Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)

Richard Forrest wrote:
Wall Of Sleep wrote:

Richard Forrest wrote:

Wall Of Sleep wrote:


Richard Forrest wrote:



Wall Of Sleep wrote:

Just to point out a few responses which have been ignored...

WoS:You are grossly oversimplifying things. I can only assume you
haven't
read any of Behe's answers to his critics.
http://www.trueorigin.org/behe03.asp
I can only assume as well, that your knowledge of the case for ID is
cursory.

RF: The is Michael Behe, who conceeded under oath that ID is not
science.
You evidently disagree with him.


I've read those transcripts. Basically, if you're going to define
"science" as "naturalism", ID *is not* science. It's a narrow definition
that purposely excludes ID.



It's not a "narrow definition". It is the definition of science as it
has developed over the past four centuries, and the discipline within
which all scientists in all fields operate. It doesn't "purposely
exclude ID". The rest of the scientific world has not decided to change
the basis on which it operates because a few religious cooks make
noises.


Tell me in your own words what disqualifies ID as science.



ID offers no testable hypothesis and no supporting evidence.

You are flat out wrong. The testable hypothesis is that *only*
intelligence can produce the specified complex functions we find in
nature from "scratch".

The main
argument presented by ID is a potentail falsification of evolution by
small incremental steps - exactly the test of his theory proposed by
Darwin!

In science one does not support one hypothesis by falsifying a
completely different one.


That's part of the argument. If it can be shown that evolution *cannot*
produce new complex specified functions (without losing another
function), then evolution *cannot be* the mechanism by which de novo
functions were built up over time.


I suggest that you take up the argument on whether or not ID is science
with Behe.


WoS: ID is more logical than evolution
RF: It is? It explains anything, predicts nothing and cannot be
falsified. It's scientifically valueless

WoS: and has a mechanism

RF: What mechanism? It specifically avoids any speculation on the
nature of the designer or the mechanism.


The mechanism is intelligent agency. This mechanism is more observed
than mutation.


Have you observed an intelligent agency manufacturing a flagellum for a
bacterium?
If so, publish the results in NATURE.

The assertion of ID is that some structures can only be explained by
the intervention of an intelligent agency, but they are very, very
quiet on the matter of the mechanisms involved.


That's because the *other* mechanisms don't matter.


Not to the IDers, perhaps, but they do matter to scientists. Science
proposes mechanisms to explain observation in a way in which they can
be tested. This is why Darwin's (and Wallace's) theory of natural
selection was so successful - it proposed a hypothetical mechanism, and
tests which could falsify the hypothesis.


There are *so many* things evolution cannot explain. It only succeeds in
the most general sense - when looking at the surface of things. But it
breaks down in the details. It's quite easy to stand back and say that
eyesight developed from a light sensitive spot, or that the heart
developed from an enlarged artery, or that bat wings developed from
mammalian forelimbs, or that protein synthesis is a natural progression
from RNA based "life" - but when asked to (in the classic evolutionary
retort) "Show your work", the evolutionist is left with nothing more
that "maybes" and "we don't knows". The eye is much more that a light
sensitive spot with a few random rods and cones thrown in. It's a
complex specified system that would require an intelligence far greater
than ours to design. Yet, you so easily assume it could develop from
random corruptions of the DNA sequences that produced the original light
sensitive spot. Of course the explanations offered are either very
general or they appeal to the development of the eye within the embryo -
as if *that* somehow shows us random mutations and natural selection at
work. Please!
So what are these "tests" that evolution passed?




Nobody has observed
the creation of novel life of any sort


What would you call speciation? It has been observed in nature, and
replicated experimentally in the laboratory.


I would call speciation a kind of microevolution that cannot explain the
buildup of features over time. Show me an observed case of speciation
that has produced a net gain of features in an organism.



- so how about us just dropping
that whole argument? It's pretty pointless to fire those kinds of shots
back and forth wouldn't you agree?




It is likely that novel life forms will be created in the laboratory
before long. When that happens will you conceede that ID is nothing
more than the fantasy of creationists?



