys the correct **claim.** Based on the past I doubt that you'll represent correctly.

> (b) - Although appearance of design in other circumstances *may* be
> illusory, we can know when it is equivalent with actual design because
> it is something that persists day after day, week after week,

Yes; when observing design the same never reveals itself illusory----like a magic trick or short-term observation.

> (c) - I [Ray] observe that the appearance of design in species persists
> in just such a way because species still look designed to me day after

> day, week after week....

....year after year, in daytime and nighttime, from every conceivable angle, outside and inside. The concept of illusion, based almost entirely on short-term observation, is never revealed when observing species.

> therefore,
> (d) - The appearance of design in life is confirmed as actual design
> because I [Ray] still see the appearance of design.

Conveyance seen above presupposes observation of design not real----the main assumption of Naturalism seen clearly. Said assumption persists in defiance of an observation. Why? What justifies the assumption that one's eyes and mind are deceiving them?

> In other words, 'Appearance of design equals appearance of design.'

No, appearance of design which, as a claim, can only be ascertained by observation, equals design, not appearance of design. Again, the qualifier does not negate existence of the noun. And we have NO REASON to assume anything other than design. The main assumption of Supernaturalism, our interpretive philosophy, supported by direct observation. How many direct observations support, by contrast, evolution? Answer: none. Evolution is wholly dependent on inference.

>
> If the above does not accurately characterize your chain of argument,
> please show me where I have gotten it wrong.

Done.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Now give a second example?

There are two examples of false short-term observations in play. Now supply the second.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Should have said: Now supply the second false long-term observation example.

Ray

[Robert Camp]

On 2/23/15 12:30 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Monday, February 23, 2015 at 9:30:24 AM UTC-8, Robert Camp wrote:
>> On 2/22/15 3:15 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Thursday, February 19, 2015 at 6:05:37 PM UTC-8, Robert Camp wrote:
>>>
>>> [....]
>>>
>>>>> Ray Martinez:

<snip>

>> Ray, here's the crux. I contend your central thesis, paraphrased below,
>> is a tautology, and therefore impotent.
>> (a) - The appearance of design in life cannot be illusory because
>> appearance of design - correctly observed - equals actual design....
>
> For the sake of accuracy: not "correctly observed" because the modifier "correctly," an adverb, is unnecessary.

Yet another assumption of your conclusion. Considering your bulging
inventory, perhaps you should open a retail outlet.

> Moreover, your argument contending my claims concerning design tautologous should not include the main claim of evolution scholars ("illusory") in the opening line. Inclusion of this claim presupposes its truth or accuracy.

It does nothing of the kind. It simply - correctly or not - outlines
your argument.

> Appearance of design in life means life appears or looks designed; rephrase: design observed in living things. Thus direct observation of a noun gives us no reason to believe or suspect that it is anything else or anything other than real or actual design.

That you think any of the above is actually a clarification is further
testimony to your difficulties with reason.

>> (b) - Although appearance of design in other circumstances *may* be
>> illusory, we can know when it is equivalent with actual design because
>> it is something that persists day after day, week after week,
>
> Yes; when observing design the same never reveals itself illusory----like a magic trick or short-term observation.
>
>> (c) - I [Ray] observe that the appearance of design in species persists
>> in just such a way because species still look designed to me day after
>> day, week after week....
>
> ....year after year, in daytime and nighttime, from every conceivable angle, outside and inside. The concept of illusion, based almost entirely on short-term observation, is never revealed when observing species.
>
>> therefore,
>> (d) - The appearance of design in life is confirmed as actual design
>> because I [Ray] still see the appearance of design.
>
> Conveyance seen above presupposes observation of design not real--

No, Ray. "Conveyance," by which ridiculous word I assume you mean my
paraphrase, presupposes no such thing. There is no implication
whatsoever that your observation is not completely sincere, nor did I
suggest that it may not be potentially valid.

Please read only what is written.

> --the main assumption of Naturalism seen clearly. Said assumption persists in defiance of an observation. Why? What justifies the assumption that one's eyes and mind are deceiving them?

Another blatantly assumed conclusion to be thrown in the back with the
others. You should have a fire sale.

>> In other words, 'Appearance of design equals appearance of design.'
>
> No, appearance of design which, as a claim, can only be ascertained by observation, equals design, not appearance of design. Again, the qualifier does not negate existence of the noun. And we
have NO REASON to assume anything other than design.

(Ignoring the restatement of assumed conclusions, as well as the
incoherent semantic argument...)

Yes, Ray, we have a very good reason to assume "other than design." You
yourself have agreed to it: it's the notion that many forms of design
can be illusory. You can't make this fact, and your agreement with it,
go away by simply declaring it isn't relevant.

Your presumed resolution of this problem in the case of life is to base
a determination upon the length of time the appearance of design
persists. I have taken this into account in my summary of your position.
I hope you'll address it at some point.

> The main assumption of Supernaturalism, our interpretive philosophy, supported by direct observation. How many direct observations support, by contrast, evolution? Answer: none. Evolution is wholly dependent on inference.

The above is incoherent. It flies in the face of both reality and logic.

>> If the above does not accurately characterize your chain of argument,
>> please show me where I have gotten it wrong.
>
> Done.

Not even close. Try again.

[Burkhard]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Monday, February 23, 2015 at 11:10:25 AM UTC-8, Greg Guarino wrote:
>> On 2/22/2015 6:15 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> Both false appearance examples and their conclusions are based on
>>> short-term observations. These observations exposed a previous
>>> observation as false or illusory. We are not in the same predicament.
>>> We observe species on a long-term basis. Therefore the short-term
>>> examples cannot be used to harm long-term observations. It is not
>>> possible for very many persons to observe a false appearance on a
>>> long term basis.
>>
>> I "observe" the sun to rise in the East every morning and move across
>> the sky over the (unmoving) Earth in pretty much exactly the same way as
>> human beings observed it as long as they have taken notice of the sky.
>
> Now give a second example?

The common optical illusions.
Here a classical example, one of many:
http://www.optical-illusion-pictures.com/images/cafe.jpg

Doesn't matter how often you are told the lines are straight, they still
look bend.

This is a famous one by Richard Gregory. He was one of the cognitive
scientists who showed just how much our memory and expectations shape
what we perceive - perception and observation not being a passive
acceptance of stimuli, but an active process very similar to the
formation of theories in science. He wrote a fascinating book with the
artist and art historian Ernst Gombrich, "Illusion in Nature and Art",
which is a more accessible account of his more theoretically minded
earlier work, "The Intelligent Eye (1970)",

[John Harshman]

The earth looks flat. The sky looks like a solid roof. No matter how
small you split a bit of matter, you can always split it into smaller
pieces. The truths of all these appearances were commonplace beliefs for
thousands of years.

[Dana Tweedy]

On 2/23/15 1:30 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Monday, February 23, 2015 at 9:30:24 AM UTC-8, Robert Camp wrote:
>> On 2/22/15 3:15 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Thursday, February 19, 2015 at 6:05:37 PM UTC-8, Robert Camp wrote:
>>>
>>> [....]
>>>
>>>>> Ray Martinez:
>>
>> <snip extended evasion and misunderstanding of Paley, none of which
>> matters if Ray's argument is incoherent>
>
> Robert, an opponent of Paley, plays the misunderstanding card against a disciple of Paley. Good example of how Evolutionists operate.

You are assuming, for no reason, that Robert is an opponent of Paley.
You are also assuming you are a "disciple" of Paley, when you have
obviously not understood a single word the man wrote.

>
>> Ray, here's the crux. I contend your central thesis, paraphrased below,
>> is a tautology, and therefore impotent.
>> (a) - The appearance of design in life cannot be illusory because
>> appearance of design - correctly observed - equals actual design....
>
> For the sake of accuracy: not "correctly observed" because the modifier "correctly," an adverb, is unnecessary.

No, because you have made an incorrect observation.

> Moreover, your argument contending my claims concerning design tautologous should not include the main claim of evolution scholars ("illusory") in the opening line. Inclusion of this claim presupposes its truth or accuracy.

Again, you are mistaken. That the appearance of design is an illusion
is not the "main claim" of evolutionary theory. It's just one of the
side corollaries.

>
> Appearance of design in life means life appears or looks designed;

That's your mistaken assumption.

> rephrase: design observed in living things.

You haven't observed design. You have observed a resemblance to
designed objects. There's a very large difference.

> Thus direct observation of a noun gives us no reason to believe or suspect that it is anything else or anything other than real or actual design.

But you aren't making a "direct observation" of that "noun". You are
making an observation of a few features which bear a resemblance to
features found in things that are designed. Those features are also
found in things not designed, so there's no reason to believe that your
observation can only have one explanation.

>
> The above paragraph conveys the correct **claim.** Based on the past I doubt that you'll represent correctly.

Ray, you don't even understand your own claim! How can you know if
someone else has represented it correctly when you can't even present it
correctly yourself.

>
>> (b) - Although appearance of design in other circumstances *may* be
>> illusory, we can know when it is equivalent with actual design because
>> it is something that persists day after day, week after week,
>
> Yes; when observing design the same never reveals itself illusory----like a magic trick or short-term observation.

Illusions don't necessarily reveal themselves. It takes mental effort
to see through an illusion, especially when you have a overwhelming
reason not to see through it.

>
>> (c) - I [Ray] observe that the appearance of design in species persists
>> in just such a way because species still look designed to me day after
>> day, week after week....
>
> ....year after year, in daytime and nighttime, from every conceivable angle, outside and inside.

You see what you want to see, not how it is. That's how you keep
seeing the illusion, and not the truth.

> The concept of illusion, based almost entirely on short-term observation, is never revealed when observing species.

In fact, it is revealed, when one actually looks without the
overwhelming assumption that it must be design.

>
>> therefore,
>> (d) - The appearance of design in life is confirmed as actual design
>> because I [Ray] still see the appearance of design.
>
> Conveyance seen above presupposes observation of design not real----the main assumption of Naturalism seen clearly.

That's not an assumption of "Naturalism". It's a finding from examining
the evidence.

> Said assumption persists in defiance of an observation. Why? What justifies the assumption that one's eyes and mind are deceiving them?

In your case, Ray, your refusal to consider any other possibility. When
scientists observe something, they don't assume that their eyes are
playing tricks, but they also don't accept the first assumption that
comes to mind without testing that assumption. The scientific method
makes use of hypotheses, which are testable ideas, which challenge
personal beliefs and assumptions. Your refusal to test your beliefs
means you haven't got a clue whether you are right, or wrong.

>
>> In other words, 'Appearance of design equals appearance of design.'
>
> No, appearance of design which, as a claim, can only be ascertained by observation, equals design, not appearance of design.

"Appearance of design" as a claim is no different from the appearance of
design "ascertained by observation". They both are assuming "design"
exists because you imagine it looks like something designed.

Then you go on to say it's not appearance of design. You contradict
yourself in the same sentence, right after stating the same thing twice.
Quite the feat!

> Again, the qualifier does not negate existence of the noun.

No one claimed it did. No one is saying that designed objects don't
exist. What the discussion is about is how you tell if something is
designed. Your own criteria is "it looks like I imagine design would
look like". That does not equate to actual design.

> And we have NO REASON to assume anything other than design.

That's because you refuse to accept anything other than design is
possible. That is why you always are going to be subject to the
illusion. You assume your own conclusion, rather than testing that
conclusion, and finding out of you are right, or wrong.

> The main assumption of Supernaturalism, our interpretive philosophy, supported by direct observation.

The only "assumption" here is that you assume your position is correct,
without any evidence, thought, or rational process.

> How many direct observations support, by contrast, evolution? Answer: none. Evolution is wholly dependent on inference.

Ray, all direct observations require inference. Your own position
infers actual design, rather than observes it. Worse, your inference
is untrustworthy, because you refuse to consider alternate
possibilities, and refuse to test your assumptions against real evidence.

So far evolution has been directly observed in many scientific studies.
No one has EVER observed a supernatural being designing or producing
anything.

>
>>
>> If the above does not accurately characterize your chain of argument,
>> please show me where I have gotten it wrong.
>
> Done.

Actually, you just showed how confused your position is.


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 2/23/15 1:44 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Monday, February 23, 2015 at 11:10:25 AM UTC-8, Greg Guarino wrote:
>> On 2/22/2015 6:15 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> Both false appearance examples and their conclusions are based on
>>> short-term observations. These observations exposed a previous
>>> observation as false or illusory. We are not in the same predicament.
>>> We observe species on a long-term basis. Therefore the short-term
>>> examples cannot be used to harm long-term observations. It is not
>>> possible for very many persons to observe a false appearance on a
>>> long term basis.
>>
>> I "observe" the sun to rise in the East every morning and move across
>> the sky over the (unmoving) Earth in pretty much exactly the same way as
>> human beings observed it as long as they have taken notice of the sky.
>
> Now give a second example?

Why? The first example is quite enough to destroy your claims.

>
> There are two examples of false short-term observations in play.

The above is an example of a long term observation, Ray.

> Now supply the second.

There's no reason to supply a second, but the "moon illusion" is another
one. The moon when it rises over a horizon looks like it is much bigger
than it is. This illusion is constantly observed, and may be observed
any time the moon rises.

DJT

[chris thompson]

Whenever I throw something, it stops moving pretty quickly. Therefore I conclude that an object in motion tends to stop.

If I want to move somewhere, I have to push against something, even if it's only the floor or the ground. Since they have nothing to push against in space, rockets will not function there.

Chris

[Ray Martinez]

On Monday, February 23, 2015 at 2:15:24 PM UTC-8, Burkhard wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Monday, February 23, 2015 at 11:10:25 AM UTC-8, Greg Guarino wrote:
> >> On 2/22/2015 6:15 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>> Both false appearance examples and their conclusions are based on
> >>> short-term observations. These observations exposed a previous
> >>> observation as false or illusory. We are not in the same predicament.
> >>> We observe species on a long-term basis. Therefore the short-term
> >>> examples cannot be used to harm long-term observations. It is not
> >>> possible for very many persons to observe a false appearance on a
> >>> long term basis.
> >>
> >> I "observe" the sun to rise in the East every morning and move across
> >> the sky over the (unmoving) Earth in pretty much exactly the same way as
> >> human beings observed it as long as they have taken notice of the sky.
> >
> > Now give a second example?
>
> The common optical illusions.
> Here a classical example, one of many:
> http://www.optical-illusion-pictures.com/images/cafe.jpg

Yes, a classic example of optical illusion. But upon close inspection the horizontal lines are, in fact, straight. So continued observation reveals the true nature of said lines as straight.

>
> Doesn't matter how often you are told the lines are straight, they still
> look bend.
>

Yes, indeed. But upon close observation the lines are straight. There is a way to tell that the lines are actually straight. The brain or mind has the ability to discern the truth. So now is a good time to make whatever point you're making in regard to living things?

Ray

[....]

[Ray Martinez]

Yes, good second example indeed; even Atheists thought the world was flat (and thought the sun revolved around earth).

I was wondering: Have you EVER seen ANY scholar offer geocentrism or flat earth supporting illusion of design in nature? I've been researching the issue for quite a while and have never seen a scholar offer the former in support of the latter.

Ray

[Dana Tweedy]

What you should have said was "Oh, you are right, I am mistaken.
Illusions can persist for a very long time."

For several other examples of long term illusions.

1 The Earth looks like it is flat, and has looked that way to a Earth
bound observer for thousands of years.

2. The sky appears to be blue. This is due to the nitrogen in the
atmosphere scattering out the blue light. The sky has looked blue for
billions of years.

3. the Moon illusion.
http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/sze_moon/index.html

4. The Loch Ness Monster.

Here's a link to a photo:
http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/2/2/3/4223.jpg?v=1

Every time you look at that photo, it looks like a sea monster. You can
sit, and stare at that picture for weeks, or months, and still looks
like a monster. In fact it's a picture of a toy submarine with a fake
head attached.

According to you, Ray, we must assume it's a real monster, because the
observation does not change.



DJT

[John Harshman]

Not the point that all this was intended to convey. You are very, very
bad at understanding points, especially those conveyed by analogy. It's
intended only to point out that long-term observations can be
interpreted incorrectly, and for a very long time. And the point of that
is that appearance of design might also be similarly misinterpreted,
also for a very long time. That doesn't mean it was, merely that you
can't use the age of a claim to argue that it's correct.

[Dana Tweedy]

There are plenty of "scholars" equal to your creationist "scholars" who
have supported flat earth, and geocentrism.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/

Your buddy Tony Pagano could give you much more info.

> I've been researching the issue for quite a while and have never seen a scholar offer the former in support of the latter.

30 seconds is not a long time, Ray.


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 2/23/15 3:41 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Monday, February 23, 2015 at 2:15:24 PM UTC-8, Burkhard wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Monday, February 23, 2015 at 11:10:25 AM UTC-8, Greg Guarino wrote:
>>>> On 2/22/2015 6:15 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>>> Both false appearance examples and their conclusions are based on
>>>>> short-term observations. These observations exposed a previous
>>>>> observation as false or illusory. We are not in the same predicament.
>>>>> We observe species on a long-term basis. Therefore the short-term
>>>>> examples cannot be used to harm long-term observations. It is not
>>>>> possible for very many persons to observe a false appearance on a
>>>>> long term basis.
>>>>
>>>> I "observe" the sun to rise in the East every morning and move across
>>>> the sky over the (unmoving) Earth in pretty much exactly the same way as
>>>> human beings observed it as long as they have taken notice of the sky.
>>>
>>> Now give a second example?
>>
>> The common optical illusions.
>> Here a classical example, one of many:
>> http://www.optical-illusion-pictures.com/images/cafe.jpg
>
> Yes, a classic example of optical illusion. But upon close inspection the horizontal lines are, in fact, straight. So continued observation reveals the true nature of said lines as straight.
>

Not if you refuse to accept they are straight.

>>
>> Doesn't matter how often you are told the lines are straight, they still
>> look bend.
>>
>
> Yes, indeed. But upon close observation the lines are straight. There is a way to tell that the lines are actually straight.

Just as there's a way to tell that life is not designed.

> The brain or mind has the ability to discern the truth.

Some people's mind have the ability to discern that species are not
designed, as well.

> So now is a good time to make whatever point you're making in regard to living things?

That you are wrong. Isn't that obvious?


