Re: The universe looks designed to me

Wall of Sleep wrote:
> chris.linthompson@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > Wall of Sleep wrote:
> >
> >>chris.linthompson@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Wall of Sleep wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Denis Loubet wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>"Wall of Sleep" <Sabotage@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:volTe.17274$QN4.12190@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Hi,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>I used to frequent this newsgroup a few years back but got frustrated
> >>>>>>and left - as I'm sure happens to most creationists who come here. I'm
> >>>>>>not a scientist, I'm an industrial electrician. I work on complex
> >>>>>>machinery all day.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>I see many parallels between the design of these machines and the
> >>>>>>universe.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>The machines you work on look like random objects moving randomly through
> >>>>>space? Do the machines you work on really periodically explode and
> >>>>>re-coalesce into other machines under the force of gravity?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Well sometimes they do explode!
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>To me, the universe has the appearence of design, and I feel
> >>>>>>that explanation is more likely than the naturalistic explanation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Why? Because it's so neat and orderly? Because galaxies never collide? Oh
> >>>>>wait, they do. Is it because asteroids never slam into the earth killing
> >>>>>just about everything? Oh wait, they do. Is it because most of the universe
> >>>>>isn't vacuum and hard radiation? Oh wait, it is.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>And the machines I work on sometimes collide too - in spite of the fact
> >>>>that they were designed not to. It's the process of degradation that
> >>>>causes it.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>The concept of life from nothing, and then evolution from a single
> >>>>>>living cell to every plant and animal we see is just so improbable it
> >>>>>>borders on the impossible.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>So basically you're saying it's possible.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Perhaps - though extremely unlikely.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Could you even begin to accurately measure the probabilities involved?
> >>>Simply saying "It ain't likely!" doesn't really approach the issue in
> >>>any useful manner.
> >>>
> >>>Chris
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>Well, just take the number of species (plant and animal - including
> >>insects) that have existed since life began, divide that by the amount
> >>of years ago that occurred, and you'll have the ratio of new species to
> >>time. That number should tell us if the observed, favorable, passed on
> >>mutation rates (to the point of creating a new species) are capable of
> >>sustaining that ratio.
> >
> >
> > Bacteria? Fungi?
> >
> > We don't have a handle on how many living species are alive today-
> > leaving aside any confusion over the definition of "species" (and it
> > can get pretty torturous when you deal with asexual critters, or those
> > that are asexual sometimes).
> >
> > In any case, if we don't know how many living species there are now,
> > how are we supposed to know how many have lived and gone extinct? There
> > are extinct species, you know- lots of em.
> >
> > What do we use for the age of the earth? The time the planet coalesced
> > from plasma? The time life originated?
> >
> > And why do you persist in equating single, favorable mutations with
> > speciation? That's not how it works, especially in animals. It's been
> > pointed out to you time and again. Idee fixes are not useful in
> > science.
> >
> > Finally, suppose you were able to compute your single "rate"? What on
> > earth could you draw from it? You have a number- what does it mean? It
> > is presumably a mean rate, but so what? Is there any reason to think
> > even for a second that a single rate applies to all of time? Are there
> > times when speciation proceeds more rapidly in certain groups? Of
> > course there are, in case you didn't know. The evolution of an
> > exoskeleton in insects allowed colonization of terrestrial habitats,
> > and that in turn allowed flowering plants to evolve. Those two adaptive
> > radiations account for a fair percentage of species on the planet- and
> > the pace of that evolution is subject to considerable debate. So
> > unfortunately, your average rate is not very meaningful.
> >
> > Chris
> >
>
> What I'm getting is a series of "we don't knows" in regards to the
> probability that natural processes are the sole cause of life as we know
> it. Then everyone calls me ignorant, uniformed, etc.
> Oh well...
> As for the rate, it'd at least be useful to compare to onserved
> evolution to deduce some kind of information I would think. Even if the
> conclusion is simply that evolution must have occured at a much higher
> (or lower) rate in the past.

I don't think many people are saying "I don't know". I think they're
saying that there's no real evidence of design in nature. In fact, much
of nature is cobbled together in a half-assed, come-as-you-are manner.
What competent designer would put a vital airway directly under a
sluice for food and water? Then the designer says "OOPS" and jury-rigs
a flap of tissue to (hopefully) cover the airway every time you
swallow. So it becomes very difficult to breathe while chewing, and you
run the risk of dropping a chunk of cheeseburger into the airway.

In fact, if the designer exists, the designer is an idiot.

As for the rate, we can measure evolutionary rates over much smaller
time scales. Evolution seems to be proceeding rather slowly at the
moment. John Harshman can answer this better than I, but I think
observed rates [that is, in the fossil record] were higher in the past.
But- so what?

Chris

PS: I have to applaud your valiant effort to keep answerng every
response you get in this thread. It can't be easy. Most creationists
don't even stick around for one response, let alone the way you're
sticking at it. Good for you.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Paper: A critique of directionality theory
    ... Directionality theory suggests that demographic entropy, ... equilibrium species and decrease in opportunistic species. ... been applied to explain the evolution of body size and of senescence. ... is the appropriate tool in the study of life history evolution. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: The correct definition.
    ... "The processes that allows life to continue despite the ... What reason is there for what is recorded to be a lie? ... process stops the progress of evolution which claims it needs lots ... new species centered on the groups remaining after the extinction ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: SETI
    ... There was absolutley nothing inevitable about our evolution. ... Millions of species, none as intelligent as we are. ... histories of sociality, the combination of a few elements in animal ... Earthlike when life first evolved, and that life in fact has played a ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Christmas hypocrites"
    ... It was his suggestion that the entire diversity of life on Earth could be explained by these slow processes, in the same way the topography of mountains and valleys could be explained by the long accumulation of slow processes, that turned biology on its head. ... Evolution can explain why birds on a island where long beaks are advantageous evolve into long-beaked birds, it doesn't explain how an amoeba transforms into an ape. ... Now that we have a theory to explain how species adapt to their environments we have decided that everything "spiritual" is pure superstition. ... you can actually trace how far apart organisms are in evolution by looking at how similar certain genes are. ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: Invulnerable logic [Was:Re: How Our Brains Ignore Unpleasant
    ... scientifically the naturalistic creation of life under primal ... understanding of evolution. ... You see similar design elements used by a common designer who prevents ... If there's any noise in ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading