Was It Designed?

reply to post by alfa1

alfa1

Broom
There is actually a way for it to be proven.

I'm thinking of an object.
How can I prove whether or not it was designed (or not)?
What procedures, tests or examinations should I make to prove the "design hypothesis" true or false?

You take pictures of it!!

DNA double helix photographed for the first time
digitaljournal.com/article/338173
digitaljournal.com...

and watch...

cell division
www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDAw2Zg4IgE
www.youtube.com...


cell division on contrast microscope
www.youtube.com/watch?v=DD3IQknCEdc
www.youtube.com...


Meiosis I, Polarized Light Microscopy. J LaFountain and R Oldenbourg/MBL Woods Hole
www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrxY4hjMDfk
www.youtube.com...

Arbitrageur

But if by "blind chance" you mean that nature's approach to design isn't as methodical as the engineer's, I guess that's why it takes nature over a million times longer, because there's a lot more stumbling and bumbling in nature's design process of throwing out things that didn't work. Maybe that's why Over 99% of the species that have ever existed are now extinct.. It seems to me like nature tries lots of different things, and most of them don't work.

Your "99% of the species that have ever existed are now extinct" argument is flawed because you're seemingly attributing blame for those extinctions to evolution. Your link does a rather poor job of explaining what the causes of those extinctions were, which is convenient for you in the context of this debate, since it leaves the door open for you to say it's because of evolution, or, lack of good design by nature, that most species no longer exist. That's misleading...

To be fair, most of the extinctions that have occurred have actually been mass level (rather sudden) events, due to comet or asteroid impacts, volcanic eruptions, or ice ages, etc. It's evolution that paved the way for new species to develop and flourish after such events given the altered environmental landscapes. I would argue that evolution is the design process and that nature is in fact by design.

Just because a certain species wasn't able to adapt quickly enough to sudden environmental changes doesn't mean the species was poorly designed by nature. And just because it took millions of years for certain species to evolve doesn't make it any less designed either (or not at all). Evolution is constantly happening. It doesn't stop to take a break. Does it get it right all the time. Nope. But that's design for you.

The designer can alter existing code at any time with Virus Infections...

A virus can edit DNA like a hot-fix!!

One big Petri Dish...

solomons path

There is no such thing as an "accident" in the process. Things happen for very specific reasons in chemistry (and biology, as well).

That's the whole point, isn't it? None of it is by accident. It's all fairly deliberate and cohesive.

My argument in previous threads supporting design in nature is that it all adheres to 3 simple attributes:

*Form
*Function
*Purpose

These are also the same attributes which are used to drive the design process of an Iphone or a Ferrari.

reply to post by PhotonEffect


True there were mass extinctions, but your source doesn't say those are the largest cause of extinctions, as you claim, and in fact that is not the case.

Extinction

A typical species becomes extinct within 10 million years of its first appearance,[3] although some species, called living fossils, survive with virtually no morphological change for hundreds of millions of years. Most extinctions have occurred naturally, prior to Homo sapiens walking on Earth: it is estimated that 99.9% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct.[3][4]

Mass extinctions are relatively rare events; however, isolated extinctions are quite common.

So if a typical species become extinct within 10 million years of appearance (some shorter and some longer), we know that mass extinctions are much further apart, so in fact most species did not become extinct in mass extinctions. Even mass extinction 65 million years ago killed 99% of the species (it didn't), there have still been over six 10-million-year extinction cycles since then for an over 6:1 ratio of individual extinctions to mass extinctions.

Is extinction caused by genetic or environmental factors? It's not either-or, it's both.

Assessing the relative importance of genetic factors compared to environmental ones as the causes of extinction has been compared to the nature-nurture debate.[4] The question of whether more extinctions in the fossil record have been caused by evolution or by catastrophe is a subject of discussion; Mark Newman, the author of Modeling Extinction argues for a mathematical model that falls between the two positions.

the relative importance of each is debated but there can be little doubt both factors play a role, whatever the actual contribution of each.

PhotonEffect
That's the whole point, isn't it? None of it is by accident. It's all fairly deliberate and cohesive.

My argument in previous threads supporting design in nature is that it all adheres to 3 simple attributes:

*Form
*Function
*Purpose

These are also the same attributes which are used to drive the design process of an Iphone or a Ferrari.

You got it wrong - it was no accident as what species will survive - it is always most adaptive and most adjustable species that will survive and breed. Evolution is no accidental as badly described by OP, nor is done over night, as supposed world creation happened.

This topic turned into showcase rather then into discussion.