DJT

[Ray Martinez]

On Monday, February 23, 2015 at 2:00:24 PM UTC-8, Robert Camp wrote:
> On 2/23/15 12:30 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Monday, February 23, 2015 at 9:30:24 AM UTC-8, Robert Camp wrote:
> >> On 2/22/15 3:15 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, February 19, 2015 at 6:05:37 PM UTC-8, Robert Camp wrote:
> >>>
> >>> [....]
> >>>
> >>>>> Ray Martinez:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> Ray, here's the crux. I contend your central thesis, paraphrased below,
> >> is a tautology, and therefore impotent.
> >> (a) - The appearance of design in life cannot be illusory because
> >> appearance of design - correctly observed - equals actual design....
> >
> > For the sake of accuracy: not "correctly observed" because the modifier "correctly," an adverb, is unnecessary.
>
> Yet another assumption of your conclusion. Considering your bulging
> inventory, perhaps you should open a retail outlet.

Evasion (I won this point).

>
> > Moreover, your argument contending my claims concerning design tautologous should not include the main claim of evolution scholars ("illusory") in the opening line. Inclusion of this claim presupposes its truth or accuracy.
>
> It does nothing of the kind. It simply - correctly or not - outlines
> your argument.

Not true; my argument does not include illusion. It eventually addresses illusion only because illusion is a widely accepted evolutionary explanation of design in nature.

>
> > Appearance of design in life means life appears or looks designed; rephrase: design observed in living things. Thus direct observation of a noun gives us no reason to believe or suspect that it is anything else or anything other than real or actual design.
>
> That you think any of the above is actually a clarification is further
> testimony to your difficulties with reason.

Either that is true or what I said is true and you don't understand. You don't understand or comprehend because, like I've said, the evo mind is immersed in gross illogic. Nevertheless, based on your evasion, seen above, I win this point too.

From our perspective, since "appearance" does not negate existence of the noun/design, the phrase "appearance of design" means "design observed in nature." Thus, like I already said, we have no reason to believe or suspect that what we observe is not real. In this context you contend what I wrote was anti-reason. You should have explained. So do it now? I suspect that you will fall back on an unjustified assumption: what is observed is not real and/or is in need of testing. No, the existence of nouns is not subject to testing. These are observed to exist just like a building or printed circuit board. To doubt existence of an observed noun is crystal clear evidence that you are confused and/or deluded.

>
> >> (b) - Although appearance of design in other circumstances *may* be
> >> illusory, we can know when it is equivalent with actual design because
> >> it is something that persists day after day, week after week,
> >
> > Yes; when observing design the same never reveals itself illusory----like a magic trick or short-term observation.
> >
> >> (c) - I [Ray] observe that the appearance of design in species persists
> >> in just such a way because species still look designed to me day after
> >> day, week after week....
> >
> > ....year after year, in daytime and nighttime, from every conceivable angle, outside and inside. The concept of illusion, based almost entirely on short-term observation, is never revealed when observing species.
> >
> >> therefore,
> >> (d) - The appearance of design in life is confirmed as actual design
> >> because I [Ray] still see the appearance of design.
> >
> > Conveyance seen above presupposes observation of design not real--
>
> No, Ray. "Conveyance," by which ridiculous word I assume you mean my
> paraphrase, presupposes no such thing. There is no implication
> whatsoever that your observation is not completely sincere, nor did I
> suggest that it may not be potentially valid.
>
> Please read only what is written.

The implication is indeed there; when you wrote "actual design." By CREATING this category you're assuming the evolutionary position: "appearance of design" is not "design."

In short: I reject any notion that "actual design" is needed. The same assumes "appearance of design" or "design" is insufficient. When Creationists speak of "design" or "appearance of design" both presuppose observational existence. Go that? The extra created category of "actual design" is a tautology.

>
> > --the main assumption of Naturalism seen clearly. Said assumption persists in defiance of an observation. Why? What justifies the assumption that one's eyes and mind are deceiving them?
>
> Another blatantly assumed conclusion to be thrown in the back with the
> others. You should have a fire sale.
>
> >> In other words, 'Appearance of design equals appearance of design.'
> >
> > No, appearance of design which, as a claim, can only be ascertained by observation, equals design, not appearance of design. Again, the qualifier does not negate existence of the noun. And we
> have NO REASON to assume anything other than design.
>
> (Ignoring the restatement of assumed conclusions, as well as the
> incoherent semantic argument...)
>
> Yes, Ray, we have a very good reason to assume "other than design." You
> yourself have agreed to it: it's the notion that many forms of design
> can be illusory. You can't make this fact, and your agreement with it,
> go away by simply declaring it isn't relevant.

Existence of false appearances or optical illusions do not constitute a valid basis to doubt appearance of design in living things. If you think otherwise then show me just ONE scholar who has said as much? If you can't then it is perfectly legitimate to create original thought. But to rely on original thought in this context indicates all existing arguments against design as defeated.

>
> Your presumed resolution of this problem in the case of life is to base
> a determination upon the length of time the appearance of design
> persists. I have taken this into account in my summary of your position.
> I hope you'll address it at some point.
>
> > The main assumption of Supernaturalism, our interpretive philosophy, supported by direct observation. How many direct observations support, by contrast, evolution? Answer: none. Evolution is wholly dependent on inference.
>
> The above is incoherent. It flies in the face of both reality and logic.
>
> >> If the above does not accurately characterize your chain of argument,
> >> please show me where I have gotten it wrong.
> >
> > Done.
>
> Not even close. Try again.

Why not produce a more condensed version of your tautology claim?

Ray

[Dana Tweedy]

On 2/23/15 4:30 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Monday, February 23, 2015 at 2:00:24 PM UTC-8, Robert Camp wrote:
>> On 2/23/15 12:30 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Monday, February 23, 2015 at 9:30:24 AM UTC-8, Robert Camp wrote:
>>>> On 2/22/15 3:15 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, February 19, 2015 at 6:05:37 PM UTC-8, Robert Camp wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> [....]
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ray Martinez:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> Ray, here's the crux. I contend your central thesis, paraphrased below,
>>>> is a tautology, and therefore impotent.
>>>> (a) - The appearance of design in life cannot be illusory because
>>>> appearance of design - correctly observed - equals actual design....
>>>
>>> For the sake of accuracy: not "correctly observed" because the modifier "correctly," an adverb, is unnecessary.
>>
>> Yet another assumption of your conclusion. Considering your bulging
>> inventory, perhaps you should open a retail outlet.
>
> Evasion (I won this point).

Wrong again, Ray. You lost when you assumed your conclusion.

>
>>
>>> Moreover, your argument contending my claims concerning design tautologous should not include the main claim of evolution scholars ("illusory") in the opening line. Inclusion of this claim presupposes its truth or accuracy.
>>
>> It does nothing of the kind. It simply - correctly or not - outlines
>> your argument.
>
> Not true; my argument does not include illusion.

Your argument ignores that you are laboring under an illusion. This may
be because you don't realize how much you depend on that illusion.

> It eventually addresses illusion only because illusion is a widely accepted evolutionary explanation of design in nature.

Not really. The evolutionary explanation for the appearance of design
in nature is that natural selection, working on random variations
produces an appearance of design. The illusion is not that there is no
resemblance to design, but that the resemblance is produced by something
other than deliberate design.

>
>>
>>> Appearance of design in life means life appears or looks designed; rephrase: design observed in living things. Thus direct observation of a noun gives us no reason to believe or suspect that it is anything else or anything other than real or actual design.
>>
>> That you think any of the above is actually a clarification is further
>> testimony to your difficulties with reason.
>
> Either that is true or what I said is true and you don't understand.

Since what you said is not true, Robert's statement stands.

> You don't understand or comprehend because, like I've said, the evo mind is immersed in gross illogic.

Then why is it that your own position fails even the most basic test of
logic?

> Nevertheless, based on your evasion, seen above, I win this point too.

Again, you lost the point because you used a logical fallacy. You
assumed your conclusion.

>
> From our perspective, since "appearance" does not negate existence of the noun/design, the phrase "appearance of design" means "design observed in nature."

Which is you assuming your own conclusion. The phrase "appearance of
design" only means you have observed something that looks like design.
You are assuming it was design, not a natural process.

> Thus, like I already said, we have no reason to believe or suspect that what we observe is not real.

You have a reason to believe, and suspect such, but you refuse to do so.
That's because your position won't stand without the logical fallacy
of assuming your conclusion to prop it up.

> In this context you contend what I wrote was anti-reason.

Whether or not it was "anti reason" it certainly doesn't have any
connection to reason.

> You should have explained. So do it now? I suspect that you will fall back on an unjustified assumption: what is observed is not real and/or is in need of testing.

Why would that ever be unjustified? All assumptions about what you
observe, or think you have observed, require testing. Otherwise, you
only live in a fantasy world of your own assumptions.

> No, the existence of nouns is not subject to testing.

No one claims that participles of language are subject to testing. What
is subject to testing is your assumptions about things.

You assume you know what "design" looks like. You assume that you
can tell an illusion from reality. You assume you know better than
people who have actually looked closer. All these assumptions need to
be questioned. You won't question them, because you are afraid you will
be shown wrong.

> These are observed to exist just like a building or printed circuit board.

But what you observe may not be what you think it is. Buildings exist,
but fake buildings exist as well. Printed circuit boards exist, but so
do replicas, or fakes. Assuming you know either, without testing your
assumptions is foolish, and dangerous.

> To doubt existence of an observed noun is crystal clear evidence that you are confused and/or deluded.

To doubt that one's perceptions are correct is neither confused, or
deluded. In fact, to trust one's perceptions, when there is plenty of
reason to doubt them, is a sure sign of delusion.

>
>>
>>>> (b) - Although appearance of design in other circumstances *may* be
>>>> illusory, we can know when it is equivalent with actual design because
>>>> it is something that persists day after day, week after week,
>>>
>>> Yes; when observing design the same never reveals itself illusory----like a magic trick or short-term observation.
>>>
>>>> (c) - I [Ray] observe that the appearance of design in species persists
>>>> in just such a way because species still look designed to me day after
>>>> day, week after week....
>>>
>>> ....year after year, in daytime and nighttime, from every conceivable angle, outside and inside. The concept of illusion, based almost entirely on short-term observation, is never revealed when observing species.
>>>
>>>> therefore,
>>>> (d) - The appearance of design in life is confirmed as actual design
>>>> because I [Ray] still see the appearance of design.
>>>
>>> Conveyance seen above presupposes observation of design not real--
>>
>> No, Ray. "Conveyance," by which ridiculous word I assume you mean my
>> paraphrase, presupposes no such thing. There is no implication
>> whatsoever that your observation is not completely sincere, nor did I
>> suggest that it may not be potentially valid.
>>
>> Please read only what is written.
>
> The implication is indeed there; when you wrote "actual design." By CREATING this category you're assuming the evolutionary position: "appearance of design" is not "design."

Of course, that's the possibility you won't allow yourself to accept,
and why you end up playing the fool.

>
> In short: I reject any notion that "actual design" is needed.

That's because you have deluded yourself into thinking you can tell what
is, or is not design by just looking. If you had any sense, you'd
realize you don't have the experience, or the knowledge base to do that.

> The same assumes "appearance of design" or "design" is insufficient.

That's what sane people do, Ray. Appearances can't be assumed to be
genuine without some index of suspicion. It's foolish to trust one's
own powers of perception on things you know nothing about.

> When Creationists speak of "design" or "appearance of design" both presuppose observational existence. Go that?

Only if you are being cloned. No one but you ever "presupposes" that.
Most Creationists, even if they are wrong, aren't usually complete
idiots, so no other creationist would presuppose such a think unless he
or she was equally foolish/deluded/shockingly naive as you seem to be.

> The extra created category of "actual design" is a tautology.

Not when there are cases where appearance of design comes from things
that are not designed. Many such examples have been provided to you.

>
>>
>>> --the main assumption of Naturalism seen clearly. Said assumption persists in defiance of an observation. Why? What justifies the assumption that one's eyes and mind are deceiving them?
>>
>> Another blatantly assumed conclusion to be thrown in the back with the
>> others. You should have a fire sale.
>>
>>>> In other words, 'Appearance of design equals appearance of design.'
>>>
>>> No, appearance of design which, as a claim, can only be ascertained by observation, equals design, not appearance of design. Again, the qualifier does not negate existence of the noun. And we
>> have NO REASON to assume anything other than design.
>>
>> (Ignoring the restatement of assumed conclusions, as well as the
>> incoherent semantic argument...)
>>
>> Yes, Ray, we have a very good reason to assume "other than design." You
>> yourself have agreed to it: it's the notion that many forms of design
>> can be illusory. You can't make this fact, and your agreement with it,
>> go away by simply declaring it isn't relevant.
>
> Existence of false appearances or optical illusions do not constitute a valid basis to doubt appearance of design in living things.

Actually, they should, to anyone with a functioning brain, or sense of
self preservation. If you really think that way, there's no reason why
you would not throw yourself off a cliff trying to walk on a rainbow.

> If you think otherwise then show me just ONE scholar who has said as much?

Richard Dawkins wrote an entire book about it, called the "Blind
Watchmaker" Have you forgotten that?

There's a saying, often attributed wrongly to P.T. Barnum that reads
"There's a sucker born every minute".

In any case, "scholars" don't determine what is, or is not true in the
world. Any human who has outgrown his first year should know that
perceptions are untrustworthy.

> If you can't then it is perfectly legitimate to create original thought.

You certainly are permitted to create any original thought you wish, but
no one is required to take your empty assertions seriously.

> But to rely on original thought in this context indicates all existing arguments against design as defeated.

No, finding another flaw in an argument doesn't mean all other flaws may
be overlooked.

>
>
>>
>> Your presumed resolution of this problem in the case of life is to base
>> a determination upon the length of time the appearance of design
>> persists. I have taken this into account in my summary of your position.
>> I hope you'll address it at some point.
>>
>>> The main assumption of Supernaturalism, our interpretive philosophy, supported by direct observation. How many direct observations support, by contrast, evolution? Answer: none. Evolution is wholly dependent on inference.
>>
>> The above is incoherent. It flies in the face of both reality and logic.
>>
>>>> If the above does not accurately characterize your chain of argument,
>>>> please show me where I have gotten it wrong.
>>>
>>> Done.
>>
>> Not even close. Try again.
>
> Why not produce a more condensed version of your tautology claim?

Why should he? The first version was understandable enough for anyone.


DJT

[Ray Martinez]

I doubt that your colleagues in this thread will abide by your statement seen above. They will undoubtedly use geocentrism and flat earth to justify appearance of design as illusion.

We know that the sheer size of the surface of earth caused people to assume flatness; and appearance of a sun in motion caused people to believe in geocentrism. So what causes the illusion of design in living things? And since you yourself see no illusion of design in living things, how do you explain that? The ultimate point that I'm making is that design as illusion is, for the most part, if not the whole part, an unexplained claim. The fact that you won't and/or can't answer my question indicates the predicament that evolution scholars have placed themselves in. In short I'm making the point that design as illusion is an unexplained assertion. The reason it's unexplained is because evolution scholars don't know what their talking about. They can't readily admit to seeing an illusion so they don't know how the illusion works.

The issue here: how is a very old claim, appearance of design, determined to be a powerful illusion?

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Geocentrism is laughable nonsense; and Tony was your buddy since he accepted the main claims of the ToE (microevolution, limited macroevolution, and natural selection). Did you forget that we had a major falling out over these issues?

Ray (fixist; anti-selectionist)

[jonathan]

What you're observing is something that never
exactly repeats, and never will. An observation
that, since it involves constant change, can't
be discretely defined, and never will. No more
than one can definitively define an adaptation
in isolation to it's environment.

And since it's motion is being gauged relative
the observer, will always remain a biased or
subjective observation. Who gets to choose the
gauge used or time span, after all, the sun?

An observation of a cyclic phenomena where, like
any iteration, the start and finish lines are
highly subjective and entirely irrelevant to the
outward behavior.

Yet we obsess for 'the first building block', pine
for creation or the Holy Grail called a missing-link.
Even though it's a result of the unstable relationship
formed as output feeds back into the input (emergent)

The dynamic imbalance is the key information about
the secrets of nature, not the number of spokes. or
how the 'wheel was constructed.

Like studying architecture to understand music.

The method of observation must be congruent with
what is being observed. Yet totally without irony
science still tries-and-tries to objectify nature.

A 'modern science' that even though they've spared
no expense, and examined every crease, can't even
so much as fight it's way out of the shit-simple
paper bag called...


....NATURAL (evolved) v. UN-NATURAL (designed).


Endlessly bickering like spoiled children over
what should be Science 101. What is natural
and what is not.

Hint, the difference is seen where nature is at
it's most 'floor-less' or objectively unknowable
as in a constantly shifting sea shore.

Promise to let me know when you have the 'equation'
for the sea shore, all of them? But I won't be holding
my breath.


This is truly the depths of the Scientific
Dark Ages.



"Strong emergence describes the direct causal action
of a high-level system upon its components; qualities
produced this way are irreducible to the system's
constituent parts (Laughlin 2005). The whole is greater
than the sum of its parts. It follows that no simulation
of the system can exist, for such a simulation would
itself constitute a reduction of the system to its
constituent parts (Bedau 1997).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence





Jonathan




"Related somehow they may be,—
The sedge stands next the sea,
Where he is floorless, yet of fear
No evidence gives he.

But nature is a stranger yet;
The ones that cite her most
Have never passed her haunted house,
Nor simplified her ghost.

To pity those that know her not
Is helped by the regret
That those who know her, know her less
The nearer her they get."







s

[Ray Martinez]

On Monday, February 23, 2015 at 2:35:24 PM UTC-8, Dana Tweedy wrote:
> On 2/23/15 1:30 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Monday, February 23, 2015 at 9:30:24 AM UTC-8, Robert Camp wrote:
> >> On 2/22/15 3:15 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, February 19, 2015 at 6:05:37 PM UTC-8, Robert Camp wrote:
> >>>
> >>> [....]
> >>>
> >>>>> Ray Martinez:
> >>
> >> <snip extended evasion and misunderstanding of Paley, none of which
> >> matters if Ray's argument is incoherent>
> >
> > Robert, an opponent of Paley, plays the misunderstanding card against a disciple of Paley. Good example of how Evolutionists operate.
>
> You are assuming, for no reason, that Robert is an opponent of Paley.
> You are also assuming you are a "disciple" of Paley, when you have
> obviously not understood a single word the man wrote.
>
>
> >
> >> Ray, here's the crux. I contend your central thesis, paraphrased below,
> >> is a tautology, and therefore impotent.
> >> (a) - The appearance of design in life cannot be illusory because
> >> appearance of design - correctly observed - equals actual design....
> >
> > For the sake of accuracy: not "correctly observed" because the modifier "correctly," an adverb, is unnecessary.
>
> No, because you have made an incorrect observation.
>
>
>
> > Moreover, your argument contending my claims concerning design tautologous should not include the main claim of evolution scholars ("illusory") in the opening line. Inclusion of this claim presupposes its truth or accuracy.
>
> Again, you are mistaken. That the appearance of design is an illusion
> is not the "main claim" of evolutionary theory. It's just one of the
> side corollaries.