No. I will concede then that intelligent agents can manipulate DNA.
Still your mechanism has nothing to do with intelligent agency. Your
mechanism is random corruption of existing DNA sequences - remember?





WoS: that has been observed

RF: So you are asserting that the "intelligent designer" has been
observed
fiddling with DNA to create a flagellum on a bacterim?
I must of missed the publication of this extraoridinary event in
NATURE.



That's as preposterous as me asking if evolution has been observed
creating bat wings out of mammalian forelimbs.


We have plenty of evidence from morphology, the fossil record, genetics
and develpmental biology to show how the forelimbs of a mammalian
ancestor can be transformed into the wings of a bat.

"Plenty of evidence"? To my knowledge, no one has explained how this
could happen other than to say, "Look here's a mammalian forelimb and
here's a bat wing. They look similar - so the wing came from the forelimb."



Well you need to read the literature on developmental biology in that
case. There is ample evidence for the homology of the elements of the
bat's wing, and the genetic and develpmental processes which can
control the evolution. It's called evo/devo in the trade, and is one of
the hottest fields in science.


That's the stretch where it's assumed that embryonic development mirrors
random mutation and natural selection right? Tell me, what does one have
to do with the other?
Essentially you're taking a pre-existing system whereby pre-programmed
functions develop and using it to try to prove that random mutation and
natural selection can produce said pre-programmed features. The problem
with this is that the information required for all of the organisms
features is *already present* within it's DNA before the process begins.
Where is the random mutation? Where is the natural selection? Aren't
*those* your mechanisms?
Is your mechanism so lacking that you have chosen to abandon it?



This scenario
makes predictions which can be tested against genetics and the fossil
record. It's not preposterous at all: it's the best explanation for the
evidence.


So where is the genetic evidence or the fossil evidence for the
"development" of the bat wing?


Do a google scholar search for genetics and bats. You'll find numerous
reseach papers.


Apparently evolution has more explaining to do. Bats not only have
complex specified auditory navigational systems, they also have
touch-sensitive receptors built into their wings that allow them to
"feel" the air and "help them maintain their flight path and snag their
prey"
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=35065

On the supposed evolution of the bat:

"The oldest known skeleton, supposedly 60 million years old (Wilson p.
79), is a fully-formed bat which apparently could echo-locate (UCMP
Berkeley).
When you ask an evolutionist to show you the ancestor of a bat, he will,
in all likelihood (as does the ZooBooks volume on "Bats"), show you a
mythical creature with elongated limbs connected by stretched skin
gliding from branch to branch like a modern flying squirrel. It will
have paws on all four limbs, and may be seen perching on a branch with
skin folds hanging down (Wood and Rink, p. 6). What the evolutionist
will not show you is any kind of transition between paws used for
standing and running, and hand-wings used for flying. He won't show you
because there is no fossil of such a creature, and he can't imagine what
one would look like. He also can't explain how "survival of the
fittest" would produce it. At some point elongating front toes would
interfere with quadrupedal (four-footed) movement long before they could
become the ribs of functional wings. And why and how upside-down?
Birds perch very well right-side up. How does "survival of the fittest"
turn an animal upside down, with all the physiological changes necessary
for maintaining that position? Try swallowing while hanging
upside-down. And what happens to your blood after a while? Yet bats
eat, sleep, and mate upside down, and many also give birth in that
position."
http://www.creationism.org/batman/bats.htm

Now before you point me to a bunch of papers where they ignore these
arguments, how about trying to explain them for yourself? If your theory
is so lacking in any real explanatory power, why hold to it?





Your mechanism has not been observed doing anything like that - yet you
are perfectly willing to extrapolate that it is able to do so - based on
the limited changes evidenced by observable mutation.


What "limited changes"? Nothing in genetics has suggested that there
are any limits to the change. What we find in the genome and the fossil
record is a finely graded succession of form with no discontiunities.

There is absolutely no evidence of limtations to genetic changes
through mutation. It's reasonable to suppose that there are none, as
all the evidence suggests that this is the case.


Mutation has never been observed to add to the overall number of
features in the genome.