As all discussion would stop at - what process/who created supposed 'creator'.

We in science would say it was all product of chemical processes that started life that trough time evolved into many different life forms on earth. Latest findings in meteors show us that life might not be unique to our little planet.

reply to post by Astyanax


No actually.

‘We found that bumblebee flight is surprisingly inefficient – aerodynamically-speaking it’s as if the insect is ‘split in half’ as not only do its left and right wings flap independently but the airflow around them never joins up to help it slip through the air more easily.’

Such an extreme aerodynamic separation between left and right sets the bumblebee [Bombus terrestris] apart from most other flying animals.

"Our observations show that, instead of the aerodynamic finesse found in most other insects, bumblebees have a adopted a brute force approach powered by a huge thorax and fuelled by energy-rich nectar," said Dr Bomphrey. "This approach may be due to its particularly wide body shape, or it could have evolved to make bumblebees more manoeuvrable in the air at the cost of a less efficient flying style."

www.sciencedaily.com...

It is not really clear cut at all. The answer must be found in something else.

reply to post by PhotonEffect

To be fair, most of the extinctions that have occurred have actually been mass level (rather sudden) events, due to comet or asteroid impacts, volcanic eruptions, or ice ages, etc.

Your link doesn't bear out your claim. Mass extinctions occur at particular points in the geological record. There have been only a few global ones in all of prehistory. But species become extinct every day, and always have.

Do you have a better source for the claim? It's quite an interesting one, if true.

Quadrivium

AbleEndangered
reply to post by Quadrivium

 

I disagree, The Holographic Universe theory bloated. Theory of Evolution and Creationism will both fall under the Simulation, Electric or Living Multi-verses...

A unified field....A Unified Theory!!

How did the Simulation get started?

How did God get started?

openminded2011

Quadrivium

AbleEndangered
reply to post by Quadrivium

 

I disagree, The Holographic Universe theory bloated. Theory of Evolution and Creationism will both fall under the Simulation, Electric or Living Multi-verses...

A unified field....A Unified Theory!!

How did the Simulation get started?

How did God get started?

I don't know................
See that's not so hard.

Which came first; The chicken or the egg??

The Miracle Of Human Creation part(1) must see
www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kGN2dcjNUY
www.youtube.com...


Note: Sugar as fuel

My crude hypothesis

Consciousness collapses the first wave creating what we know as the big bang and the first hyper inflation

It then creates a second consciousnessto reflect its self the all happens so fast

And the duel awareness collapses the wave further and we have the second hyper inflation

....

As each consciousness is split the waves collapses even further creating an ever more "real" world

Each split also causing a reduction in ability in each individual consciousness

So far i think it works lol

Astyanax
reply to post by PhotonEffect

 

To be fair, most of the extinctions that have occurred have actually been mass level (rather sudden) events, due to comet or asteroid impacts, volcanic eruptions, or ice ages, etc.

Your link doesn't bear out your claim. Mass extinctions occur at particular points in the geological record. There have been only a few global ones in all of prehistory. But species become extinct every day, and always have.

Do you have a better source for the claim? It's quite an interesting one, if true.

This is just silly.

If that were true,in order for there to be a net gain in the biodiversity of the planet, u would think at least 2 species would have to evolve for each species that went extinct.

One even day or so according to you

Which would make over 130000 extinction since Christ

And you would expect 250000 new species to evolve

Please show evidence of these new species

reply to post by Another_Nut

Please show evidence of these new species

Please show evidence of an increase in biodiversity in the past oh....say... 2,000 years. Since you mentioned Christ.

reply to post by solomons path

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

Forgive me for interjecting into a... let's say debate, in progress.

What is the opposite of chance?

Merriam-Webster defines the antonyms for chance as: intent, intention, purpose; design, outline, plan, scheme.

Thesarus.com gives the antonyms for chance as: designed, foreseeable, planned, understood.

So if Evolution is not chance, then which of these antonyms would you use? I think one of the main problems the more scientifically oriented types encounter is they often times want to dichotomize spirituality and science into two neat little boxes that cannot at any time overlap. They see the hypocrisy and sometimes illogical nature in the dogma of many religions and they take the complete opposite tack, often times becoming the polar opposite of that which they found so distasteful about religion in the first place. I don't blame them, for I also thought and felt that way for a time. But I believe there is a place where the two can meet.

A place that lies between the big man in the clouds who judges us always and will send us to burn forever if we don't believe in him, and the eternal nothingness of one life to live, of an end to consciousness after we expend our single brief charge in this temporal realm. I am not a battery, I am the energy.

