Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why only one Designer
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 136 of 377 (612568)
04-17-2011 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by SavageD
04-16-2011 1:48 PM


Re: common design
SavageD writes:
Well If you take it from the view of similar design, it would probably make sense.
Example: if were to start my own line of designer clothes, for each garment I make I would probably leave my signature on it to symbolize that the garment was fashioned by me. It would then be natural to think that there was probably one designer or one mind behind the design upon seeing my signature left on my product.
It would? Would I assume that the fashion house whose products bear the SavageD logo only employs one designer? And would I assume that someone, perhaps called D Savage, was the original inventor/designer of all shirts, dresses and skirts, rather than being a modifier of designs made by others? Would anyone assume all this?
SavageD writes:
Similarly every living thing contains some sort of signature (eg. dna). Why does every living thing require dna, why not some other mechanism for information? Probably evidence for common design.
DNA is a working part of the organisms that contain it, not an arbitrary sign intended for observers like the trademark logo that you choose to put on your clothes. If the logo is accidentally left off a batch of dresses leaving your factory, they are none the worse for it. Leave DNA out of a life form and you would have to substitute another self-replicating molecule. Designers could easily do this, but with naturalistic common descent, it would be difficult. Hence the uniformity.
It's fine to illustrate arguments by analogy, but there's no single sign we know of in all organisms that's analogous to the SavageD trademark on your clothes. The identification signals that organisms do use to communicate with others are the nearest thing in a way, but these are many and varied. They use a whole variety of species specific chemical signals, sounds and visual displays as signs. Going by your argument, each species would have separate "trademarks", and therefore separate designers.
SavageD writes:
The biological system also exhibits an intricate system (ecosystem).
plants depend on insects & animals
animals depend on insects & plants
insects depend on animals & plants
Every-things intertwined, if you remove one of these, the entire ecosystem falls apart. This would then be evidence for a common designer since there was probably common thought used in designing the system.
That's the funniest version of the "irreducibly complex" argument I've ever read (and I've read a few that make me laugh). Thanks for it. It could be very useful in explaining what's wrong with the concept when people apply it in other areas.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by SavageD, posted 04-16-2011 1:48 PM SavageD has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 137 of 377 (612589)
04-17-2011 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by Jon
04-16-2011 8:34 PM


Re: A Funny Backstitch
But we're only talking about one type of design: life.
No, we're talking about designs in general. Remember? When SavageD got us on this subject by talking about putting his label on clothes that he designed?
Are clothes alive, Jon?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Jon, posted 04-16-2011 8:34 PM Jon has seen this message but not replied

  
SavageD
Member (Idle past 3752 days)
Posts: 59
From: Trinbago
Joined: 04-16-2011


Message 138 of 377 (612593)
04-17-2011 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Dr Adequate
04-17-2011 12:36 AM


