Help me understand Intelligent Design

Random mutation alone won't do it.Random mutation combined with a selection process, however, will do it. This successful combination is not only the source of the limited complexity in the natural world, but its such a creative force that engineers and programmers are exploiting it to craft designs for circuits and software that are far too complex to have been designed by our intelligence directly.The question is not if natural processes can result in the complexity we see in the natural world, because its pretty obvious that they can. The burden of proof is on those who would posit that intelligence can design things as complex as living things, because to date, no known intelligence has ever been able to do so. Because those organisms that did not look enough like leaves were eaten by predators, and their genes were selected from the population.Mutation expands the diversity of a population; selection contracts that diversity. Mutation acts at random, but selection is anything but random.

I've heard her name before. Isn't she the one who took the podium at a recent conference and proclaimed that Neo-Darwinism was dead, and that symbiogenesis is the only significant source of speciation?I'm somewhat inclined to think that she overstates her claims. And it seems to me that the poster I responded to meant to refer to "complexity" in the form of morphological characteristics, for which random mutation and natural selection are still considered the primary driving force. As far as I understand Margulis's ideas, they refer to speciation itself, not so much the development of physical characteristics, and so I don't quite think that they apply here.Interesting point, though. It's never as simple as any of us make it out to be, is it?

Then I guess I don't see the relevance of what you're saying, here. "Purpose" exists in our minds, not in the world. It's just a label that we apply to things, not a property of things themselves. Mutations are always random, a fact confirmed by population studies on organisms. There is no "question of design." If things in the natural world look like they have "purpose" to you, that's something in your mind, not in the world. Why do things look like they have design to you? Because you've chosen to look at them that way.It really is just that simple. Why wouldn't it? If systems were being generated with entirely random characteristics, wouldn't we expect a range in complexity just as we would expect a range in any other characteristic?And if we had a process where, every generation, we discarded the ten least complex systems and applied modifications to the survivng systems, wouldn't we expect an upwards trend in complexity?Your mistake is your assumption that randomness and complexity are somehow anathema. The flaw in your argument is that you cannot support that assertion. It very much does answer the question. Is it just that you don't understand selection, or something? Leaf insects don't look like leaves because they eat leaves; they look like leaves because some birds who eat insects don't eat leaves. It's random. We know this from population genetics.

Because mutations occur randomly. It's just that simple.Are you asking how we detect randomness, or something?

Your example doesn't really mean anything. "Pain" only has purpose in your mind; it's just a model you use to connect the cause of pain with the effect of an action taken to avoid pain.But it works just as well to consider it another way - organisms respond to pain because there's a selection pressure against organisms that don't respond to pain; organisms that do not avoid painful actions or situations tend to be killed by those actions or situations. There is no need. There's only organisms that responded to pain and lived; and organisms that did not respond and died. Your thinking is backwards and teleological, you're reasoning about the cause from a basis of assuming the effect; if you think forwards, the evolutionary explanation makes perfect sense and the effects flow naturally from their observed causes.

If you insist that they are, then you've defeated your own argument. We know for a fact that mutations are random; thus, they must be without purpose. No, it does, for the reasons that I've outlined. Cause and effect exist; but that doesn't mean that the purpose of the cause is to have the effect, except on a tautological basis where purpose is defined as the effect of a cause. But that purpose is contained in my mind, and the mind of those that made it, not in the object itself. Purpose is defined in context, not in the object itself. That's why a urinal in a restroom has the "purpose" of being a receptical for human wastes, but the very same urinal - with no modification whatsoever - hanging in an art gallery loses that purpose and gains the purpose of being an item of cultural interest, an object d'art.How can you say that purpose is not imaginary when objects gain and lose purpose based simply on a change in how we think about them? Purpose is located in our minds, not in objects. It's irrefutable, no matter how often you say "that isn't so." Subatomic level? Can you show me the "purpose particle"? If you've defined "purpose" as simply the relationship between cause and effect, then its no wonder you see purpose where purpose does not exist. But such a definition is meaningless.

That's a bold statement, but certainly not one supported by any evidence. You're obsessed with purpose, clearly; it's no wonder you find it everywhere you look. Your mind is closed to any other possibility.

Acccording to anyone willing to approach the issue objectively. Since you're intent on asserting "purpose" no matter the evidence, that clearly isn't you. Nonsense. If that's the conclusion you're reaching, you haven't even been reading my posts. More evidence of your lack of objectivity.My examples have destroyed the idea of intrinsic purpose. You haven't even tried to rebut them; instead you've simply repeated your assertions. Now you're pretty obviously gearing up to a big ad hominem attack. Yup, there you go. And what, pray tell, is the standard text on "purpose"? Now you're just making things up. You're the one who asserts that a random mutation must be without purpose, not me. Because purpose resides in our minds, we can apply it to anything, including that which is random.You're the one who asserted that randomness was anathema to purpose. If you believe that to be true then you have no choice but to believe that mutations are without purpose, because there's no coherent, legitimate basis for disputing the fact that mutations are random.But it's your position, not mine. Nonsense. I've never denied purpose; I've simply attempted to educate you on the nature of the purpose we sometimes see in the natural world. But you're not at all interested in being educated, I see; simply in repeating assertions you have no way to support. It is that simple. Mutations are proved to occur at random. I realize you find that statement objectionable, since it proves that you're wrong, but the experiments are clear and irrefutable; mutations happen at random. It's a fact of life. You don't have to take my word for it; look it up. No, they don't. Ecosystems often become unbalanced, especially due to the introduction of new species. This is simply nonsense. I have no idea where you aquired such a hilarious misunderstanding but this is certainly not the case.