I'm reminded of the two primal forces in Stephen King's seminal The Dark Tower series: The Random, and The Purpose. They are shown as two competing forces that are used to represent Evil and Good, Negative and Positive. It makes for a good story and an easily understandable representation of the dichotomy that we apparently live in.

However, I think the truth is even more simple and easily represented than that: There is infinity. Infinity is creation. Creation is infinity. That which is infinite cannot be many, for manyness is a finite concept. To have infinity, you must have unity. Therefore, all things are interconnected. All things are One. We are that which is designed, and we are the designer. We are intelligent. We are creators.

I'll stop there because I'm sure many of our scientifically minded friends, if they are still reading, have already begun grating their teeth, and I'd rather not come off as too preachy, although I'm sure, for some, I already have. It's not my place to alter anyone's belief systems, as the only person who can that is you, through your own personal choice. So rather than pontificate any longer, I'll simply wish all of us all the best.

Good journey, and be well.

ExquisitExamplE
What is the opposite of chance?

Merriam-Webster defines the antonyms for chance as: intent, intention, purpose; design, outline, plan, scheme.

Thesarus.com gives the antonyms for chance as: designed, foreseeable, planned, understood.

So if Evolution is not chance, then which of these antonyms would you use?

See, thats one of the many reasons that creationists are not worth arguing with. Rather than talk about the real world, observations and experimental results, a silly semantic argument is often their favored choice.
Ever willing to use the word "theory" while changing its meaning. Using the word "species" without knowing its meaning. Using the word "mutation" without knowing its meaning.

And now... a discussion on the word "chance". Knowing all the while that they'll pull the old "change the definition" game, once an answer is given.

tl;dr Dictionaries dont often give the SCIENTIFIC and MATHEMATICAL field specific uses of words.

reply to post by alfa1


Talk Science then..

In the Computer Environment, electronic.

Random can only be simulated.

True Random never exists in an Digital Electronic environment!!

How Machines Generate Random Numbers with Time
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ac4Z1VMsE3E
www.youtube.com...

Broom
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Interesting perspective. And one can understand why you would come to such an assumption, the one where you take it that millions, or even billions of years, is enough time to come up with the variety of life that exists.

But isn't it interesting that if you take something like a human cell and look at it, you realize that the odds you give to variety don't add up.

......

The minute amount of time you give life on earth to form by Chance, any thinking person, who isn't blinded by an agenda, has to come to grips with the impossibility of it happening.

This is the short of the matter.

It's not a random process; therefore, statistical probability or "odds" as you put it play no role in the matter. Life exists and we see the changes occur in gene sequences, so no, I would not use the term impossible. Also, 4.65 billion years, with approximately 3 billion having life exist on it, is a very very long time.

ExquisitExamplE
reply to post by solomons path

 

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

Forgive me for interjecting into a... let's say debate, in progress.

What is the opposite of chance?

Merriam-Webster defines the antonyms for chance as: intent, intention, purpose; design, outline, plan, scheme.

Thesarus.com gives the antonyms for chance as: designed, foreseeable, planned, understood.

So if Evolution is not chance, then which of these antonyms would you use? I think one of the main problems the more scientifically oriented types encounter is they often times want to dichotomize spirituality and science into two neat little boxes that cannot at any time overlap. They see the hypocrisy and sometimes illogical nature in the dogma of many religions and they take the complete opposite tack, often times becoming the polar opposite of that which they found so distasteful about religion in the first place. I don't blame them, for I also thought and felt that way for a time. But I believe there is a place where the two can meet.

Evolution is a process. Aspects of the process can be considered random; however, the randomness follows basic chemical principals, which in turn takes away the ability to use statistical probability to describe the system. It's not about taking the opposite track, it's about correcting a purposefully misconstrued concept that is used to perpetuate a false premise.

Why do living creatures don't adapt to the massive changes we humans are causing?
This should be a great stimulant for species to survive because they are dying off at such a rapid rate (at a speed almost not seen before in all time), why aren't they changing to survive or even some creatures appearing which can prey on humans effectively, putting the balance in check. Perhaps they didn't need to change as they where 'perfectly adopted' but they should change right now to survive (of course they won't).

I ''know'' evolution goes slow but they will die off if they don't (even we may be).

"The speed at which species are being lost is much faster than any we've seen in the past -- including those [extinctions] related to meteor collisions,"

How did we evolve to survive but to (possibly) destroy our self (and almost all other species) in the near future?

Some bad evolvolution there (just a new invented word).