2,002
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 629:
Line 629: + + + + + + +
→Scientific Claims
: Also, perhaps you could give me an example of something that exhibits evidence of design (i.e. structure and complexity) but which we know from observation of it occurring was not designed by an intelligent being. Exclude life itself (because that's what we are discussing and we didn't see the origins of life), exclude individual living things because we know that they come about from other living things, and tracing it back gets back to the origin of life, already excluded), and exclude crystals, because they are not complex and derive any apparent design they have from their chemical properties (unlike complex things). Can you provide any examples?
: Also, perhaps you could give me an example of something that exhibits evidence of design (i.e. structure and complexity) but which we know from observation of it occurring was not designed by an intelligent being. Exclude life itself (because that's what we are discussing and we didn't see the origins of life), exclude individual living things because we know that they come about from other living things, and tracing it back gets back to the origin of life, already excluded), and exclude crystals, because they are not complex and derive any apparent design they have from their chemical properties (unlike complex things). Can you provide any examples?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:22, 20 December 2007 (EST)
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:22, 20 December 2007 (EST)
You can do it without this little game with the two definitions of design, can't you. Because in your very first senetence you do it straight again. Argue from first structure, and then switch to the definition from origin. So call it ''apparent design''. Or structure. And nature exhibits structure. And there is structure in nature that is not biological.
Selection is no random at all. That is the the curicial point. If all pandas go exitinct, then that is not random. That penecilin resitant golden stap bacteria increase in frequency is not random.
If your argument is from letters making up a sentence, then you should allow genetic algorithms, because that is exactly how they work, on strings. And don't give me a link telling be that a certain dam example isn't anything like biological evolution. That is argung from a single non-related example. It has been mathematically proven, that the average fitness of a set of sample solutions multi-dimensional optimisation problems of finite dimensionalisty, will improve from one iteration to the next under a scheme of mutations and selection. Your string with about 30 charaters is peanuts compared to optimisation problems that have been tackles with such algorithms.
So, and I am a bit dissapointed that you gave up to provide an example. It seems like you cannot come up with evidence for your own position, but only criticise the position of others. And that is why you ask me for an example, rather than do your own homework. You still operate under the assumption that I want to convice you of evolution, while my position merely that your posuition is mostly unfounded. If you cannot give a single example for something where the lack of purpose implies randomness, your claim that lack of purpose implies randomess can't be that strong. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:21, 20 December 2007 (EST)
===Interpretations===
===Interpretations===