Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   INTELLIGENT DESIGN: An Engineer’s Approach
limbosis
Member (Idle past 6279 days)
Posts: 120
From: United States
Joined: 12-06-2006


Message 1 of 302 (369708)
12-14-2006 8:35 AM


If I had to cite the standard design engineering process to explain our particular make and model of life, I would use the auto industry as a prime example with which to do so.
Let’s pretend you manage a single car model for a productive automobile manufacturer. And, let’s say you have been asked to make some changes for next year’s line of your model. Would you commission your staff to start from scratch and redraw the plans for every facet of the current line while incorporating the new changes, or would you just reuse the current design plans and incorporate the required revisions to them?
Well, most people would do well to take full advantage of the efficiency, economics, expedience, common sense, reliability, safety, competence, practicality, and overall effectiveness in reusing the existing plans. I might add that it would certainly not be an accident. Your job would depend on your ability to do this. Plans for machinery rely upon intentional activities, and derive most of their utility from older designs.
In fact, the genetic designs we find in living things conform to the same business model. Newer designs appear to have originated as modified copies of earlier plans. Not only does this suggest that we were designed, it makes sense from an engineering perspective. Parenthetically, how it gives anyone the notion that DNA lends credibility to the theory of evolution is still beyond me.
So, I would suggest that we are simply biological machinery”but, not unlike today’s cars. We have systems contained onboard, a CPU, peripheral devices, means for locomotion, coordinated functions, and so on. As a matter of fact, we share a fair degree of robotism with cars. We consume fuel, and we may have even been imbued with a distinct purpose. Yet, this thing we call our mind may be a by-product, a phenomenon unique to this world or these species of ours. It’s good stuff, though.
But, to qualify the purpose itself, we would be asinine not to view it in the context of other animals”mammals, at the very least. So, if we look around at all the mammals on this teal earth, we see that everyone is pretty much doing their own thing. Koalas stare at cameras, whales will jump for food, and people seem to participate in fantasy football. Not much help there.
In qualifying a purpose, what we would need to establish is a common thread . something that we all do, as mammals, in providing a service or performing a particular function. We’d need to determine how we help someone go from situation A to situation B. As near as I can tell, we all emit carbon dioxide, methane, ammonia, sounds, heat, water, and more. I could also be convinced that our specie(s) serve as a primary source of food for some other specie(s). But, that would be as far as I go. As humans, we destroy plants among other things, and have been told there is a god. What does it all mean?
The only conclusion I would draw from this mess is that our designer does not want to reveal its true nature. Yes, I understand that there may be some things that most of us would not want to know, if given the choice. I, for one, have stepped up to the plate. I’m ready for some chin music. And, I cannot shake the feeling that we’re all being used.
I don’t know, maybe all hell would break loose if the truth were discovered. But, that shouldn’t keep us from trying. Let’s be honest, a good god would realize that the need to keep secrets could not possibly outweigh the need to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. We are now at the front doorstep.
And with that, we don’t necessarily require specific knowledge as to the nature of the first cause in this universe, especially if all we need to know is why some wizard of Oz doesn’t have the acorns to come out from behind the curtain. I mean, don’t get me wrong. Life is funtastic, to be sure. Yet, I still believe we deserve a better explanation.
Won’t you help?

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Chiroptera, posted 12-14-2006 11:21 AM limbosis has not replied
 Message 4 by RickJB, posted 12-14-2006 11:22 AM limbosis has not replied
 Message 5 by PaulK, posted 12-14-2006 11:36 AM limbosis has not replied
 Message 6 by ringo, posted 12-14-2006 11:54 AM limbosis has not replied
 Message 7 by crashfrog, posted 12-14-2006 12:02 PM limbosis has not replied
 Message 9 by NOT JULIUS, posted 12-14-2006 1:03 PM limbosis has not replied
 Message 16 by iceage, posted 12-14-2006 2:53 PM limbosis has not replied
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 12-14-2006 9:23 PM limbosis has not replied
 Message 166 by jaywill, posted 12-23-2006 6:44 AM limbosis has replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 302 (369718)
12-14-2006 11:11 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 302 (369721)
12-14-2006 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by limbosis
12-14-2006 8:35 AM


