Was It Designed?

solomons path

Quadrivium
reply to post by solomons path

 

I understand what you're saying here but there is always a flaw in these experiments.
An intelligent being was behind them.
He MADE the bots in order to study how the spinal cord COULD have developed naturally.
Large parts of the "Theory of Evolution" are based on assumptions, what ifs, could haves and would haves.
If you do not realize this, then perhaps it is you who does not truly understand the theory.
Did his study show how the spinal cord evolved or did he show how they COULD have evolved?

Evolution is merely the mechanism organisms use to change over time, in order to ensure survival . . . And, this study shows how and why that happened. I understand Evolutionary Theory quite well. All of the concepts that you call "assumptions, what ifs, could haves, and would haves" are based on volumes of empirical evidence, which were acquired through observation and experimentation. They are repeatable and falsifiable . . .

People observed evolution? We observe adaptation not Darwinian evolution. Where are the fossil records of anything evolving from one species to another species? Nature seems to have definitive barriers for cross species blending.

You are not seeing the bigger picture. Most people that went through grade school understand evolution, its a simple concept, to assume someone that postulates it is partially false does not understand evolution is just plain goofy.

The bigger picture.

The balance of all things in the universe is not chaotic trial and error.

The macrocosm vs. the microcosm is not trial and error.

Just the fact that ducks spread fish eggs clinging to feathers is enough to open someones eyes to something more that just chance.

If you think Darwinian evolution is an absolute, then you have to logically agree that Adolph Hitler with his eugenics program are correct.

Explain what all scientists cannot. How did the cell first get developed from primordial soup?

Quadrivium

solomons path

Quadrivium
reply to post by solomons path

 

I understand what you're saying here but there is always a flaw in these experiments.
An intelligent being was behind them.
He MADE the bots in order to study how the spinal cord COULD have developed naturally.
Large parts of the "Theory of Evolution" are based on assumptions, what ifs, could haves and would haves.
If you do not realize this, then perhaps it is you who does not truly understand the theory.
Did his study show how the spinal cord evolved or did he show how they COULD have evolved?

Evolution is merely the mechanism organisms use to change over time, in order to ensure survival . . . And, this study shows how and why that happened. I understand Evolutionary Theory quite well. All of the concepts that you call "assumptions, what ifs, could haves, and would haves" are based on volumes of empirical evidence, which were acquired through observation and experimentation. They are repeatable and falsifiable . . . unlike the mere conjecture of design. They are only "assumptions" to those that would rather deal in superstition and pseudo-science.

There is no "flaw", unless you are starting from a pre-supposition that is was designed/created.

Your argument holds no merit and shows your lack of understanding in this study's findings.

edit on 10/16/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)

Ah......I see the problem now.
Any one who does not agree with you is dumb and can not understand the theory.

What if you're too blinded by what you think you know that you can't see the truth?
Question:
How did his experiments PROVE the spinal column evolved naturally?
The only thing it actually proved is that the experiments were CREATED/DESIGNED by an INTELLIGENT souce. In this case it was the scientist conducting the experiments.

You apparently need your eyes checked then, because your response was full of strawman statements.

I did not say anyone that doesn't agree with me was dumb and can not understand . . . I said your response to what the study points to shows you do not understand the findings. I also didn't use the word "prove", I said this study shows the "how and why" it was beneficial for the vertebral column to evolve and why it suggests natural evolution. I also said why the findings don't point to design in my first post on the subject. If there is evidence for a natural evolution from earlier life forms with only a notochord to primitive spinal structure to more complex vertebrae . . . there is no reason to assume a supernatural causation, where no evidence of the supernatural exists. Science deals in what the evidence points to, not what faith tells us.

I suggest, since you are making the claim that this study doesn't point to the natural evolution of the vertebral column, you actually read the study and point out to me where it is wrong . . . since you seem to understand it so well and claim it is all just "assumption".

Here’s one of my favorite questions: How did the first fishlike vertebrates evolve from wormlike ancestors some 500 million years ago? What we know comes from amazing soft-bodied fossils unearthed in the early Cambrian deposits of China. Schools of little inch-long fish, named Haikouichthys, had an internal support system, a fibrous head-to-tail rod called a notochord. The notochord is the scaffold upon which evolution builds the bony, jointed column of vertebrae that we know as our backbone. So to understand the origin of vertebrates, we have to figure out why bony vertebrae evolved in backbones.