Well, the ball's in your court, where it has been for a while. Any time you'd like to start supporting your assertions and fleshing out your arguments is fine with me. Perhaps you'd like to begin with defining exactly what you mean by "purpose"? It appears that you've equated it to "function", though those two things are obviously not the same. Which is apporpriate, because purpose is a philsophical construct, not a property of material objects. You've given no definition. Not in any post directed to me, anyway. Role and function are not synonymous with "purpose", but if you'd like to discuss function instead, that's fine with me. What is your question in regards to function? Do you challenge the power of natural selection and random mutation to generate systems that have function? No, of course not. What destroyed your arguments were my rebuttals, of course. Anybody can go back and read them. Maybe you'd like to? I've made no assumptions, and my arguments have yet to be addressed by you. But we can sit here and restate the debate all day long. The record is clear, anybody can go back and read it. Maybe it would be more fruitful for you to try to defend your own arguments, instead of making claims about how good they were? In particular I'd like you to defend your assertions about:1) "Standard texts" in the field of "purpose";
2) "Purpose" as a property operating at the subatomic levels
3) Randomness being anathema to purposeI've challenged all those points; your response has been to ignore those challenges. Do you really think that constitutes the behavior of someone who is winning the debate? This isn't a contest about who can ignore the other person the best, AM. You've contradicted yourself, then. Are these not your words?

quote:

---

But randomness and purpose however, are anathema. It's a root question.

---

Can randomness have a purpose? You don't seem to be able to make up your mind. I've already accepted that randomness can have purpose. I've done this in two posts before, and now this one. I'm not sure how I can make it any clearer.The only person here who's position on the compatibility of randomness and purpose is ambiguous is you, because you've contradicted yourself several times on the issue. Furthermore your conflation of "purpose" with things like "function" only adds to the lack of clarity in your position. Until we're absolutely clear on what you mean by "purpose" there's going to be no way we can really address your questions on how function can come about as a result of natural selection and random mutation.

I presumed he had just made a typo. I was reading carefully. I don't believe that's an accurate characterization of my post. I've elaborated and expanded my arguments, as required by the forum guidelines (and by good sense.) I did research the claim before I dismissed it, you know. There's absolutely nothing in the literature about it, nothing in any popular press about frogs, it's not even a common misconception that I'm aware of. The father of a close friend of mine is a prominent amphibian expert, and in the course of our occasional conversations about frogs growing up he never once mentioned such a phenomenon. As far as I know, which is not insignificant, it is totally out to lunch. It doesn't even make sense physiologically. Heartrate is a function of the efficiency of the cardiac muscle in moving blood at a certain rate; if two frogs were to synchronize their heartrates one or both of them would be moving blood faster or slower than they'd need to, with physiological consequences. And what would be the benefit to offset that cost?

Great, you can read a dictionary. I'm sure we're all very impressed. I notice, though, that you only use the second definitions. Is that because the first definitions prove me right?What you didn't do was provide a definition that was relevant to your point. Can you explain the relevance of any of these definitions to your orignial point? None of these definitions refer to any inherent property of an object; they're all simply interpretations of objects. My questions are not to be dismissed. Can you answer them? Or will you simply abandon your argument? That doesn't answer the question. What is the subatomic basis of purpose - or function, or whatever - that you alluded to? What's the "purpose particle"? Fascinating, but totally irrelevant.

Fascinating, but I don't see how that answers any of my questions.Are you just done with the discussion, or what?

Here is the solid argument that you have been unable to address:Random mutation and natural selection, operating entirely according to natural law, are more than sufficient to explain the development of function (which you term "purpose") in organisms. Thus, appeal to intelligent intervention - the premise of ID - is not necessary.No post of your has even attempted to address this point, which as you'll recall, has been my argument all along. We've gone back and forth on some other things but none of your arguments have even touched on this crucial point.

No, it's not. That's why mutations are considered "random." It's not even a coherent objection. You've simply asserted that you don't believe it, but you won't say why.You haven't "raised an objection"; you've simply asserted that you don't believe in evolution. Well, great. That doesn't constitute an argument.

Right. Which doesn't in any way touch upon my original point.Neither does your most recent post. Once again, you've failed to substantially reply to the main issue. Because systems with function provide a measurable survival advantage over systems that have no function. Yes, it is wrong. Suggesting an intelligent intervention that isn't necessary to explain something is bad science, by definition. It's the classic violation of the principle of parsimony. Once again, you've completely misrepresented me. (Ned's charge of dishonesty definately applies to you. You've been lying about my arguments in several posts now.) I've never denied the existence of purpose. We're simply having a dispute about where it resides.