Good question, what can we know about the designer without making an assumption?
The general assumption is that the designer resides outside space-time.
phoodoo,
Your entire shtick here boils down to, “Sure, maybe our idea makes no sense at all, so, you got a better one? Intelligence? Pfffft!”
I’m open to any explanation at all that makes sense. So far all you’ve offered is “it was a plan” and “it was intelligence”.
Those are not explanations!
And to be clear, I’m not making any judgements at all on if “our” idea makes sense or not. This thread is solely about ID’s explanation for the eye.
Alan Fox: You’re touching on the embryology of the eye. It has to develop from the zygote as does everything else that constitutes a multicellular organism. That’s a whole other realm of biology unaddressed by “Intelligent Design”.
Not really. Embryology, for example, allows us to rule out common descent as an explanation for similarities of certain types of eyes. And Darwinists sure do love their similarities.
Mung,
Bingo. Is it our fault that they lack imagination?
So do you have a better idea or not? Or will you just ridicule the ideas of others while being unable to come up with something yourself?
They can certainly be imaginative when they want to. So it must be something else.
Yes, it’s your inability to understand that if you think something is wrong you’d better get used to the idea of believing it anyway as until you come up with something else it’s the best we have.
colewd,
In the game of inference, the design argument only needs to be better then the blind unguided story which is a fairly low bar.
Well, go on then, make that argument! Or is saying “it was designed” or “it was planned” or “evolution obviously could not have done it” that argument?
Perhaps. But to test that, you need to tell me what it explains, how it explains it and how it makes sense. Every tub must stand on its own bottom!
Have you observed repeat sequences in DNA. They are all over the place. If we received a signal from space with repetitive sequences that would be evidence of intelligence. Tested just for you 🙂
Mung,
Nilsson-Pelger obviously had a plan for their eye. They knew where they wanted to get to. They had a goal. Foresight. They proved how easy it is to make any eye by design.
So your Intelligent Design explanation for the eye is to steal a plausible pathway for the evolution of the eye and call it Intelligent Design.
Don’t you see the irony here? You think evolution is laughable, except when you want to claim parts of it?
vjtorley: Instead of arguing about whether the eye was intelligently designed, let’s first address the question: does the available scientific evidence support the conclusion that the eye originated via an incremental process? Yes or no?
Well, go on then, make that argument! Or is saying “it was designed” or “it was planned” or “evolution obviously could not have done it” that argument?
In a game of two inferences, disqualifying the other inference is part of the game.
You are trying to do it by claiming the design inference is disqualified if it cannot come up with a detailed tested explanation. The problem here is that your rules disqualify your own theory.
Mung,
Not really. Embryology, for example, allows us to rule out common descent as an explanation for similarities of certain types of eyes. And Darwinists sure do love their similarities.
Can I remind you that this thread is for the true origin of eyes according to intelligent design. How many times will you note how eyes did not arise before you note how they did?
It’s like you have Morton’s deamon replacing the concepts on the way in. You read “how does ID explain” and you understand “evolution fails to explain”.
Do you think these smokescreens are hiding the fact you desperately want to avoid the topic of the OP?
What allows organisms to survive, is fighting against natural selection and thus evading extinction. And variation is what allows this.
What is the source of the variation?
Mung: Nilsson-Pelger obviously had a plan for their eye. They knew where they wanted to get to. They had a goal. Foresight. They provedhow easy it is to make any eye by design.
They did not make an eye, they made a model of the possible physical mechanisms. One would need to control those mechanisms over a long period of time to make the eye per their model .
So is the ID position that the designer’s physical mechanisms require long periods of time to implement his design?
If true then designer is either long ,long lived or he is a member a society ,either way the goal seems to be breeding life on earth. Why would a society of designers expend resources over millions of years if the goal was humans? To serve man?
We get those every day. And yet somehow we are not claiming that aliens have been found. Shows what you know.
Can you support this claim?
colewd,
In a game of two inferences, disqualifying the other inference is part of the game.
There are in infinite number of inferences. Pink unicorns designed the eye. Invisible pink unicorns designed the eye. I don’t see you ruling those out.