There are quite a few papers to read on the subject, as you have to understand what was already known about the evolution of the vertebral column, so it might take a while. As I said previously, volumes of evidence.
BioRobots Article
BioRobots Article 2
[Origin of Tetrapods
Evolution of Vertebrae
Exploring the Evolution of Early Vertebrates
From Swimming to Walking
John Long's PublicationsEarly Vertebrates
Vertebral Column of Fishes


After you point out why these studies and publications are wrong or don't show a natural evolution of the vertebral column, perhaps you could let me know a few things about the vertebral column as proposed by the Design Hypothesis?

According to Design, what was the function of creating the vertebral column and what are it's benefits?
How and why does the formation of the vertebral column change the morphology of early animals that show only a notochord and how did that aid in their survival?
What function does the anatomical change in the vertebral column between taxa point to and how did it aid in their survival?
Why do Hominids have vestigial remnants from earlier versions of the vertebral column?

Again, please answer from what Design Hypothesis proposes and predicts. Also, post all relevant papers/articles published on the subject, as it relates to Design.

Thanks . . .

reply to post by solomons path


Vestigial remnants, you mean our tailbone? Hmmm... how do you expect our spine to end? It does not mean we once had tails.

Look at all life, it always has that same earthly signature, most plants have roots, most plants have stalks.

Evolution is a fact of course, it does not mean there is not a grand design.

LoneGunMan

solomons path

Quadrivium
reply to post by solomons path

 

I understand what you're saying here but there is always a flaw in these experiments.
An intelligent being was behind them.
He MADE the bots in order to study how the spinal cord COULD have developed naturally.
Large parts of the "Theory of Evolution" are based on assumptions, what ifs, could haves and would haves.
If you do not realize this, then perhaps it is you who does not truly understand the theory.
Did his study show how the spinal cord evolved or did he show how they COULD have evolved?

Evolution is merely the mechanism organisms use to change over time, in order to ensure survival . . . And, this study shows how and why that happened. I understand Evolutionary Theory quite well. All of the concepts that you call "assumptions, what ifs, could haves, and would haves" are based on volumes of empirical evidence, which were acquired through observation and experimentation. They are repeatable and falsifiable . . .

People observed evolution? We observe adaptation not Darwinian evolution. Where are the fossil records of anything evolving from one species to another species? Nature seems to have definitive barriers for cross species blending.

You are not seeing the bigger picture. Most people that went through grade school understand evolution, its a simple concept, to assume someone that postulates it is partially false does not understand evolution is just plain goofy.

The bigger picture.

The balance of all things in the universe is not chaotic trial and error.

The macrocosm vs. the microcosm is not trial and error.

Just the fact that ducks spread fish eggs clinging to feathers is enough to open someones eyes to something more that just chance.

If you think Darwinian evolution is an absolute, then you have to logically agree that Adolph Hitler with his eugenics program are correct.

Explain what all scientists cannot. How did the cell first get developed from primordial soup?

Why should I debate someone that has no understanding of that which he says can't be?

Nothing you have posted relates to current Evolutionary Theory, so how can I answer questions that start from a place of ignorance?

Darwinian Evolution . . . the only people that call Evolutionary Theory by that name are religious science deniers . . . Evolutionary Theory has advanced well beyond Darwin's thoughts (over 150yrs) and is the most substantiated (evidence provided for) theory in science.

Evolution is not "chance" or "trial and error" . . . so I agree with you.

The first cell did not just develop from the "primordial soup" . . . and the evolution of the cell has been explained, so you seem to be misinformed.
Evolultion 101
Evolution of the Cell

Your ducks analogy makes no sense and doesn't prove anything besides fish have used ducks, in a symbiotic way, to help spread their eggs.

Hitler was a ardent Christian and based his racial views on the principle of Divine Right . . . and Origin of the Species was on the banned book list of the Nazi's, yet the Bible was not . . . So, I don't know what Hitler or Eugenics has to do with your response, besides the fact that Christians try to equate Darwin (who didn't believe in Eugenics, nor did any other Biologist) with the Nazis to try to discredit a valid scientific theory.
Hitler and Eugenics

I'd be happy to debate you on the merits of Evolutionary Theory, if you ever actually read a biology or chemistry text, and stop getting your knowledge of science from religious detractors.

