The UD ? The Unintelligent Designer

[Earle Jones27]

For example:

"Take rabbit digestion, for example. As herbivores, rabbits need help
from bacteria to break down the cell walls of the plants they eat, so,
cleverly enough, they have a large section of intestine where such
bacterial fermentation takes place. The catch is, it's at the far end
of the small intestine, beyond where efficient absorption of nutrients
can happen. A sensible system -- as we see in ruminant animals like
cattle and deer -- ferments before the small intestine, maximizing
nutrient absorption. Rabbits, having to make do with an unintelligent
system, instead eat some of their own feces after one trip through,
sending half-digested food back through the small intestine for
re-digestion.

"Horses are similarly badly put together: They ferment their food in a
large, blind-ended cecum after the small intestine. Unlike rabbits,
they don't recycle their feces -- they're just inefficient. Moreover,
those big sections of hind gut are a frequent location for gut
blockages and twists that, absent prompt veterinary intervention, lead
to slow and excruciating death for the poor horse. The psalmist
writes: "God takes no delight in horses' power." Clearly, if God
works in creation according the the simplistic schemes of the
intelligent design folks, God not only doesn't delight in horses, but
seems positively to have it in for them.

"Furthermore, why wouldn't an intelligent designer make it possible for
animals to digest their natural food without playing host to huge
populations of bacteria in the first place: Couldn't mammals have
been equipped with their own enzymes to do the job?

....

"Isn't this how God walks in and with us in our individual lives as
well, cheering us on, emboldening us and consoling us in our often
misguided attempts to live well and do right, and standing in
compassion and solidarity with us when we fail, and loving us into
trying again? And isn't this a more compelling vision of God, and
truer to the biblical God who comes again and again to offer salvation
to erring humankind, that that of a designer who can't quite seem to
get things right?"

By Lisa Fullam, Veterinarian, Asst Prof. of Moral Theology, Jesuit
School of Theology, Berkeley, CA

earle
*

[Bill]

I'm confused. Are you saying there is no Intelligent Design because you
don't like the design or is it that you could've done better?

Bill

[Peter Nyikos]

Does it matter what he is saying? The important thing is to look at the
arguments and decide for yourself where you stand.

For me, the message is neither. It is that if there was Intelligent
Design behind the biology, the Designer evidently wasn't concerned
about doing everything efficiently. Since I am convinced that
all kingdoms of life are descended from common ancestor,
I further believe that if there is an Intelligent Designer,
it let nature take its course for the most part, intervening
only here and there in the course of evolution to push things
in a certain direction at crucial junctures. Here is one possibility:


``Perhaps there also, among rotting fish heads and blue,
night-burning bog lights, moved the eternal mystery,
the careful finger of God. The increase was not much.
It was two bubbles, two thin-walled little balloons at the
end of the Snout's small brain. The cerebral hemispheres
had appeared.''
--Loren Eiseley_The Immense Journey_

Eiseley was not a theist, but this quote shows he had not closed
his mind to the possibility that theism is true.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[jonathan]

Does human intelligence effect our evolutionary path?

For instance with farming, medical advances and even
greed or our dreams?

Of course it does, and it could be argued such
intelligent effects are the more defining
as a goal represents a directed path.

So for higher forms of life, conscious life, intelligent
design is not only a primary cause of change, but an
entirely rational if not obvious factor.

God is merely what humanity could become in a perfect world.
God is perfection or the ideal goal, the most rational
or intelligent goal of all.

We don't need to invoke God or intelligent design for
ants or birds so to speak. But for humans God is the
prime mover for evolution.

There's nothing at all irrational or illogical in the
above conclusions.



Jonathan



s

[dcleve]

On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 8:23:50 PM UTC-4, Bill wrote:

If people could have done it better, then yes, there was no Intelligent Designer.

[Bill]

That makes no sense of course, but it a nice ring of authority to it. It
seems that for every opinion there are opposite extremes, each convinced the
other is wrong.

Bill

[Glenn]

"Bill" <fre...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:mr7du2$94f$1...@dont-email.me...

Seems all of the evolutionists here partake in this kind of mindless speculation.
It's entertaining, and comparing horses to rabbits is a good one. dcleve's logic above is
no better.

[Steady Eddie]

Go ahead and build one flea.
Then come back and tell me how to 'properly' design a horse
LOL!

[Bill]

The problem is that people here can't tell the difference between
speculation and fact. If there is some speculation that favors some favored
conclusion, it is fact. Otherwise it's some wild-eyed conspiracy to
dismantle reason and good sense.

Bill

[Glenn]

"Bill" <fre...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:mr7io5$tm5$1...@dont-email.me...

The majority of responses are motivated by atheism and an impression that science has to be protected from "creationism" in any form.
If you aren't one, you'll find no agreement on anything. It is truly odd.

[Bill]

I once fancied myself an atheist, an anti-religion materialist. In those
far away yesterdays I knew everything and was content to reduce all
existence to a complex machine made of simple parts. That happy confidence
steadily diminished as I learned more. The many changes in scientific
knowledge left me wondering, "How much do these folks really know?"

All that was long ago and far away. I now pay more attention to what makes
sense instead of what makes friends. If some proposition is flawed and I
notice it, I investigate it to figure out why it seems defective. Since
most posters are comfortable with explanations that feed their biases, the
kind of questions that interest me are not asked.

Bill

[jillery]

Go ahead and show where and/or when a flea is created. Your words cut
both ways.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[Sneaky O. Possum]

dcleve <dcl...@qis.net> wrote in
news:2f5a2466-3fc7-4a2d...@googlegroups.com:

> On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 8:23:50 PM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
>> Earle Jones27 wrote:

[snip]

>> > "Furthermore, why wouldn't an intelligent designer make it possible
>> > for animals to digest their natural food without playing host to
>> > huge populations of bacteria in the first place: Couldn't mammals
>> > have been equipped with their own enzymes to do the job?
>>
>> I'm confused. Are you saying there is no Intelligent Design because
>> you don't like the design or is it that you could've done better?
>
> If people could have done it better, then yes, there was no
> Intelligent Designer.

If you're using 'Intelligent Designer' to mean 'God' (as most people
do), and you imagine that God is perfect (as most people do), then it
makes sense to argue that God would necessarily design things better
than any imperfect person could. But people who hold that God is
perfect typically hold that *only* God is perfect: any other sort of
intelligent designer must be imperfect, and therefore capable of
screwing up the design of a horse or a rabbit.

But it's a frivolous debate in any case: so far, people haven't been
able to design any sort of viable multicellular organism out of scratch,
much less design one that improves on a preexisting model. We can
propose solutions for what we see as problems - e.g., equipping animals
with enzymes instead of gut bacteria - but we have no idea whether those
solutions would work better if it were possible to implement them. To
pose the question amounts to second-guessing God, which is kind of
stupid if you actually believe in the guy.
--
S.O.P.

[jillery]

What's stopping you from asking them?

[Mark Isaak]

Simple. Start with self-reproducing chemicals, and let them evolve.

A designer would need to be supremely stupid to leave evolution out of a
design for life. Creationists will never be comfortable unless they
believe that their god really is that stupid. After all, an intelligent
god might do things different from what the creationist expects!

--
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

[RSNorman]

Obe could always quibble about little details but the basic
information about rabbit coprophage (feces eating, which many animals
do) and horse inefficient digestion is very much fact. There are a
host more examples of strange phenomena just in digestive systems to
make the concept of intelligent design very difficult to understand.
On the other hand, evolutionary biology gives very nice explanations
that for these phenomena. That doesn't mean unintelligent design is
proved or intelligent design is unproved or even that evolution is
necessarily correct. Still, there is an enormity of examples in
biology that are truly difficult to reconcile with intelligent design.

[Bill]

Mark Isaak wrote:

...

>>> *
>>
>> Go ahead and build one flea.
>> Then come back and tell me how to 'properly' design a horse
>> LOL!
>
> Simple. Start with self-reproducing chemicals, and let them evolve.
>
> A designer would need to be supremely stupid to leave evolution out of a
> design for life. Creationists will never be comfortable unless they
> believe that their god really is that stupid. After all, an intelligent
> god might do things different from what the creationist expects!
>

Since you brought up stupid, providing a perfect example of it, it seems
unlikely that you will benefit from my reply. Even so, I'm feeling
charitable and will address your remarks.

The idea of taking some self-reproducing chemicals off the shelf and
tossing them into your evolution machine seems to skip a few steps while
requiring magic to fill in the blanks.

It seems that the configuration of nature offends your sense of stupid,
what would satisfy it? Since you would have done everything differently,
you must know of alternate possibilities that were passed over. Could you
innumerate these possibilities?

It may be that you weren't really serious. Let's hope not for the sake of
your progeny.

Bill

[Kalkidas]

"Earle Jones27" <earle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:2015082017095844062-earlejones@comcastnet...

Neither conception of God is correct. The "unintelligent designer"
hypothesis gratuitously assumes that the designer intended -- but was
unable -- to design a "perfect" system -- although those who argue for
this hypothesis never seem to say exactly what "perfect" means except by
giving a few examples of things they consider "imperfect".

The other conception assumes that God is some kind of cosmic voyeur who
has no life of his own and simply lives vicariously through the world,
like some kind of parental control-freak.




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Nick Roberts]

In message <455864e7-d5fa-4e7a...@googlegroups.com>

The thing is, it isn't "evolutionists" (aka biologists) who are
claiming that living things are so perfect that they must be designed.
It's you and your ilk.

So to respond to "living things aren't as perfectly designed as you
claim" with "you try and do better" is such a stupid approach that I'm
surprised that anyone who could make it can manage to operate a
keyboard.

Try to get it through your head: no one is claiming that we could
currently design it better. It is simply a rebuttal of the fatuous
creationist claim that living things must be designed because they are
so perfect.

So would you care to address the point that is being made, rather than
the the one that you wish had been made?

> LOL!

And yet again, Steadly demonstrates the level of sophistication in his
rebuttals that have made him so famous.

--
Nick Roberts tigger @ orpheusinternet.co.uk

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

[Bill]

RSNorman wrote:


...