Re: common design
Dr Adequate writes:
It seems you have empirical evidence that shows how dna became the building blocks for life as we know it, through step by step procedures.
What in the world gave you that impression?
I'll quote you...-->
Dr Adequate writes:
There is abundant evidence of it being produced by natural processes (which are well understood) and zero evidence of it being produced by magical processes.
Naturally I asked you to give me some of this evidence, which you've conveniently ignored.
It's called DNA polymerase.
Oh I see, dna polymerase is single handedly responsible for building & coding & utilizing dna, lol...I'm not even gonna explain to you why this is a rather silly response.
Your turn. How does DNA appear in nature through supernatural processes, and are there any observations of this actually happening?
Contrary to the evolution theory, I am not claiming that dna conveniently appeared in nature, I'm saying that it is a product of design. There are no observations of anyone making dna, however there is evidence which suggests that it was designed.
If I've never observed anyone creating a car and later came across one in some other country, does that mean the car was not created by some designer, that it simply arose through super natural means? No.
Just like a car exhibits a level of functionality, intricacy / complexity & structural integrity as evidence it was designed, so does dna. This is my evidence.
By what exact means it was created, that I do not know.
Overlooking the anthropomorphism implicit in your question, organisms today inherited this facility from earlier organisms by purely natural processes which are well-understood (and which, by the way, include the action of DNA polymerase).
Seems you branched off into an entirely different area. I never asked you how dna is inherited...I asked you to:
Explain to me how dna appears in nature through natural processes & how organisms today learnt to code & utilize dna.
Thus far, you have failed to do so.
I also asked you to enlighten me with your \\reasoning// as to why dna is, as you put it..."simple"...and you give me this???
In the sense that it's simple. I don't see how I can make the word "simple" clearer than it already is.
This is why even after the discovery that DNA was in some way connected to inheritance many scientists were looking for the genetic material in the histones associated with DNA. They just couldn't believe that something as simple as DNA could be what they were looking for.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-17-2011 12:36 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Jon, posted 04-17-2011 12:35 PM SavageD has replied
 Message 140 by jar, posted 04-17-2011 12:40 PM SavageD has not replied
 Message 143 by crashfrog, posted 04-17-2011 3:11 PM SavageD has replied
 Message 144 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-17-2011 5:27 PM SavageD has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 139 of 377 (612594)
04-17-2011 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by SavageD
04-17-2011 12:32 PM


Re: common design
Contrary to the evolution theory, I am not claiming that dna conveniently appeared in nature, I'm saying that it is a product of design. There are no observations of anyone making dna, however there is evidence which suggests that it was designed.
If I've never observed anyone creating a car and later came across one in some other country, does that mean the car was not created by some designer, that it simply arose through super natural means? No.
Just like a car exhibits a level of functionality, intricacy / complexity & structural integrity as evidence it was designed, so does dna. This is my evidence.
Is DNA and the 'mechanisms for which DNA is used' a defining characteristic of life?
Jon

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by SavageD, posted 04-17-2011 12:32 PM SavageD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by SavageD, posted 04-17-2011 12:49 PM Jon has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 140 of 377 (612595)
04-17-2011 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by SavageD
04-17-2011 12:32 PM


Re: common design
How do you know that a car is designed?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by SavageD, posted 04-17-2011 12:32 PM SavageD has not replied

  
SavageD
Member (Idle past 3752 days)
Posts: 59
From: Trinbago
Joined: 04-16-2011


Message 141 of 377 (612596)
04-17-2011 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Jon
04-17-2011 12:35 PM


Re: common design
Jon writes:
Contrary to the evolution theory, I am not claiming that dna conveniently appeared in nature, I'm saying that it is a product of design. There are no observations of anyone making dna, however there is evidence which suggests that it was designed.
If I've never observed anyone creating a car and later came across one in some other country, does that mean the car was not created by some designer, that it simply arose through super natural means? No.
Just like a car exhibits a level of functionality, intricacy / complexity & structural integrity as evidence it was designed, so does dna. This is my evidence.
Is DNA and the 'mechanisms for which DNA is used' a defining characteristic of life?
Jon
I would say the mechanisms and roles for which dna & or 'rna' are used are the defining characteristics of life. I would probably go deeper into this but for now I have to go, I'm quite busy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Jon, posted 04-17-2011 12:35 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Jon, posted 04-17-2011 1:11 PM SavageD has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 142 of 377 (612597)
04-17-2011 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by SavageD
04-17-2011 12:49 PM


Re: common design
I would say the mechanisms and roles for which dna & or 'rna' are used are the defining characteristics of life.
But not DNA itself?
I would probably go deeper into this but for now I have to go, I'm quite busy.
Take your time; I'm simply trying to understand your position.
Jon

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by SavageD, posted 04-17-2011 12:49 PM SavageD has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 143 of 377 (612627)
04-17-2011 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by SavageD
04-17-2011 12:32 PM


Re: common design
Explain to me how dna appears in nature through natural processes & how organisms today learnt to code & utilize dna.
Thus far, you have failed to do so.
Could that maybe be because your question is retarded and makes no sense?
Tell me, Savage, when did you "learn" to grow hair?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by SavageD, posted 04-17-2011 12:32 PM SavageD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by SavageD, posted 04-17-2011 6:46 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 144 of 377 (612690)
04-17-2011 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by SavageD
04-17-2011 12:32 PM