What on earth do you mean by this? Polyploidy has been observed,
especially in plants,
leading to significant morphological differences. Gene duplication has
been observed. Mutations on duplicated sets of genes have been tracked
down to show that the modified copies change developmental processes.


OK. Show me a real world example of an added feature that wasn't added
at the expense of another.



*ALL* observed mutations are *at best* a trade
off of features. One feature is lost, another is gained. How does this
explain the buildup of features over time?


Another post has just drawn attention to the development of electric
organs in fish in different continents, and shown that they use
different genetic resources to do the same job. This is the gaining of
a new feature, and occuring on more than one occasion.



First off, this is not *observed* evolution, it is conjecture based on
the study of fish genetics. The fact that non-electric fish have both
genes expressed in their muscles and the electric have only one, is not
conclusive evidence that one evolved into the other.

Once again, when examined more closely, there remain many problems with
this evolutionary scenario:

"According to Zakon, the effect of hormones on frequency response poses
an evolutionary puzzle. In both groups of fish, the frequency of
discharge depends on modulation not only of the electric organ but also
of a pacemaker nucleus in the central nervous system. In each individual
fish, the sensors that receive the signal are precisely tuned to the
typical frequency emitted by that individual's electric organ. Thus,
different organs in different parts of the individual's body are
required to be precisely tuned to one another-which means they must all
respond to hormone levels in a coordinated way.

"It's like Darwin's famous puzzle about the evolution of the eye," Zakon
says. "An eye is a complex of separate cells, which somehow must have
evolved together to form a functional unit. How do incremental changes
in different sets of cells result in a tightly coordinated system?"
http://cns.utexas.edu/publications/focus/sp97/electric.html

He goes on to say that these electrical systems are "so simple", they
aught to be able to figure it out. We'll see.

Nevertheless, even if it *did* evolve, it fits well within my hypothesis
for "built in" variation among designed families.



The mechanism of intelligent agency has been observed designing *all
known* instances of complex specified information (outside of nature),


"Complex specified information" is a falacy! It presumes the consequent
- i.e. that complexity needs to be specified.

Complexity does not need to be specified. No one has ever made that
argument in support of ID.


Well in that case, why is the word "specified" used?


I didn't state that very clearly. I meant that complexity can come into
existence without being specified. A random sequence will be complex.
The longer it is, the more complex it is. This is *not* the standard
used to determine design. Complexity must be specified to perform a
biological function. Random complexity won't do.



But, in order to *function*, processes generally *must be* specified.


Why? That is simply an unsupported assertion. Weather systems which
produce hurricanes are complex. Nobody has suggested that they need to
be "specified".


We're talking about biological functions.



If
these processes are complex, then that is specified complexity.


Which is the falacy of presuming the consequent!


What we find in

mathematics and physics is that complex outcomes can arise from simple
systems, with no need at all to invoke the presupposition of
specification.


So what? Complexity can arise out of random processes - no one's denying
that. But can function? That's the question.


What is function? Again, this is presuming the consequent. One may as
well argue that the ability of wind to carry objects is the function of
the wind.


The function of the eye is sight. The function of the wing is flight.
The function of the heart is circulation. These functions are specified
and complex. How did that come about?




Biological systems are complex.

No, biological systems are not *only* complex, they are specified as well.


And your evidence to support this assertion is what?
How do you propose to test the assertion?


I've been over this again and again. Complexity is a function of length
and aperiodicy. Specificity is a function of exclusiveness. If a DNA
sequence is aperiodic (they all are - AFAIK) and exclusive (IOW it can't
be modified without causing a loss of function), it is an example of
specified complexity.
I'm sure that some sequences can be modified and still retain their
function, that points to a lesser degree of specified complexity. It's
the amount of modification a sequence can withstand that determines it's
specificity - and it's length which determines it's complexity.




That does not mean that they have to be

designed. They have, after all, had 3,500 million years to develope
that complexity.


Time is no explanation. It first has to be explained how it is even
possible.


Why? The fact that we are here shows that it is possible.

No, that shows nothing of the sort.

You can
assert that life can only originate through the action of a
supernatural entity,

I never said "supernatural"

but that assertion is no more testable that
someone else's assertion that the world was created last Thursday with
all the appearance of a great age.