>>>>
>>> Seems all of the evolutionists here partake in this kind of mindless
>>> speculation. It's entertaining, and comparing horses to rabbits is a
>>> good one. dcleve's logic above is no better.
>>
>>The problem is that people here can't tell the difference between
>>speculation and fact. If there is some speculation that favors some
>>favored conclusion, it is fact. Otherwise it's some wild-eyed conspiracy
>>to dismantle reason and good sense.
>>
>
> Obe could always quibble about little details but the basic
> information about rabbit coprophage (feces eating, which many animals
> do) and horse inefficient digestion is very much fact. There are a
> host more examples of strange phenomena just in digestive systems to
> make the concept of intelligent design very difficult to understand.
> On the other hand, evolutionary biology gives very nice explanations
> that for these phenomena. That doesn't mean unintelligent design is
> proved or intelligent design is unproved or even that evolution is
> necessarily correct. Still, there is an enormity of examples in
> biology that are truly difficult to reconcile with intelligent design.

Your reasoning needs work. You first create a standard based entirely on
your own sense of what makes sense. Then you apply this standard as a kind
of law of nature. Next you cite nice explanations that are explanatory
because they are nice.

It should be obvious that part of being a horse or a rabbit or any other
living thing is their digestive system. We could imagine a horse with an
"efficient" digestive system but why stop there? Why not imagine a horse
with great long teeth, claws and maybe a tail with a spike on the end?

Things are what they are and that's why they are what they are. While we
can imagine just about anything, does that mean that things that don't
match what we imagined are unfit or inefficient? Can we use our
imagination as the standard to which nature must conform?

Maybe the fact that you view some explanations as nice is significant.

[Dexter]

______________________________________________

Jeez, could you and Glenn get a hotel room somewhere and
spare us the spectacle?

--
- There is no harm in being a fool; harm lies in being a
fool at the top of your lungs. (Author Unknown)

[Earle Jones27]

*
No, man cannot create a flea.

"O senseless man, who cannot possibly make a worm
and yet will make Gods by the dozen!"

--Michel Eyqyem de Montaigne, French essayist (1533-92)

earle
*

[Earle Jones27]

*
A better analogy:

The world is an ant farm – and God is an eight-year-old kid with a
magnifying glass.

earle
*

[Mark Isaak]

On 8/21/15 12:17 PM, Bill wrote:
> Mark Isaak wrote:
>
> ...
>
>>>> *
>>>
>>> Go ahead and build one flea.
>>> Then come back and tell me how to 'properly' design a horse
>>> LOL!
>>
>> Simple. Start with self-reproducing chemicals, and let them evolve.
>>
>> A designer would need to be supremely stupid to leave evolution out of a
>> design for life. Creationists will never be comfortable unless they
>> believe that their god really is that stupid. After all, an intelligent
>> god might do things different from what the creationist expects!
>>
>
> Since you brought up stupid, providing a perfect example of it, it seems
> unlikely that you will benefit from my reply. Even so, I'm feeling
> charitable and will address your remarks.
>
> The idea of taking some self-reproducing chemicals off the shelf and
> tossing them into your evolution machine seems to skip a few steps while
> requiring magic to fill in the blanks.

Skipped a few steps, sure. Requires magic, nope. Requires basic
chemistry. Magic is your department.

> It seems that the configuration of nature offends your sense of stupid,
> what would satisfy it? Since you would have done everything differently,
> you must know of alternate possibilities that were passed over. Could you
> innumerate these possibilities?

Perhaps you did not read what I said. I said that, if an intelligent
designer created life, then life would look evolved. And I have said
elsewhere that life does looks evolved. *You* are the one who says that
life looks to be created by a stupid designer.

[Bill]

I don't recall invoking a designer for life. There is plenty of indirect
evidence for such a thing but I haven't promoted it. I have not claimed that
evolution, a la Darwin, is false, only that it's not very persuasive - to
me. In fact, I make an effort to avoid any bandwagon since that seems the
easiest way to maintain an open mind. For instance, I have never and
probably never will make the claim that one can just mix some chemicals just
right and Presto! life.

Bill

[dcleve]

Claims about the world are claims about science issues, and if possible should be tested.

Claims that something was designed by an "intelligent designer" are claims that the "designed" item should be a good design within the contraints of the designer. A designer unconstrained by knowledge shortcomings or resource limitations wil design at a global optimum. If the "designed" item is not at a global optimum, but a local optimum, then it was not produced by an "intelligent designer" operating without constriants.

As incremental algorithms such as evoutionary processes will regularly settle into local optima, every such instance is a test case showing an item was produced incrementally, not through uncontrained intelligent design.

[Aerion]

On 8/20/2015 8:09 PM, Earle Jones27 wrote:
> For example:
>

Apparently, the rabbit has any unusual diet, rich in hard to digest
fibers, and other interesting matter. So, it's digestive system is
well suited for it particular diet. Read it at:

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/exploring-a-rabbits-unique-digestive-system.html

>
> "Take rabbit digestion, for example. As herbivores, rabbits need help
> from bacteria to break down the cell walls of the plants they eat, so,
> cleverly enough, they have a large section of intestine where such
> bacterial fermentation takes place. The catch is, it's at the far end
> of the small intestine, beyond where efficient absorption of nutrients
> can happen. A sensible system -- as we see in ruminant animals like
> cattle and deer -- ferments before the small intestine, maximizing
> nutrient absorption. Rabbits, having to make do with an unintelligent
> system, instead eat some of their own feces after one trip through,
> sending half-digested food back through the small intestine for
> re-digestion.
>
> "Horses are similarly badly put together: They ferment their food in a
> large, blind-ended cecum after the small intestine. Unlike rabbits,
> they don't recycle their feces -- they're just inefficient. Moreover,
> those big sections of hind gut are a frequent location for gut
> blockages and twists that, absent prompt veterinary intervention, lead
> to slow and excruciating death for the poor horse. The psalmist
> writes: "God takes no delight in horses' power." Clearly, if God
> works in creation according the the simplistic schemes of the
> intelligent design folks, God not only doesn't delight in horses, but
> seems positively to have it in for them.
>

> "Furthermore, why wouldn't an intelligent designer make it possible for
> animals to digest their natural food without playing host to huge
> populations of bacteria in the first place: Couldn't mammals have
> been equipped with their own enzymes to do the job?
>

> ....
>
> "Isn't this how God walks in and with us in our individual lives as
> well, cheering us on, emboldening us and consoling us in our often
> misguided attempts to live well and do right, and standing in
> compassion and solidarity with us when we fail, and loving us into
> trying again? And isn't this a more compelling vision of God, and
> truer to the biblical God who comes again and again to offer salvation
> to erring humankind, that that of a designer who can't quite seem to
> get things right?"
>
> By Lisa Fullam, Veterinarian, Asst Prof. of Moral Theology, Jesuit
> School of Theology, Berkeley, CA
>

> earle
> *
>

[Öö Tiib]

On Friday, 21 August 2015 03:13:49 UTC+3, Earle Jones27 wrote:

I really do not like the reaction of creationists here. It is good topic
you gave and it immediately makes me to think about lot of things I did
not think about before. Responses given are oddly silly. Also a joke
popped into mind ... how can we discuss origins of life if we know no
shit?

For example:

> "Horses are similarly badly put together: They ferment their food in a
> large, blind-ended cecum after the small intestine. Unlike rabbits,
> they don't recycle their feces -- they're just inefficient. Moreover,
> those big sections of hind gut are a frequent location for gut
> blockages and twists that, absent prompt veterinary intervention, lead
> to slow and excruciating death for the poor horse. The psalmist
> writes: "God takes no delight in horses' power." Clearly, if God
> works in creation according the the simplistic schemes of the
> intelligent design folks, God not only doesn't delight in horses, but
> seems positively to have it in for them.

That is good example of narrow view of good specialist. Specialist of
digestive system does not see the larger picture of whole horse and its
cooperation with other beings.

My position:
Horse is aristocracy among herbivores. Fast and strong and likes to
wander on large areas. It is hard to catch and dangerous to attack.
Make its digestion efficient and its population will jump, its
favorite meals will go extinct and so goes horse. Make its digestion
not to damage even mildly protected seeds but instead produce one of
the best fertilizers known and that lets it to give fair advantage
to its favorite meals and lets it to spread those on large areas.
Yes, its digestion does become ill if stupid ape keeps it in narrow
barn and does not let it to do what it was meant for, but whose fault
is that?

[Burkhard]

Leaving aside my usual objection that as "design" is finding solutions
under resource constraints for a problem, and hence "unconstrained
designer" is just language befuddlement, I'm not sure (and thus agreeing
and extending on S.O.P) how one can determine if something is "optimal"
if there is no independent evidence for the purpose of said thing. Maybe
what is a shortcoming from the perspective of a rabbit is supremely
pleasing aesthetically when looked at from the 12th dimension, or the
designer simply had it in for rabbits (or mammals more generally)

[Kalkidas]

"Earle Jones27" <earle...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:2015082117172410677-earlejones@comcastnet...

> The world is an ant farm - and God is an eight-year-old kid with a
> magnifying glass.

No, that's not correct either, although it could describe most
scientists.

[Öö Tiib]

Whose fault is that? Religious papers contain rather disgusting
descriptions of gods. These are apparently from times when savage people
did worship the short-sighted, uncaring and egomaniac leaders.
The societies doing that now are constantly in big problems for that.
Most sane is to reject such gods.

[Rolf]

Do I need more bacteria? I am skinnier than I want to be but no amount of
food helps.
Or should I try the rabbit's method? Half digested 'food' should take less
effort to digest again?
Someone design a recycling valve system?

> ....
>
> "Isn't this how God walks in and with us in our individual lives as
> well, cheering us on, emboldening us and consoling us in our often
> misguided attempts to live well and do right, and standing in
> compassion and solidarity with us when we fail, and loving us into
> trying again? And isn't this a more compelling vision of God, and
> truer to the biblical God who comes again and again to offer salvation
> to erring humankind, that that of a designer who can't quite seem to
> get things right?"
>
> By Lisa Fullam, Veterinarian, Asst Prof. of Moral Theology, Jesuit
> School of Theology, Berkeley, CA
>

> earle
> *
>

[dcleve]

Asserting design requires asserting a design goal. That goal can be evaluated for optimality of design in meeting it.