You are trying to do it by claiming the design inference is disqualified if it cannot come up with a detailed tested explanation. .
No, you just can’t understand can you? How am I claiming that the design inference is disqualified if you’ve come up with no explanation at all?
The problem here is that your rules disqualify your own theory
Which is absolutly fine as this thread is not about my own theory it’s about yours!.
And so far, from what I understand, the ID “explanation” for eyes is that they were planned, they were designed and they were impossible for evolution to create.
If you are happy with that as the ID explanation we can just leave it there.
newton: They did not make an eye, they made a model of the possible physical mechanisms.
No, they didn’t even make a model.
They imagined a model.
colewd: The mechanism that allows cells to survive is fighting variation which is the engine of evolution. Is it possible this whole idea is fatally flawed? Measured genetic variation within species is very small.
What exactly do you know about measured genetic variation within species, and what does “very small” mean to you? Like many creationists, you want to claim that macroevolution is impossible but microevolution is possible, yet your arguments are all against microevolution.
No, it isn’t possible the whole idea is fatally flawed. Measured rates of mutation take repair into account. Some mutations are lethal. Some are neutral. Some are all points in between. And some are beneficial. This has all been pointed out to you countless times.
Perhaps. But living organisms on Earth still seem only to have taken advantage of a tiny proportion of sequences theoretically available. Almost as if functionality is lying around waiting to be stumbled upon.
If we received a signal from space with repetitive sequences that would be evidence of intelligence.
Don’t agree.
Tested just for you
Testing hypotheses would be a start for those who claim there is merit in “Intelligent Design”.
If I’m making any argument at all it’s that Intelligent Design has nothing to say regarding the origin of the eye…
Why don’t we ask a different question?
Because you have no answer? Why don’t you just answer the question?
Instead of arguing about whether the eye was intelligently designed, let’s first address the question: does the available scientific evidence support the conclusion that the eye originated via an incremental process? Yes or no?
Why are cilia, which apparently first evolved for motility, used in vertebrate eyes? Why not in cephalopod eyes? As just an example of the extremely derivative nature of evolution, and the serious differences between clades that separated before eyes had evolved much. But then, if they hadn’t evolved much prior to separation, that’s just one reason we infer gradualism. Of the eye, at this point.
Then we see pinhole eyes, pit eyes, lens eyes, etc., in metazoa. It looks like incrementalism took over in metazoa, producing more or less sophisticated eyes in various branches. Or were they poofed, each and every last variation?
For my part, I have no strong feelings either way.
Not really an evidence-based position, is it? And you seem not to have any sort of idea of how anything was designed, yet you think it’s an idea worth considering.
It may be that there are certain features of the eye that are locked in place, because of the sequence of events that took place in the evolution of animal phyla (and especially chordates).
Well, unless you have a super-intelligent designer. Oh that’s right, you don’t, you just invoke one when convenient, and forget that it’s supposed to be god-like otherwise, but not when evolution has “locked in” things. No idea how evolution is supposed to constrain something intelligent enough to start up life mid-motion.
So even if there is a “better” design for the human eye somewhere out there in the space of possibilities, it may be unattainable from an evolutionary standpoint.
Why would it be for your god-like “designer”?
Should that turn out to be the case, it would certainly be at odds with design in sense (i), since a Designer who can orchestrate saltations would be perfectly free to traverse the space of possibilities as He wished, and transform an organism’s eye from structure A to structure B in a single generation. However, it would still leave us with intelligent design in sense (ii). What do readers think?
I think you work hard to save a designer the sort of which has never been observed, and that is contradictory in nature because it’s both super-capable and constrained by evolution at the same time. Just more useless apologetics.
You’ve been hiding your light under a bushel! Reveal these models!!!
Alan Fox: If we received a signal from space with repetitive sequences that would be evidence of intelligence.
Don’t agree.
Then how is SETI supposed to ever be successful?
Alan Fox: You’ve been hiding your light under a bushel! Reveal these models!!!
They are in my imagination! Just like the evolutionists.
phoodoo: Then how is SETI supposed to ever be successful?
Step one: find a signal. Step two: analyse.
phoodoo: They are in my imagination!Just like the evolutionists.
Don’t be shy! Just an outline would be great!
phoodoo,
Its at least as valid as the evolution one.
We can also imagine models.
Well, go on then!
What is as least as valid as the evolution one? No such ID model has been proposed! Can you link to it? What is it? Is it more then “it was designed”? That’s news to me? Or are you also going to claim for ID the paper Mung has claimed as an example of Intelligent Evolution?
phoodoo,
Then how is SETI supposed to ever be successful?
Ha.
phoodoo,
They are in my imagination! Just like the evolutionists.
So those models in your imagination are just as valid as the evolutionists model that has been peer reviewed and published?
Remind me how long you think it’ll be before ID takes over mainstream biology?
There are in infinite number of inferences. Pink unicorns designed the eye. Invisible pink unicorns designed the eye. I don’t see you ruling those out.
Are you concerned that you cannot defeat the competing argument without committing a logical fallacy. You are creating a straw-man here and that is essentially arguing with yourself.
Saying something is the product of design is an explanation. You are having to say that there is no explanation which is a fallacy. If you say the explanation is limited I will grant you that, however the competing explanation is probably wrong so I prefer a limited explanation to an incorrect one.
So the Intelligent Design explanation for eyes is something phoodoo imaged which has as much validity as something he claims is in fact invalid.
The general assumption is that the designer resides outside space-time.
Actually I asked for what can we know without assumptions. And the basis of your assumption?
Alan Fox: Step one: find a signal. Step two: analyse.
How to analyse?
colewd,
Are you concerned that you cannot defeat the competing argument without committing a logical fallacy. You are creating a straw-man here and that is essentially arguing with yourself.
You’ve yet to make an argument. So I’m not concerned that I can defeat it.
Saying something is the product of design is an explanation.
Even if I accept that it’s a sterile explanation with no entailments. So you lose anyway.
You are having to say that there is no explanation which is a fallacy.
If you want to claim what has been put on the table in this thread is the best that ID has to offer with regard to an explanation of the origin of eyes I’m perfectly happy to believe you.
If you say the explanation is limited I will grant you that, however the competing explanation is probably wrong so I prefer a limited explanation to an incorrect one.
It’s impossible for something with no entailments to be wrong. How can it be shown to be wrong? So in fact you prefer to bet on a coin with two heads coming up heads then take a chance and gain real knowledge.
colewd: You are trying to do it by claiming the design inference is disqualified if it cannot come up with a detailed tested explanation.
Any plausible explanation would be a start, although we’d need to verify that it is a plausible explanation (not more obfuscating smoke from the vapid).
As it is, design has never had an entry into any sort of game of inferences. And whined that its non-explanation isn’t allowed.
Are you concerned that you cannot defeat the competing argument?
What argument? What alternative explanation for the diversity of life on Earth? Where’s the competition?
…without committing a logical fallacy.You are creating a straw-man here and that is essentially arguing with yourself.
You, nor anyone, has presented an alternative. Who else can we argue with?
Saying something is the product of design is an explanation.You are having to say that there is no explanation which is a fallacy.If you say the explanation is limited I will grant you that, however the competing explanation is probably wrong so I prefer a limited explanation to an incorrect one
Unless to want to expand on “product of design” you do not have an explanation. Can you expand on “product of design”? There’s no rush. I’ve been asking this since 2005.
phoodoo,
How to analyse?
UD has been confusing their readers with this question for over a decade:
Step one first. No need to concern ourselves with hypotheticals.
Alan Fox: Don’t be shy! Just an outline would be great!
Well, here’s one:
It takes 386,000 years, step by step.
Here is another:
It takes 1000 years, one step after another.
Here’s one more:
It takes a week, all of the parts come together.
There now I have already done more than Nilsson- Pelger, I have come up with 3 models!
phoodoo,
There now I have already done more than Nilsson- Pelger, I have come up with 3 models!