That's all irrelevant. It's whether life was designed or not we're
discussing here - not the "appearance of age".




it is just as logical to extrapolate from this that an intelligent
agency could have designed life.


It's not logical at all, as it is founded on a logical falacy.


Complex specified information (outside of nature) is *always* the result
of intelligent agency.


So what?


It's an *observed* phenomenon.


That is observed. You either have to deny that
biological systems have CSI, or make the case that random processes can
build CSI.
Good luck!


No, you have to explain this non-sequitur. Why does the fact that
humans specify and manufacture complex systems mean that all complex
systems have to have specified? This is an elementary logical fallacy.
It's no more that the old "All mackerel are fish, therefore all fish
are mackerel."


That would be the case if I said "Humans specify and manufacture complex
systems - therefore all complex specified systems are made by humans".
That's not what I'm saying though. I am saying that intelligence is the
*only* mechanism which has been observed producing complex specified
systems.



to create complex specified information (CSI).


You realise, of course, that CSI falls into the logical falacy of
presuming the consequent.





Evolution, on
the other hand, has no observed mechanism


Haven't you heard of the science of genetics? It's made substantial
advances in the past century or so, and provides the key to the
mechanism by which the variation on which selection acts can be
generated by processes which can be observed and measured.

You need to bring yourself up to date on the advances in our knowledge
of biology over the past few decades or so.





which has been shown capable
of doing that.

Let's take the process of protein synthesis for example. This is a
process which begins with a strand of complex specified information

presuming the consequent again...





-
DNA. This strand is then *transcribed* into mRNA. This process alone is
unexplainable by natural mechanisms.


My word! There are a lot of people working in the biological sciences
who disagree with you, of course, but hey! What do they know? They only
*know* about the subject.





Where did DNA come from?


Neither have you. Saying that an unspecified "intelligent designer" did
it using supernatural processes is not an explanation.

I'n any case, why should I? Im not a biochemist. If you want to know,
read the literature. I can't give a coherent explantion for quantum
tunneling either. That doesn't mean that "God did it" is a useful
explanation.


So far none of the evolutionary experts here on this forum have come up
with a believable evolutionary pathway for the development of protein
synthesis.




And I just picked "protein synthesis" out of a hat. I have the feeling I
could pick just about *any* feature and no one here could explain how it
was produced by evolution. Yet you all so fervently defend it. This is
pretty troubling.





You can hand wave and pontificate all you want,


I'm not pontificating. I'm pointing out that
1) ID is not science according to one of its founders

Not by your new narrow definition of science.


It's not a "new definition". It's has been the presumption of science
for over two centuries.


Naturalism?


Yes. Or perhaps you can point out some branch of science which operates
on the basis of "God did it"?


There are plenty of branches of science which say "Intelligence did it".
Anthropology, archaeology, forensics, and SETI to name a few.


2) ID offers no mechanism

Intelligent agency *is* a mechanism.


No, and agency is an agency. Saying something was "designed" by an
"intelligent designer" tells us absolutely nothing about the mechanism.
I have designed buildings. That tells you nothing about how those
buildings were build.


It tells me they were designed. I'm not making any case beyond that.


It's an empty assertion, and doesn't alter the fact that design is not
a mechanism.


Intelligent agency is.



3) ID makes no predictions

It predicts that *only* intelligent agency is capable of producing
life's building blocks and most of it's features (allowing for a limited
evolution within families - as has been observed).


That's not a prediction. It's the old "God of the gaps" argument, and
offers no predictive value at all. If, as asserted, there is only
evolution within families (which is, incidentally a taxonomic
convenience which cannot be rigidly defined), we should expect to see
genetic and morphological discontinuities between families.
We don't.


Why should we "expect" that?


Because you assert that there is limited evolution within families. Or
were all those famlies created with the evidence of their relationship?
Science works on the basis of testing hypotheses. If you think that
evolution is limited to variation within families, how do you propose
to test that assertion?


Look at the evolution that's been observed and test if it's able - given
it's known limitations - of producing all of life's features. I think
you'll find it's not.