[eridanus]

You should psychoanalyze to see why "evolution" does not look "persuasive".
We are here chatting like we were the "masters of intelligence" and we would
had enough powers to understand everything and make sense of it. It seems
we lack a modicum of modesty, and do not realize that most of the questions
we are considering are at a great distance in the universe. Perhaps at
some billion light years of distance for our brain. We are reasoning like
medieval scholars, Byzantine philosophers disputing about how many angels
can dance on the point of a pin.
eri

[eridanus]

very good argument.

[Burkhard]

slightly more succinct rendition of what I said. OK, make this much more
succinct rendition :o) But that then means that if you only know that
the designer has unlimited resources, you can't argue that anything we
perceive as flaw is a contradiction. You'd need in addition a theory of
the design goals.

[Bill]

I agree, psychoanalysis might be needed to persuade me that some
propositions are persuasive even when they're not.

Bill

[Bill]

Probably not. If we are the goal of Design, how would we know? If we protest
that we are not the goal, how would we know? Speculating about design after
the fact will tell us that something was designed only if we admit the
possibility in the first place. Are the pyramids of Egypt, for instance,
evidence of design or are they a natural formation? The only evidence is the
pyramid itself; we know nothing of the original design or the design goal.
We infer design from what appears designed.

Bill

[Aerion]

[Vincent Maycock]

We might have some evidence for a Designer motivated to make living
things.

>If we protest
>that we are not the goal, how would we know?

Because we look as if we evolved and not like we were designed.

> Speculating about design after
>the fact will tell us that something was designed only if we admit the
>possibility in the first place.

For the sake of argument, yes.

>Are the pyramids of Egypt, for instance,
>evidence of design or are they a natural formation?

We have inscriptions that tell us they were designed, and we have
abundant evidence of designers living in the area who were motivated
to create these structures.

The same is not true for Intelligent Design, however.

> The only evidence is the
>pyramid itself; we know nothing of the original design or the design goal.

Many of them appear to be burial chambers of some sort.

>We infer design from what appears designed.

Of course that's true for what humans make (we infer a human designer
under these conditions) and we infer evolution ... from what appears
to have evolved.

[Steady Eddie]

On Friday, 21 August 2015 10:18:48 UTC-6, Bill wrote:
> Glenn wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > "Bill" <fre...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> > news:mr7du2$94f$1...@dont-email.me...

> >> dcleve wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 8:23:50 PM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
> >>>> Earle Jones27 wrote:
> >>>>

> >>>> > For example:

> >>>> > "Furthermore, why wouldn't an intelligent designer make it possible
> >>>> > for
> >>>> > animals to digest their natural food without playing host to huge
> >>>> > populations of bacteria in the first place: Couldn't mammals have
> >>>> > been equipped with their own enzymes to do the job?
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm confused. Are you saying there is no Intelligent Design because you
> >>>> don't like the design or is it that you could've done better?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> If people could have done it better, then yes, there was no Intelligent
> >>> Designer.
> >>

> >> That makes no sense of course, but it a nice ring of authority to it. It
> >> seems that for every opinion there are opposite extremes, each convinced
> >> the other is wrong.
> >>
> > Seems all of the evolutionists here partake in this kind of mindless
> > speculation. It's entertaining, and comparing horses to rabbits is a good
> > one. dcleve's logic above is no better.
>
> The problem is that people here can't tell the difference between
> speculation and fact. If there is some speculation that favors some favored
> conclusion, it is fact. Otherwise it's some wild-eyed conspiracy to
> dismantle reason and good sense.
>

> Bill

+1

[Steady Eddie]

On Friday, 21 August 2015 10:28:48 UTC-6, Glenn wrote:
> "Bill" <fre...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:mr7io5$tm5$1...@dont-email.me...

> The majority of responses are motivated by atheism and an impression that science has to be protected from "creationism" in any form.
> If you aren't one, you'll find no agreement on anything. It is truly odd.

+1

[Steady Eddie]

On Friday, 21 August 2015 12:13:47 UTC-6, jillery wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 08:17:03 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
> <1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> ....
> >>
> >> "Isn't this how God walks in and with us in our individual lives as
> >> well, cheering us on, emboldening us and consoling us in our often
> >> misguided attempts to live well and do right, and standing in
> >> compassion and solidarity with us when we fail, and loving us into
> >> trying again? And isn't this a more compelling vision of God, and
> >> truer to the biblical God who comes again and again to offer salvation
> >> to erring humankind, that that of a designer who can't quite seem to
> >> get things right?"
> >>
> >> By Lisa Fullam, Veterinarian, Asst Prof. of Moral Theology, Jesuit
> >> School of Theology, Berkeley, CA
> >>
> >> earle
> >> *
> >

> >Go ahead and build one flea.
> >Then come back and tell me how to 'properly' design a horse
> >LOL!
>
>

> Go ahead and show where and/or when a flea is created. Your words cut
> both ways.
> --
> This space is intentionally not blank.

I don't have to know when or where fleas were created. I just have to take a close look at one to
conclude that it was intelligently designed.

[Steady Eddie]

On Friday, 21 August 2015 12:28:47 UTC-6, Mark Isaak wrote:

> Simple. Start with self-reproducing chemicals, and let them evolve.

Yes, of course.
And where do you find these self-reproducing chemicals?

> A designer would need to be supremely stupid to leave evolution out of a
> design for life. Creationists will never be comfortable unless they
> believe that their god really is that stupid. After all, an intelligent
> god might do things different from what the creationist expects!
>

[Steady Eddie]

On Friday, 21 August 2015 18:33:46 UTC-6, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 8/21/15 12:17 PM, Bill wrote:
> > Mark Isaak wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> >>>> *
> >>>
> >>> Go ahead and build one flea.
> >>> Then come back and tell me how to 'properly' design a horse
> >>> LOL!
> >>
> >> Simple. Start with self-reproducing chemicals, and let them evolve.
> >>
> >> A designer would need to be supremely stupid to leave evolution out of a
> >> design for life. Creationists will never be comfortable unless they
> >> believe that their god really is that stupid. After all, an intelligent
> >> god might do things different from what the creationist expects!
> >>
> >
> > Since you brought up stupid, providing a perfect example of it, it seems
> > unlikely that you will benefit from my reply. Even so, I'm feeling
> > charitable and will address your remarks.
> >
> > The idea of taking some self-reproducing chemicals off the shelf and
> > tossing them into your evolution machine seems to skip a few steps while
> > requiring magic to fill in the blanks.
>
> Skipped a few steps, sure. Requires magic, nope. Requires basic
> chemistry. Magic is your department.

Yup, requires basic chemistry to be practiced by an intelligent chemist.

[jillery]

On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 20:07:20 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie

>I don't have to know when or where fleas were created. I just have to take a close look at one to
>conclude that it was intelligently designed.

I don't have to build a flea to know it wasn't designed. Your words
still cut both ways, and your bald assertions are as easily refuted.

[Öö Tiib]

Lot of chemicals are autocatalytic.

[Bill]

How would know if a flea was or was not designed? What is your criteria?

Bill

[Mark Isaak]

On 8/22/15 8:07 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:
>
> I don't have to know when or where fleas were created.
> I just have to take a close look at one to
> conclude that it was intelligently designed.

By a creator who did not like people at all.

[Öö Tiib]

There are no one capable of designing fleas. When it will be issue then
the methods will be likely similar to methods with what it is detected
that a photo (or parts of it) are Photoshopped or rendered. I trust
that currently an experienced biotechnologist can detect where fleas
genes were artificially altered by one of the methods they use for that
dirty job they do.

[Mark Isaak]

Start with the Big Bang, which creates hydrogen. The hydrogen fuses in
stars to create heavier elements, most notably carbon, nitrogen, and
oxygen. A few supernovae disperse these elements back into space,
creating some even heavier ones in the process. These condense to
create a next-generation star and planets around it. A couple planets
are close enough that much but not too much of the light elements get
blown away by the solar wind. One of these planets in particular has
lots of water on the surface and lots of carbon dioxide and nitrogen in
the atmosphere. These chemicals cannot fail but to combine in complex
ways. The planet also has stable energy sources at the top and bottom
of the water which can fuel even more complex formations. Then just wait.

[Bill]

So you've read what, Discovery magazine, watched the Science channel on TV
and now you know exactly how everything came to be. Hardly any point in
looking any further and certainly no need to think about it.

Bill

[jillery]

Ooh! Ooh! Yet more questions from the guy who refuses to answer
questions. What to do, what to do...

[Bill]

What you do is post as cogent reply that address the post. You make a bald
assertion with no (that's zero) supporting evidence and pretend your reply
has some weighty content. Why do your tempt me to ignore all your posts?

Bill

[Ray Martinez]

First off, there is no reason to assume these claims accurate. After all Evolutionists, far and wide, have said over and over that the human eye is mal-designed or assembled backwards. But in reality the claim has been shown completely false. The human eye was not assembled backwards or mal-designed.

Second, the source is Jesuit or perceived Christian. Why would a Christian argue against a Designer? The argument given, if true, contributes to falsification of the existence of the Christian God. So nothing here makes sense. What would make sense is a signature that indicated ex-Christian. What we have here is an Atheist in sheep's clothing not making any sense (as usual).

Ray

[Bill]

Ray Martinez wrote:


...

> ... After all

> Evolutionists, far and wide, have said over and over that the human eye is
> mal-designed or assembled backwards. But in reality the claim has been
> shown completely false. The human eye was not assembled backwards or
> mal-designed.
>

That's a new one. Where is the argument that the human eye is designed (or
evolved) backwards? I'm almost positive no one would seriously make such a
claim.

Bill

[jillery]

Ray just did seriously make that claim. Try to keep up.

And it's not a new one:

<http://www.icr.org/article/backwards-human-retina-evidence-poor-design/>

[jillery]

I agree that's what I did. So what's your problem.

>You make a bald
>assertion with no (that's zero) supporting evidence

Apparently you didn't notice that I commented about a bald assertion
with no (that's zero) supporting evidence. Bald assertions are as
easily refuted, which I illustrated with my post. You might want to
improve your reading comprehension before you shoot off your mouth
with your foot in it again.

>and pretend your reply
>has some weighty content.

You really suck at mindreading. Don't give up your day job, assuming
you have one.

> Why do your tempt me to ignore all your posts?

Why do you think you ignoring all my posts would be functionally
different from what you currently do?