quote:
Well, most people would do well to take full advantage of the efficiency, economics, expedience, common sense, reliability, safety, competence, practicality, and overall effectiveness in reusing the existing plans.
Well, yeah, most people would. But would an omnipotent, omniscient being do so? A being who could just create by a snap of his metaphorical fingers wouldn't have to worry about efficiency, and omniscient being wouldn't be constrained by "experience".
-
quote:
The only conclusion I would draw from this mess is that our designer does not want to reveal its true nature.
Or maybe got bored and went away without checking in on its creation. Or died. Or never existed in the first place.

Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied. -- Otto von Bismarck

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by limbosis, posted 12-14-2006 8:35 AM limbosis has not replied

RickJB
Member (Idle past 4991 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 4 of 302 (369722)
12-14-2006 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by limbosis
12-14-2006 8:35 AM


Parenthetically, how it gives anyone the notion that DNA lends credibility to the theory of evolution is still beyond me.
Then read up on it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by limbosis, posted 12-14-2006 8:35 AM limbosis has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 5 of 302 (369724)
12-14-2006 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by limbosis
12-14-2006 8:35 AM


I work in the software industry, and I can tell you that there comes a point where it is necessary to stop and do radical rewrites. You do not keep on fiddling and fixing forever or you end up with a complete mess. I suspect it's the same in engineering - all the car manufacturers I've heard of bring out new models every so often.
Also there's the business of transferring technology. Something that works in one application gets copied into other places where it's useful. That doesn't seem to happen very often in nature - at least it doesn't seem to be done intentionally.
So I'd say that your analogy falls down on a cuple of points. What we see is more like what we'd expect evolution to produce than a designer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by limbosis, posted 12-14-2006 8:35 AM limbosis has not replied

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


Message 6 of 302 (369725)
12-14-2006 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by limbosis
12-14-2006 8:35 AM


As I see it, the biggest flaw in your argument is that you ignore 99% of the life-forms on earth.
Sure, all automobiles are basically the same design and that design is derived from horse-drawn carriages and that design is derived from....
But what about the ball-point pens and the igloos? Would your phantom designer use the same materials to build them? Wouldn't that be a sure way to lose his job?
Why would he use the same basic design for bacteria and trees? Do engineers design an airplane by modifying a submarine?
If it all was "designed", it's pretty clear why the "designer" doesn't want to reveal his true nature: he's an incompetent moron who's afraid of his boss.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by limbosis, posted 12-14-2006 8:35 AM limbosis has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by jar, posted 12-14-2006 12:27 PM ringo has not replied
 Message 280 by TheMystic, posted 12-29-2006 4:16 PM ringo has not replied

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


Message 7 of 302 (369726)
12-14-2006 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by limbosis
12-14-2006 8:35 AM


Well, most people would do well to take full advantage of the efficiency, economics, expedience, common sense, reliability, safety, competence, practicality, and overall effectiveness in reusing the existing plans.
Ok, but cars all travel in the same way - an engine rotates wheels to travel over roads.
Let's say that your car designers branch out into the submarine business. Does it still make sense to reuse previous plans? Does it make sense to, say, design a fast attack sub that encorporates the double-wishbone suspension?
No, of course not. Why does a submarine need a suspension? But that's exactly the pattern we see in the natural world - reusing parts that don't make any sense, like the whale's pelvis and hind legs. And would you copy the things that were broken in the old designs, like the broken Vitamin C gene shared by all primate species? Why would you?
Unreasonable levels of "copying old designs" is what we see in the natural world, which is futher proof of evolution.
I could also be convinced that our specie(s) serve as a primary source of food for some other specie(s).
Just a lingusitic note - "specie" means "money" or "coinage"; the word your looking for is "species", which refers to a reproducive community of like organisms. Used in this way it is self-plural.
Also - you're entire argument seems contradictory. You list all the reasons that there doesn't appear to be a designer; from this, you conclude that there is a designer but he simply doesn't want to be found. Exactly what would you expect the world to look like if organisms had evolved via random mutation and natural selection, through common descent with modification from an individual ancestor, unguided by any divine agency?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by limbosis, posted 12-14-2006 8:35 AM limbosis has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by TheMystic, posted 12-29-2006 4:37 PM crashfrog has not replied