It's how proponents of evolution explain the main claim of Creationism (observation of design).

>
>
>
> >
> > Appearance of design in life means life appears or looks designed;
>
> That's your mistaken assumption.

In this context both "appearance" and "looks" are synonyms. So again: Why do living things look or appear designed? The question is rhetorical and it is based on observation. So your claim concerning "mistaken assumption" is completely false.

>
>
>
> > rephrase: design observed in living things.
>
> You haven't observed design. You have observed a resemblance to
> designed objects. There's a very large difference.

"Appearance" presupposes "by observation." If not, how was an appearance determined to exist? If a resemblance to design is observed then a conclusion for design remains supported. You don't understand that the correct conception is existence of design or non-existence of design; if the former is true then the next issue is genuine or counterfeit?

>
>
>
> > Thus direct observation of a noun gives us no reason to believe or suspect that it is anything else or anything other than real or actual design.
>
> But you aren't making a "direct observation" of that "noun". You are
> making an observation of a few features which bear a resemblance to
> features found in things that are designed.

Where did you obtain this idea?

Ray

[John Harshman]

I doubt it. You are unable to distinguish "is not evidence for X" from
"is evidence against X".

> We know that the sheer size of the surface of earth caused people to
> assume flatness; and appearance of a sun in motion caused people to
> believe in geocentrism. So what causes the illusion of design in
> living things? And since you yourself see no illusion of design in
> living things, how do you explain that? The ultimate point that I'm
> making is that design as illusion is, for the most part, if not the
> whole part, an unexplained claim. The fact that you won't and/or
> can't answer my question indicates the predicament that evolution
> scholars have placed themselves in. In short I'm making the point
> that design as illusion is an unexplained assertion. The reason it's
> unexplained is because evolution scholars don't know what their
> talking about. They can't readily admit to seeing an illusion so they
> don't know how the illusion works.

The illusion of design most likely results from natural selection. That
should be obvious to you, or at least it should be obvious that
selection is the favored explanation of those who see design as
illusion. Of course that's only the explanation for adaptive features of
organisms. The fact that you see design in just about everything,
including snowflakes, is a feature peculiar to you. Still, there's an
explanation even for snowflakes.

Those who understand natural selection are less likely than others to
see the illusion of design in adaptation, just as those who know the
earth rotates are less likely to see the sun moving rather than the
earth moving.

> The issue here: how is a very old claim, appearance of design, determined to be a powerful illusion?

In the same way that other old claims are determined to be illusions: we
have other known phenomena that are capable of explaining the
appearance. We've never observed anyone designing an animal, but we've
sure observed natural selection.

[Ray Martinez]

On Monday, February 23, 2015 at 3:05:25 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:

[....]

Since this topic is also about common descent, help me out: Since macro mutation and single-step selection are voodoo to evolutionary theory, how can ordinary reproduction be a main mechanism causing common descent, especially in higher taxa?

Ray

[Robert Camp]

On 2/23/15 3:30 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Monday, February 23, 2015 at 2:00:24 PM UTC-8, Robert Camp wrote:
>> On 2/23/15 12:30 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Monday, February 23, 2015 at 9:30:24 AM UTC-8, Robert Camp wrote:
>>>> On 2/22/15 3:15 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, February 19, 2015 at 6:05:37 PM UTC-8, Robert Camp wrote:

<snip>

>>>> If the above does not accurately characterize your chain of argument,
>>>> please show me where I have gotten it wrong.
>>>
>>> Done.
>>
>> Not even close. Try again.
>
> Why not produce a more condensed version of your tautology claim?

It's already pretty well condensed, but let's try again,

- You've agreed that appearance of design can be illusory in those cases
where the "appearance" is impermanent.
- You've argued that appearance of design is not illusory when it
persists "day after day, week after week."
- You've concluded that the appearance of design of life is not illusory
because, based upon your observation, it persists.
- Your argument, then, is: Appearance of design is not illusory because
you continue to observe the appearance of design.

Even you should be able to perceive problem here.

[Burkhard]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Monday, February 23, 2015 at 2:15:24 PM UTC-8, Burkhard wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Monday, February 23, 2015 at 11:10:25 AM UTC-8, Greg Guarino wrote:
>>>> On 2/22/2015 6:15 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>>> Both false appearance examples and their conclusions are based on
>>>>> short-term observations. These observations exposed a previous
>>>>> observation as false or illusory. We are not in the same predicament.
>>>>> We observe species on a long-term basis. Therefore the short-term
>>>>> examples cannot be used to harm long-term observations. It is not
>>>>> possible for very many persons to observe a false appearance on a
>>>>> long term basis.
>>>>
>>>> I "observe" the sun to rise in the East every morning and move across
>>>> the sky over the (unmoving) Earth in pretty much exactly the same way as
>>>> human beings observed it as long as they have taken notice of the sky.
>>>
>>> Now give a second example?
>>
>> The common optical illusions.
>> Here a classical example, one of many:
>> http://www.optical-illusion-pictures.com/images/cafe.jpg
>
> Yes, a classic example of optical illusion. But upon close inspection the horizontal lines are, in fact, straight. So continued observation reveals the true nature of said lines as straight.
>
>>
>> Doesn't matter how often you are told the lines are straight, they still
>> look bend.
>>
>
> Yes, indeed. But upon close observation the lines are straight. There is a way to tell that the lines are actually straight.

The brain or mind has the ability to discern the truth.

You really have to make up your mind here. Sometimes, you argue that
when you say you want to distinguish "counterfeit" appearance from
reliable appearance, and that the only thing necessary for an appearance
to exist is the phenomenological sense impression, regardless of whether
it refers to an external object or not.

But in that case, we have here an example of a persistent yet
counterfeit appearance - our knowledge and our theories tell us one
thing, the appearance another.

Now suddenly you seem to backtrack and claim that the appearance side
doesn't matter any longer, and that it is trumped by our theories

So now is a good time to make whatever point you're making in regard
to living things?
>

Well, simple. Living things might look designed (personally, I don't see
it, but for the sake of the argument) but as soon as look closer and do
measurements, we realize that they aren't in any meaningful way


Just as in the example of the optical illusion, it has the appearance of
bend lines (and an appearance that persists even after we know better),
yet once we look closer and make measurements, we realize they aren't
> Ray
>
> [....]
>

[John Harshman]

What do you think common descent means? It has nothing to do with the
differences between species, which is what you seem to be talking about.
Descent is just descent. You agree, presumably, that all members of any
given species are descended from a common ancestor (or perhaps a pair).
That's exactly the same process by which two related species are
descended from a common ancestral population. Or three related species.
Or several million related species.

Now, in order to have a tree of descent, you also need to introduce some
process by which one population can split into two populations. Then
again, pure geography would accomplish enough of that to produce some
kind of tree. Or you could have god wave his wand and make half a
population stop interbreeding with the other half.

The point is that common descent itself relies on only one process:
reproduction. A *tree* of common descent relies on one additional
process: some mechanism of population splitting. Our ability to
*recover* that tree by examining existing species relies on a third
process: something that sprinkles changes of some kind through history.

[Ray Martinez]

You're completely wrong. As Ayn Rand was fond of saying "existence exists." Variation is observed to exist. Differential reproduction is observed to exist. Likewise design in nature is observed to exist. Dana: A ten story building stands at the corner of 1st and Main. Does one really have to travel to that intersection to know that it exists? .

> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >> In other words, 'Appearance of design equals appearance of design.'
> > >
> > > No, appearance of design which, as a claim, can only be ascertained by observation, equals design, not appearance of design.
> >
> > "Appearance of design" as a claim is no different from the appearance of
> > design "ascertained by observation". They both are assuming "design"
> > exists because you imagine it looks like something designed.

We have existence of a noun via direct observation. What more could one want? Inference not needed. What I just wrote is what you're arguing against without any shame or sense of mental incompetence.

> >
> > Then you go on to say it's not appearance of design. You contradict
> > yourself in the same sentence, right after stating the same thing twice.
> > Quite the feat!

Not true at all.

> >
> >
> > > Again, the qualifier does not negate existence of the noun.
> >
> >
> > No one claimed it did. No one is saying that designed objects don't
> > exist.

Not true; evolution scientists and scholars agree unanimously that designed objects don't exist in nature.

> > What the discussion is about is how you tell if something is
> > designed.

Yet you just said designed objects exist in nature.

> > Your own criteria is "it looks like I imagine design would
> > look like". That does not equate to actual design.

Herein one sees the evidence interpreting bias of evolutionary theorists in action. Direct observation of a noun assumed to be deceptive and/or not be real. An observation negated by an interpretive assumption (Naturalism).

> >
> >
> >
> > > And we have NO REASON to assume anything other than design.
> >
> > That's because you refuse to accept anything other than design is
> > possible. That is why you always are going to be subject to the
> > illusion. You assume your own conclusion, rather than testing that
> > conclusion, and finding out of you are right, or wrong.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > The main assumption of Supernaturalism, our interpretive philosophy, supported by direct observation.
> >
> > The only "assumption" here is that you assume your position is correct,
> > without any evidence, thought, or rational process.
> >
> >
> >
> > > How many direct observations support, by contrast, evolution? Answer: none. Evolution is wholly dependent on inference.
> >
> > Ray, all direct observations require inference.

Loony as it gets.

> > Your own position
> > infers actual design, rather than observes it. Worse, your inference
> > is untrustworthy, because you refuse to consider alternate
> > possibilities, and refuse to test your assumptions against real evidence.
> >
> > So far evolution has been directly observed in many scientific studies.
> > No one has EVER observed a supernatural being designing or producing
> > anything.

Darwinian evolution has never been directly observed as it allegedly occurs. How long does it take for mutation to spread in a population? Common descent has never been directly observed as it allegedly occurs. What part of a 4 billion old process did you see while watching? Just post a live action YouTube.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

When you look closer what do you see that makes you conclude for illusion or non-design?

List some examples?

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Please state in for the record.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Correction: Please state it for the record.

Ray

[Robert Camp]

Okay. If your argument is "Appearance of design is not illusory because
you [Ray] continue to observe the appearance of design" it reduces to
"Appearance of design is evidence of appearance of design." It's
tautologous.

[Ray Martinez]

On Monday, February 23, 2015 at 5:40:23 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
> On 2/23/15, 5:10 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Monday, February 23, 2015 at 3:05:25 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
> >
> > [....]
> >
> > Since this topic is also about common descent, help me out: Since
> > macro mutation and single-step selection are voodoo to evolutionary
> > theory, how can ordinary reproduction be a main mechanism causing
> > common descent, especially in higher taxa?
>
> What do you think common descent means?

Unbroken chain of descent ending with man and beginning with one universal common ancestor?

> It has nothing to do with the
> differences between species, which is what you seem to be talking about.
> Descent is just descent. You agree, presumably, that all members of any
> given species are descended from a common ancestor (or perhaps a pair).
> That's exactly the same process by which two related species are
> descended from a common ancestral population. Or three related species.
> Or several million related species.
>
> Now, in order to have a tree of descent, you also need to introduce some
> process by which one population can split into two populations. Then
> again, pure geography would accomplish enough of that to produce some
> kind of tree. Or you could have god wave his wand and make half a
> population stop interbreeding with the other half.
>
> The point is that common descent itself relies on only one process:
> reproduction. A *tree* of common descent relies on one additional
> process: some mechanism of population splitting. Our ability to
> *recover* that tree by examining existing species relies on a third
> process: something that sprinkles changes of some kind through history.

I think I get it now.

I thought you were saying common descent actually occurred by ordinary reproduction because you never stated the remainder, seen above. So I did, for the most part, understand common descent after all.

Unbelievable!

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

I've repeatedly explained that "appearance of design" means "design is observed" and rhetorically "why do living things look designed?" Therefore the conclusion for design is based on *a claim* of direct observation in real time. I see no tautology.

Perhaps you should review the definition of tautology?

Ray

[Dana Tweedy]

No, you are mistaken again. The "main claim" of creationism is
"Goddidit" Appearance of design is a minor point, at best.
Proponents of evolution are more interested in the evidence than
appearances.

>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Appearance of design in life means life appears or looks designed;
>>
>> That's your mistaken assumption.
>
> In this context both "appearance" and "looks" are synonyms.

you are assuming that appears designed means designed.

> So again: Why do living things look or appear designed?

Because natural selection acting on random variations produces that
effect.

> The question is rhetorical and it is based on observation.

The question is not rhetorical, and it's not based on observation. It's
based on the superficial similarity between designed objects, and those
produced by a particular natural process.

> So your claim concerning "mistaken assumption" is completely false.

Wrong again, Ray. You are making an assumption that is mistaken, which
is what I said.

>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>> rephrase: design observed in living things.
>>
>> You haven't observed design. You have observed a resemblance to
>> designed objects. There's a very large difference.
>
> "Appearance" presupposes "by observation."

No, it merely suggests a impression. Observation is more than just
looking at something once, and assuming your own conclusion.

> If not, how was an appearance determined to exist?

By analogy. The appearance was determined to exist by noticing a
similarity with objects known to be designed.

> If a resemblance to design is observed then a conclusion for design remains supported.

Only if one rules out any other conclusion a priori. The proper
conclusion when one notes a resemblance is to look deeper, not assume
you know the answer.

> You don't understand that the correct conception is existence of design or non-existence of design; if the former is true then the next issue is genuine or counterfeit?

Once again, since you ignored it the last time you said this, the
proper "conception" at that juncture is to say "how do I tell", not just
assume you were right, and refuse to consider any other explanation.

For example, when you see a person lying on the ground, you don't
assume that the person is dead, and declare whomever you don't like is
guilty of murder. The proper next step is to see if the person is dead,
or not. You determine if your assumption is, or is not correct. If it
turns out the person is dead, then you need to look for evidence of what
killed the person. If it turns out it was likely to be murder, you need
to start investigating who might have done it, not just assume the guilt.

Your position is akin to finding a person lying along the street,
and hanging someone you don't like on the assumption he's guilty of the
murder.

>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Thus direct observation of a noun gives us no reason to believe or suspect that it is anything else or anything other than real or actual design.
>>
>> But you aren't making a "direct observation" of that "noun". You are
>> making an observation of a few features which bear a resemblance to
>> features found in things that are designed.
>
> Where did you obtain this idea?

From the ability to read, and understand the English language.

You claim you "observe design". I am aware that "design" in the way
you are using it, is an abstract concept, and such can't be observed.
Therefore, in order to make sense of your claim, I must point out that
what you are observing is not the actual process of design, but rather
some features that designed objects are known to possess. From this,it
becomes clear you are inferring that from the similarity to designed
objects, that you've assumed indicates design. You assume that nothing
else than deliberate design can produce such a resemblance, and thus,
you have assumed your own conclusion, ie "appearance of design means
design".


Now, where do you get the idea you can see design? Where do you get
the assumption you can detect design features from just looking at
something? Where do you get the assumption that you'd even recognize
the features of design?


>
> Ray

Here's where Ray seems to have wandered off...

DJT

[John Harshman]

On 2/23/15, 5:58 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Monday, February 23, 2015 at 5:40:23 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 2/23/15, 5:10 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Monday, February 23, 2015 at 3:05:25 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
>>>
>>> [....]
>>>
>>> Since this topic is also about common descent, help me out: Since
>>> macro mutation and single-step selection are voodoo to evolutionary
>>> theory, how can ordinary reproduction be a main mechanism causing
>>> common descent, especially in higher taxa?
>>
>> What do you think common descent means?
>
> Unbroken chain of descent ending with man and beginning with one universal common ancestor?

Wrong in several ways. First, it's not a chain, it's a tree. It doesn't
end with man, it ends with every extant species. It probably does begin
with one universal common ancestral species, but that would be
*universal* common descent, not just common descent. Common descent can
happen at many levels; for example, we could speak of common descent of
all plants, or of all hummingbirds, or of all members of the genus
Curculio.

Notice, however, that nowhere in any of that is any statement about
macromutation or even micromutation.

>> It has nothing to do with the
>> differences between species, which is what you seem to be talking about.
>> Descent is just descent. You agree, presumably, that all members of any
>> given species are descended from a common ancestor (or perhaps a pair).
>> That's exactly the same process by which two related species are
>> descended from a common ancestral population. Or three related species.
>> Or several million related species.
>>
>> Now, in order to have a tree of descent, you also need to introduce some
>> process by which one population can split into two populations. Then
>> again, pure geography would accomplish enough of that to produce some
>> kind of tree. Or you could have god wave his wand and make half a
>> population stop interbreeding with the other half.
>>
>> The point is that common descent itself relies on only one process:
>> reproduction. A *tree* of common descent relies on one additional
>> process: some mechanism of population splitting. Our ability to
>> *recover* that tree by examining existing species relies on a third
>> process: something that sprinkles changes of some kind through history.
>
> I think I get it now.
>
> I thought you were saying common descent actually occurred by
> ordinary reproduction because you never stated the remainder, seen
> above. So I did, for the most part, understand common descent after
> all.

Not really, but you may be slightly closer than before. Only slightly,
though. So, common descent relies on reproduction, nothing more. The
extra two mechanisms aren't required for common descent but for
additional features, i.e. the existence of lots of species and the fact
that all those species are different from each other. Neither of those
additional features is essential to the mere fact of common descent.

> Unbelievable!

It's unbelievable because it isn't true. Still, there may be a ray of
hope. (Hey, a pun!)

[Ray Martinez]

On Monday, February 23, 2015 at 6:20:25 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
> On 2/23/15, 5:58 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Monday, February 23, 2015 at 5:40:23 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 2/23/15, 5:10 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>> On Monday, February 23, 2015 at 3:05:25 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>
> >>> [....]
> >>>
> >>> Since this topic is also about common descent, help me out: Since
> >>> macro mutation and single-step selection are voodoo to evolutionary
> >>> theory, how can ordinary reproduction be a main mechanism causing
> >>> common descent, especially in higher taxa?
> >>
> >> What do you think common descent means?
> >
> > Unbroken chain of descent ending with man and beginning with one universal common ancestor?
>
> Wrong in several ways. First, it's not a chain, it's a tree. It doesn't
> end with man, it ends with every extant species. It probably does begin
> with one universal common ancestral species, but that would be
> *universal* common descent, not just common descent. Common descent can
> happen at many levels; for example, we could speak of common descent of
> all plants, or of all hummingbirds, or of all members of the genus
> Curculio.

I understand. Yet I've seen scholars use CD as I did. I understood what they meant.

>
> Notice, however, that nowhere in any of that is any statement about
> macromutation or even micromutation.
>

I introduced macro mutation and single-step selection in the context of not knowing what I did, in fact, know. I actually thought you were advocating some sort of macro mutation scenario for higher taxa.

But CD can't occur unless speciation or divergence has occurred and divergence can't occur unless micro-modification has occurred. I think you're unintentionally fostering misunderstanding when you say:

"....common descent relies on reproduction, nothing more. The extra two mechanisms aren't required for common descent but for additional features, i.e. the existence of lots of species and the fact that all those species are different from each other. Neither of those additional features is essential to the mere fact of common descent" (JH).

The so called "extra two mechanisms" are indeed required for common descent to proceed?

Ray

[John Harshman]

On 2/23/15, 6:39 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Monday, February 23, 2015 at 6:20:25 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 2/23/15, 5:58 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Monday, February 23, 2015 at 5:40:23 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 2/23/15, 5:10 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, February 23, 2015 at 3:05:25 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> [....]
>>>>>
>>>>> Since this topic is also about common descent, help me out: Since
>>>>> macro mutation and single-step selection are voodoo to evolutionary
>>>>> theory, how can ordinary reproduction be a main mechanism causing
>>>>> common descent, especially in higher taxa?
>>>>
>>>> What do you think common descent means?
>>>
>>> Unbroken chain of descent ending with man and beginning with one universal common ancestor?
>>
>> Wrong in several ways. First, it's not a chain, it's a tree. It doesn't
>> end with man, it ends with every extant species. It probably does begin
>> with one universal common ancestral species, but that would be
>> *universal* common descent, not just common descent. Common descent can
>> happen at many levels; for example, we could speak of common descent of
>> all plants, or of all hummingbirds, or of all members of the genus
>> Curculio.
>
> I understand. Yet I've seen scholars use CD as I did. I understood what they meant.

I have doubts about all three statements.

>> Notice, however, that nowhere in any of that is any statement about
>> macromutation or even micromutation.
>
> I introduced macro mutation and single-step selection in the context
> of not knowing what I did, in fact, know. I actually thought you were
> advocating some sort of macro mutation scenario for higher taxa.

No idea how you came up with that.

Not true. Common descent can occur without speciation. Of course in that
case you get a single population descended from previous single
populations, or you get a set of populations kept separate without
speciation, for example by being separated by fences. You are right at
least that divergence can't occur without some mechanism of change.

> I think you're unintentionally fostering misunderstanding when you
> say:

> "....common descent relies on reproduction, nothing more. The extra
> two mechanisms aren't required for common descent but for additional
> features, i.e. the existence of lots of species and the fact that all
> those species are different from each other. Neither of those
> additional features is essential to the mere fact of common descent"
> (JH).

> The so called "extra two mechanisms" are indeed required for common
> descent to proceed?

No, they aren't. We have three things that you are trying to conflate:

1. Common descent.
2. Branching.
3. Change.

The only necessary relationship among these is that branching can't
occur without common descent and that we can't discern the pattern of
branching, after the fact, unless there has been change. They are three
different things.

It's logically possible to have common descent without branching; it's
logically possible to have both common descent and branching without
change. Now it happens that in the world we see all three of these
things have happened. But there is no necessary connection.

[Dana Tweedy]

I don't claim that existence does not exist. Existence can be wrongly
assumed. I imagine that even Ms Rand knew that.

> Variation is observed to exist. Differential reproduction is observed to exist.

What do you mean by "differential reproduction"? Natural selection is
differential reproductive success, ie differential success in passing
one's genes onto the next generation, determined by phenotype and
environment. I have no idea what you mean by "differential reproduction"

> Likewise design in nature is observed to exist.

Again, Ray, design can't be observed, it can only be inferred from
visible features. You have incorrectly inferred design by assuming that
you can tell the difference between something deliberately manufactured,
and something that was produced by a natural process.

That being said, there ARE known plants and animals in nature that
have been designed by human beings. In that case, "design" does exist
in nature. But one cannot infer that every living thing is designed
just becaue you assume you can recognize design apart from natural
processes.

> Dana: A ten story building stands at the corner of 1st and Main. Does one really have to travel to that intersection to know that it exists? .

I happen to know for a fact that a ten story building does not exist
at the corner of 1st and Main in the town I live in. I can even show you
photos of that corner. I can direct you to Google Maps Street View, and
show you that no such building is there. I can look up county records
that show that no such building is there. I can go to that corner, and
look at the buildings that are there. When I do, I see that no such
building sits there.

Therefore me assuming that such a building exists just because you
claim it does would be foolish of me. It would be even more foolish of
me to make the claim that I can see the construction of that building,
when the building isn't even there.

Now, suppose Google Maps were to make a mistake, or be hacked, and
show the appearance of a 10 story building in my town, I'd be a sucker
to believe it's there, and very foolish to assume it that Google Maps is
unable to be wrong.

That does not mean that 10 story buildings don't exist. That
doesn't mean there might be towns where 10 story buildings do sit on the
corner of 1st and Main. It does mean that it is very foolish to assume
things from appearances, and taking someone elses word without
confirming evidence.

>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> In other words, 'Appearance of design equals appearance of design.'
>>>>
>>>> No, appearance of design which, as a claim, can only be ascertained by observation, equals design, not appearance of design.
>>>
>>> "Appearance of design" as a claim is no different from the appearance of
>>> design "ascertained by observation". They both are assuming "design"
>>> exists because you imagine it looks like something designed.
>
> We have existence of a noun via direct observation.

No you've equivocated one "noun" (design), for the mistaken inference
you've made from observing some features shared with objects that are
produced by that "noun". The direct observation you claim to have
made is only a cursory glace to confirm your bias. You are still
assuming your conclusion, and have not tested your assumptions.

> What more could one want?

Anyone logical could want you to test your assumptions, and try to
disprove your hypothesis. That's what science does. Science doesn't
look only for evidence that confirms evolution, it also looks for any
evidence that would disprove it. That's why falsification is such a
big deal. Ideas that can't be falsified, like creationism, can't be
taken seriously.

You, on the other hand just assume you are right. In doing so, you
lose any chance to tell if you are right, or wrong.


> Inference not needed.

Ray, what you fail to comprehend is that inference is all you have.
You cannot have an observation without inference, and your inference
here is broken. You will only accept one answer, and that answer is
wrong. You can't even see how deficient you are of logic and reason.
You make it worse by accusing others, who can reason, with being
illogical.



That's what you are too afraid to do. That's why you continue to fail.

> What I just wrote is what you're arguing against without any shame or sense of mental incompetence.

Unfortunately, for you, Ray, the mental incompetence is yours, and yours
alone here. What I'm arguing against is you assuming your own
conclusion, and I'm showing you, in detail, why your position is
incorrect. Rather than "shame", I'm proud of what I write, because I
am not agreeing with you. If I were to accept your ineptitude, I would
indeed have reason to be ashamed.

>
>>>
>>> Then you go on to say it's not appearance of design. You contradict
>>> yourself in the same sentence, right after stating the same thing twice.
>>> Quite the feat!
>
> Not true at all.

I know what you wrote is not true at all. That's why I keep pointing
out your error. Go back and read what you wrote. I'll wait.

>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Again, the qualifier does not negate existence of the noun.
>>>
>>>
>>> No one claimed it did. No one is saying that designed objects don't
>>> exist.
>
> Not true; evolution scientists and scholars agree unanimously that designed objects don't exist in nature.

Wrong again, Ray. No "evolution scientist" would be foolish enough to
state such a thing. Cattle, dogs, cats, plants, microbes, etc, etc are
all known to be designed by humans using artificial selection, and
genetic engineering. Do you deny such things exist?

But go on present a single scientific paper that claims that no designed
organisms exist. I dare you to. In fact, I insist.

>
>>> What the discussion is about is how you tell if something is
>>> designed.
>
> Yet you just said designed objects exist in nature.

Absolutely. One can tell if designed objects exist in nature by giving
evidence they were tinkered with by humans. I have three dogs in my
own home that are the result of humans tinkering with artificial
selection.

>
>>> Your own criteria is "it looks like I imagine design would
>>> look like". That does not equate to actual design.
>
> Herein one sees the evidence interpreting bias of evolutionary theorists in action.

Ray, while I can't say I have no bias, I at least am open to the
possibility I could be wrong about evolution being the means by which
diversity was produced. If you, or anyone can show me credible
evidence that evolution is not possible, I'm more than willing to change
my mind. The only "interpreting bias" that scientists hold to in
general is that the evidence means something.

> Direct observation of a noun assumed to be deceptive and/or not be real.

No, merely knowing that the 'noun' you claim is not able to be directly
observed. No scientist assumes that "design in nature" is not real.

What scientists do is to propose and test hypotheses to offer an
explanation for the appearance of design, that does not involve
unnecessary assumptions. Assuming a supernatural designer to account
for the appearance of design is unnecessary, and unwarranted. That's
why science doesn't assume one.

> An observation negated by an interpretive assumption (Naturalism).

No, the observation itself is not "negated". What is "negated" is your
unsupported, unnecessary, and illogical action of assuming your
conclusion. Appearance of design is observed, design is not. Design
is your own inference, and a broken one.

Methodological naturalism is not an "interpretive assumption", it's a
tool used for a specific purpose. That purpose is to rule out ideas
that are untestable, and unfalsifiable.

>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> And we have NO REASON to assume anything other than design.
>>>
>>> That's because you refuse to accept anything other than design is
>>> possible. That is why you always are going to be subject to the
>>> illusion. You assume your own conclusion, rather than testing that
>>> conclusion, and finding out of you are right, or wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> The main assumption of Supernaturalism, our interpretive philosophy, supported by direct observation.
>>>
>>> The only "assumption" here is that you assume your position is correct,
>>> without any evidence, thought, or rational process.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> How many direct observations support, by contrast, evolution? Answer: none. Evolution is wholly dependent on inference.
>>>
>>> Ray, all direct observations require inference.
>
> Loony as it gets.

I agree, your claims are indeed loony as it gets. However if you will
see, what I said is quite true. You can't simply make an observation
without making an inference from that observation. Your inference can
be either informed, or it can be assumed, and ignorant. Your choice.

>
>>> Your own position
>>> infers actual design, rather than observes it. Worse, your inference
>>> is untrustworthy, because you refuse to consider alternate
>>> possibilities, and refuse to test your assumptions against real evidence.
>>>
>>> So far evolution has been directly observed in many scientific studies.
>>> No one has EVER observed a supernatural being designing or producing
>>> anything.
>
> Darwinian evolution has never been directly observed as it allegedly occurs.

On the contrary, evolution has been directly observed in several
scientific studies. You are aware of some of them, even if you dismiss
them as "icons" due to being misguided by Johnathan Wells' claims.

> How long does it take for mutation to spread in a population?

That depends on the generational time of the population. There are many
species that have a generational time of hours, or even less. Those
populations have been observed, and change in their genetic make up has
been directly observed.

> Common descent has never been directly observed as it allegedly occurs.

That too is false. Common descent is directly observed in many
populations. You, yourself, Ray are a product of common descent from
your parents, and grandparents. Dog pedigrees are records of common
descent. Cattle breeding charts, bacterial lineages, family trees. All
of them testify to common descent.

Here's a pedigree chart showing common descent:
http://www.caninepedigree.com/images/5gen.jpg

> What part of a 4 billion old process did you see while watching? Just post a live action YouTube.

Not everything worth observing is included in a you tube video, Ray.
I've watched the common descent of many of my nieces and nephews, as
well as children of friends.


All you have to do, Ray is present a single example of an observed
example of a supernatural being designing and manufacturing anything.

Are you able to?


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

This may have been what you have said, but it's still nonsense, as has
been explained to you repeatedly. Your basis for claiming that design
is observed is that you claim to have observed design. That's the tautology

Everything else is your own unsupported assumptions. You don't have a
direct observation, you don't have a valid conclusion. All you have is
just an assumption. You assume that living things are designed, only
because you want them to be.


> I see no tautology.

You say, while plugging your ears, closing your eyes, and humming loudly....

>
> Perhaps you should review the definition of tautology?

It might be helpful for you to do that, Ray. You seem to have no idea
what one looks like.


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

So is creationism. You two should get a room.

> and Tony was your buddy since he accepted the main claims of the ToE (microevolution, limited macroevolution, and natural selection).

Nope, Ray, he's on your side, the anti science side.

> Did you forget that we had a major falling out over these issues?

Just a lovers quarrel no doubt. In any case, Tony would be able to
give you plenty of "scholars" who propose flat earth, and geocentrism.


>
> Ray (fixist; anti-selectionist)

Should we add "geocentrist" as well?

[Dana Tweedy]

Ray, you were the one who asked for examples of illusions that persist
for a long time. Now you are trying to use them to justify your
assumption that illusions can't last a long time?

>
> We know that the sheer size of the surface of earth caused people to assume flatness;

Just as natural selection can produce the appearance that makes people
assume design.

> and appearance of a sun in motion caused people to believe in geocentrism.

Just like natural selection acting on variation can cause an appearance
that looks a lot like deliberate design.

> So what causes the illusion of design in living things?

Natural selection acting on variations in populations. This produces
adaptive traits that can look like they were designed.

> And since you yourself see no illusion of design in living things, how do you explain that?

presumably because John knows that natural processes can produce
appearances similar to design. Just as when one knows how a magician
does his trick, it is no longer an illusion.

> The ultimate point that I'm making is that design as illusion is, for the most part, if not the whole part, an unexplained claim.

No, it's a finding from the evidence, not a mere claim.

> The fact that you won't and/or can't answer my question indicates the predicament that evolution scholars have placed themselves in. In short I'm making the point that design as illusion is an unexplained assertion.

Why do you assume this? Scientists are well aware of what produces the
appearance of design. Anyone can explain it to you.

> The reason it's unexplained is because evolution scholars don't know what their talking about.

another of your unfounded assumptions.

> They can't readily admit to seeing an illusion so they don't know how the illusion works.

Ray, your claim here is just projecting your own ignorance and duplicity
onto others.

>
> The issue here: how is a very old claim, appearance of design, determined to be a powerful illusion?

By finding the actual process that produced it.

DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

finding a process that produces the appearance of design.


>
> List some examples?

Natural selection acting on variations in a population over generations.

What other processes do you think there are?


DJT

[Robert Camp]

I'm done here, Ray. I can only beat my head against a wall for so long.

If you wish to conclude that I'm throwing in the towel or evading your
penetrating insight that's fine. Though there have been times during
your participation here when you've managed comprehension and reason
passably well, something has gone off your cognitive rails lately. You
are unable to understand the simplest points put to you, and even less
capable of recognizing the inherent illogic of your own arguments.

If you really want your book to reverse Darwin's evil influence you're
going to have to deal with how your arguments are accepted in the real
world. Maybe some therapy or some meds will help you with that.

[Mark Isaak]

On 2/23/15 2:49 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Monday, February 23, 2015 at 2:30:25 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 2/23/15, 12:49 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:

>>> On Monday, February 23, 2015 at 12:45:24 PM UTC-8, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>> On Monday, February 23, 2015 at 11:10:25 AM UTC-8, Greg Guarino wrote:
>>>>> On 2/22/2015 6:15 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>>>> Both false appearance examples and their conclusions are based on
>>>>>> short-term observations. These observations exposed a previous
>>>>>> observation as false or illusory. We are not in the same predicament.
>>>>>> We observe species on a long-term basis. Therefore the short-term
>>>>>> examples cannot be used to harm long-term observations. It is not
>>>>>> possible for very many persons to observe a false appearance on a
>>>>>> long term basis.
>>>>>
>>>>> I "observe" the sun to rise in the East every morning and move across
>>>>> the sky over the (unmoving) Earth in pretty much exactly the same way as
>>>>> human beings observed it as long as they have taken notice of the sky.
>>>>

>>> [...] Now supply the second false long-term observation example.

>>
>> The earth looks flat. The sky looks like a solid roof. No matter how
>> small you split a bit of matter, you can always split it into smaller
>> pieces. The truths of all these appearances were commonplace beliefs for
>> thousands of years.
>
> Yes, good second example indeed; even Atheists thought the world was
> flat (and thought the sun revolved around earth).
>
> I was wondering: Have you EVER seen ANY scholar offer geocentrism
> or flat earth supporting illusion of design in nature? I've been
> researching the issue for quite a while and have never seen a
> scholar offer the former in support of the latter.

I have seen plenty of people use these illusions as examples of
illusions, which destroys your claim about long-term observations.
Therefore the long-term examples can and MUST be used to harm long-term
observations. It is easy for very many persons to observe a false
appearance on a long-term basis.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
found it." - Vaclav Havel

[Mark Isaak]

On 2/23/15 2:41 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Monday, February 23, 2015 at 2:15:24 PM UTC-8, Burkhard wrote:

>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Monday, February 23, 2015 at 11:10:25 AM UTC-8, Greg Guarino wrote:
>>>> On 2/22/2015 6:15 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>>> Both false appearance examples and their conclusions are based on
>>>>> short-term observations. These observations exposed a previous
>>>>> observation as false or illusory. We are not in the same predicament.
>>>>> We observe species on a long-term basis. Therefore the short-term
>>>>> examples cannot be used to harm long-term observations. It is not
>>>>> possible for very many persons to observe a false appearance on a
>>>>> long term basis.
>>>>
>>>> I "observe" the sun to rise in the East every morning and move across
>>>> the sky over the (unmoving) Earth in pretty much exactly the same way as
>>>> human beings observed it as long as they have taken notice of the sky.
>>>

>>> Now give a second example?
>>
>> The common optical illusions.
>> Here a classical example, one of many:
>> http://www.optical-illusion-pictures.com/images/cafe.jpg
>
> Yes, a classic example of optical illusion. But upon close
> inspection the horizontal lines are, in fact, straight. So
> continued observation reveals the true nature of said lines
> as straight.
>>
>> Doesn't matter how often you are told the lines are straight, they still
>> look bend.
>
> Yes, indeed. But upon close observation the lines are straight.

