Re: 3 Notorious Evo Strawmen


Ray Martinez wrote:
> >
> > Interesting thing Ray, humans cannot design and manufacture as complex
> > creations as can nature.
>
> Do you realize that you just assigned nature sentience ?
>
> You have replaced God with Nature; this is a recognition that
> intelligence is responsible for the complexity of nature. We know
> complexity is the m.o. of bright persons/God.
>
>
> > The IDists are basing their concept of
> > intelligent design on known human design methods that result in much
> > simpler creations than that of nature.
>
> Yes, it becomes a contrast to appreciate the brilliance of the IDer - a
> gauge.
>
> > They make the assumption that an
> > intelligent designer would design as we do, except of course to a
> > greater, and in their mind, more complex degree; yet the design they see
> > in nature only superficially resembles human design. From that
> > superficial similarity they jump to the conlusion that nature is the
> > result of human-like intelligence.
> >
>
> Perfectly logical.
>
>
> > There is another possibility that IDists refuse to entertain because it
> > does not mesh with their desire to see God in places where science tends
> > to show otherwise. That other possiblity is that human design takes much
> > of its inspiration from nature. Couple that with the trial and error
> > methods that *both* nature and human designers use and you'll see that
> > IDists have it essentially backwards.
> >
>
> Your judgements do not make sense. How is it that we have it backwards
> ? Because you are a Darwinist, I would say the backwards claim is a
> very good indication we have it right.
>
>
> > What is born out in computer simulations of this trial and error method
> > is that the mechanisms utilized by a fully natural evolution results in
> > designs that increase in complexity, retain non-functional features,
> > even contain nonsensical (to our mind) features that function in
> > mysterious ways.
>
> Utter nonsense. These CS are programmed by Darwinists.


Would you like to see the programs?


All they do is imitate the known behaviour of DNA that a Creationist
wouldn't deny.

Genetic programming has been used to synthesis designs for mechanical
objects, merely by taking input on what the result of the machine
should be.


> You are asserting a blind directionless process is responsible for the
> precision and complexity of nature. This is a recognition of products
> produced by design capriciously assigned to your idiotic theory =
> plagiarism.


Okay, try and get your head round this:

Life is:

1) Ordered because DNA reacts according to a fixed standard.
2) Functional because of what that standard is.
3) Complex because the input from the environment is complex.
4) Intricate because development is aggregate.

Life is:

1: Functional) More organisms are born than will procreate; therefore
the average genome of a population is forever homing in on whatever is
immediately useful under slowly developing circumstances.

2: Complex) This process is too short-sighted to start afresh; it
cannot backtrack and take an easier route, so its results can become
elaborate.

In other words, evolution is a formulaic reaction to developing input.

Overall change only happens with the proviso that it lends itself to
reproduction.

What you see as complex intricasy etc, is only mysterious if you
envision organisms developing like pictures being drawn. However, the
fossil record shows that new features no not arise as such; Instead
they emerge from others over the course of the general process.
Everything we classify as a characteristic or organ, is emergent from
previous formation.

Organs were once parts of other organs or conditions of parts of tubes,
shark teeth are modified scales, etc, etc.

Experimentation independently verifies that characteristics, if more
than one is counted, change co-operatively with eachother. This is
because their effects on reproduction are interrelated.

~Iain

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: My Theory of ID
    ... For the moment, perhaps you might think about how, after hearing you refer to your ideas as "ID" or "Intelligent design," someone could get the impression you're actually talking about "ID" or "Intelligent design." ... They were designed not by the laws of nature, not by chance and necessity; ... Also, since you claim to recognize the priority of scientific methodology for the investigation of nature, how do you reconcile this with your continued dismissal of common descent - an observation supported by reams of literature - in favor of common design - a non-falsifiable explanation? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Symbolic AI, a waste of time?
    ... But the design of an airplane stayed as close as possible to ... Knowing where to follow nature and where to ignore it is the key. ... spinning wing instead of a flapping wing. ... One of the hardest things to extract from the brain is it's learning ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: 3 Notorious Evo Strawmen
    ... humans cannot design and manufacture as complex ... >> creations as can nature. ... No, Ray he didn't. ... > intelligence is responsible for the complexity of nature. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Proof of Intelligent Design Should Be Simple to Produce, and it is.
    ... Part of these laws imply that disorder is ... When we observe order in nature, ... creating such a plan or design. ... You're speculating that somebody designed the first life on Earth, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: 3 Notorious Evo Strawmen
    ... humans cannot design and manufacture as complex ... Do you realize that you just assigned nature sentience? ... intelligence is responsible for the complexity of nature. ... If we consider the information content of a gene duplication we ...
    (talk.origins)