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


Message 8 of 302 (369729)
12-14-2006 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by ringo
12-14-2006 11:54 AM


from an engineering perspective there is no Intellegent Design.
There is also the fact that the designer is too stupid to adopt good ideas.
Consider cars. There are many species or kinds of cars, Packard, Ford, Chevy, Mercedes, Humber, DKW, AutoUnion, Alfa Romeo, Citroen just as there are many kinds of mammals, lions, tigers, bears, man, orangutan, elephant, horse and of course, ohmys.
The difference between something designed, like cars, and those things that are not designed like mammals though can be seen in the difference in how good ideas do not propagate through out the living species or kinds.
In the early 1920s power windshield wipers appeared on the first car. Within only a few years they were found on every car.
In 1923 the first standard equipment radio appeared. Within only a few years they were found on every car.
In 1939, Buick introduced turn signals. Within only a few years they were found on every car.
The list is almost endless.
  • electric wipers instead of vacuum.
  • internal combustion engines.
  • radial tires.
  • heaters.
  • air conditioning.
  • roll down windows.
  • headlights.
  • mirrors.
  • steering wheels.
  • tops.
  • spare tires.
  • space saver spares.
  • starters.
  • the change from generator to alternator.
I could go on but that list should give you an idea.
In each instance this was a new feature that first appeared in only one make, sometimes only one model of a car. The designer though took good ideas from one model and applied those same ideas to EVERY model.
We do not see that when we look at examples of living critters. The humans brain is not then repeated in all mammals, the eagles eyes are not then repeated in all animals, good features, advances do not get incorporated across all the makes and models, species or kind, of mammals.
Looking at living critters what we find is NOT Intelligent Design.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by ringo, posted 12-14-2006 11:54 AM ringo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-14-2006 10:13 PM jar has not replied

NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 4475 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 9 of 302 (369733)
12-14-2006 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by limbosis
12-14-2006 8:35 AM


Hi Limbosis,
You said:
Let’s pretend you manage a single car model for a productive automobile manufacturer. And, let’s say you have been asked to make some changes for next year’s line of your model. Would you commission your staff to start from scratch and redraw the plans for every facet of the current line while incorporating the new changes, or would you just reuse the current design plans and incorporate the required revisions to them?
I agree. That's why I believe homology--the "common parts" of certain animals is more proof of intelligent design than just random chance.
I know too little of science. But, whenever I see my Adidas shoes having the same material as my bag, having the same brand (Adidas) I say that these come from a single designer and maker. Never in my mind will it enter that my shoes evolved from my bag.
PJ

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by limbosis, posted 12-14-2006 8:35 AM limbosis has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by PaulK, posted 12-14-2006 1:09 PM NOT JULIUS has not replied
 Message 11 by Jazzns, posted 12-14-2006 1:12 PM NOT JULIUS has replied
 Message 12 by Chiroptera, posted 12-14-2006 1:15 PM NOT JULIUS has replied
 Message 31 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-14-2006 9:44 PM NOT JULIUS has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 10 of 302 (369735)
12-14-2006 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by NOT JULIUS
12-14-2006 1:03 PM


Homology is NOT explained by chance. It is a necessary consequence of common descent that there should be homologies. That is why they are better evidence for evolution than they are for design.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by NOT JULIUS, posted 12-14-2006 1:03 PM NOT JULIUS has not replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 11 of 302 (369736)
12-14-2006 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by NOT JULIUS
12-14-2006 1:03 PM