LoneGunMan
reply to post by solomons path

 

Vestigial remnants, you mean our tailbone? Hmmm... how do you expect our spine to end? It does not mean we once had tails.

Look at all life, it always has that same earthly signature, most plants have roots, most plants have stalks.

Evolution is a fact of course, it does not mean there is not a grand design.

So, Design Hypothesis explains the additional portion of the Hominid vertebral column by stating "that's just how he ended the spine"? Interesting . . .

So what about embryonic tails? Why does the coccyx contain adipose and connective tissue?

So what does Design Hypothesis say about this . . .

In rare cases congenital defect results in a short tail-like structure being present at birth. Twenty-three cases of human babies born with such a structure have been reported in the medical literature since 1884

reply to post by solomons path

Alright, let's go through your fist link of assumption.

techonomy.com...

1)“Dead fossils tell no tales,” he adds. So he and his colleagues fill in the holes in the fossil record with what they believe to be the right traits or mechanisms.

2)Long calls it “CSI: Evolution”—using physical clues from the past to reconstruct what might have happened. “We would never claim we know exactly what happened,” Long adds. “All we can do is circumscribe the possible. We eliminate things that are less likely.”

3)One theory to come out of the work is that the pressure of escaping predators combined with the pressure to feed may have driven the evolution

4)This, then, is a precondition for creating new species, which requires reproductive isolation,” Long says. “This is looking at evolution as it’s occurring now.”

The only thing this article shows is that the robots that were built by Mr. Long were Created.
They actually have no idea how the spinal column came to be......they assume it evolved yet they CREATED the samples that they sudied.
Don't get me wrong, his experiments are intriguing and I enjoyed reading it (for the second time) yet it is lacking.
To prove that something evolved "naturally" you would have to observe it in nature.
Anything less and you show intelligent disign by the Scientists.

You mentioned I was putting up "stawmen" arguments.....how so?
All because you don't understand what the experiments clearly show does not mean I am putting up stawmen
Quad

solomons path

LoneGunMan
reply to post by solomons path

 

Vestigial remnants, you mean our tailbone? Hmmm... how do you expect our spine to end? It does not mean we once had tails.

Look at all life, it always has that same earthly signature, most plants have roots, most plants have stalks.

Evolution is a fact of course, it does not mean there is not a grand design.

So, Design Hypothesis explains the additional portion of the Hominid vertebral column by stating "that's just how he ended the spine"? Interesting . . .

So what about embryonic tails? Why does the coccyx contain adipose and connective tissue?

So what does Design Hypothesis say about this . . .

In rare cases congenital defect results in a short tail-like structure being present at birth. Twenty-three cases of human babies born with such a structure have been reported in the medical literature since 1884

Again...ASSUMPTION.
"TAIL-LIKE" does not mean it was a tail. Actually if you look further into the subject you will find the only thing "tail-like" about these appendages is their location........and that's not even right.

I've seen some posts that reference "blind chance" as being the mechanism behind evolution, but it's not true. So I wanted to post this link below:
evolution.berkeley.edu - Misconceptions about evolution ...

MISCONCEPTION: Evolutionary theory implies that life evolved (and continues to evolve) randomly, or by chance.

CORRECTION: Chance and randomness do factor into evolution and the history of life in many different ways; however, some important mechanisms of evolution are non-random and these make the overall process non-random. For example, consider the process of natural selection, which results in adaptations — features of organisms that appear to suit the environment in which the organisms live (e.g., the fit between a flower and its pollinator, the coordinated response of the immune system to pathogens, and the ability of bats to echolocate). Such amazing adaptations clearly did not come about "by chance." They evolved via a combination of random and non-random processes. The process of mutation, which generates genetic variation, is random, but selection is non-random. Selection favored variants that were better able to survive and reproduce (e.g., to be pollinated, to fend off pathogens, or to navigate in the dark). Over many generations of random mutation and non-random selection, complex adaptations evolved. To say that evolution happens "by chance" ignores half of the picture. To learn more about the process of natural selection, visit our article on this topic. To learn more about random mutation, visit our article on DNA and mutations.

So, if I understand it right, evolution is the combination of natural selection and chance. Natural selection is non-random, so evolution is not blind chance.

Of course, what causes natural pressures to arise? Seems to me a lot of it has to do with survival in a particular environment. Like how to cope with a predator? Outrun it? Climb up a tree? Go into the water? Scare it away? Fight it? How to deal with weather? Go underground? Seek higher ground? What about the day/night cycle? Some animals are nocturnal and use the night to survive. There're all sorts of things that can threaten survival. What created all of the diverse pressures that underpin species survival? My own opinion is there're many layers of simple forces which overlap and this creates a complex interplay in the natural environment. I think some people believe only a God could weave together what we know of as physical reality. Some people attempt to simulate small pieces of it on computers, but it's child's play.

I generally do not view modern species as more perfect than past species. In my eyes, modern species are better suited for today's world, but not for yesterdays' world. To find the species which are better suited for yesterday's world you have ot find extinct species. All of hte species that have existed acted as stepping stones so that modern species could exist in today's world and thus no species are wasted.

Given how brutal reality is, I don't blame any creature for being confused, either. Naturally, prolonged confusion leads to premature death, but it's not for me to judge. I take no pride in defeating other species or dominating them or berating them. My feeling inside is we're all consciousness and consciousness is more than all of us. Maybe this is similar to the buddhist beliefs, but I don't practice any belief system.

Let me make it simple for simple minds. Say you were a smart, multidimensional being and you wanted to make a self-replicating machine capable of redesigning itself to exploit ecological niches. That is what biological life is. Was the designer "God"? No, stupid. The designer was a being, just as you are a being. Why did the designer do this? How the hell would I know? I wasn't there, was I? God! Give me an effing break. Sheesh!

Beautiful Videos about learning from "design"!

Janine Benyus: 12 sustainable design ideas from nature
www.youtube.com/watch?v=n77BfxnVlyc
www.youtube.com...


Algorithms in nature drive architecture research, parametric designs
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yn_Xarm6Rj8
www.youtube.com...

On the other hand, using simulated genetics to do optimization can yield incredible, non-intuitive results. Nature's just doing it a lot more slowly.

I've seen an experiment where a team "evolved" an FPGA to perform really unique signal filtering. They didn't tell it how to do this, just came up with a lot of basic ways to hook things together, and a way to gauge if that was closer to the goal than some other way. And let it rip. In a few days, it had designed itself, and it worked exactly as required. A downer is that it only works on that part. No one's really sure why it works - there's some odd bits like ring counters that don't connect to anything but themselves, but if you take them out it doesn't work anymore.

There is an entire discipline involved with genetic design and algorithms. And by that, I mean you contrive to have a program or design evolve itself as if it were an organism. It works, too, but it gives you answers that may or may not be useful at times.

Another must see

George Smoot: The design of the universe
www.youtube.com/watch?v=c64Aia4XE1Y
www.youtube.com...


This guy is actually using the word "design"... They give him funny looks when he does it (jk).

When they describe the big bang, they use the term "gap" or "curve" between Singularity and formation of space.

Well that is so similar to "gaps" in Cell Replication..

Eukaryotic Cell Cycle | Biology | Genetics
www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3_PNiLWBjY
www.youtube.com...


Cell has polarity, North and South Pole.

One of the big problems with trying to decide whether something was "designed" or not is that even us poor humans can figure out even better designs for some things than currently exist. The human body has a number of flaws in the design, and even some slight modifications could improve the quality of human life immensely without destroying the efficiency of the reproductive process.

You have to wonder what kind of designer would only ever design things to make them barely "good enough," rather than making them perfect for the jobs they have to do. A very lazy designer, if nothing else. Somebody interested in only doing "D"-level work.

reply to post by LoneGunMan


If you think about it, you are a Molecular machine.

Made of self replicating molecular systems.

A machine so complex it can host a soul.

Our temples...

Our machines are incapable of this at this point...

More brain fun:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers'_paradox
en.wikipedia.org...'_paradox

A different resolution, which does not rely on the Big Bang theory, was first proposed by Carl Charlier in 1908 and later rediscovered by Benoît Mandelbrot in 1974. They both postulated that if the stars in the universe were distributed in a hierarchical fractal cosmology (e.g., similar to Cantor dust)—the average density of any region diminishes as the region considered increases—it would not be necessary to rely on the Big Bang theory to explain Olbers' paradox. This model would not rule out a Big Bang but would allow for a dark sky even if the Big Bang had not occurred.

Let me know if I'm moving too fast...