Likewise, upon close observation, life shows indications that it is not
designed.

Your problem, Ray, is that you are afraid to look close.

[Bill]

Dana Tweedy wrote:

...

>>>
>>>> Moreover, your argument contending my claims concerning
>>>> design tautologous should not include the main claim of
>>>> evolution scholars ("illusory") in the opening line.
>>>> Inclusion of this claim presupposes its truth or
>>>> accuracy.
>>>

>>> It does nothing of the kind. It simply - correctly or
>>> not - outlines your argument.
>>
>> Not true; my argument does not include illusion.
>
> Your argument ignores that you are laboring under an
> illusion. This may be because you don't realize how much
> you depend on that illusion.
>
>
>> It eventually addresses illusion only because illusion is
>> a widely accepted evolutionary explanation of design in
>> nature.
>
> Not really. The evolutionary explanation for the
> appearance of design in nature is that natural selection,
> working on random variations
> produces an appearance of design. The illusion is not
> that there is no resemblance to design, but that the
> resemblance is produced by something other than deliberate
> design.
>

Everyone here is probably well aware of most of the
innumerable explanations theories of evolution provide. How
could we not, they flood every possible information source
by every means available. The explanations are legion. The
problem is not that the explanations aren't known but that
they are not known to be correct. That's where the
controversy comes in.

The well known standard defintions and terms and processes
all fall into the category of Thing's-Explained and the test
of the explanations is that they conform to their category.
Yes the explanations explain simply because that's their
whole purpose. The existence of explanations is one thing
and what they purport to explain is something else.

I think I prefer to believe the explanation that things are
explained to perpetuate the need to explain things.
Explaining is a major industry after all and explainers
actually make a living wage with their explanations.

It's an unfortunate side-effect of all this that there will
be some who will take the explanations seriously. We see
them quite often in Usenet newsgroups, foraging for
controversy. They reveal themselves with their boisterous
claims of certainty and condescending dismissal of every
other claim of certainty.

Beware: they lurk, going to and fro seeking whom they may
befuddle.


Bill

[Ray Martinez]

Are you saying existing species B descended from existing species A? If so, how?

> You are right at
> least that divergence can't occur without some mechanism of change.

I'm hardly comforted.

>
> > I think you're unintentionally fostering misunderstanding when you
> > say:
>
> > "....common descent relies on reproduction, nothing more. The extra
> > two mechanisms aren't required for common descent but for additional
> > features, i.e. the existence of lots of species and the fact that all
> > those species are different from each other. Neither of those
> > additional features is essential to the mere fact of common descent"
> > (JH).
>
> > The so called "extra two mechanisms" are indeed required for common
> > descent to proceed?
>
> No, they aren't. We have three things that you are trying to conflate:
>
> 1. Common descent.
> 2. Branching.
> 3. Change.

I'm not trying to conflate anything; rather, I'm trying or struggling to understand. That's why I'm using question marks.

>
> The only necessary relationship among these is that branching can't
> occur without common descent and that we can't discern the pattern of
> branching, after the fact, unless there has been change. They are three
> different things.
>
> It's logically possible to have common descent without branching; it's
> logically possible to have both common descent and branching without
> change. Now it happens that in the world we see all three of these
> things have happened. But there is no necessary connection.

Said in plain English but I have no idea what it means.

Is this a true statement: Macroevolution can't occur unless microevolution has occurred?

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Evasion noted.

> Sometimes, you argue that
> when you say you want to distinguish "counterfeit" appearance from
> reliable appearance, and that the only thing necessary for an appearance
> to exist is the phenomenological sense impression, regardless of whether
> it refers to an external object or not.

You haven't conveyed my position. One would think that IF I'm so wrong that the Evolutionists would be eager to address EXACTLY what I've said and argued. But that's not the case. Instead the Evolutionists address a tangential or sloppy version of my arguments. This on-going failure confirms, in my mind, the accuracy of my uncomplicated arguments.

>
> But in that case, we have here an example of a persistent yet
> counterfeit appearance - our knowledge and our theories tell us one
> thing, the appearance another.
>
> Now suddenly you seem to backtrack and claim that the appearance side
> doesn't matter any longer, and that it is trumped by our theories

I have no idea what you're talking about. I've said that appearance of design trumps explanation of evidence in favor of common descent. One time I remarked that I could see why you guys think CD has occurred; but again, all in the larger context of appearance of design trumping this explanation.

>
> So now is a good time to make whatever point you're making in regard
> to living things?
> >
> Well, simple. Living things might look designed (personally, I don't see
> it, but for the sake of the argument) but as soon as look closer and do
> measurements, we realize that they aren't in any meaningful way
>
>
> Just as in the example of the optical illusion, it has the appearance of
> bend lines (and an appearance that persists even after we know better),
> yet once we look closer and make measurements, we realize they aren't

Rest assured all is not lost: I believe you have provided an excellent example and argument explaining design as an illusion. This is what I've been looking for. This is one reason why I'm taking the time to post at Talk.Origins for an extended period.

A key aspect of your explanation of design as an illusion is the fact that you admit to not seeing the illusion.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Creationist scientists, who founded science and the biological sciences, looked close for hundreds of years and remained convinced of design. The ball is back in your court.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

But the issue is how can very many people observe an **illusion** on a long-term basis and not know it?

Since those who advocate design as an illusion don't see the illusion themselves, we have a problem.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

All your reply means is that you can't support your claim of tautology and you won't admit.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Monday, February 23, 2015 at 2:40:24 PM UTC-8, Dana Tweedy wrote:

> On 2/23/15 1:44 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Monday, February 23, 2015 at 11:10:25 AM UTC-8, Greg Guarino wrote:
> >> On 2/22/2015 6:15 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>> Both false appearance examples and their conclusions are based on
> >>> short-term observations. These observations exposed a previous
> >>> observation as false or illusory. We are not in the same predicament.
> >>> We observe species on a long-term basis. Therefore the short-term
> >>> examples cannot be used to harm long-term observations. It is not
> >>> possible for very many persons to observe a false appearance on a
> >>> long term basis.
> >>
> >> I "observe" the sun to rise in the East every morning and move across
> >> the sky over the (unmoving) Earth in pretty much exactly the same way as
> >> human beings observed it as long as they have taken notice of the sky.
> >

> > Now give a second example?
>

> Why? The first example is quite enough to destroy your claims.

>
> >
> > There are two examples of false short-term observations in play.
>

> The above is an example of a long term observation, Ray.
>
> > Now supply the second.
>
> There's no reason to supply a second, but the "moon illusion" is another
> one. The moon when it rises over a horizon looks like it is much bigger
> than it is. This illusion is constantly observed, and may be observed
> any time the moon rises.
>
> DJT

That's a good one too; as is the red moon appearance when an eclipse occurs. Seen it myself two times recently.

Ray

[Robert Camp]

Wow. It's been a long time since I've seen anyone other than a
politician use so many words to say absolutely nothing.

"And, you know, when you’re telling these little stories, here’s a good
idea: have a point. It makes it so much more interesting for the
listener!" Steve Martin - Planes, Trains and Automobiles

[Bill]

The point is that everyone is equally clueless while certain
they're not. I like the part where someone protests, "I have
all the answers because I'm really smart but no one sems to
care!".

Bill

[John Harshman]

No. I don't understand how you can read a paragraph in which it's
assumed that speciation never happens and come out with speciation.

>> You are right at
>> least that divergence can't occur without some mechanism of change.
>
> I'm hardly comforted.

Hey, you got something right. Be happy; only once more and you'll be a
stopped clock.

>>> I think you're unintentionally fostering misunderstanding when you
>>> say:
>>
>>> "....common descent relies on reproduction, nothing more. The extra
>>> two mechanisms aren't required for common descent but for additional
>>> features, i.e. the existence of lots of species and the fact that all
>>> those species are different from each other. Neither of those
>>> additional features is essential to the mere fact of common descent"
>>> (JH).
>>
>>> The so called "extra two mechanisms" are indeed required for common
>>> descent to proceed?
>>
>> No, they aren't. We have three things that you are trying to conflate:
>>
>> 1. Common descent.
>> 2. Branching.
>> 3. Change.
>
> I'm not trying to conflate anything; rather, I'm trying or struggling to understand. That's why I'm using question marks.

Did you understand that? Three different things.

>> The only necessary relationship among these is that branching can't
>> occur without common descent and that we can't discern the pattern of
>> branching, after the fact, unless there has been change. They are three
>> different things.
>>
>> It's logically possible to have common descent without branching; it's
>> logically possible to have both common descent and branching without
>> change. Now it happens that in the world we see all three of these
>> things have happened. But there is no necessary connection.
>
> Said in plain English but I have no idea what it means.
>
> Is this a true statement: Macroevolution can't occur unless microevolution has occurred?

I'm afraid that depends on what you mean by those two terms. Now if
"microevolution" means allele frequency change in a population, and
"macroevolution" means speciation or species divergence then I would
certainly agree that species divergence can't occur unless some allele
frequency changes happen in at least one of two diverging populations.
Of course it's possible that god could have poofed those allele
frequency changes into existence by magic, which puts design into
microevolution.

[Burkhard]

What evasion? I point out, directly in reply to your claim, that your
statements are inconsistent.

>
>> Sometimes, you argue that
>> when you say you want to distinguish "counterfeit" appearance from
>> reliable appearance, and that the only thing necessary for an appearance
>> to exist is the phenomenological sense impression, regardless of whether
>> it refers to an external object or not.
>
> You haven't conveyed my position.

One would think that IF I'm so wrong that the Evolutionists would be
eager to address EXACTLY what I've said and argued.

That's what we try to do. Unfortunately your argument, for the reasons I
stated, is so muddled that nobody understands what it is you try to say.
Again: You have explicitly distinguished counterfeit from real
appearance, and both from the question of existence.

Yet now confronted with some pretty straightforward examples from
everyday life, you seem to give up that distinction. In the case of the
optical illusion e.g. you now claim that even though the appearance
persists in the eye of the observer, it doesn't count as an example that
appearance continues to exist even when we learn better

But that's not the case. Instead the Evolutionists address a
tangential or sloppy version of my arguments.

This on-going failure confirms, in my mind, the accuracy of my
uncomplicated arguments.

It simply confirms your inability to formulate a coherent position

>
>>
>> But in that case, we have here an example of a persistent yet
>> counterfeit appearance - our knowledge and our theories tell us one
>> thing, the appearance another.
>>
>> Now suddenly you seem to backtrack and claim that the appearance side
>> doesn't matter any longer, and that it is trumped by our theories
>
> I have no idea what you're talking about. I've said that appearance of design trumps explanation of evidence in favor of common descent.

And here in the example, you say that explanation through the theory of
optics and the theory of measurement trumps the appearance of bending
lines. So you make entirely ad hoc (note the correct use of the term)
decisions when appearance trumps theory (whenever it suits you) and when
theory trumps appearance.

[Dana Tweedy]

Actually, that the reply means, Ray, is that Robert is getting tired of
your denial, and refusal to admit your own errors. His pointing out of
your tautology is quite sufficient for anyone who understands English,
and knows what a tautology really is. I imagine that leaves you out.

DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

There are any number of reasons why many people can continue to be
fooled by illusions for a long time. One of the more common is
confirmation bias. People who want to believe something will hang on
to their illusions, despite massive evidence to the contrary. You, for
example, are the poster child for that.

>
> Since those who advocate design as an illusion don't see the illusion themselves, we have a problem.

Those who point out that assuming design from just appearances may, or
may not see there is such an illusion, it's not a genuine problem. It's
only a problem for those who hang onto their illusion, despite all the
evidence to the contrary.


DJT



>
> Ray
>

[Dana Tweedy]

Just like your attempt to see "design" your implication of "evasion" is
also faulty.

>
>> Sometimes, you argue that
>> when you say you want to distinguish "counterfeit" appearance from
>> reliable appearance, and that the only thing necessary for an appearance
>> to exist is the phenomenological sense impression, regardless of whether
>> it refers to an external object or not.
>
> You haven't conveyed my position.

He's accurately conveyed what you have been claiming. Whether or not
that's what you mean, is anyone's guess.

> One would think that IF I'm so wrong that the Evolutionists would be eager to address EXACTLY what I've said and argued. But that's not the case. Instead the Evolutionists address a tangential or sloppy version of my arguments. This on-going failure confirms, in my mind, the accuracy of my uncomplicated arguments.
>

The problem is, Ray, that your audience has to respond to what you've
actually wrote, not what you imagine you might be saying. Since you
demonstrate regularly that you don't even understand what you've
written, it is even more difficult for others, outside your head, to
decipher what you mean.

Of course, you would incorrectly assume your position is both
accurate and "uncomplicated". Assuming your own conclusion is what you
do best.

>>
>> But in that case, we have here an example of a persistent yet
>> counterfeit appearance - our knowledge and our theories tell us one
>> thing, the appearance another.
>>
>> Now suddenly you seem to backtrack and claim that the appearance side
>> doesn't matter any longer, and that it is trumped by our theories
>
> I have no idea what you're talking about.

Perhaps because you don't understand the implications of your own claims.

First you claim that appearances are all that matter in order to tell
if something is true.

Then you come up with this above, where you claim that the brain, and
mind have the ability to see past mere appearances.


Burkhard is pointing out the inconsistency.

> I've said that appearance of design trumps explanation of evidence in favor of common descent.

Which is wrong, and frankly bizarre, but if that's what you want to
convey...

> One time I remarked that I could see why you guys think CD has occurred;

The reason why people conclude that common descent has occurred is that
it's the most sensible, and most rational interpretation of the evidence.

> but again, all in the larger context of appearance of design trumping this explanation.

and it's been explained to you in excruciating detail, why mere
appearance does not 'trump' real physical evidence. Appearance is
merely resemblance, not identity.


Farther above, you also stated that the mind can see through mere
appearances, leaving your whole argument in tatters.

>
>>
>> So now is a good time to make whatever point you're making in regard
>> to living things?
>>>
>> Well, simple. Living things might look designed (personally, I don't see
>> it, but for the sake of the argument) but as soon as look closer and do
>> measurements, we realize that they aren't in any meaningful way
>>
>>
>> Just as in the example of the optical illusion, it has the appearance of
>> bend lines (and an appearance that persists even after we know better),
>> yet once we look closer and make measurements, we realize they aren't
>
> Rest assured all is not lost: I believe you have provided an excellent example and argument explaining design as an illusion.

too bad Ray hasn't understood a word of it.

> This is what I've been looking for. This is one reason why I'm taking the time to post at Talk.Origins for an extended period.

Because it's easier to waste time here, than pretend to "work" on your
book?

>
> A key aspect of your explanation of design as an illusion is the fact that you admit to not seeing the illusion.

Which would not matter if you had any ability to understand the point.


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

That is because they didn't consider any other possibility to account
for it. The moment people began considering other causes for the
appearance of design, both Wallace, and Darwin found a more rational
cause for that appearance.

> The ball is back in your court.

Ray, you have whiffed every serve made to you. All the balls remain on
your side.

DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

So, according to you, the moon must actually increase in size, and turn
red, in those instances, rather than being optical illusions produced by
specific conditions. If you don't accept that, why would you accept
that the illusion of design must mean there is deliberate design in
living things? (other than human tampering)


DJT

[Greg Guarino]

On 2/24/2015 7:07 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> But the issue is how can very many people observe an **illusion** on
> a long-term basis and not know it?

For how many years do you imagine that essentially everyone thought the
earth was flat and stationary? As long as humans have existed, minus a
couple of centuries, and even then only among those lucky enough to have
some sort of education.

They didn't know it was an illusion because detecting the illusion
requires systematic detailed observation and perhaps a stroke of genius,
after which lesser minds like us can grasp the theory.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

[Robert Camp]

That's not a point, it's a set of baseless assertions. It's manifestly
obvious that not everyone is "equally clueless." It's also obvious that
not everyone is certain they're not clueless - even while it is just as
clear that some are comparatively much more clued-in than others.

Worst of all, you're still peddling your now all-too-familiar strawman
of other people's positions - "I have all the answers..." This isn't
insightful, it isn't even-handed, and it isn't anywhere close to
accurate. It's your postmodern attempt to carve out space for your airy,
new-agey notions.

The world doesn't work that way. We can know things, and some people
know more than others. If your opinions don't get a lot of respect, it
might be because you're one of the others.

[Dana Tweedy]

The theories regarding evolution are as accurate as can be expected with
the evidence available. Since there's no way to know every detail, the
best one can do is to fit the theory to the evidence.

> The well known standard defintions and terms and processes
> all fall into the category of Thing's-Explained and the test
> of the explanations is that they conform to their category.
> Yes the explanations explain simply because that's their
> whole purpose. The existence of explanations is one thing
> and what they purport to explain is something else.

ah...ok...

>
> I think I prefer to believe the explanation that things are
> explained to perpetuate the need to explain things.
> Explaining is a major industry after all and explainers
> actually make a living wage with their explanations.

Of course, having an explanation that can be tested, and has been
confirmed by the evidence proves to be rather useful when it comes to
interaction with the real world. The only reason people can make a
living wage offering explanations is if the explanations are of some
use. People tend to favor explanations that prove useful. That's why
evolution, as an explanation for diversity is well accepted, and used
often in industry and agriculture.

>
> It's an unfortunate side-effect of all this that there will
> be some who will take the explanations seriously.

Yeah, all this feeding the world stuff, curing and treating diseases,
and gaining an understanding of our collective ancestry is just silly.
No one needs to take that seriously.

> We see
> them quite often in Usenet newsgroups, foraging for
> controversy. They reveal themselves with their boisterous
> claims of certainty and condescending dismissal of every
> other claim of certainty.

Yes, usually we call those who have claims of certainty, and
condescending dismissal of other claims "Creationists".

People who accept evolution usually understand that all science is
provisional, and the no one can claim certainty. The best we can hope
for is close correspondence with the evidence.

>
> Beware: they lurk, going to and fro seeking whom they may
> befuddle.

Thanks for the warning. I'll keep an eye out for creationists.