4) ID cannot be falsified


Yes it can. Just give me a believable evolutionary pathway for protein
synthesis.


That is not a falsification of ID. It's offering evidence in support of
evolution by small incremental steps.

To falsify ID you need to propose a phenomenon which ID *can't*
explain. I can' t think of any possible phenomenon which could not be
explained by the assertion that an "intelligent designer", of
unspecified but possibly supernatural powers interferes in an
unspecified but possibly supernatural manner with normal evolutionary
processes. Perhaps you can, but until you do so you can't claim that ID
can be falsified.


Using your logic, I have already falsified the ToE - since no one can
explain how evolution produced protein synthesis. If evolution *can't*
explain it - it's falsified.


Genes synthesise proteins! That's what genes DO.

And how did this process come about? Where did genes come from? It's
awfully fortunate that the whole process of DNA being transcribed into
RNA, and then edited down to just the useful codons, which are then
translated into amino acids, which produce proteins - just "popped" into
existence somehow, wouldn't you say?



but where's
the evidence that the corruption of existing data (mutations) can
produce protein synthesis?


Genes make proteins. That's essentially all they do. They usually work
in conjuction with other genes - i.e the proteins made by one gene
trigger the formation of proteins in other genes and so on in a cascade
which ends up building bodies and metabolic systems.


And these "protein factories" came into existence how?


Read about the RNA world.
You asked about protein synthesis.
That's what genes do.


Uh huh. So how did the *process* of protein synthesis evolve? Explain it
- don't just assert it.


There are many known mutation by which gene sequences are duplicated.
If genes on the duplicated set are knocked out by known processes of
mutation, they are no longer manufacturing the same proteins. So new
proteins are introduced into the developmental and metabolic pathways
which may create differences in morphology and biochemistry. Some of
these differences may be selected by environmental or other factors in
populations of organisms in which the modifed genes have become
established by reproductive processes.

This is called evolution. It's very well studied, and well-supported by
data. It makes predictions, and can be falsified by experiment and
observation.


Yes. All that's been observed, yet there are an almost infinite number
of gaps which evolution has no rational explanation for.


And you make this statement from a thorough and exhaustive knowledge of
the mechanics of genetics and biochemistry, do you?

If there are gaps in our knowledge of how these things work in detail,
perhaps you can explain how attributing them to an "Intelligent
designer" in any way helps us to understand the processes?

We do research into things we don't know. If we knew all the answers
there wouldn't be any need for research.



Yet with all the research done, I (a lowly uneducated fool) can come
here and pick a biological system out of a hat that none of you can
explain the origin of. Interesting.



What is evident that you can offer no alternative scenario which is
testable by science.

Biogenesis and biochemistry is not my field - I'm a vertebrate
palaeontologist working on marine reptiles. However, a brief search
using google scholar produces large numbers of papers formulating
hypotheses in the subject.
Here's one:
http://laplace.compbio.ucsf.edu/~voelzv/research/papers/pdf_files/yockey1999.pdf


Why not read it, and then come up with another hypothesis which can be
tested, and is supported by evidence, not assertion?


Reading it now.
It's interesting so far that he mentions such concepts as "specificity",
"complexity", "information" and "meaning" when referring to the genetic
code - yet you seem to imply that it cannot be described in those terms.

Just finished it.
He basically takes the position, after discussing the fallacies of most
of the abiogenesis theories, that we may never know the answer.
He examines all the "non-intelligent agency" theories and finds them
wanting. He does not discuss ID, but it's the obvious "elephant in the
room" IMO.

I found particularly interesting his discussion of the error correcting
mechanism inherent in protein synthesis. He described it as a "curious
phenomenon" that such a "proofreading" mechanism exists.

This curious phenomenon is an expected one for ID.

Lets just start
with protein synthesis...


What's your problem with protein synthesis? That's what genes do -
synthesis proteins.


My "problem" is that you all assert and imply that evolution produced
all the features of life - yet no one can explain how it happened. I
just picked protein synthesis at random.


What part of "genes synthesise proteins" don't you understand?


The part where you come up with a rational theory as to how evolution
produced this mechanism.