[Öö Tiib]

No reply to trying to give thoughtful answer. Apparently Bill prefers
exchange where his personality is discussed negatively and provokes
such posts with his behavior that jillery is complaining about. Typical
"bad kid" troll syndrome.

[Rolf]

Why bother with the human (or other) eyes?

There are plenty enough of examples of what by human standards would be
designatet as bad designs.

Many of them are easliy seen as obviously being the result of evolution.

The Giraffe's recurrent laryngeal nerve, the poor design of humans making
hernia a side effect.
Hiccups in humans - a reflex passed down for our inner fish, and all the
clues to our origins we find when we study embryonal development.

Why should the development of a human body in so many ways be a replay of an
evolutionary past?

All(?) animals share a common, observable developmental past. Development
starts with a single cell. With repeated dupliactions a complete body is
built

At the beginning all animal embryo look alike, but later, at various
branching stages they break off and take a different course. Wit the result
that in due time, what started appearing just like any other animal, it come
out as a human, or a chimpanzee, a monkey - or a rabbit, a mouse, an
elephant. We all share a common past!

[jillery]

On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 09:30:02 +0200, "Rolf" <rolf.a...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Certainly all placental mammal embryos look similar, in that it takes
many weeks after fertilization before any morphological differences
are apparent.

But not all animals are placental mammals. Marsupial embryos don't
grow a placenta, and monotreme embryos develop within an egg, two
substantial differences.

Eggs which can support embryological development *and* keep from
drying out on land is an important step, to keep eggs away from all
those hungry mouths in the water. Among vertebrates, this was
accomplished with an amniotic sac, and a supporting semi-permeable
shell from the mother, both distinctive features.

Vertebrae, a feature of almost all animals with a central nervous
system, is another important distinction.

There are important stages in embryological development; blastula,
gastrula, neurula, and pharyngula. Each stage is fundamental to the
development of more complex features in the adult form, and not all
animals go through all stages.

But I agree with your main point, that the better explanation for the
apparent designs we observe in life is contingent evolution, and not a
Designer's incompetence. Why does an incompetent Designer deserve to
be worshipped anyway?

[RSNorman]

On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 09:30:02 +0200, "Rolf" <rolf.a...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Let me clarify that question mark on the word "all". This is generally
a nice view but the similarities really apply to the vertebrates.

If you look at all animals then the similarities are indeed
fundamental but rather few. For example the earliest cell divisions
can be spiral or radial which is closely associated with different
mechanisms underlying how lineages differentiate in the early embryo.
The different animal phyla generally have embryos that look quite
distinct even at early stages. The distinction between sponges,
cnidaria, and ctenophora from the bilaterally symmetric animals occurs
very early. And even among the bilaterals, the distinction between
protostome and deuterostome involves early embryonic development.

Still the similarlities of development between groups of animals is an
extremely powerful demonstration of evolution and many of the
peculiarities or weirdnesses (poor designs?) are easily explained by
evolutionary constraints from shared embryological development.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, August 21, 2015 at 2:28:47 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:

Typical of that Jesuit-run school to water down the concept of God, divesting
him of his role as creator, and harping on things that are far
less evidential of the supernatural than the concept of a creator
of our universe. This veterinarian could have talked about God intervening
gently, unobtrusively in evolution at a few key junctures, like in
the quote from Eiseley's _The Immense Journey_ that I gave, but
that would already be a small step away from the touchy-feely "God" that
she endorses.

> >> earle
> >> *
> >
> > Go ahead and build one flea.
> > Then come back and tell me how to 'properly' design a horse
> > LOL!

We are probably centuries away from producing efficient replicators
from scratch in the lab, and perhaps trillions of years from
doing it the way you naively suggest.

> Simple. Start with self-reproducing chemicals, and let them evolve.

You are stuck in the dim prebiotic evolutionary past, and sweeping
under the rug huge difficulties in getting to efficient replicators
like prokaryotes. These difficulties have baffled the best minds,
including Nobel Laureates in biochemistry.

> A designer would need to be supremely stupid to leave evolution out of a
> design for life.

Either supremely stupid, or far more nearly omnipotent than the God
the Bible describes.

> Creationists will never be comfortable unless they
> believe that their god really is that stupid.

The stupidity is REALLY evident in the teeth of the fossil evidence
of evolution of mammals and birds from fish, and especially
the modern horse from the "dawn horse" Hyracotherium, where we
have step by step slow changes. I've told Ray Martinez many times that
if these steps all involved *de novo* creation, then it looks
like the work of rookie angels who are afraid to deviate from
"last million year's design."

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --
U. of South Carolina at Columbia

[John Harshman]

Some of the similarities are visible only at the level of protein
expression, i.e. the same proteins setting up the fundamental body axes,
locations, and segmental boundaries.

[Bill]

We all live on the same planet. We all develop from DNA. We all convince
ourselves that our interpretations of our reality are correct.

Bill

[Bill]

The theory of Embryonic Recapitulation has been debunked, like so many other
hypotheses proposed over the years.

Bill

[RSNorman]

Having similar stages of embryonic development is rather different
from recapitulation where the embryo resembles the adult form of an
earlier line of evolution. Instead, different related forms share the
same pattern (but not necessarily details) of embryonic development
and deviate at different times. Tellingly, the duration of similarity
is closely linked to other aspects of evolutionary relatedness forming
the same nested hierarchy that is so characteristic of common ancestry
and so difficult to understand in terms of special creation.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, August 24, 2015 at 11:53:38 AM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
> Rolf wrote:
>
> > Why bother with the human (or other) eyes?
> >
> > There are plenty enough of examples of what by human standards would be
> > designatet as bad designs.
> >
> > Many of them are easliy seen as obviously being the result of evolution.
> >
> > The Giraffe's recurrent laryngeal nerve, the poor design of humans making
> > hernia a side effect.
> > Hiccups in humans - a reflex passed down for our inner fish, and all the
> > clues to our origins we find when we study embryonal development.
> >
> > Why should the development of a human body in so many ways be a replay of
> > an evolutionary past?
> >
> > All(?) animals share a common, observable developmental past. Development
> > starts with a single cell. With repeated dupliactions a complete body is
> > built
> >
> > At the beginning all animal embryo look alike,

I wonder just how far from the beginning Rolf thinks even vertebrate
embryos look alike. Haeckel's pictures have long since been shown
to be fictitious.

> > but later, at various
> > branching stages they break off and take a different course. Wit the
> > result that in due time, what started appearing just like any other
> > animal, it come out as a human, or a chimpanzee, a monkey - or a rabbit, a
> > mouse, an elephant. We all share a common past!
>
> We all live on the same planet. We all develop from DNA. We all convince
> ourselves that our interpretations of our reality are correct.

What kind of point are you trying to make here? I suggest you read
what I wrote below before answering.

You "spoke out of the other side of your mouth"
when you posted the following, immediately afterwards:

"The theory of Embryonic Recapitulation has been debunked,
like so many other hypotheses proposed over the years."

How can you say that, when both the debunkers and the theorists
they debunked equally "convince [them]selves that [their] interpretations
of our reality are correct"?

Could it be that your first comment was intentionally irrelevant
to everything that went before it, yet you wanted to create
the impression that it was a good rebuttal?

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 10:55:07 -0500, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:

Since my post neither says nor implies anything about Embryonic
Recapitulation, your reply is entirely irrelevant to it. You might as
well have said the theory of Phlogiston has been debunked. But thanks
for sharing.
--

[Peter Nyikos]

Jillery indulges in the same kind of behavior, so it's a case of
the pot calling the kettle black. Look at her unprovoked attacks
on me in the thread,

Subject: Re: Is OEC Even Worse than YEC? (ATTN: Ray Martinez)

I pointed these out and recalled another instance of bad behavior
by her in:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/sZm4VkscsBk/zaArW2UTph0J
Message-ID: <720e71bd-c8a6-421c...@googlegroups.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 08:01:07 -0700 (PDT)

Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

On 8/24/15, 10:26 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Monday, August 24, 2015 at 11:53:38 AM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
>> Rolf wrote:
>>
>>> Why bother with the human (or other) eyes?
>>>
>>> There are plenty enough of examples of what by human standards would be
>>> designatet as bad designs.
>>>
>>> Many of them are easliy seen as obviously being the result of evolution.
>>>
>>> The Giraffe's recurrent laryngeal nerve, the poor design of humans making
>>> hernia a side effect.
>>> Hiccups in humans - a reflex passed down for our inner fish, and all the
>>> clues to our origins we find when we study embryonal development.
>>>
>>> Why should the development of a human body in so many ways be a replay of
>>> an evolutionary past?
>>>
>>> All(?) animals share a common, observable developmental past. Development
>>> starts with a single cell. With repeated dupliactions a complete body is
>>> built
>>>
>>> At the beginning all animal embryo look alike,
>
> I wonder just how far from the beginning Rolf thinks even vertebrate
> embryos look alike. Haeckel's pictures have long since been shown
> to be fictitious.

It's just this sort of claim -- repeating a line from Jonathan Wells --
that makes people suspect you of creationism. (And before you scream, I
know you aren't.) Haeckel's pictures were retouched a bit, but accurate
pictures would show nearly as much similarity.

>> > but later, at various
>>> branching stages they break off and take a different course. Wit the
>>> result that in due time, what started appearing just like any other
>>> animal, it come out as a human, or a chimpanzee, a monkey - or a rabbit, a
>>> mouse, an elephant. We all share a common past!
>>
>> We all live on the same planet. We all develop from DNA. We all convince
>> ourselves that our interpretations of our reality are correct.
>
> What kind of point are you trying to make here?

Bill tries very hard to avoid making any sort of clear point. That way
nobody can argue with him, and he wins.