Re: common design
I'll quote you...-->
Specifically, you quoted me saying something completely different. You did not quote me as saying that I "have empirical evidence that shows how dna became the building blocks for life as we know it, through step by step procedures", a sentence which you wrote and I did not; and I am prepared to explain my own statements, but not yours.
Oh I see, dna polymerase is single handedly responsible for building & coding & utilizing dna, lol...I'm not even gonna explain to you why this is a rather silly response.
No? Then let me explain why it's a silly response: because it's something you wrote rather than something I wrote.
Contrary to the evolution theory, I am not claiming that dna conveniently appeared in nature, I'm saying that it is a product of design. There are no observations of anyone making dna, however there is evidence which suggests that it was designed.
If I've never observed anyone creating a car and later came across one in some other country, does that mean the car was not created by some designer, that it simply arose through super natural means? No.
Just like a car exhibits a level of functionality, intricacy / complexity & structural integrity as evidence it was designed, so does dna. This is my evidence.
By what exact means it was created, that I do not know.
You could have saved yourself a few paragraphs by just writing: "I don't know".
Seems you branched off into an entirely different area. I never asked you how dna is inherited...I asked you to:
Explain to me how dna appears in nature through natural processes & how organisms today learnt to code & utilize dna.
This is like saying: "I never asked you about four, I asked you what two plus two is."
DNA appears in nature through the natural process of DNA synthesis; and organisms today do not "learn" to utilize DNA, they inherit that faculty from their ancestors. This answers your question: if you wanted another answer you should probably have asked a different question.
I also asked you to enlighten me with your \\reasoning// as to why dna is, as you put it..."simple"...and you give me this???
Well, yes. I'm not sure what you want. If you ask me why I say tigers are stripy, then it's hard to give any more elaborate answer than "because tigers are stripy".
The reasoning behind my saying that DNA is simple is that it's simple. As I have illustrated by referring to the fact that many scientists thought that it was too simple to be the genetic material. It's really not a very complicated molecule: it's a double chain of purines and pyrimidines, which are themselves simple as organic molecules go.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by SavageD, posted 04-17-2011 12:32 PM SavageD has not replied

  
SavageD
Member (Idle past 3752 days)
Posts: 59
From: Trinbago
Joined: 04-16-2011


Message 145 of 377 (612699)
04-17-2011 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by crashfrog
04-17-2011 3:11 PM


Re: common design
crashfrog writes:
Explain to me how dna appears in nature through natural processes & how organisms today learnt to code & utilize dna.
Thus far, you have failed to do so.
Could that maybe be because your question is retarded and makes no sense?
Tell me, Savage, when did you "learn" to grow hair?
Fact of the matter is no one can learn to grow hair. Such mechanisms are impossible to learn.
Which is my point any way, if you can't consciously make decisions to learn or do such things, how then are we able to do it?
You can't learn to build dna nor can you learn to develop the mechanisms to utilize it. You can't learn to one day grow a heart or a brain, why that would be a logical fallacy.
You can't say that these things came about by chance either, that'd be preposterous. Having eliminated those other possibilities you are then left with only one alternative, they were possibly created.
To be more specific, mechanisms were possibly designed / created to cause such things to happen (things such as dna utilization & energy consumption, hair growth etc) cause we know such complex mechanisms cannot arise in nature by chance.
Edited by SavageD, : No reason given.
Edited by SavageD, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by crashfrog, posted 04-17-2011 3:11 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by jar, posted 04-17-2011 6:51 PM SavageD has replied
 Message 149 by ringo, posted 04-17-2011 7:36 PM SavageD has replied
 Message 172 by crashfrog, posted 04-18-2011 7:23 PM SavageD has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 146 of 377 (612700)
04-17-2011 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by SavageD
04-17-2011 6:46 PM