I could probably pick any
biological system and get the same results.


Evolutionary theory explains the diversity of living organisms on the
planet. It is observable, testable, and potentially falsifiable. All
you can offer is basically "God did it". This is an "explanation" which
cannot be falsified, and can explain anything. Believe it if you like -
but don't kid yourself that it is science.


Here's a guy who has no answers as to how evolution produced *even one*
of life's basic building blocks accusing *me* of having no explanations.
Interesting.
I *do* have an explanation BTW. Such things as transcription processes,
proofreading mechanisms, and translators of information from one form to
another, are clear hallmarks of intelligent design.







BTW, Stephen Meyer *did* have a paper on ID published in a peer reviewed
journal.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177


...which he slipped past normal peer-review by dishonest methods, and
which has been repudiated by the journal in question.


What evidence do you have that his paper was "slipped past normal
peer-review by dishonest methods"?



Read the link below. You can find a statement to that effect on the web
site of the relevant journal.



http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/08/meyers_hopeless_1.html

Not very impressive, is it? Ten years and 30 million dollars, and the
DI can produce only one paper, and that has been repudiated by the
journal in question. In most universities there is an expectation that
researchers produce a number of papers every year, and in some they
risk losing their jobs if they don't. Perhaps the DI should sack all
it's researchers.


There is a concerted effort among mainstream scientists to blacklist ID
papers.


Bollocks. There has been no ID research.


Your ignorance of ID is astounding.


What original research has been done in support of ID, and where has it
been published? Meyer's paper was a based on a literature review, which
is not original research.


Pretty much the entire Yockey paper you had me read was the same type of
paper. I assume most are similar. How far does your double standard extend?



It's been a rallying call for years.


Where? Most scientists in the world aren't even aware of ID. It's more
or less a purely USA'ian phenomenon.


To borrow a phrase: Bullocks.


As a scientist working outside the USA in the evolutionary sciences I
can confirm that m assertion is true.


Perhaps it's the company you keep.





Most IDers have given up
even trying.


No IDers have done any research at all.


Apparently neither have any evolutionists.



Oh, please! Try visiting a university and look in the library.

And perhaps you can tell me where the IDers have published their
research. The DI is very coy in the subject.


I have several books on my shelf.



And why should they? Their message is out there for all to
see anyway.


If ID is founded on sound science, they should be doing the research.
That's what scientists do, and there are many IDers with a perfectly
reputable track record in scientific research.


Yet you claim there's no research being done. Where do you get your
information?


I claim that no research to support ID is being done.

I'm sure the The International Society for Complexity, Information, and
Design would beg to differ.
http://www.iscid.org/

As would many others.

Science is a
method of investigating the world, and works regardless of the beliefs
on its proponents. I can believe that the earth was created by the
green goblin ten years ago, but if I am engaged in scientific
investigation that belief plays no part.


BTW, I read the "repudiation" of Meyer's paper offered by these
"experts". They don't make a very convincing case at all IMO. It's just
the usual mumbo jumbo - with no real concrete evidence for evolution or
against ID.


Why am I not surprised?




Dr. Lee Spetner has also had papers published - though not specifically
on ID.


So have many other creationist scientists. So what? None of those
papers has offered support for creationism or ID. Which goes to show
that creationists can get scientific paper published if they stick to
science. The fact that they don't get ID papers published shows that
there ain't no science in ID.


Spetner's papers were a statistical analysis of mutations.


No they were not. Spetner was a physicist before he became involved in
creationism. His papers are on subjects like:
Spetner, Lee M., "Errors in power spectra due to finite samples,"
Journal of Applied Physics (May 1954)


Try
Spetner, L.M. (1968). "Information transmission in evolution," IEEE
Transactions on Information Theory, vol. IT-14, pp. 3-6
and
Spetner, L.M. (1970). "Natural selection versus gene uniqueness,"
Nature, vol. 226, pp. 948-949


No answer here?




In his book
"Not By Chance", he makes the case that random mutations cannot account
for the diversity of life. I can only assume his papers echo that
philosophy.


No they don't. And the reason why he published them in a book is that
his argument would not stand up to the rigours of peer-review.