AbleEndangered
Another must see

George Smoot: The design of the universe

This guy is actually using the word "design"... They give him funny looks when he does it (jk).

That is an absolutely fantastic presentation!

And yes he uses the word design without demonstrating a complete ignorance behind the science of the material he presents...in fact he understands the science so well he won a Nobel Prize.

So the biggest problem I have isn't with using the word design, it's that so many people using it seem to demonstrate a serious lack of understanding of scientific evidence. George Smoot is not one of those people, and I really don't have any problem with his use of the word design, and I don't give him any funny looks. He's a brilliant guy.

Kind of like the word "frequency", which scientists use all the time without getting any funny looks at all, but when the same word gets in the hands of woo-lovers it suddenly takes on meanings that science doesn't imply. The words themselves are not the problem. The problem is misunderstanding the science behind them.

reply to post by Broom


Simple answer being the correct answer. It's far more easy to believe it was designed
then to believe it all is the reult of chance after chance coming to fruition to infinity.

For every6 design there is a Designer. No two ways about it. PERIOD.
Now would there be a communication to us from that Designer ?

We hardly even have to look.



It's not even the slightest bit arguable !

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I love it, At the beginning of the video he quickly uses the phrase "Creation and Evolution of the Universe"!!

Quadrivium
reply to post by solomons path

 

The only thing this article shows is that the robots that were built by Mr. Long were Created.
They actually have no idea how the spinal column came to be......they assume it evolved yet they CREATED the samples that they sudied.
Don't get me wrong, his experiments are intriguing and I enjoyed reading it (for the second time) yet it is lacking.
To prove that something evolved "naturally" you would have to observe it in nature.
Anything less and you show intelligent disign by the Scientists.

You mentioned I was putting up "stawmen" arguments.....how so?
All because you don't understand what the experiments clearly show does not mean I am putting up stawmen

Quad

edit on 16-10-2013 by Quadrivium because: (no reason given)

So you also don't even know what a "straw man argument" is . . .

A straw man or straw person, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally, is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position. This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged, emotional issues. In those cases the false victory is often loudly or conspicuously celebrated

1.Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position.
2.Quoting an opponent's words out of context—i.e., choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions
3.Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's arguments—thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[3]
4.Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
5.Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.

I clearly pointed out what the straw man was in my response to you, previously . . . since I'm not that bright, I leave it for you to figure out . . . or re-read my previous response.


As for the rest of your response, the answer is no?

You do not have specific issues with any of the material or conclusions and through confirmation bias are looking for key words that imply assumption? Which by the way is called cherry-picking, since you don't seem to understand the concept of fallacy . . .

Choosing to make selective choices among competing evidence, so as to emphasize those results that support a given position, while ignoring or dismissing any findings that do not support it, is a practice known as "cherry picking" and is a hallmark of poor science or pseudo-science.

You cannot provide any answers to the questions about how Design Hypothesis explains the advantages/benefits of vertebral column in organisms or why there is a morphological difference among taxa? Nor, can you provide any documentation or empirical evidence to support what Design Hypothesis predicts, in regard to this? What about empirical (which means a posteriori, not ab initio) of said "Designer" himself?

Your only refutation is cherry -picking for "assumption" and a reframing of a 18th century theological ideal, the Watchmaker fallacy?

The watchmaker analogy or watchmaker argument is a teleological argument. By way of an analogy, the argument states that design implies a designer. The analogy has played a prominent role in natural theology and the "argument from design," where it was used to support arguments for the existence of God and for the intelligent design of the universe. Sir Isaac Newton, among other leaders in the scientific revolution, including René Descartes, upheld "that the physical laws he had uncovered revealed the mechanical perfection of the workings of the universe to be akin to a watchmaker, wherein the watchmaker is God." The most famous statement of the teleological argument using the watchmaker analogy was given by William Paley in his 1802 book Natural Theology.

Add to that your brilliant use of cartoon emoticons . . . and I have to concede, yours is a wit and intelligence that I cannot handle.

Enjoy your "designer" fapfest . . . in the "Science and Technology" forum, no doubt.

reply to post by solomons path


Don't hate the player....Hate the game!!

Mahatma Gandhi
“Hate the sin, love the sinner.”

Sholom Aleichem
Life is a dream for the wise, a game for the fool, a comedy for the rich, a tragedy for the poor.