Now get it peer reviewed and published and then perhaps there might start to be someone in the world that gives a shit about your opinions. Until then it’s just noise on a message board.
Out of interest, have you actually read the paper you are caricaturing? If you did you’d probably have noticed there was a little more detail then you’ve provided.
OMagain: If you did you’d probably have noticed there was a little more detail then you’ve provided.
Well, I did ask for just an outline!
So, readers of posterity. The best explanation that IDers can come up with for the true origin of the eye is that it was designed over some period of time.
Woo-hoo.
colewd: Saying something is the product of design is an explanation.
It is an assertion more than an explanation. One could merely say it is a product of nature.
You are having to say that there is no explanation which is a fallacy.
No, there is no proposed mechanism which results in the observed existence of the variety of life forms.
If you say the explanation is limited I will grant you that, however the competing explanation is probably wrong so I prefer a limited explanation to an incorrect one.
Me too, if the limited one could be shown to be correct. If not then the probably wrong one can be more useful.
phoodoo,
Yes, as you’ve already said the eye was designed via the use of “a plan”.
Chuckle.
If you want to put flesh on the bones of “Intelligence”, then it might be described as an alternative.
Perhaps. But to test that, you need to tell me what it explains, how it explains it and how it makes sense. Every tub must stand on its own bottom!
newton,
The general assumption is that the designer resides outside space-time.
phoodoo,
I’m open to any explanation at all that makes sense. So far all you’ve offered is “it was a plan” and “it was intelligence”.
Those are not explanations!
And to be clear, I’m not making any judgements at all on if “our” idea makes sense or not. This thread is solely about ID’s explanation for the eye.
Not really. Embryology, for example, allows us to rule out common descent as an explanation for similarities of certain types of eyes. And Darwinists sure do love their similarities.
Mung,
So do you have a better idea or not? Or will you just ridicule the ideas of others while being unable to come up with something yourself?
Yes, it’s your inability to understand that if you think something is wrong you’d better get used to the idea of believing it anyway as until you come up with something else it’s the best we have.
colewd,
Well, go on then, make that argument! Or is saying “it was designed” or “it was planned” or “evolution obviously could not have done it” that argument?
Alan Fox,
Have you observed repeat sequences in DNA. They are all over the place. If we received a signal from space with repetitive sequences that would be evidence of intelligence. Tested just for you 🙂
Mung,
So your Intelligent Design explanation for the eye is to steal a plausible pathway for the evolution of the eye and call it Intelligent Design.
Don’t you see the irony here? You think evolution is laughable, except when you want to claim parts of it?
Yes.
?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
colewd,
We get those every day. And yet somehow we are not claiming that aliens have been found. Shows what you know.
To me, that seems completely wrong.
What allows organisms to survive, is fighting against natural selection and thus evading extinction. And variation is what allows this.
OMagain,
In a game of two inferences, disqualifying the other inference is part of the game.
You are trying to do it by claiming the design inference is disqualified if it cannot come up with a detailed tested explanation. The problem here is that your rules disqualify your own theory.
Mung,
Can I remind you that this thread is for the true origin of eyes according to intelligent design. How many times will you note how eyes did not arise before you note how they did?
It’s like you have Morton’s deamon replacing the concepts on the way in. You read “how does ID explain” and you understand “evolution fails to explain”.
Do you think these smokescreens are hiding the fact you desperately want to avoid the topic of the OP?
Neil Rickert,
What is the source of the variation?
They did not make an eye, they made a model of the possible physical mechanisms. One would need to control those mechanisms over a long period of time to make the eye per their model .
So is the ID position that the designer’s physical mechanisms require long periods of time to implement his design?
If true then designer is either long ,long lived or he is a member a society ,either way the goal seems to be breeding life on earth. Why would a society of designers expend resources over millions of years if the goal was humans? To serve man?
OMagain,
Can you support this claim?
colewd,
There are in infinite number of inferences. Pink unicorns designed the eye. Invisible pink unicorns designed the eye. I don’t see you ruling those out.