Re: common design
But of course we can and did learn how to make DNA and we make it using only natural processes, no magic involved.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by SavageD, posted 04-17-2011 6:46 PM SavageD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by SavageD, posted 04-17-2011 6:56 PM jar has replied

  
SavageD
Member (Idle past 3752 days)
Posts: 59
From: Trinbago
Joined: 04-16-2011


Message 147 of 377 (612701)
04-17-2011 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by jar
04-17-2011 6:51 PM


Re: common design
jar writes:
But of course we can and did learn how to make DNA and we make it using only natural processes, no magic involved.
Things cannot \\learn// how to make dna. There are mechanisms involved that create dna.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by jar, posted 04-17-2011 6:51 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by jar, posted 04-17-2011 7:02 PM SavageD has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 148 of 377 (612703)
04-17-2011 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by SavageD
04-17-2011 6:56 PM


Re: common design
And the mechanisms are all natural, no magic need apply.
Sorry but the idea of some designer is simply stupid, and I will ask you yet again, how do you know a car is designed?
That is the first baby step towards understanding how stupid an idea Intelligent Design really is when it comes to living critters.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by SavageD, posted 04-17-2011 6:56 PM SavageD has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 149 of 377 (612705)
04-17-2011 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by SavageD
04-17-2011 6:46 PM


Re: common design
SavageD writes:
You can't say that these things came about by chance either, that'd be preposterous.
But you can say that they came about by a cycle of chance and selection.
Even designers select the features that work best and discard the others. All a designer can do is work with natural processes that are already in place.

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by SavageD, posted 04-17-2011 6:46 PM SavageD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by SavageD, posted 04-18-2011 12:52 PM ringo has replied

  
SavageD
Member (Idle past 3752 days)
Posts: 59
From: Trinbago
Joined: 04-16-2011


Message 150 of 377 (612748)
04-18-2011 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by ringo
04-17-2011 7:36 PM


Re: common design
ringo writes:
Even designers select the features that work best and discard the others. All a designer can do is work with natural processes that are already in place.
Well it's like this, things would only seem super natural if you can't explain it through natural processes or from your current knowledge.
For example: imagine some one having being been secluded on an island for years having not known about modern technology & inventions such as cars. He's never known about metal or the chemical processes used to create them. If someone was to introduce him to the new world with cars, airplanes, mircrowaves etc, he could then assume that they came there through supernatural means because the processes by which these things are made, would far exceed his current knowledge. He has never seen the processes by which moderns machineries are made nor has he ever seen metal. But today we know such things are possible, not supernatural.
Besides, metals like steel aren't exactly made through natural processes, it's synthetic, should we then call it supernatural? The lines between natural and supernatural processes are blurred.
Because I observe all other lifeless planets, I personally have reason to believe that life forms are in some way, synthetic.
But you can say that they came about by a cycle of chance and selection.
To say that these complex mechanism's came about through a cycle of chance & selection would be irrational.
If the cycle is guided by chance then whats selecting? If you are then asking whats selecting, you are then going to ask, where did this mechanism to select come from? You would have to conclude that it came about by chance, thus making the process start all over again. This is illogical, its called circular reasoning.
The selections happened through chance and chance occurrences happens through selection.
If you were to say that the mechanism to select did not come about by chance, then that would leave the only other alternative,
the mechanism is a probably a product of design.
jar writes:
Sorry but the idea of some designer is simply stupid, and I will ask you yet again, how do you know a car is designed?
I would say anything which a exhibits some level(s) of functionality(ies), intricacy / complexity & structural integrity both on the physically observable level(s) & sub-system level(s) are products of design, since we know such objects are near impossible to come about through chance. for example, a watch

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by ringo, posted 04-17-2011 7:36 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by subbie, posted 04-18-2011 1:08 PM SavageD has not replied
 Message 152 by ringo, posted 04-18-2011 1:09 PM SavageD has not replied
 Message 153 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-18-2011 3:13 PM SavageD has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024