DJT

[Mark Isaak]

Yes. Routinely, very many people observe illusions on a long-term basis
and do not know it. You have acknowledged as much. It happens with all
kinds of illusions, from solid firmament, to design in life, to
effectiveness of astrology. And no, the issue is not *how* this
happens; the issue is the plain and obvious fact that it does.

> Since those who advocate design as an illusion don't see the
> illusion themselves, we have a problem.

First and most obvious, you are rationalizing. You are obviously trying
to hide from the truth.

Second, your premise is patently false. Many people see the illusion
and, at the same time, recognize that it is an illusion. Perhaps you
know that people have written articles and books about illusions. That
would not be possible unless those people can see both the illusion and
the reality.

Third, related back to the first, yes you do have a problem. Have you
ever considered admitting what it is and doing something about it?

[Mark Isaak]

First, who gives a damn what other people think or thought? My interest
is in what the evidence shows. Obviously yours is not, which means all
your appeal to appearances is meaningless from the start. If I want to
discuss art, I'll get back to you.

Second, the vast bulk of biological evidence -- particularly genetic
sequences and biochemical details -- only became available for anybody
to look at in the last 30 years or so.

[Roger Shrubber]

I'm inserting my thoughts into the thread moreso than in response to
this particular post.

I find this discussion muddled because the meaning of the
keys words (appearance, design, observed, and illusion)
are shifting. In fact, the construction 'observed the
appearance of design' is abominable mush. You can tell
by asking what is really meant by each of the words
and subsequently discovering that each is non-standard.

It seems to be distilled down from:
literally observing things and the relationships between things;
recognizing _features_ of said things and said relationships
as features found in designed things;
and then labeling/characterizing those common features as
an appearance (of design).
If it means something else, I'd like to know what that is.

So in "observed the appearance of design", observe does not
mean direct observation in the literal sense (it's a very
compounded and complex 'observation'), and appearance does
not mean the direct sensory nature of what is being observed
but is instead a complex and derived assemblage of features,
and design is itself a reference to some presumed shared
referential knowledge about the process captured by the
verb to design.

That makes it a very bad construct to use in promoting an argument.

I did a web search for the strange construction "observed the
appearance". I did that because that particular construction
makes my skin crawl. Maybe that is a problem specific to me so
I surveyed its usage. I gather that most people who use it are
referring to the process of visually examining how some object's
"appearance" is subject to outside factors, like lighting or
background. In that context, it makes some sense to construct
"observe the appearance" but that's not the context of "observe
the appearance of design". It's not even close.

Here's an optical illusion regarding observing the appearance
of two squares on a checkered board.
http://web.mit.edu/persci/people/adelson/checkershadow_illusion.html

You can talk about _observing_the_appearance_ of shades of grey in
the squares labeled A and B. Doing so helps us understand the way
that context affects our perception. It's informative that it does
so at a subconscious level. Knowing better does not change the
appearance of differences where none exists. You could create that
optical illusion from a paint by numbers kit and know. as well as
anyone can know, that squares A and B are the same shade but your
eyes will still "observe" them to be different.

So my plea is to use better, more exacting language to make whatever
claims are being made about observing design.

Hummingbirds as an example.
We can observe many things about hummingbirds. Some have
very long beaks. These beaks protect very long tongues.
These tongues work well to lick nectar off deep flowers.
Their wings are structured to permit hovering. It all fits
together in a way that someone might say is designed
to let hummingbirds feed on deep flowers, and for the
flowers to be pollinated by hummingbirds that are feeding.
Is this an "observation of the appearance of design"?

The actual observations are of beaks, tongues, wings, flying
and flowers, plus many more compound observations of life-cycles
of flowers, insects, other birds. These observations are then
united in some framework for how these units fit together. That
construction is not an observation in the same sense as observing
the lengths on beaks or tongues. Length observation are mostly direct
and objective. Going past those into "observing" function and
purpose of long tongues and beaks is very different. It needs be
acknowledged as different, the teleology should be explicitly
acknowledged. If not, it can produce circular reasoning.

And what, precisely and explicitly, goes into inferring that
the combination of features observed in hummingbirds and flowers
"appears" to be designed? I think it is the multiple features,
with fairly specific attributes, required in combination, that
when taken together are reminiscent of designed objects. I have
observed designed objects that involve multiple parts, that are
rather specific in their individual natures, that interact in
specific ways. So yes, we can identify a set of features of a
designed object that are in common with a set of features we observe
in a biological system. To the extent that observing a common
set of features constitutes an appearance of similarity, we
absolutely observe a similarity between hummingbirds (and the
flowers they feed on) and designed systems. However that is a
weak extent because it is just a matter of finding some
features in common.

I doubt anyone would dispute that sense of "appearance". However,
when made explicit like that, there is a huge gap to cross to turn
that 'appearance of design' into an observation of design. Doing so
requires that one be able to assign those observed features as
exclusive properties of things that are designed. That has not been done.

All Ray needs to do is to demonstrate that the features he
actually observes, or the combinations of features that he
actually observes, are in fact exclusive to things that were
designed, with "designed" explicitly meaning planned with
forethought and a purpose in mind and not some alternative
equivocation of 'design' that does not explicitly require an
agent that planned with forethought.

[Ray Martinez]

How can CD occur without speciation having occurred? AND, if you don't mind: occurrence of CD, as you've explained it, is the explanation itself potentially falsifiable (if so what is it)? Or is the explanation exempt from falsification requirements?

>
> >> You are right at
> >> least that divergence can't occur without some mechanism of change.
> >
> > I'm hardly comforted.
>
> Hey, you got something right. Be happy; only once more and you'll be a
> stopped clock.
>
> >>> I think you're unintentionally fostering misunderstanding when you
> >>> say:
> >>
> >>> "....common descent relies on reproduction, nothing more. The extra
> >>> two mechanisms aren't required for common descent but for additional
> >>> features, i.e. the existence of lots of species and the fact that all
> >>> those species are different from each other. Neither of those
> >>> additional features is essential to the mere fact of common descent"
> >>> (JH).
> >>
> >>> The so called "extra two mechanisms" are indeed required for common
> >>> descent to proceed?
> >>
> >> No, they aren't. We have three things that you are trying to conflate:
> >>
> >> 1. Common descent.
> >> 2. Branching.
> >> 3. Change.
> >
> > I'm not trying to conflate anything; rather, I'm trying or struggling to understand. That's why I'm using question marks.
>
> Did you understand that? Three different things.

Yes, but what I don't understand is your seemingly "strange claim" that these three separate things are not interdependent?

>
> >> The only necessary relationship among these is that branching can't
> >> occur without common descent and that we can't discern the pattern of
> >> branching, after the fact, unless there has been change. They are three
> >> different things.
> >>
> >> It's logically possible to have common descent without branching; it's
> >> logically possible to have both common descent and branching without
> >> change. Now it happens that in the world we see all three of these
> >> things have happened. But there is no necessary connection.
> >
> > Said in plain English but I have no idea what it means.
> >
> > Is this a true statement: Macroevolution can't occur unless microevolution has occurred?
>
> I'm afraid that depends on what you mean by those two terms. Now if
> "microevolution" means allele frequency change in a population, and
> "macroevolution" means speciation or species divergence then I would
> certainly agree that species divergence can't occur unless some allele
> frequency changes happen in at least one of two diverging populations.

Can you assure me that the ToE never relies on macro mutation or single-step selection?

> Of course it's possible that god could have poofed those allele
> frequency changes into existence by magic, which puts design into
> microevolution.

Here is how I think about evolutionary theory:

I don't see why evolutionary scientists care about changes that don't contribute to speciation. The only changes that matter are these changes; therefore all change that contributes to speciation and/or divergence is microevolution. Macroevolution, therefore, is accumulated microevolution. The health of the ToE is wholly dependent on explaining adaptation----namely, the evolution of reproductive mechanisms. IF a solid core explanation exists then every other problem or obstacle that the ToE faces is a downhill obstacle or problem.

Ray

[John Harshman]

In the ordinary way that descent occurs within a population. Consider
also that one population may become geographically separated from
another for quite a long time. Consider, for example, Australia, which
was for some 40,000 years separated (though not completely; let's ignore
that) from Asia, such that all the ancestors of the Australian
population (pre-European contact) for that period were separate from the
ancestors of the Asian population. That's branching without speciation.

> AND, if you don't mind: occurrence of CD, as you've explained it, is
> the explanation itself potentially falsifiable (if so what is it)? Or
> is the explanation exempt from falsification requirements?

Common descent is certainly falsifiable. If we didn't see the pattern in
the data that we expect from common descent, that would do it.

>>>> You are right at
>>>> least that divergence can't occur without some mechanism of change.
>>>
>>> I'm hardly comforted.
>>
>> Hey, you got something right. Be happy; only once more and you'll be a
>> stopped clock.
>>
>>>>> I think you're unintentionally fostering misunderstanding when you
>>>>> say:
>>>>
>>>>> "....common descent relies on reproduction, nothing more. The extra
>>>>> two mechanisms aren't required for common descent but for additional
>>>>> features, i.e. the existence of lots of species and the fact that all
>>>>> those species are different from each other. Neither of those
>>>>> additional features is essential to the mere fact of common descent"
>>>>> (JH).
>>>>
>>>>> The so called "extra two mechanisms" are indeed required for common
>>>>> descent to proceed?
>>>>
>>>> No, they aren't. We have three things that you are trying to conflate:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Common descent.
>>>> 2. Branching.
>>>> 3. Change.
>>>
>>> I'm not trying to conflate anything; rather, I'm trying or struggling to understand. That's why I'm using question marks.
>>
>> Did you understand that? Three different things.
>
> Yes, but what I don't understand is your seemingly "strange claim" that these three separate things are not interdependent?

They have the relationships I have described, which is to some degree
interdependent. Just not to the degree you seem to be thinking.

>>>> The only necessary relationship among these is that branching can't
>>>> occur without common descent and that we can't discern the pattern of
>>>> branching, after the fact, unless there has been change. They are three
>>>> different things.
>>>>
>>>> It's logically possible to have common descent without branching; it's
>>>> logically possible to have both common descent and branching without
>>>> change. Now it happens that in the world we see all three of these
>>>> things have happened. But there is no necessary connection.
>>>
>>> Said in plain English but I have no idea what it means.
>>>
>>> Is this a true statement: Macroevolution can't occur unless microevolution has occurred?
>>
>> I'm afraid that depends on what you mean by those two terms. Now if
>> "microevolution" means allele frequency change in a population, and
>> "macroevolution" means speciation or species divergence then I would
>> certainly agree that species divergence can't occur unless some allele
>> frequency changes happen in at least one of two diverging populations.
>
> Can you assure me that the ToE never relies on macro mutation or single-step selection?

I'm not sure what you mean by "the ToE" or "relies". Certainly nothing
rules out these possibilities, but neither do they seem necessary to
account for anything we know of.

>> Of course it's possible that god could have poofed those allele
>> frequency changes into existence by magic, which puts design into
>> microevolution.
>
> Here is how I think about evolutionary theory:
>
> I don't see why evolutionary scientists care about changes that don't
> contribute to speciation. The only changes that matter are these
> changes; therefore all change that contributes to speciation and/or
> divergence is microevolution. Macroevolution, therefore, is
> accumulated microevolution. The health of the ToE is wholly dependent
> on explaining adaptation----namely, the evolution of reproductive
> mechanisms. IF a solid core explanation exists then every other
> problem or obstacle that the ToE faces is a downhill obstacle or
> problem.

You really have to stop using that term "therefore" or any of its
synonyms, because it invariably precedes a non sequitur. Nor do you seem
to understand what speciation is, or even what adaptation is. Anyway,
not a single sentence above is true except the first one, i.e. that you
don't see.

[Ray Martinez]

On Monday, February 23, 2015 at 7:40:24 PM UTC-8, Dana Tweedy wrote:
> On 2/23/15 5:40 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Monday, February 23, 2015 at 3:05:25 PM UTC-8, Dana Tweedy wrote:

> >> On 2/23/15 3:49 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>> On Monday, February 23, 2015 at 2:30:25 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> On 2/23/15, 12:49 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:

> >>>>> On Monday, February 23, 2015 at 12:45:24 PM UTC-8, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>>>>> On Monday, February 23, 2015 at 11:10:25 AM UTC-8, Greg Guarino wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 2/22/2015 6:15 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Both false appearance examples and their conclusions are based on
> >>>>>>>> short-term observations. These observations exposed a previous
> >>>>>>>> observation as false or illusory. We are not in the same predicament.
> >>>>>>>> We observe species on a long-term basis. Therefore the short-term
> >>>>>>>> examples cannot be used to harm long-term observations. It is not
> >>>>>>>> possible for very many persons to observe a false appearance on a
> >>>>>>>> long term basis.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I "observe" the sun to rise in the East every morning and move across
> >>>>>>> the sky over the (unmoving) Earth in pretty much exactly the same way as
> >>>>>>> human beings observed it as long as they have taken notice of the sky.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Now give a second example?
> >>>>>>

> >>>>>> There are two examples of false short-term observations in play. Now supply the second.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Ray
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Should have said: Now supply the second false long-term observation example.

> >>>>
> >>>> The earth looks flat. The sky looks like a solid roof. No matter how
> >>>> small you split a bit of matter, you can always split it into smaller
> >>>> pieces. The truths of all these appearances were commonplace beliefs for
> >>>> thousands of years.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, good second example indeed; even Atheists thought the world was flat (and thought the sun revolved around earth).
> >>>
> >>> I was wondering: Have you EVER seen ANY scholar offer geocentrism or flat earth supporting illusion of design in nature?
> >>

> >> There are plenty of "scholars" equal to your creationist "scholars" who
> >> have supported flat earth, and geocentrism.
> >>
> >> http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/
> >>
> >> http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/
> >>
> >> Your buddy Tony Pagano could give you much more info.
> >
> > Geocentrism is laughable nonsense;
>
> So is creationism. You two should get a room.

Since Tony accepts natural selection causing microevolution, like yourself, you guys already have a room and are in bed with one another.

>
>
> > and Tony was your buddy since he accepted the main claims of the ToE (microevolution, limited macroevolution, and natural selection).
>
> Nope, Ray, he's on your side, the anti science side.

Like all YECs, he accepts, like yourself, NS, micro, limited macro. I reject NS and micro, remember? I don't blame you for not liking a geocentrist in your bed.

>
>
> > Did you forget that we had a major falling out over these issues?
>
> Just a lovers quarrel no doubt. In any case, Tony would be able to
> give you plenty of "scholars" who propose flat earth, and geocentrism.

The geocentrist and Evolutionist is in your bed. I'm a fixist or real anti-evolutionist.

>
>
> >
> > Ray (fixist; anti-selectionist)
>
> Should we add "geocentrist" as well?

Geocentrism is laughable nonsense. I've always been taught that geocentrism is the land where idiots dwell. Tony is a complete idiot. He seems to think that just because physicists acknowledge the evidence as potentially supporting geocentrism that this objective fact means geocentrism could be true. In other words he abuses the evidence. No physicist was actually saying that. If geocentrism is true then the laws of gravitation exist in a state of falsification; for what could possibly cause an object one million times larger than earth to revolve around an object one million times smaller than the sun? Tony always evaded points of logic, as all Evolutionists do.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Baffling.

Consider this: When a mass extinction event occurs biodiversity makes a quick come back. Special creation supported; CD falsified.

>
> > AND, if you don't mind: occurrence of CD, as you've explained it, is
> > the explanation itself potentially falsifiable (if so what is it)? Or
> > is the explanation exempt from falsification requirements?
>
> Common descent is certainly falsifiable. If we didn't see the pattern in
> the data that we expect from common descent, that would do it.

No, I'm asking about the cause of CD: is it falsifiable and if so what is it? I don't see how reproduction is subject to falsification requirements?

>
> >>>> You are right at
> >>>> least that divergence can't occur without some mechanism of change.
> >>>
> >>> I'm hardly comforted.
> >>
> >> Hey, you got something right. Be happy; only once more and you'll be a
> >> stopped clock.
> >>
> >>>>> I think you're unintentionally fostering misunderstanding when you
> >>>>> say:
> >>>>
> >>>>> "....common descent relies on reproduction, nothing more. The extra
> >>>>> two mechanisms aren't required for common descent but for additional
> >>>>> features, i.e. the existence of lots of species and the fact that all
> >>>>> those species are different from each other. Neither of those
> >>>>> additional features is essential to the mere fact of common descent"
> >>>>> (JH).
> >>>>
> >>>>> The so called "extra two mechanisms" are indeed required for common
> >>>>> descent to proceed?
> >>>>
> >>>> No, they aren't. We have three things that you are trying to conflate:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1. Common descent.
> >>>> 2. Branching.
> >>>> 3. Change.
> >>>
> >>> I'm not trying to conflate anything; rather, I'm trying or struggling to understand. That's why I'm using question marks.
> >>
> >> Did you understand that? Three different things.
> >
> > Yes, but what I don't understand is your seemingly "strange claim" that these three separate things are not interdependent?
>
> They have the relationships I have described, which is to some degree
> interdependent. Just not to the degree you seem to be thinking.

All three are interdependent. I've never seen any evolution scholar explain CD as you have.

>
> >>>> The only necessary relationship among these is that branching can't
> >>>> occur without common descent and that we can't discern the pattern of
> >>>> branching, after the fact, unless there has been change. They are three
> >>>> different things.
> >>>>
> >>>> It's logically possible to have common descent without branching; it's
> >>>> logically possible to have both common descent and branching without
> >>>> change. Now it happens that in the world we see all three of these
> >>>> things have happened. But there is no necessary connection.
> >>>
> >>> Said in plain English but I have no idea what it means.
> >>>
> >>> Is this a true statement: Macroevolution can't occur unless microevolution has occurred?
> >>
> >> I'm afraid that depends on what you mean by those two terms. Now if
> >> "microevolution" means allele frequency change in a population, and
> >> "macroevolution" means speciation or species divergence then I would
> >> certainly agree that species divergence can't occur unless some allele
> >> frequency changes happen in at least one of two diverging populations.
> >
> > Can you assure me that the ToE never relies on macro mutation or single-step selection?
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "the ToE" or "relies". Certainly nothing
> rules out these possibilities, but neither do they seem necessary to
> account for anything we know of.

Evolutionary explanations never rely on miracles (macro mutation or single-step selection). Therefore the ToE is wholly reliant on slight successive modifications, which must occur in order for CD to occur (interdependence).

>
> >> Of course it's possible that god could have poofed those allele
> >> frequency changes into existence by magic, which puts design into
> >> microevolution.
> >
> > Here is how I think about evolutionary theory:
> >
> > I don't see why evolutionary scientists care about changes that don't
> > contribute to speciation. The only changes that matter are these
> > changes; therefore all change that contributes to speciation and/or
> > divergence is microevolution. Macroevolution, therefore, is
> > accumulated microevolution. The health of the ToE is wholly dependent
> > on explaining adaptation----namely, the evolution of reproductive
> > mechanisms. IF a solid core explanation exists then every other
> > problem or obstacle that the ToE faces is a downhill obstacle or
> > problem.
>
> You really have to stop using that term "therefore" or any of its
> synonyms, because it invariably precedes a non sequitur. Nor do you seem
> to understand what speciation is, or even what adaptation is. Anyway,
> not a single sentence above is true except the first one, i.e. that you
> don't see.

You didn't feel like addressing. I understand.

Ray

[John Harshman]

You will have to explain your reasoning.

>>> AND, if you don't mind: occurrence of CD, as you've explained it, is
>>> the explanation itself potentially falsifiable (if so what is it)? Or
>>> is the explanation exempt from falsification requirements?
>>
>> Common descent is certainly falsifiable. If we didn't see the pattern in
>> the data that we expect from common descent, that would do it.
>
> No, I'm asking about the cause of CD: is it falsifiable and if so
> what is it? I don't see how reproduction is subject to falsification
> requirements?

The cause of common descent is reproduction, but that's by definition:
that's what "descent" means. You clearly can't falsify one without
simultaneously falsifying the other. I'm not clear what you're going for.

What do you mean by "interdependent"? And why should I care what you've
seen?

>>>>>> The only necessary relationship among these is that branching can't
>>>>>> occur without common descent and that we can't discern the pattern of
>>>>>> branching, after the fact, unless there has been change. They are three
>>>>>> different things.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's logically possible to have common descent without branching; it's
>>>>>> logically possible to have both common descent and branching without
>>>>>> change. Now it happens that in the world we see all three of these
>>>>>> things have happened. But there is no necessary connection.
>>>>>
>>>>> Said in plain English but I have no idea what it means.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is this a true statement: Macroevolution can't occur unless microevolution has occurred?
>>>>
>>>> I'm afraid that depends on what you mean by those two terms. Now if
>>>> "microevolution" means allele frequency change in a population, and
>>>> "macroevolution" means speciation or species divergence then I would
>>>> certainly agree that species divergence can't occur unless some allele
>>>> frequency changes happen in at least one of two diverging populations.
>>>
>>> Can you assure me that the ToE never relies on macro mutation or single-step selection?
>>
>> I'm not sure what you mean by "the ToE" or "relies". Certainly nothing
>> rules out these possibilities, but neither do they seem necessary to
>> account for anything we know of.
>
> Evolutionary explanations never rely on miracles (macro mutation or
> single-step selection). Therefore the ToE is wholly reliant on slight
> successive modifications, which must occur in order for CD to occur
> (interdependence).

Neither of those sentences is true, and I've warned you about using that
word "therefore".

>>>> Of course it's possible that god could have poofed those allele
>>>> frequency changes into existence by magic, which puts design into
>>>> microevolution.
>>>
>>> Here is how I think about evolutionary theory:
>>>
>>> I don't see why evolutionary scientists care about changes that don't
>>> contribute to speciation. The only changes that matter are these
>>> changes; therefore all change that contributes to speciation and/or
>>> divergence is microevolution. Macroevolution, therefore, is
>>> accumulated microevolution. The health of the ToE is wholly dependent
>>> on explaining adaptation----namely, the evolution of reproductive
>>> mechanisms. IF a solid core explanation exists then every other
>>> problem or obstacle that the ToE faces is a downhill obstacle or
>>> problem.
>>
>> You really have to stop using that term "therefore" or any of its
>> synonyms, because it invariably precedes a non sequitur. Nor do you seem
>> to understand what speciation is, or even what adaptation is. Anyway,
>> not a single sentence above is true except the first one, i.e. that you
>> don't see.
>
> You didn't feel like addressing. I understand.

Would you like me to tell you what's wrong about each sentence? Or
perhaps one or two particular ones? It would take a while to explain the
whole thing, and the rewards of explanation are minimal. Still, I'm
willing if you ask.

[Ray Martinez]

Since, in these context, illusion means "design not really there" one could say: since we see design, and you don't, you're deluded. How do you propose to solve the issue as to who is seeing reality as it really is?

>
> > Since those who advocate design as an illusion don't see the
> > illusion themselves, we have a problem.
>
> First and most obvious, you are rationalizing. You are obviously trying
> to hide from the truth.

Evasion noted.

>
> Second, your premise is patently false. Many people see the illusion
> and, at the same time, recognize that it is an illusion.

Name one?

> Perhaps you
> know that people have written articles and books about illusions. That
> would not be possible unless those people can see both the illusion and
> the reality.

That's been an on-going point of mine. The brain has the ability to discern illusion. Yet we don't see it in living things.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Yep, shifted endlessly by the Evolutionists.

> In fact, the construction 'observed the
> appearance of design' is abominable mush.

That's intentional so as to expose the ridiculousness of the evo claim that design isn't observed but assumed. Appearance presupposes "by observation."

> You can tell
> by asking what is really meant by each of the words
> and subsequently discovering that each is non-standard.

On part of the Evolutionists.

>
> It seems to be distilled down from:
> literally observing things and the relationships between things;
> recognizing _features_ of said things and said relationships
> as features found in designed things;
> and then labeling/characterizing those common features as
> an appearance (of design).
> If it means something else, I'd like to know what that is.
>
> So in "observed the appearance of design", observe does not
> mean direct observation in the literal sense (it's a very
> compounded and complex 'observation'), and appearance does
> not mean the direct sensory nature of what is being observed
> but is instead a complex and derived assemblage of features,
> and design is itself a reference to some presumed shared
> referential knowledge about the process captured by the
> verb to design.

Good example of convoluted thinking caused by the convoluted claims of Evolutionists.

>
> That makes it a very bad construct to use in promoting an argument.
>
> I did a web search for the strange construction "observed the
> appearance". I did that because that particular construction
> makes my skin crawl. Maybe that is a problem specific to me so
> I surveyed its usage. I gather that most people who use it are
> referring to the process of visually examining how some object's
> "appearance" is subject to outside factors, like lighting or
> background. In that context, it makes some sense to construct
> "observe the appearance" but that's not the context of "observe
> the appearance of design". It's not even close.

The phrase was explained above.

>
> Here's an optical illusion regarding observing the appearance
> of two squares on a checkered board.
> http://web.mit.edu/persci/people/adelson/checkershadow_illusion.html
>
> You can talk about _observing_the_appearance_ of shades of grey in
> the squares labeled A and B. Doing so helps us understand the way
> that context affects our perception. It's informative that it does
> so at a subconscious level. Knowing better does not change the
> appearance of differences where none exists. You could create that
> optical illusion from a paint by numbers kit and know. as well as
> anyone can know, that squares A and B are the same shade but your
> eyes will still "observe" them to be different.
>
> So my plea is to use better, more exacting language to make whatever
> claims are being made about observing design.
>
> Hummingbirds as an example.
> We can observe many things about hummingbirds. Some have
> very long beaks. These beaks protect very long tongues.
> These tongues work well to lick nectar off deep flowers.
> Their wings are structured to permit hovering. It all fits
> together in a way that someone might say is designed
> to let hummingbirds feed on deep flowers, and for the
> flowers to be pollinated by hummingbirds that are feeding.
> Is this an "observation of the appearance of design"?

Yes, a very clear example.

I'll pick up right here when I return.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

I'm back.

Addressing the paragraph above.

Your commentary seems to forget that "appearance" presupposes "by observation." How else is appearance ascertained if not by observation?----which makes what you wrote incredibly ridiculous OR conveying a non-conventional definition or understanding of "observation."

>
> Ray
>
>
> >
> > All Ray needs to do is to demonstrate that the features he
> > actually observes, or the combinations of features that he
> > actually observes, are in fact exclusive to things that were
> > designed, with "designed" explicitly meaning planned with
> > forethought and a purpose in mind and not some alternative
> > equivocation of 'design' that does not explicitly require an
> > agent that planned with forethought.

We can show correspondence to known human designs. The main ramification, in case it has escaped your attention, is the fact that the living thing was created long before the human design was invented. For example: Darwin spoke of the "beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell" (an example of contrivance used by Paley). The concept of "hinge" is a well known human design, yet it existed first in the created thing.

The interdependence of nature, as briefly outlined in your humming bird example, is recognized as Intelligent design. Your subsequent requirement of needing to establish the scenario as a property of known designed things appears tautologous? We are not obligated to show known human design in every contrivance. The claim is *Intelligent* design. The former acts as an anchor firmly planted in reality.

Ray

[Dana Tweedy]

Ray, natural selection itself is not what causes microevolution, it's
only part of the process. You not only misunderstand your own
bedfellows, you misunderstand the science you oppose.

>
>>
>>
>>> and Tony was your buddy since he accepted the main claims of the ToE (microevolution, limited macroevolution, and natural selection).
>>
>> Nope, Ray, he's on your side, the anti science side.
>
> Like all YECs, he accepts, like yourself, NS, micro, limited macro.

Tony, like you, rejects science, and favors religious anti science views.

> I reject NS and micro, remember? I don't blame you for not liking a geocentrist in your bed.

Again, Ray, the "geocentrist" is on your side, the anti science side.

>
>>
>>
>>> Did you forget that we had a major falling out over these issues?
>>
>> Just a lovers quarrel no doubt. In any case, Tony would be able to
>> give you plenty of "scholars" who propose flat earth, and geocentrism.
>
> The geocentrist and Evolutionist is in your bed. I'm a fixist or real anti-evolutionist.

Ray, I asked you before to leave me out of your fantasies. Whatever
dreams you have about Tony are you own business.

>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Ray (fixist; anti-selectionist)
>>
>> Should we add "geocentrist" as well?
>
> Geocentrism is laughable nonsense.

So is creationism. You two are made for each other.

> I've always been taught that geocentrism is the land where idiots dwell.

You should feel right at home then.

> Tony is a complete idiot.

Even more you have in common! Hey, you don't have to convince me you
and Tony would make a cute couple.

> He seems to think that just because physicists acknowledge the evidence as potentially supporting geocentrism that this objective fact means geocentrism could be true.

And you seem to think that just because something looks like it was
designed, it means is must be designed. Again, you two are two peas in
a pod.

> In other words he abuses the evidence.

Just like you! Keep this up and you will be picking out silverware
patterns with Tony soon.

> No physicist was actually saying that.

Just like no scientist ever accepted supernatural causation.

> If geocentrism is true then the laws of gravitation exist in a state of falsification; for what could possibly cause an object one million times larger than earth to revolve around an object one million times smaller than the sun?

What could possibly stop a population of imperfectly reproducing
organisms from undergoing evolution? Yet you claim it's impossible for
life to evolve. Again you are showing your likeness to Tony.

> Tony always evaded points of logic, as all Evolutionists do.

Ray, not only do you "evade" points you logic, you wouldn't even know a
point of logic if it came up and bit you. The longer you go on this
way, the more and more you make yourself resemble your buddy Tony.

And remember, if something looks like one thing, it must be that thing,
as you've been arguing all along. If you have the appearance of Tony,
you must be just like him.

DJT

[Roger Shrubber]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 24, 2015 at 4:50:21 PM UTC-8, John Harshman
> wrote:
>> On 2/24/15, 3:40 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Monday, February 23, 2015 at 6:55:24 PM UTC-8, John Harshman
>>> wrote:

>>>> Not true. Common descent can occur without speciation. Of
>>>> course in that case you get a single population descended from
>>>> previous single populations, or you get a set of populations
>>>> kept separate without speciation, for example by being
>>>> separated by fences.
>>>
>>> Are you saying existing species B descended from existing species
>>> A? If so, how?
>>
>> No. I don't understand how you can read a paragraph in which it's
>> assumed that speciation never happens and come out with
>> speciation.
>
> How can CD occur without speciation having occurred? AND, if you
> don't mind: occurrence of CD, as you've explained it, is the
> explanation itself potentially falsifiable (if so what is it)? Or is
> the explanation exempt from falsification requirements?

Let me try to help.
Various breeds of dogs are still dogs. But golden retrievers are
still distinct from poodles. Both poodles and golden retrievers
are descended from a population of dogs that lived in the
past. But poodles and golden retrievers have distinct ancestry.
And bull mastiffs are distinct yet again from either poodles and
golden retrievers.

Simplistically, each population of poodles, golden retrievers and
bull mastiffs are distinct, with distinct common ancestry that
split far in the past. And yet they are the same species.

In reality, it's possible that there are some cross-overs between
various lines. A Newfoundland Dog may in fact have some ancestors
that would typically be identified as a St. Bernard. Or as a
Labrador Retriever. Or as an English Mastiff. It seems that there
was a dog that was native to the Newfoundland Coast prior to
the colonization by Europeans. It further seems that this particular
dog was a source for the modern dog breed known as the Newfoundland
Dog, however, it also seems that the dogs current identified as
Newfoundland Dogs have been mixed with disparate breeds. Thus the
modern day definition of a Newfoundland Dog incorporates a hybrid
of distinct lines of heredity. Short form: it gets complicated.

Nevertheless, one can recognize common descent in various
breeds of dogs (or cows, or sheep, or goats) if the distinct
breeds have been isolated from one another. If a particular
breed of species X share a set of ancestors that are distinct
from the ancestors of a different breed of species X, then
we have an example of divergence and common ancestry. Whether
or not speciation has occurred depends on how much, and the
nature of, divergence that has occurred between breeds of
species X.

[Dana Tweedy]

On 2/25/15 7:40 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 25, 2015 at 8:10:20 AM UTC-8, Mark Isaak wrote:

snip

>>> But the issue is how can very many people observe an **illusion**
>>> on a long-term basis and not know it?
>>
>> Yes. Routinely, very many people observe illusions on a long-term basis
>> and do not know it. You have acknowledged as much. It happens with all
>> kinds of illusions, from solid firmament, to design in life, to
>> effectiveness of astrology. And no, the issue is not *how* this
>> happens; the issue is the plain and obvious fact that it does.
>
> Since, in these context, illusion means "design not really there" one could say: since we see design, and you don't, you're deluded.

Actually, Ray, seeing things that aren't there is a form of delusion.
How is not seeing something as it is, rather than as one wants it to be,
a delusion?

> How do you propose to solve the issue as to who is seeing reality as it really is?

By checking one's assumptions against the evidence. That's why science
was invented.

>
>>
>>> Since those who advocate design as an illusion don't see the
>>> illusion themselves, we have a problem.
>>
>> First and most obvious, you are rationalizing. You are obviously trying
>> to hide from the truth.
>
> Evasion noted.

Apparently you see "evasions" where they don't exist too.

>
>>
>> Second, your premise is patently false. Many people see the illusion
>> and, at the same time, recognize that it is an illusion.
>
> Name one?

Rainbows. People know they are a illusion caused by light refracting
through rain droplets, but people still see them.

>
>> Perhaps you
>> know that people have written articles and books about illusions. That
>> would not be possible unless those people can see both the illusion and
>> the reality.
>
> That's been an on-going point of mine.

Which is why you are wrong.

> The brain has the ability to discern illusion.

Unless the person refuses to accept the illusion is an illusion. In
your case, you refuse to accept anything other than your foregone
conclusion. You don't see that it's an illusion because your wishful
thinking.

> Yet we don't see it in living things.

You don't see that it's an illusion because you refuse to accept that
you might be wrong. You refuse to test your assumptions, and will
never know if you are right, or wrong.

DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 2/25/15 8:40 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 25, 2015 at 4:30:18 PM UTC-8, Roger Shrubber wrote:

snipping

>>
>>>
>>> All Ray needs to do is to demonstrate that the features he
>>> actually observes, or the combinations of features that he
>>> actually observes, are in fact exclusive to things that were
>>> designed, with "designed" explicitly meaning planned with
>>> forethought and a purpose in mind and not some alternative
>>> equivocation of 'design' that does not explicitly require an
>>> agent that planned with forethought.
>
> We can show correspondence to known human designs.

No, you can show resemblance to some known human designs. That's
because certain situations require a similar solution.

Also, humans tend to take inspiration from nature for their designs.

Interesting enough, nature never invented the wheel, which humans did.
There are a number of biological reasons why wheels would be very
unlikely to evolve, but no particular reason why a designer would not
have used them.

> The main ramification, in case it has escaped your attention, is the fact that the living thing was created long before the human design was invented.

Which is irrelevant. Living things predate human beings certainly, but
that means nothing from a design standpoint.

> For example: Darwin spoke of the "beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell" (an example of contrivance used by Paley). The concept of "hinge" is a well known human design, yet it existed first in the created thing.

Ray, once again, concepts do not exist in nature, only in minds.
Darwin noted the resemblance of a bivalve joint to a human made hinge,
because it's the simplest way to join two movable surfaces. A claim
shell resembles a hinge, but that does not mean had to have been
designed by an intelligent being.

>
> The interdependence of nature, as briefly outlined in your humming bird example, is recognized as Intelligent design.

Again, no. It's assumed by you to be "intelligent design".
Interdependence is not a unique finding to designed systems.
Interdependent systems can, and are produced by natural processes as well.

> Your subsequent requirement of needing to establish the scenario as a property of known designed things appears tautologous?

"Tautologous" Another word Ray does not understand but attempts to use.

> We are not obligated to show known human design in every contrivance.

If you are attempting to show the presence of design by analogy with
human design, you need to show why a natural process can't produce the
same thing.

> The claim is *Intelligent* design. The former acts as an anchor firmly planted in reality.

'Human design is not an anchor, but more of an excuse to assume your
conclusion. Something having resemblance to a human design is not
evidence it was produced by something akin to human intelligence.
Humans take working systems as models, and use what works. They can
base their designs on what they have seen in nature. That shows that
assuming design from resemblance to human designs is fraught with
pitfall.


DJT

[Roger Shrubber]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 25, 2015 at 4:30:18 PM UTC-8, Roger Shrubber
> wrote:


>> I'm inserting my thoughts into the thread moreso than in response
>> to this particular post.

>> I find this discussion muddled because the meaning of the keys
>> words (appearance, design, observed, and illusion) are shifting.

> Yep, shifted endlessly by the Evolutionists.