[RSNorman]

On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 10:26:16 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On Monday, August 24, 2015 at 11:53:38 AM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
>> Rolf wrote:
>>
>> > Why bother with the human (or other) eyes?
>> >
>> > There are plenty enough of examples of what by human standards would be
>> > designatet as bad designs.
>> >
>> > Many of them are easliy seen as obviously being the result of evolution.
>> >
>> > The Giraffe's recurrent laryngeal nerve, the poor design of humans making
>> > hernia a side effect.
>> > Hiccups in humans - a reflex passed down for our inner fish, and all the
>> > clues to our origins we find when we study embryonal development.
>> >
>> > Why should the development of a human body in so many ways be a replay of
>> > an evolutionary past?
>> >
>> > All(?) animals share a common, observable developmental past. Development
>> > starts with a single cell. With repeated dupliactions a complete body is
>> > built
>> >
>> > At the beginning all animal embryo look alike,
>
>I wonder just how far from the beginning Rolf thinks even vertebrate
>embryos look alike. Haeckel's pictures have long since been shown
>to be fictitious.
>

We don't have to dredge up Haeckel any more. The similarities between
the embryos are very real even though his images exagerated them and
his interpretation of them were wrong. The tail buds and pharyngeal
arches/pouches really do exist across vertebrate lines and form in the
same fashion at around similar stages in development. Rolf has
already been corrected. Embryos really do look different if you care
to focus on the differences. But they really do look strikingly
similar (alike, if you wish) if you focus on important features of
development that are most definitely shared. More important, those
similarities and differences in embryological development show the
same nested hierarchy pattern as do the adult morphology and the
genetic material.

This is relevant to (un)intelligent design exactly as Rolf argues:
developmental constraints imposed by the evolutionary pattern of
development are excellent explanations for some rather extreme
weirdnesses (bad design?) seen in many animals.

[jillery]

On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 10:43:31 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On Monday, August 24, 2015 at 2:48:39 AM UTC-4, 嘱 Tiib wrote:

Actually, you assert a false equivalence. Bill has a long history of
failing to back up his claims and evading/ignoring question. I don't.
The only questions I don't answer are stupid ones like "what's your
gender?" I bet you even know who I'm talking about.

>Look at her unprovoked attacks
>on me in the thread,
>
>Subject: Re: Is OEC Even Worse than YEC? (ATTN: Ray Martinez)
>
>I pointed these out and recalled another instance of bad behavior
>by her in:
>
>https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/sZm4VkscsBk/zaArW2UTph0J
>Message-ID: <720e71bd-c8a6-421c...@googlegroups.com>
>Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 08:01:07 -0700 (PDT)

Considering that you evaded replying to my post for over 4 months,
with one lame excuse after another, while in the meantime criticizing
others for not replying to your posts, your cited post doesn't show
what you think it shows.

Besides, why bother 嘱 Tiib with your self-serving spam?

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 10:13:50 PM UTC-4, jonathan wrote:
> On 8/20/2015 8:39 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> > On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 8:23:50 PM UTC-4, Bill wrote:

> >>> "Furthermore, why wouldn't an intelligent designer make it possible for
> >>> animals to digest their natural food without playing host to huge
> >>> populations of bacteria in the first place: Couldn't mammals have
> >>> been equipped with their own enzymes to do the job?
> >>

> >> I'm confused. Are you saying there is no Intelligent Design because you
> >> don't like the design or is it that you could've done better?
> >>
> >> Bill
> >
> > Does it matter what he is saying? The important thing is to look at the
> > arguments and decide for yourself where you stand.
> >
> > For me, the message is neither. It is that if there was Intelligent
> > Design behind the biology, the Designer evidently wasn't concerned
> > about doing everything efficiently. Since I am convinced that
> > all kingdoms of life are descended from common ancestor,
> > I further believe that if there is an Intelligent Designer,
> > it let nature take its course for the most part, intervening
> > only here and there in the course of evolution to push things
> > in a certain direction at crucial junctures. Here is one possibility:

> Does human intelligence effect our evolutionary path?

It may, through eugenics and tampering with our genome. This is
a major source of concern to people concerned about the ethics
of genetics "research". See, for example,

http://www.geneticsandsociety.org/article.php?id=8711

> For instance with farming, medical advances and even
> greed or our dreams?

Why do you mention farming in this context?

> Of course it does, and it could be argued such
> intelligent effects are the more defining
> as a goal represents a directed path.
>
> So for higher forms of life, conscious life, intelligent
> design is not only a primary cause of change, but an
> entirely rational if not obvious factor.

Your use of the word "change" suggests that you have lost
sight of the original theme, which had to do purely
and exclusively with the evolution of new kinds of organisms
from old, and the inefficiencies which have developed because
of the paths that evolution took.

> God is merely what humanity could become in a perfect world.

You are welcome to your private definition of "God" but it
has nothing to do with the issue of whether the inefficiencies
might have been designed by a far less than perfect designer.

> God is perfection or the ideal goal, the most rational
> or intelligent goal of all.

Another private definition of "God" in which I am not interested.

> We don't need to invoke God or intelligent design for
> ants or birds so to speak. But for humans God is the
> prime mover for evolution.
>
> There's nothing at all irrational or illogical in the
> above conclusions.

IMHO, there is nothing meaningful in them either. They sound like
empty slogans to me, devoid of anything one can either prove,
refute, or even give evidence for or against. "jonathan is a dork"
is actually more meaningful IMHO, since the word "dork" has a
generally accepted usage.

[I must admit that I never learned what that usage was, but that
only emphasizes just how meaningless I take your sloganeering to be.]

Peter Nyikos

> > ``Perhaps there also, among rotting fish heads and blue,
> > night-burning bog lights, moved the eternal mystery,
> > the careful finger of God. The increase was not much.
> > It was two bubbles, two thin-walled little balloons at the
> > end of the Snout's small brain. The cerebral hemispheres
> > had appeared.''
> > --Loren Eiseley_The Immense Journey_
> >
> > Eiseley was not a theist, but this quote shows he had not closed
> > his mind to the possibility that theism is true.
> >
> > Peter Nyikos
> > Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> > University of South Carolina
> > http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/
> >

[eridanus]

You presented the case of the pyramids as an example of design. We know it
is a design because it is presents some appearance of other human
constructions. We can infer some motivation for a human leader to explain
those constructions of a class or other.
But to pass from examples of human constructions, even animal constructions,
to whole universe... it is very daring. There is not any analogy, other than
human beings or animals, to establish some works or designs of the gods.
We lack of an experience about the works of the gods.
Moreover, if you are driven by reason... what would be the goal of a god
whatever to create the universe, and all the living creatures of the earth?
I am not counting on the possible living creatures in other planets.

To be a convinced theist, I need a rational argument for a god to create
the universe and all living creatures of this planet. Why? What was the
goal of god? If you cannot present me a rational argument for a divinity
to be the creator of the universe, I would remain atheist.
When I was a kid in a religious school, the nuns told me we were put here
in this planet, to sing the praises of god. I was about 12 then, so I
started to go back and for on this argument, and I decided that this god
was absurd. I was 12 years old, but I could not find any rational
argument for a god to create the universe and this planet. Since then, I had not met yet any compelling argument in favor of a god creator.
Was god bored in his long eternity, and decided to create the universe just
to keep entertained? Then, he was not omniscient.
Eri

[Bill]

The argument seemed to rely on Embryonic Recapitulation which is just multi-
syllable term for an appearance, a hunch. Since all living things develop
from DNA similarities are probably inevitable. Since all known living things
are on the same planet, we can expect some shared characteristics. Since
people like having answers, they find them. Whether the answers are correct
isn't too important.

Bill

[Bill]

I believe this sub-thread began with someone saying the human eye was
designed (evolved) backwards. I asked for some supporting evidence. I
believe that the topic shifted somewhat to bad design (evolution) with an
implied reference to embryonic recapitulation.

There has also been references, unintentional I hope, to Larmarckian
evolution. In fact the whole issue of bad design (evolution) is just a
rhetorical contrivance suitable only for weak and superficial arguments.

My point was that, to the extent that we respect real science and
acknowledge actually established fact, this whole sub-thread is a bogus
polemic against those skeptical of Darwinian evolution. Science isn't the
issue, philosophical bias is.

Bill

[Mark Isaak]

On 8/23/15 1:15 PM, Bill wrote:
> Mark Isaak wrote:
>
>> On 8/22/15 8:11 PM, Steady Eddie wrote:

>>>>>> "Furthermore, why wouldn't an intelligent designer make it
>>>>>> possible for
>>>>>> animals to digest their natural food without playing host to huge
>>>>>> populations of bacteria in the first place: Couldn't mammals have
>>>>>> been equipped with their own enzymes to do the job?
>>>>>>

>>>>>> ....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Isn't this how God walks in and with us in our individual lives
>>>>>> as
>>>>>> well, cheering us on, emboldening us and consoling us in our often
>>>>>> misguided attempts to live well and do right, and standing in
>>>>>> compassion and solidarity with us when we fail, and loving us into
>>>>>> trying again? And isn't this a more compelling vision of God, and
>>>>>> truer to the biblical God who comes again and again to offer salvation
>>>>>> to erring humankind, that that of a designer who can't quite seem to
>>>>>> get things right?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By Lisa Fullam, Veterinarian, Asst Prof. of Moral Theology, Jesuit
>>>>>> School of Theology, Berkeley, CA
>>>>>>

>>>>>> earle
>>>>>> *
>>>>>
>>>>> Go ahead and build one flea.
>>>>> Then come back and tell me how to 'properly' design a horse
>>>>> LOL!
>>>>

>>>> Simple. Start with self-reproducing chemicals, and let them evolve.
>>>

>>> Yes, of course.
>>> And where do you find these self-reproducing chemicals?
>>
>> Start with the Big Bang, which creates hydrogen. The hydrogen fuses in
>> stars to create heavier elements, most notably carbon, nitrogen, and
>> oxygen. A few supernovae disperse these elements back into space,
>> creating some even heavier ones in the process. These condense to
>> create a next-generation star and planets around it. A couple planets
>> are close enough that much but not too much of the light elements get
>> blown away by the solar wind. One of these planets in particular has
>> lots of water on the surface and lots of carbon dioxide and nitrogen in
>> the atmosphere. These chemicals cannot fail but to combine in complex
>> ways. The planet also has stable energy sources at the top and bottom
>> of the water which can fuel even more complex formations. Then just wait.
>
> So you've read what, Discovery magazine, watched the Science channel on TV
> and now you know exactly how everything came to be. Hardly any point in
> looking any further and certainly no need to think about it.

No, that is the level I would *write* for Discovery magazine. If you
want more, there are zillions of sources which will give you incredible
levels of detail on every step. Including the last step (complex
chemicals to self-reproducing chemicals). Granted, the last is heavily
dosed with speculation, but it is equally heavily dosed with scientific
observation and experiment to show that the speculation is plausible.