If you think ID is science, take it up with Michael Behe. He doesn't
think it is. I agree with him.

Too bad that's the only thing you agree with him on.


Why? What do you think ID has to offer to a science?
All ID can offer is Paley's watchmaker argument, which was rejected by
science over two centuries ago because it is an untestable assertion
which leads nowhere.

If "an intelligent designer did it" is offered as an explanation, it
leads absolutely nowhere. It is a barrier to further research, and
utterly useless as an explanation.

Let me ask you this:
Is there a scientific method whereby I can determine that the buildings
you designed were designed by an intelligent agent *without* using a
paper trail or knowing your name? Is there a method that - just by
observing the structure of the building, I can deduce design as opposed
to random processes? Is such a thing possible? If so, then explain
what's not "science" about it.


That's a ridiculous analogy.
Buildings are manufactured objects. Every detail of a building show
evidence that it was manufactured. It shows evidence of design in the
purposeful arrangements of its parts,

Organisms have this.

the lack of redundancy in its
systems,

Designed systems don't incorporate redundancy? How many bathrooms in the
buildings you design? How many toilets in each? How many windows? Doors?
I hope the answer to all these questions is more than "one"!

and the balance between cost and function in its construction.


Organisms have this as well. They are very efficient self-sustaining
systems.


Living organisms grow from a single cell. They are not manufactured.
They contain many structures which are redundant and inefficient.
During development, the human embryo grows, and then rebsorbs a tail.
Our genes still contain those which can grow a tail - occasionally
people are born with tails. We also still contain genes which can grow
scales if activated - a rather rarer phenomenon. The tubes through
which we breathe and the tubes through which we eat cross each other:
this is why we can choke to death on food. If a designer is involved,
he is catastrophically stupid and inefficient.


It's interesting that you would consider any designer smart enough to
design life (for which you in your "wisdom" have no plausible
explanation) "catastrophically stupid and inefficient". If the designer
of life's systems is catastrophically stupid and inefficient, what does
that say about us?

Do you honestly believe our designs are *better* than "Nature's"? We
haven't figured out how to make a three dimensional camera system which
can process and send high speed images to a complex computer system able
to analyze them and categorize them into useful information - oh, and
fit it into roughly the space of a football - yet we can categorically
say that if someone did - they'd be "catastrophically stupid and
inefficient" because this system contains a "blind spot" (which is
unnoticed to the user)?

Come on man! Get over yourself!


If I look at a building, I know it was designed because I can see
"LONDON BRICK COMPANY" stamped on the bricks. There are some geological
structures which can be mistaken for designed objects because they show
regularities of structure similar to those of man-made objects. They
are the stock-in-trade of cooks who think that the earth was visited by
alien civilisations. We know that they are not man-made because we have
an understanding of the processes which formed them, and can test the
hypothesis of their formation against the evidence.

So if you want to assert that biological structures are designed, you
need to present an hypothesis of their formation which can be tested
against the evidence, and which involves a designer.


I've done that.

Let me ask you another question:
How would you determine if an artifact found on Mars was designed?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Question for Ray Martinez
    ... and had the evidence to back up his claims. ... scientist, or knowledgeable about science. ... This says as long as a person supports evolution they are doing good ... A belief held by scientists does not make that belief ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Humans did not have gill slits
    ... any claim you want about god, but it's not science. ... because evolution is science. ... What evidence do you have that "they radiate from a source indicating ... funny we scientists dont think so. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Re: Evolution is not a fact
    ... Not when used in science. ... set yourself up as an authority on the subject, was evolution ... Evolution is the evidence, it is the fact. ... outlook toward the methodology utilized by scientists both ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Your Communication Problems
    ... and I will go back and look at the evidence (which may ... > "Intelligent Design is Not Science." ... > the Flood" written by out and out creationist scientists (young earth, ... for evolution? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolution Deniers
    ... If you are upset about the Theory of Evolution, ... > Scientists are very good at collecting data. ... > perfectly good evidence and the accompanying data and then, ... > Most of the science of evolution is based on this consensus opinion. ...
    (talk.origins)