So you say. But you have not provided a clear and definitive
set of definitions for these words. From my perspective,
the meaning shifts from person to person without a necessary
intent to deceive, but with a necessary consequence that
meaning is obscured. It's about being sloppy more than
about being intentionally deceptive.

>> In fact, the construction 'observed the appearance of design' is
>> abominable mush.

> That's intentional so as to expose the ridiculousness of the evo
> claim that design isn't observed but assumed. Appearance presupposes
> "by observation."

That's gibberish. It's fundamentally gibberish. There exists a meaning
of "observe" that is very discrete and direct. That meaning is relegated
to simple characteristics, big versus small, light versus dark, and
various other characteristics that can obtain contextual significance.
However, "observing" design is a very complex compilation of atomic
observations in an asserted framework. You need to establish the
validity of that framework before you can blithely assert your
conclusions about what has been "observed".

>> You can tell by asking what is really meant by each of the words
>> and subsequently discovering that each is non-standard.

> On part of the Evolutionists.

That is nothing but an accusation. I provided examples that
fulfill the opposite: that you and other apologists for
creationism construct phrases that use "appearance", "design"
and "observed" in ways that are at best obscure. You are
consistently unable to rephrase your claims in exacting
terminology. Please, please refute me by doing what I claim
you cannot do. Make your claims with exacting terminology.

>> It seems to be distilled down from: literally observing things and
>> the relationships between things; recognizing _features_ of said
>> things and said relationships as features found in designed
>> things; and then labeling/characterizing those common features as
>> an appearance (of design). If it means something else, I'd like to
>> know what that is.
>>
>> So in "observed the appearance of design", observe does not mean
>> direct observation in the literal sense (it's a very compounded and
>> complex 'observation'), and appearance does not mean the direct
>> sensory nature of what is being observed but is instead a complex
>> and derived assemblage of features, and design is itself a
>> reference to some presumed shared referential knowledge about the
>> process captured by the verb to design.

> Good example of convoluted thinking caused by the convoluted claims
> of Evolutionists.

Respond with something more than gibberish. Please. Pretty please!
What do you claim is directly observed?
What is being inferred?
What is it about the direct observations that you claim maps
to 'things that are designed'. Which of these things are exclusive
to 'things that are designed'?

>> That makes it a very bad construct to use in promoting an
>> argument.

>> I did a web search for the strange construction "observed the
>> appearance". I did that because that particular construction makes
>> my skin crawl. Maybe that is a problem specific to me so I surveyed
>> its usage. I gather that most people who use it are referring to
>> the process of visually examining how some object's "appearance" is
>> subject to outside factors, like lighting or background. In that
>> context, it makes some sense to construct "observe the appearance"
>> but that's not the context of "observe the appearance of design".
>> It's not even close.

> The phrase was explained above.

Your explanation sucks. I explained why. Address it.

>> Here's an optical illusion regarding observing the appearance of
>> two squares on a checkered board.
>> http://web.mit.edu/persci/people/adelson/checkershadow_illusion.html

>> You can talk about _observing_the_appearance_ of shades of grey in
>> the squares labeled A and B. Doing so helps us understand the way
>> that context affects our perception. It's informative that it does
>> so at a subconscious level. Knowing better does not change the
>> appearance of differences where none exists. You could create that
>> optical illusion from a paint by numbers kit and know. as well as
>> anyone can know, that squares A and B are the same shade but your
>> eyes will still "observe" them to be different.
>>
>> So my plea is to use better, more exacting language to make
>> whatever claims are being made about observing design.
>>
>> Hummingbirds as an example. We can observe many things about
>> hummingbirds. Some have very long beaks. These beaks protect very
>> long tongues. These tongues work well to lick nectar off deep
>> flowers. Their wings are structured to permit hovering. It all
>> fits together in a way that someone might say is designed to let
>> hummingbirds feed on deep flowers, and for the flowers to be
>> pollinated by hummingbirds that are feeding. Is this an
>> "observation of the appearance of design"?

> Yes, a very clear example.

And yet one can readily account for these observation without
requiring an intelligent agency. In point of fact, one expects
systems to naturally produce solutions that match features with
challenges. Solutions that are more effective at doing that
reproduce more effectively than those that are less effective.
You have not, and can not rationally dispute that.

That is simply true. You cannot rationally disagree.
Populations in specific environments will evolve to adapt
to those environments. Yes or no? Answer the question Ray!

[Mark Isaak]

You and I see the same thing. Both of us see an appearance of design;
neither of us see design. You interpret the appearance of design as
design for reasons that nobody can fathom. I interpret the appearance
of design as illusory because I also see several features which point
away from design.

>>> Since those who advocate design as an illusion don't see the
>>> illusion themselves, we have a problem.
>>
>> First and most obvious, you are rationalizing. You are obviously trying
>> to hide from the truth.
>
> Evasion noted.

You even call your evasions "evasion".

>> Second, your premise is patently false. Many people see the illusion
>> and, at the same time, recognize that it is an illusion.
>
> Name one?

Penn Jillette. Antonio Damasio. Me.

>> Perhaps you
>> know that people have written articles and books about illusions. That
>> would not be possible unless those people can see both the illusion and
>> the reality.
>
> That's been an on-going point of mine. The brain has the ability to
> discern illusion. Yet we don't see it in living things.

We do. You don't. Or rather, you refuse to.

[Burkhard]

Whenever you have reproduction without modification.

AND, if you don't mind: occurrence of CD, as you've explained it, is the
explanation itself potentially falsifiable (if so what is it)?

Every new organism we find is a potential falsification of CD - if we
find one that uses a different nucleobase from guanine, adenine,(T), or
cytosine, then this organism would probably not share an ancestor with
other life forms, and universal common descent would be falsified. Very
recently, it seemed that this might have actually happened, when Science
published a paper that claimed an organism had been founds whose DNA
had replaced the phosphate group with arsenic.Turned out to be a
mistake, but that would have been a contender

[Desertphile]

On Sun, 22 Feb 2015 12:05:48 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Appearance of design; Nested Hierarchies & Common Descent

Golly, that's what ebvolutionary theory says.

> I intend to answer replies from the other topic in this
> topic because messages posted in the other topic have not
> posted.

Where is your science paper that refutes evolutionary theory? It's been
12+ years since you promised us that.

> Ray


--
"Global Warming? Not here in Michigan." --- Youtube user daveb734

[Ray Martinez]

On Wednesday, February 25, 2015 at 8:00:17 PM UTC-8, Roger Shrubber wrote:

Roger: You missed a reply of mine that I would like a response. Review the thread, please.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

What's the name of the main agent causing microevolution? I suspect you can't or won't answer a straight question.

Ray

[snip Dana's obsession with disturbing sexual practices....]

[Ray Martinez]

I'm still working on it (eight years in; 2007 to present). My work will be published on-line (no paywall) in two parts. The first part will mainly be about the history of the debate. One CANNOT understand the current debate absent relevant history. So the best place to start is with invention of the printing press (ability to publish) in the 15th century. Then I will matriculate through the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment. This will provide the necessary backdrop to understand the claims of Darwin which, at the same time, will require explication of the claims of Paley. Then I will proceed on to the watershed year of 1859 and the rise of Darwinism. I will close in the 1930s and 40s with the rise of the biological synthesis and the unanimous ratification of natural selection, and the never-ending proclamation that Darwin was correct all along. Part 1 will end bitter/SWEET for Darwinism and very bad for Paleyan Creationism. But the stage will be set for the destruction of evolution in Part 2.

So what am I doing here? Smart people understand that this newsgroup has a lot to offer a researcher. For example: Appearance of design/illusion of design is a major claim in the debate, yet I haven't been able to find any evolution scholar who explains what illusion of design in nature actually means. It's just asserted. Yet Burkhard, in this thread, has offered what I consider to be valuable insight into what the claim means. And John Harshman has been quite helpful in answering some questions; and other Evolutionists have provided valuable insight in other important issues. Dana Tweedy, as usual, keeps me abreast on how Evolutionists misrepresent the uncomplicated claims of Creationism while offering, on occasion, valuable insight as well.

Ray

[Roger Shrubber]

Ray, the phrase "observe the appearance of design" is garbage.
I explained why. You can't literally observe the appearance
of design. So you need to explain what is really being done
by being far more explicit about what, exactly, is being observed.
What sort of dots are being connected? What are the background
assumptions? For example, you observe a set of parts that fit
to a pattern you are familiar with. In that case, that pattern
becomes part of the background that needs to be acknowledged.

But instead of expanding upon what you actually mean by
"observe the appearance of design" by expanding it, you seem
to be trying to do a literal deconstruction of those 5 words.
That doesn't work grammatically.

Try this. Observe the appearance of rain. What does that mean?
Does it mean you are looking at rain but focusing on the particular
aspect of that rain you're looking at, is it backlit, or illuminated
from the side? Or does it mean you are observing something that
has a visual aspect similar to the visual aspect of actual rain?
Either of those could be grammatically correct but they are very
different things. The latter could be referring to an illusion
of rain.

>>> All Ray needs to do is to demonstrate that the features he
>>> actually observes, or the combinations of features that he
>>> actually observes, are in fact exclusive to things that were
>>> designed, with "designed" explicitly meaning planned with
>>> forethought and a purpose in mind and not some alternative
>>> equivocation of 'design' that does not explicitly require an
>>> agent that planned with forethought.

> We can show correspondence to known human designs. The main
> ramification, in case it has escaped your attention, is the fact that
> the living thing was created long before the human design was
> invented. For example: Darwin spoke of the "beautiful hinge of a
> bivalve shell" (an example of contrivance used by Paley). The concept
> of "hinge" is a well known human design, yet it existed first in the
> created thing.

Sure you can show some correspondence. You can make a list of features
observed in designed things. Maybe you can subdivide that list into
features that are mostly exclusive to designed things. Hopefully,
you'll also create a list of things not found in designed things.
Then you compare those lists with a list you make from observations
of something else. Correspondence is just matching items to the
different lists.

Is that what you actually mean by "appearance of design"? That
you've done some matching and found what you think is a compelling
number of matches to the things_designed_list? Or do you mean
something else?

> The interdependence of nature, as briefly outlined in your humming
> bird example, is recognized as Intelligent design. Your subsequent
> requirement of needing to establish the scenario as a property of
> known designed things appears tautologous? We are not obligated to
> show known human design in every contrivance. The claim is
> *Intelligent* design. The former acts as an anchor firmly planted in
> reality.

I disagree that it is recognized as intelligent design. I agree that
the system has features that are in common with things that are
intelligently designed. Is that what you recognition involves or
is there more to it? If that's all you got, I think that your
"recognition" is premature.

[Roger Shrubber]

An illusion of design would be if a non-designed thing happened
to share many of the features of designed things. If something
walked like a duck, quacked like a duck, and has features like a
duck, most people think it's a duck. Except sometimes it's not
duck but a grebe or a coot. That would be an illusion of duckness.

[Öö Tiib]

Illusion of design is for example rainbow. It looks perfectly
circular and beautifully colored so it appears to be designed but
actually is natural light effect.

The life-forms also appear like manufactured but actually are all
naturally reproduced by their direct parents with little changes.
Humans have used those changes to adjust design of some life-forms
by breeding over time. It has not been for long time so pig and boar
still give healthy piglets. Humans have started also to alter genetics.

It is not outright impossible that some non-human intelligent
being(s) did or do similar things. We have found no evidence about
such non-human altering. As contrast it is easy to find out that
human has cut some genetic material from rat genome and pasted it
into potato genome. Until someone finds evidence of non-human
altering the ID remains matter of faith, not science.

[jonathan]

i

On 2/26/2015 5:41 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:


> So what am I doing here? Smart people understand that this
> newsgroup has a lot to offer a researcher. For example:
> Appearance of design/illusion of design is a major claim
> in the debate, yet I haven't been able to find any evolution
> scholar who explains what illusion of design in nature

> actually mean .



What this ng offers is the standard neo-Darwinism
that has barely moved forward in the last 50 years.
If not 150 years.

An ng devoted to nature that can't even define natural
from unnatural/designed. That's incredible! Like a
mathematician that can't define a number from
an equation. It's embarrassing.

It's no wonder half the planet is a burning cauldron
of human horrors. Objective ignorance of nature, as in
a planned society [see: dictator] is the crime of all crimes
against humanity and our so-called 'modern' science
[certainty is the 'solution']...is the culprit.

Natural v Designed is simple enough for a child to grasp.

The two are NOT defined by component structure, etc.
The difference is seen by how they...change over time.

Design means the final product is knowable in ...advance.
As in the components are manipulated as needed to
achieve the planned or desired outcome.

Natural systems must be allowed to emerge as they will
so the final product is NOT knowable in advance.

NATURAL: the process is held steady while the output is
allowed to vary.
DESIGN: the output is held steady while the process varies
as needed.

How things...(respond to) change is the difference
and is the only truly universal information that
exists in the universe.

If you don't know whether object x,y or z is natural
or designed, you merely disturb it, and see how it
responds to change.

A designed object, when pushed far-from-equilibrium and
just to it's tipping point, tends to SHATTER. It's best
to...avoid that transition point between it's opposing
possibilities.

A natural system, when similarly disturbed, tends to...evolve.
It's best to remain...near that tipping point.

The component structure is wholly irrelevant, a natural system
may not even have any 'real' components, as in an idea.
A designed system may happen to be entirely biological
as in a commercial forest.

Even Dear Emily knew this back in the 1860's.
Someday this ng, and Darwin, might catch up
with her~



Jonathan


"All but Death, can be Adjusted
Dynasties repaired
Systems -- settled in their Sockets
Citadels -- dissolved

Wastes of Lives -- resown with Colors
By Succeeding Springs
Death -- unto itself -- Exception
Is exempt from Change"




s

[Dana Tweedy]

Short answer: Imperfect reproduction over generations.

Longer answer: There's no single "main agent" of microevolution, there
are five factors that together cause allele change in a population over
generations. In no particular order, they are Mutations, Drift,
Selection (natural or artificial), Gene flow, and Selective Mating
(sometimes called Sexual selection)

Of course, there is the question about what you think microevolution is.
Most creationists define microevolution is "evolution that is too
obvious to deny without looking foolish". Being that looking foolish
has never stopped you, what you do you define microevolution as?

> I suspect you can't or won't answer a straight question.

As usual, you "suspect" wrongly.

>
> Ray
>
> [snip Dana's obsession with disturbing sexual practices....]

Interesting comment, Ray. I didn't say anything about "sexual
practices" in my previous post. It's quite revealing that you
immediately went with that assumption.

DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 2/26/15 3:41 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 7:40:18 AM UTC-8, Desertphile wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Feb 2015 12:05:48 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
>> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Appearance of design; Nested Hierarchies & Common Descent
>>
>> Golly, that's what ebvolutionary theory says.
>>
>>> I intend to answer replies from the other topic in this
>>> topic because messages posted in the other topic have not
>>> posted.
>>
>> Where is your science paper that refutes evolutionary theory? It's been
>> 12+ years since you promised us that.
>>
>>> Ray
>>
>>
>> --
>> "Global Warming? Not here in Michigan." --- Youtube user daveb734
>
> I'm still working on it (eight years in; 2007 to present). My work will be published on-line (no paywall) in two parts. The first part will mainly be about the history of the debate. One CANNOT understand the current debate absent relevant history.

Well, Ray, you can't understand anything about the current debate now.....

> So the best place to start is with invention of the printing press (ability to publish) in the 15th century. Then I will matriculate through the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment. This will provide the necessary backdrop to understand the claims of Darwin which, at the same time, will require explication of the claims of Paley. Then I will proceed on to the watershed year of 1859 and the rise of Darwinism. I will close in the 1930s and 40s with the rise of the biological synthesis and the unanimous ratification of natural selection, and the never-ending proclamation that Darwin was correct all along. Part 1 will end bitter/SWEET for Darwinism and very bad for Paleyan Creationism. But the stage will be set for the destruction of evolution in Part 2.
>

That's a lot of stalling just avoid having to admit you don't have any
actual argument against evolution. Why not just leave off all
irrelevant (and most likely inaccurate) history lesson, and just get to
your point?

> So what am I doing here? Smart people understand that this newsgroup has a lot to offer a researcher.

What does that have to do with you, Ray?

> For example: Appearance of design/illusion of design is a major claim in the debate, yet I haven't been able to find any evolution scholar who explains what illusion of design in nature actually means.

perhaps because everyone who has survived childhood knows that
appearances are not the same as identity. Few, if any "evolution
scholar" would consider it worthwhile to cover it.


> It's just asserted.

No, it's a moot point. Appearance of design is mere resemblance, and
only someone completely missing the point would think of it as important
to any scientific discussion of evolution.

> Yet Burkhard, in this thread, has offered what I consider to be valuable insight into what the claim means.

Which means Ray didn't understand what Burkhard wrote....

> And John Harshman has been quite helpful in answering some questions;

i.e. Ray didn't understand John Harshman either.

> and other Evolutionists have provided valuable insight in other important issues. Dana Tweedy, as usual, keeps me abreast on how Evolutionists misrepresent the uncomplicated claims of Creationism while offering, on occasion, valuable insight as well.

Despite claiming I have "misrepresented" you, or your "claims", you have
never been able to point out a single example of me misrepresenting
anything you've said. Whenever I ask you to present such an example
you run away.

Is that the 'insight' I've provided you? Is it the insight that when
faced with hard questions, run away?

DJT

[Earle Jones27]

*
I'm somewhat surprised that Ray is not in agreement with the immobile
version of the earth, as is our friend Tony Pagano. The Holy Bible
declares, in several places, that the world is fixed and immobile.

1 Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."

Psalm 93:1: "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm …"

Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable …"

Psalm 104:5: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation
so thatit never can be shaken."

Isaiah 45:18: "...who made the earth and fashioned it,
and himself fixed it fast…

Ray: Don't you believe in the holy scripture?

earle
*
(Atheist, Darwinist, evolutionist, scientist, naturally curly hair.)

[Nick Roberts]

In message <160f61c5-a584-42ef...@googlegroups.com>

Ray: You ignored a large section of a post of mine (several in fact),
where I pointed out that your claim that Popperian falsification
requiring risk of failure (even if the theory is correct) means that
Newton's theory of gravity isn't falsifiable, and hence isn't
scientific.

I also would like a response. Review the thread, please.

--
Nick Roberts tigger @ orpheusinternet.co.uk

Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which
can be adequately explained by stupidity.