Note, though, that to access it, you will first need to learn how to
read. Note further that learning to read means more than learning what
the words mean. Learning to read means (1) learning what the words
mean; (2) recognizing broader ideas that are expressed by the words; (3)
letting those broader ideas inside your head; and (4) actively searching
for sources which have ideas you have not learned yet.

--
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

[John Harshman]

Well, thanks for making your point clearly at last. I had thought you
were merely indulging in epistemic nihilism. Your claim seemed to be
that we can't know if a design (or thing that may or may not have been
designed) is sub-optimal and thus can never make an argument about bad
design. And that in fact remains a possibility.

I will also point out that "skeptical of Darwinian evolution" is such a
vague phrase as to communicate almost nothing. As is "real science" --
as opposed to what? I think you obfuscate on purpose.

[John Harshman]

No, not recapitulation; proceeding from general to specific: von Baer's
idea, not Haeckel's. No hypothesis of evolution is needed to observe
that early animal embryos resemble each other in various ways.

> Since all living things develop
> from DNA similarities are probably inevitable.

That's an absurd statement on many levels. First off, nothing "develops"
from DNA; DNA is a chemical that can be both replicated and transcribed,
and can also be bound by other chemicals, sometimes with effects on the
rate of transcription. Second, the only inevitable similarities are in
the existence of DNA as the genetic material. All else, in so far as DNA
is relevant, has to do with the particular sequences of the DNA, which
are not constrained by any necessity.

> Since all known living things
> are on the same planet, we can expect some shared characteristics.

Once again, location on the same planet implies nothing about shared
characteristics except that they will all be active under the conditions
of temperature, pressure, etc. in which they are found. I will also
point out that both of these "explanations" apply to bacteria as well as
to animals, and so can't explain the similarities of animals that are
not shared as well with bacteria.

> Since
> people like having answers, they find them. Whether the answers are correct
> isn't too important.

This statement certainly fits what you have said, but it doesn't fit
evolutionary biology. You have found two absurdly inadequate
explanations for the similarities of animals. I'm sure you don't care
whether they're correct. But we do have one quite adequate and easily
tested explanation: common descent. And you care very much that common
descent not be correct. Is that right?

[Ray Martinez]

On Sunday, August 23, 2015 at 4:43:40 PM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
>
>
> ...
>
> > ... After all
> > Evolutionists, far and wide, have said over and over that the human eye is
> > mal-designed or assembled backwards. But in reality the claim has been
> > shown completely false. The human eye was not assembled backwards or
> > mal-designed.
> >
>
> That's a new one.

No its not.

> Where is the argument that the human eye is designed (or
> evolved) backwards? I'm almost positive no one would seriously make such a
> claim.
>
> Bill

Like I said: it's in evo literature far and wide. The claim is that God did not design the eye because it is wired backwards----the same is evidence that natural selection did it.

Off the top of my head Ken Miller and Richard Dawkins have made the argument. But again, it's a common claim in evo literature and it's completely false, made up.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

For Bill:

Pay attention. The backwards wiring of the human retina is hardly new. Evolutionists have been mouthing this ridiculous claim matter of factly for decades.

Ray

[Bill]

As I said your references are anecdotal and speculative peppered with
hypothetical might haves and could have and maybes and perhapses. Feel free
to post the facts you have supporting your enthusiasm.

Bill

[jillery]

Actually, you suggested that you never heard of it before now. I
cited a reference for you. That's what people do when they're
interested in discussion. You're welcome.

> I
>believe that the topic shifted somewhat to bad design (evolution) with an
>implied reference to embryonic recapitulation.

There was no implied reference embryonic recapitulation. You just
made it up.

>There has also been references, unintentional I hope, to Larmarckian
>evolution. In fact the whole issue of bad design (evolution) is just a
>rhetorical contrivance suitable only for weak and superficial arguments.
>
>My point was that, to the extent that we respect real science and
>acknowledge actually established fact, this whole sub-thread is a bogus
>polemic against those skeptical of Darwinian evolution. Science isn't the
>issue, philosophical bias is.

Nope, that's not it.

[Bill]

Ask anybody, I'm not smart enough to obfuscate on purpose. In fact I
probably don't do anything on purpose. Any argument of bad design is
dimwitted on its face. If there is no design then bad design applies to
nothing. If there is Design the it must be assumed that bad design was
intentional and that just makes us ignorant complainers.


Skeptical of Darwinian evolution seems self explanatory. I have become
familiar with the various variations of the theory and the innumerable
conjectures surrounding it and it's unconvincing. Too many what-ifs and
maybes and could have beens. It all seems (to me) to be a rickety, cobbled
together intellectual artifact.

Bill

[jillery]

On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 17:53:23 -0500, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:


[...]

>Any argument of bad design is
>dimwitted on its face. If there is no design then bad design applies to
>nothing. If there is Design the it must be assumed that bad design was
>intentional and that just makes us ignorant complainers.

Your "argument" above is based on a play on words, on the use of
design as a verb and as a noun. That's a standard IDiot tactic and is
avoided by those interested in discussing things rationally.

But as you say, *IF* there is Design, meaning purposeful design, then
it must indeed be assumed that bad design was intentional, and so the
Designer is also sub-optimal.

Your dodge to the above is to assume the sub-optimal functionality is
not in fact sub-optimal. The problem with that assumption is there
are examples in life where different processes perform the same
function at least greatly improved if not optimally.

So the question you face is why a Designer would intentionally use a
sub-optimal design in one organism but not in another. You can dodge
the question by asserting mysterious Design, but then you explicitly
negate your assertion of your ability to recognize Design.

>Skeptical of Darwinian evolution seems self explanatory. I have become
>familiar with the various variations of the theory and the innumerable
>conjectures surrounding it and it's unconvincing. Too many what-ifs and
>maybes and could have beens. It all seems (to me) to be a rickety, cobbled
>together intellectual artifact.

You have just tacitly admitted that your "skepticism" is based on your
personal problems. That Darwinian Evolution appears cobbled together
to you is no basis to assume that it's incorrect.

[John Harshman]

Then you are suspiciously bad at expressing yourself. Are you smart
enough to know what "disingenuous" means?

> In fact I
> probably don't do anything on purpose. Any argument of bad design is
> dimwitted on its face. If there is no design then bad design applies to
> nothing. If there is Design the it must be assumed that bad design was
> intentional and that just makes us ignorant complainers.

Poor reasoning. The argument from bad design is a form of reductio ad
absurdam: you assume something for the sake of argument and show that it
leads to a contradiction. In this case the assumption is that god
designed organisms, and the conclusion is that god isn't very good at
it, which contradicts the common claims about god's nature. No, bad
design doesn't have to be intentional, and there are countless examples
of poor human design to show you that.

> Skeptical of Darwinian evolution seems self explanatory.

To you, perhaps. Not to anyone who cares what words mean. The theory of
evolution is a bundle of theories, some of them initially enunciated by
Darwin, others not. One may accept or reject various combinations of
them, and it's unclear how much of modern science you accept or reject
if you just use that phrase. How old do you think the earth is? How old
do you think life is? Are some species descended from common ancestors
or was each one created separately? Over what period of time did
separate creations occur, if they did?

> I have become
> familiar with the various variations of the theory and the innumerable
> conjectures surrounding it and it's unconvincing. Too many what-ifs and
> maybes and could have beens. It all seems (to me) to be a rickety, cobbled
> together intellectual artifact.

Your posts suggest that you are less familiar than you believe. This is
common among creationists.

[Bill]

jillery wrote:

> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 17:53:23 -0500, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> [...]
>
>
>>Any argument of bad design is
>>dimwitted on its face. If there is no design then bad design applies to
>>nothing. If there is Design the it must be assumed that bad design was
>>intentional and that just makes us ignorant complainers.
>
>
> Your "argument" above is based on a play on words, on the use of
> design as a verb and as a noun. That's a standard IDiot tactic and is
> avoided by those interested in discussing things rationally.
>
> But as you say, *IF* there is Design, meaning purposeful design, then
> it must indeed be assumed that bad design was intentional, and so the
> Designer is also sub-optimal.

The assumption is the Design (evolution) is bad or non-optimal. That has yet
to be convincingly demonstrated. Since evolution favors optimal change (as
opposed to extinction), there can be no sub-optimal evolution. If sub-
optimal evolution is possible then the exemplars would not have survived
since, after 3 billions years or so, the sub-optimal adaptations would have
been selected out.

The only time sub-optimal features or characteristics are cited is as an
argument against Intelligent Design or Creationism. In no other circumstance
would anyone make such a nonsensical claim. That is the only reason people
make that kind of "argument" and, posing as defenders of science, is
irredeemably hypocritical since it is wholly unscientific.

Bill

>
> Your dodge to the above is to assume the sub-optimal functionality is
> not in fact sub-optimal. The problem with that assumption is there
> are examples in life where different processes perform the same
> function at least greatly improved if not optimally.
>
> So the question you face is why a Designer would intentionally use a
> sub-optimal design in one organism but not in another. You can dodge
> the question by asserting mysterious Design, but then you explicitly
> negate your assertion of your ability to recognize Design.
>
>

I am not arguing for ID or Creationism nor have I anywhere else. If you
think it helps your case to misrepresent my remarks, people will eventually
catch on and whatever credibility you may have will evaporate. There is no
way for a sub-optimal functionality to persist in any current model of
evolution. There is only selection and, being selected, optimal. The entire
argument is specious and childish.

Bill

[Bill]

John Harshman wrote:

...

>> In fact I
>> probably don't do anything on purpose. Any argument of bad design is
>> dimwitted on its face. If there is no design then bad design applies to
>> nothing. If there is Design the it must be assumed that bad design was
>> intentional and that just makes us ignorant complainers.
>
> Poor reasoning. The argument from bad design is a form of reductio ad
> absurdam: you assume something for the sake of argument and show that it
> leads to a contradiction. In this case the assumption is that god
> designed organisms, and the conclusion is that god isn't very good at
> it, which contradicts the common claims about god's nature. No, bad
> design doesn't have to be intentional, and there are countless examples
> of poor human design to show you that.