People are forgetting the most basic difference between cars or other inanimate object and living beings is that living beings MAKE COPIES OF THEMSELVES!
The argument of design by common traits is rediculous given this basic mechanism of life. You can tell that your Adidas shoes and bag are designed becuase that is the only way they can come into existence. We can also tell because we know the designer of those artifacts and can watch them being designed today.
Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by NOT JULIUS, posted 12-14-2006 1:03 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by NOT JULIUS, posted 12-14-2006 2:14 PM Jazzns has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 302 (369737)
12-14-2006 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by NOT JULIUS
12-14-2006 1:03 PM


The problem is the pattern of the "common parts". By classifying species according to body plans, features, and the like, we find that the species fit onto a nested hierarchy. This pattern is real; different investigators will produce essentially the same nested hierarchical pattern. This is an amazing fact, and cannot really be explained except through common descent; in fact, common descent would be falsified if we didn't see this.
I can't think of any human design that produces this phenomenon. Take the OP's example of cars. Different people will produce very different nested hierarchies. No talk of a common designer using a few established designs can explain this. For one, an omnipotent creator (or at least that is potent enough) would not be constrained efficiency of time or by lack of imagination. For another, even if a creator would reuse the same designs, there is no reason it would use them in the hierarchical pattern that we see. We should see a mix-and-match of characteristics that cross classification boundaries: mice with feathers and insect eyes and crocodile teeth, for example.

Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied. -- Otto von Bismarck

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by NOT JULIUS, posted 12-14-2006 1:03 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by NOT JULIUS, posted 12-14-2006 2:29 PM Chiroptera has replied
 Message 28 by NOT JULIUS, posted 12-14-2006 7:53 PM Chiroptera has replied

NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 4475 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 13 of 302 (369746)
12-14-2006 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Jazzns
12-14-2006 1:12 PM


JAZZNS said:
People are forgetting the most basic difference between cars or other inanimate object and living beings is that living beings MAKE COPIES OF THEMSELVES!
But you also forgot the fact that a manufacturer of car if he sets his factory in an "automatic mode" would produce 100 identical copies of say, 2007 Honda civic, just for example. 20 of these colored black w/ automatic transmission, 10 of that colored red w/ slight modification on spoiler, etc. The point is not the car reproducing itself but the manufacturer replicating that model 100 times.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Jazzns, posted 12-14-2006 1:12 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Jazzns, posted 12-14-2006 2:51 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 4475 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 14 of 302 (369749)
12-14-2006 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Chiroptera
12-14-2006 1:15 PM


Nested Heirarchies
Chriptera said:
The problem is the pattern of the "common parts". By classifying species according to body plans, features, and the like, we find that the species fit onto a nested hierarchy. This pattern is real; different investigators will produce essentially the same nested hierarchical pattern. This is an amazing fact, and cannot really be explained except through common descent; in fact, common descent would be falsified if we didn't see this.
I can't think of any human design that produces this phenomenon
Your link on nested hierarchy was interesting. It showed for example external skeleton as "common part" of crustaceans and millepedes. It should not be hard enough--if we observe a car assembly--that different models of cars have common parts. In fact by analogy we could say that the present car was actually descended from the ancient horse and carriage mechanism. Only that the engine (measured in horsepower)replaced the horse, etc. etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Chiroptera, posted 12-14-2006 1:15 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Chiroptera, posted 12-14-2006 3:07 PM NOT JULIUS has not replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 15 of 302 (369754)
12-14-2006 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by NOT JULIUS
12-14-2006 2:14 PM


You analogy still fails because the cars are not the ones doing the construction. The point is simply that you cannot use homology by itself as proof of design because life is a continuous sequence of homology due to reproduction.
Adidas shoes and cars do not reproduce. Yes you can make a robot that will continually make Adidas shoes or cars but that that does no change the fact that two M3's don't ever get together to make a Mini. The only reason cars and Adidas shoes are made with homolgies is because we make them that way. The reason biological beings share homologies is because somewhere down the line they came from a reproductive event of the same biological being.

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by NOT JULIUS, posted 12-14-2006 2:14 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by NOT JULIUS, posted 12-14-2006 3:08 PM Jazzns 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