The contradiction is that evolution uses natural selection to remedy bad
evolution; a bad adaptation is selected out and, eventually, goes away. Bad
evolution isn't possible in that it is self-correcting. Since some here
believe they have discovered bad design they also claim that there is bad
evolution. If that claim in false when applied to evolution it is false when
applied to deliberate design.

Since I have not made any reference to any gods, your attempt to tar me with
that brush is just a witless fallacy. You hope to discredit my posts with
irrelevancies and misrepresentations and false characterizations. The
argumentum absurdum is when you say that your criterion for "fitness" shifts
when talking about evolution and shifts again when talking about Intelligent
Design. You can't seem to decide what you're talking about.

...

> Your posts suggest that you are less familiar than you believe. This is
> common among creationists.

The old guilt by association fallacy again. You (and a few others) seem
desperate to discredit my posts as if the lurkers are too stupid to think
for themselves. Stick to what I say and quit inventing stuff.

Bill

[Glenn]

"John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:K_KdnY5EY6xfLkbI...@giganews.com...

"The argument from poor design, also known as the dysteleological argument, is an argument against the existence of a creator God"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_poor_design

"Dysteleology is an aggressive, yet optimistic, form of science-oriented atheism originally perhaps associated with Haeckel and his followers, but now perhaps more associated with the type of atheism of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, or Christopher Hitchens. Transcending traditional philosophical and religious perspectives, such as German idealism (including the philosophies of Hegel and Schelling) and contemporary New Age thinking, modern philosophical naturalism sees existence as having no inherent goal."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysteleology

Atheist much?

[John Harshman]

On 8/24/15, 6:31 PM, Bill wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:
>
> ...
>
>>> In fact I
>>> probably don't do anything on purpose. Any argument of bad design is
>>> dimwitted on its face. If there is no design then bad design applies to
>>> nothing. If there is Design the it must be assumed that bad design was
>>> intentional and that just makes us ignorant complainers.
>>
>> Poor reasoning. The argument from bad design is a form of reductio ad
>> absurdam: you assume something for the sake of argument and show that it
>> leads to a contradiction. In this case the assumption is that god
>> designed organisms, and the conclusion is that god isn't very good at
>> it, which contradicts the common claims about god's nature. No, bad
>> design doesn't have to be intentional, and there are countless examples
>> of poor human design to show you that.
>
> The contradiction is that evolution uses natural selection to remedy bad
> evolution; a bad adaptation is selected out and, eventually, goes away. Bad
> evolution isn't possible in that it is self-correcting. Since some here
> believe they have discovered bad design they also claim that there is bad
> evolution. If that claim in false when applied to evolution it is false when
> applied to deliberate design.

That's the fallacy that S. J. Gould called the "Panglossian paradigm",
i.e. that natural selection is all-powerful and everything must be for
the best in the best of all possible worlds. But in fact selection has
two major limitations: it can act only on variations that arise, and it
begins from a particular place. For both these reasons, it can't get to
anywhere from anywhere else, only to some places from some other places.
Thus we get bad design, because the starting point may not have a
selectable pathway to the optimal possible adaptation. That's why people
get backaches and hiccups, due to being evolved from quadrupeds and,
before that, fish.

God, of course, since he creates de novo, is under no such limitations.

Once again your reasoning betrays severe ignorance of evolutionary
biology. You should realize that and stop assuming expertise you lack.

> Since I have not made any reference to any gods, your attempt to tar me with
> that brush is just a witless fallacy. You hope to discredit my posts with
> irrelevancies and misrepresentations and false characterizations.

Do I? You may not have referred to gods, but who do you think the
intelligent designer is? You're trying to obfuscate again.

> The
> argumentum absurdum is when you say that your criterion for "fitness" shifts
> when talking about evolution and shifts again when talking about Intelligent
> Design. You can't seem to decide what you're talking about.

As I have pointed out, this is a fallacy.

>> Your posts suggest that you are less familiar than you believe. This is
>> common among creationists.
>
> The old guilt by association fallacy again. You (and a few others) seem
> desperate to discredit my posts as if the lurkers are too stupid to think
> for themselves. Stick to what I say and quit inventing stuff.

So you aren't a creationist? Time to come clean, then: how do you think
life got to be the way it is? What's your theory, if it doesn't involve
gods?

[Burkhard]

Bill wrote:
> jillery wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 17:53:23 -0500, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>
>>> Any argument of bad design is
>>> dimwitted on its face. If there is no design then bad design applies to
>>> nothing. If there is Design the it must be assumed that bad design was
>>> intentional and that just makes us ignorant complainers.
>>
>>
>> Your "argument" above is based on a play on words, on the use of
>> design as a verb and as a noun. That's a standard IDiot tactic and is
>> avoided by those interested in discussing things rationally.
>>
>> But as you say, *IF* there is Design, meaning purposeful design, then
>> it must indeed be assumed that bad design was intentional, and so the
>> Designer is also sub-optimal.
>
> The assumption is the Design (evolution) is bad or non-optimal. That has yet
> to be convincingly demonstrated. Since evolution favors optimal change (as
> opposed to extinction), there can be no sub-optimal evolution.

Evolution is never "optimal" in any meaningful sense of the word. It
chooses between existing alternatives the one at s marginally better.
That will hardly ever be the best imaginable, just a local optimum.

Further, evolution only adapts species relative to a given environment.
When the environment changes, traits that worked sufficiently well may
well become dysfunctional or even harmful.

At any given point in time, we should therefore expect in any given
species lots of traits that are suboptimal (if we understand optimal as
"the best conceivable solution")

If sub-
> optimal evolution is possible then the exemplars would not have survived
> since, after 3 billions years or so, the sub-optimal adaptations would have
> been selected out.

as above. That is not even a cartoon book version of evolution, j

[jillery]

On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 20:10:37 -0500, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>jillery wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 17:53:23 -0500, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>
>>>Any argument of bad design is
>>>dimwitted on its face. If there is no design then bad design applies to
>>>nothing. If there is Design the it must be assumed that bad design was
>>>intentional and that just makes us ignorant complainers.
>>
>>
>> Your "argument" above is based on a play on words, on the use of
>> design as a verb and as a noun. That's a standard IDiot tactic and is
>> avoided by those interested in discussing things rationally.
>>
>> But as you say, *IF* there is Design, meaning purposeful design, then
>> it must indeed be assumed that bad design was intentional, and so the
>> Designer is also sub-optimal.
>
>The assumption is the Design (evolution) is bad or non-optimal. That has yet
>to be convincingly demonstrated.

That's the premise. If you're uncomfortable speaking about a
hypothetical, then choose a specific example you think supports your
point of view.

>Since evolution favors optimal change (as
>opposed to extinction), there can be no sub-optimal evolution. If sub-
>optimal evolution is possible then the exemplars would not have survived
>since, after 3 billions years or so, the sub-optimal adaptations would have
>been selected out.

Nonsense. What you describe above is not how biological evolution
works. I can only imagine how you came up with it.

Organisms don't have to be the best to reproduce. The "fittest"
doesn't necessarily mean the strongest, fastest, or smartest.
They can be merely a little bit better than their neighbor. Or lucky.
Or they can use a different strategy.

>The only time sub-optimal features or characteristics are cited is as an
>argument against Intelligent Design or Creationism. In no other circumstance
>would anyone make such a nonsensical claim. That is the only reason people
>make that kind of "argument" and, posing as defenders of science, is
>irredeemably hypocritical since it is wholly unscientific.

The argument of sub-optimal design is not an argument for evolution,
but rather a direct challenge against the ID hypothesis. *IF* there
is a Designer of life, his designs are almost always less than
optimal, and so implies a less than optimal Designer. That you say
the conclusion of bad design is dimwitted is merely waving away
reality.

>> Your dodge to the above is to assume the sub-optimal functionality is
>> not in fact sub-optimal. The problem with that assumption is there
>> are examples in life where different processes perform the same
>> function at least greatly improved if not optimally.
>>
>> So the question you face is why a Designer would intentionally use a
>> sub-optimal design in one organism but not in another. You can dodge
>> the question by asserting mysterious Design, but then you explicitly
>> negate your assertion of your ability to recognize Design.
>>
>>
>
>I am not arguing for ID or Creationism nor have I anywhere else. If you
>think it helps your case to misrepresent my remarks, people will eventually
>catch on and whatever credibility you may have will evaporate. There is no
>way for a sub-optimal functionality to persist in any current model of
>evolution. There is only selection and, being selected, optimal. The entire
>argument is specious and childish.

You presume purposeful Design and conclude from it a Designer.
Whatever you want to call it, those are the fundamental elements of
ID. You can deny it three times before the cock crows like some
apostle caught with an inconvenient truth, but that won't save you any
more than it did him.

More to the point, calling an argument specious and childish without
substantiation is itself specious and childish. Since you deny that
evolution doesn't do what other people say it does, go ahead and cite
your sources, show your evidence, make your case. Simply repeating
your claim does not an argument make.

[Bill]

John Harshman wrote:


...

>
>> Since I have not made any reference to any gods, your attempt to tar me
>> with that brush is just a witless fallacy. You hope to discredit my posts
>> with irrelevancies and misrepresentations and false characterizations.
>
> Do I? You may not have referred to gods, but who do you think the
> intelligent designer is? You're trying to obfuscate again.

I have not argued for Intelligent Design. I have pointed out that there is
no logical or scientific basis for arguing against it. This is not the same
as promoting or defending ID as most marginally intelligent people would
understand. You are obviously not aware that one can be skeptical of the
current theories of evolution without being a Creationist or substituting
Intelligent Design. You hope to insinuate a mutually exclusive choice into a
discussion you obviously don't comprehend.

>
>> The
>> argumentum absurdum is when you say that your criterion for "fitness"
>> shifts when talking about evolution and shifts again when talking about
>> Intelligent Design. You can't seem to decide what you're talking about.
>
> As I have pointed out, this is a fallacy.
>
>>> Your posts suggest that you are less familiar than you believe. This is
>>> common among creationists.
>>
>> The old guilt by association fallacy again. You (and a few others) seem
>> desperate to discredit my posts as if the lurkers are too stupid to think
>> for themselves. Stick to what I say and quit inventing stuff.
>
> So you aren't a creationist? Time to come clean, then: how do you think
> life got to be the way it is? What's your theory, if it doesn't involve
> gods?

A few more post like this one and you will have lost all credibility. I have
not proposed any theory of biological development. I have pointed out that
the current theories are unpersuasive. Your false dichotomy is just another
fallacy in your quest for irrationality.

Bill

[John Harshman]

On 8/25/15, 9:23 AM, Bill wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>
> ...
>
>>
>>> Since I have not made any reference to any gods, your attempt to tar me
>>> with that brush is just a witless fallacy. You hope to discredit my posts
>>> with irrelevancies and misrepresentations and false characterizations.
>>
>> Do I? You may not have referred to gods, but who do you think the
>> intelligent designer is? You're trying to obfuscate again.
>
> I have not argued for Intelligent Design. I have pointed out that there is
> no logical or scientific basis for arguing against it. This is not the same
> as promoting or defending ID as most marginally intelligent people would
> understand. You are obviously not aware that one can be skeptical of the
> current theories of evolution without being a Creationist or substituting
> Intelligent Design. You hope to insinuate a mutually exclusive choice into a
> discussion you obviously don't comprehend.

Once again you refuse to present your own point of view. Why? And of
course you can't point out anything if you don't understand the science
at issue, and you have given ample demonstration that you don't.

>>> The
>>> argumentum absurdum is when you say that your criterion for "fitness"
>>> shifts when talking about evolution and shifts again when talking about
>>> Intelligent Design. You can't seem to decide what you're talking about.
>>
>> As I have pointed out, this is a fallacy.
>>
>>>> Your posts suggest that you are less familiar than you believe. This is
>>>> common among creationists.
>>>
>>> The old guilt by association fallacy again. You (and a few others) seem
>>> desperate to discredit my posts as if the lurkers are too stupid to think
>>> for themselves. Stick to what I say and quit inventing stuff.
>>
>> So you aren't a creationist? Time to come clean, then: how do you think
>> life got to be the way it is? What's your theory, if it doesn't involve
>> gods?
>
> A few more post like this one and you will have lost all credibility. I have
> not proposed any theory of biological development. I have pointed out that
> the current theories are unpersuasive. Your false dichotomy is just another
> fallacy in your quest for irrationality.

Why haven't you proposed any theory? Is it because you don't have one?
You must understand that in science we weigh alternative hypotheses
against each other, so it's necessary to have at least one such
alternative. How can you know that current theories are unpersuasive if
you have no clear idea, as you don't, what current theories are?

I'm also trying without success to find out what areas of background
agreement we can assume and what sorts of methodology you would accept
as valid. In another post you have denied we can know anything about an
event unless we were present at it ("Were you there?"), which is a
near-complete rejection of scientific methodology. I would like to know
if we can agree on an age for the universe, the earth, and life. I would
like to know if we can agree on some amount of common descent and if so
how much. I would like to know if we can agree that natural selection is
a real phenomenon.

[Bill]

jillery wrote:


...

The argument of sub-optimal design is specious because it was contrived for
the sole purpose of debunking ID. I mentioned this above and you called it
nonsense yet you admit that the argument is a special case. Now I know you
don't read my posts but it appears that you don't read yours either.

Since we have established that your argument of sub-optimal design is
fallacious, it is irrelevant to any theory of evolution. Since a sub-optimal
design would impose hardship on an organism, it would be selected out. Over
time this alleged sub-optimal design would simply disappear and there would
no evidence for it.

From that obvious fact we can conclude that there is no such thing as sub-
optimal design. Yet you argue that it is evidence of non-design. How can
this be?

>>I am not arguing for ID or Creationism nor have I anywhere else. If you
>>think it helps your case to misrepresent my remarks, people will
>>eventually catch on and whatever credibility you may have will evaporate.
>>There is no way for a sub-optimal functionality to persist in any current
>>model of evolution. There is only selection and, being selected, optimal.
>>The entire argument is specious and childish.
>
>
> You presume purposeful Design and conclude from it a Designer.
> Whatever you want to call it, those are the fundamental elements of
> ID. You can deny it three times before the cock crows like some
> apostle caught with an inconvenient truth, but that won't save you any
> more than it did him.

Your sub-optimal design argument is not science, not evolution and not
rational; it's just noise to drown out good sense. It is invoked for the
sole purpose of discrediting any hint of design in nature.

>
> More to the point, calling an argument specious and childish without
> substantiation is itself specious and childish. Since you deny that
> evolution doesn't do what other people say it does, go ahead and cite
> your sources, show your evidence, make your case. Simply repeating
> your claim does not an argument make.

I did all of that, several times. It isn't my sources or my logic that
offends, it's the conclusion. My conclusion is not that actual design in
nature actually happens but that it's as plausible as the pseudo-scientific
blather offered in its place. Inventing special case arguments to make
points that otherwise are entirely irrelevant, is, as I said, specious and
childish.

Bill

[John Harshman]

Why would the reason the argument was contrived have any necessary
effect on the validity of the argument? What you have there is a form of
ad hominem argument, which you should know is invalid.

> I mentioned this above and you called it
> nonsense yet you admit that the argument is a special case. Now I know you
> don't read my posts but it appears that you don't read yours either.
>
> Since we have established that your argument of sub-optimal design is
> fallacious,

We have not.

> it is irrelevant to any theory of evolution. Since a sub-optimal
> design would impose hardship on an organism, it would be selected out. Over
> time this alleged sub-optimal design would simply disappear and there would
> no evidence for it.

Once again you fail to notice jillery's point (and mine): that natural
selection does not produce a global optimum, only an approach to a local
one. It can only respond to variation that arises from a particular
starting point. Your view of evolution, despite your claims to have
studied the matter, is a naive strawman.

> From that obvious fact we can conclude that there is no such thing as sub-
> optimal design. Yet you argue that it is evidence of non-design. How can
> this be?

I believe that's been covered: your assumptions are flawed.

>>> I am not arguing for ID or Creationism nor have I anywhere else. If you
>>> think it helps your case to misrepresent my remarks, people will
>>> eventually catch on and whatever credibility you may have will evaporate.
>>> There is no way for a sub-optimal functionality to persist in any current
>>> model of evolution. There is only selection and, being selected, optimal.
>>> The entire argument is specious and childish.
>>
>>
>> You presume purposeful Design and conclude from it a Designer.
>> Whatever you want to call it, those are the fundamental elements of
>> ID. You can deny it three times before the cock crows like some
>> apostle caught with an inconvenient truth, but that won't save you any
>> more than it did him.
>
> Your sub-optimal design argument is not science, not evolution and not
> rational; it's just noise to drown out good sense. It is invoked for the
> sole purpose of discrediting any hint of design in nature.

Once again, purpose doesn't matter. It's the argument itself you must
deal with.

>> More to the point, calling an argument specious and childish without
>> substantiation is itself specious and childish. Since you deny that
>> evolution doesn't do what other people say it does, go ahead and cite
>> your sources, show your evidence, make your case. Simply repeating
>> your claim does not an argument make.
>
> I did all of that, several times. It isn't my sources or my logic that
> offends, it's the conclusion. My conclusion is not that actual design in
> nature actually happens but that it's as plausible as the pseudo-scientific
> blather offered in its place. Inventing special case arguments to make
> points that otherwise are entirely irrelevant, is, as I said, specious and
> childish.

What offends is actually the means by which you arrive at your
conclusion, which are not adequate to the task. Well, also your
unwillingness to take a position, which might lead you to have to defend it.

[dcleve]

Bill,

You would benefit from reading "Climbing Mount Improbable" by Dawkins. He discusses many features of sub-optimality, what makes them sub-optimal, how they could have arisen evolutionarily, and why they will not be fixed by natural selection. The common issue is that evolution moves in small steps, and a "fitness" universe for a species is not a smooth and uniform shape, but has many local peaks in it. A species will move to the closest peak (an effective "local optima" design). Other design approaches might have been better as starting assumptions, but there isn't any way for a species to transition to the higher fitness peak by small steps.

Suboptimality was not invented to refute ID -- it is well known and was considered an major explanatory problem for evolutionists for years. That it refutes ID is not because of any kind of conspiracy -- just clear thinking.

[dcleve]

On Monday, August 24, 2015 at 2:33:39 PM UTC-4, eridanus wrote:

> To be a convinced theist, I need a rational argument for a god to create
> the universe and all living creatures of this planet. Why? What was the
> goal of god? If you cannot present me a rational argument for a divinity
> to be the creator of the universe, I would remain atheist.
> When I was a kid in a religious school, the nuns told me we were put here
> in this planet, to sing the praises of god. I was about 12 then, so I
> started to go back and for on this argument, and I decided that this god
> was absurd. I was 12 years old, but I could not find any rational
> argument for a god to create the universe and this planet. Since then, I had not met yet any compelling argument in favor of a god creator.
> Was god bored in his long eternity, and decided to create the universe just
> to keep entertained? Then, he was not omniscient.
> Eri

You seem to want to find a NEED that a creator had -- well you won't find one if you assume a creator which by definition has no needs. You assumed your own conclusion.

Why start with the assumptions of omniscience and omnipotence? There is almost nothing in our universe which is consistent with them. Abandon both, then try to figure out if there could be a reason for the universe to be designed. You will find multitudes of potential reasons, and lots of potential tests to evaluate them.

[jillery]

On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 11:23:30 -0500, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>John Harshman wrote:

>>> Since I have not made any reference to any gods, your attempt to tar me
>>> with that brush is just a witless fallacy. You hope to discredit my posts
>>> with irrelevancies and misrepresentations and false characterizations.
>>
>> Do I? You may not have referred to gods, but who do you think the
>> intelligent designer is? You're trying to obfuscate again.
>
>I have not argued for Intelligent Design.

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 12:39:20 -0500, in message-ID:
<mqdbt8$mmk$1...@dont-email.me>
you wrote:

"As far as observing Intelligent Design goes, it is inferred from both
our own abilities and the complexity of the structures making
intelligent design possible. "


On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 17:03:57 -0500, in message-ID:
<mqgfpg$vhh$1...@dont-email.me>
you wrote:

"A design is designed and that necessarily requires a designer.
Unguided design is a contradiction in terms."

Unless somebody hijacked your account, you have unambiguously and
explicitly argued for Intelligent Design. The witless fallacy is
yours.