No, you just can’t understand can you? How am I claiming that the design inference is disqualified if you’ve come up with no explanation at all?
Which is absolutly fine as this thread is not about my own theory it’s about yours!.
And so far, from what I understand, the ID “explanation” for eyes is that they were planned, they were designed and they were impossible for evolution to create.
If you are happy with that as the ID explanation we can just leave it there.
No, they didn’t even make a model.
They imagined a model.
What exactly do you know about measured genetic variation within species, and what does “very small” mean to you? Like many creationists, you want to claim that macroevolution is impossible but microevolution is possible, yet your arguments are all against microevolution.
No, it isn’t possible the whole idea is fatally flawed. Measured rates of mutation take repair into account. Some mutations are lethal. Some are neutral. Some are all points in between. And some are beneficial. This has all been pointed out to you countless times.
Indirectly, yes.
Perhaps. But living organisms on Earth still seem only to have taken advantage of a tiny proportion of sequences theoretically available. Almost as if functionality is lying around waiting to be stumbled upon.
Don’t agree.
Testing hypotheses would be a start for those who claim there is merit in “Intelligent Design”.
Have you heard of pulsars?
Its at least as valid as the evolution one.
We can also imagine models.
Because you have no answer? Why don’t you just answer the question?
Why are cilia, which apparently first evolved for motility, used in vertebrate eyes? Why not in cephalopod eyes? As just an example of the extremely derivative nature of evolution, and the serious differences between clades that separated before eyes had evolved much. But then, if they hadn’t evolved much prior to separation, that’s just one reason we infer gradualism. Of the eye, at this point.
Then we see pinhole eyes, pit eyes, lens eyes, etc., in metazoa. It looks like incrementalism took over in metazoa, producing more or less sophisticated eyes in various branches. Or were they poofed, each and every last variation?
Not really an evidence-based position, is it? And you seem not to have any sort of idea of how anything was designed, yet you think it’s an idea worth considering.
Well, unless you have a super-intelligent designer. Oh that’s right, you don’t, you just invoke one when convenient, and forget that it’s supposed to be god-like otherwise, but not when evolution has “locked in” things. No idea how evolution is supposed to constrain something intelligent enough to start up life mid-motion.
Why would it be for your god-like “designer”?
I think you work hard to save a designer the sort of which has never been observed, and that is contradictory in nature because it’s both super-capable and constrained by evolution at the same time. Just more useless apologetics.
Glen Davidson
That’s a start, at least.
colewd,
Yeah, could I ask you to support your claims regarding the design of the universe?
But anyway, here is not aliens but repetitive signals.
http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~pulsar/Education/Sounds/
You’ve been hiding your light under a bushel! Reveal these models!!!
Then how is SETI supposed to ever be successful?
They are in my imagination! Just like the evolutionists.
Step one: find a signal. Step two: analyse.
Don’t be shy! Just an outline would be great!
phoodoo,
Well, go on then!
What is as least as valid as the evolution one? No such ID model has been proposed! Can you link to it? What is it? Is it more then “it was designed”? That’s news to me? Or are you also going to claim for ID the paper Mung has claimed as an example of Intelligent Evolution?
phoodoo,
Ha.
phoodoo,
So those models in your imagination are just as valid as the evolutionists model that has been peer reviewed and published?
Remind me how long you think it’ll be before ID takes over mainstream biology?
OMagain,
Are you concerned that you cannot defeat the competing argument without committing a logical fallacy. You are creating a straw-man here and that is essentially arguing with yourself.
Saying something is the product of design is an explanation. You are having to say that there is no explanation which is a fallacy. If you say the explanation is limited I will grant you that, however the competing explanation is probably wrong so I prefer a limited explanation to an incorrect one.
So the Intelligent Design explanation for eyes is something phoodoo imaged which has as much validity as something he claims is in fact invalid.
Don’t you guys ever get embarrassed?
Actually I asked for what can we know without assumptions. And the basis of your assumption?
How to analyse?
colewd,
You’ve yet to make an argument. So I’m not concerned that I can defeat it.
Even if I accept that it’s a sterile explanation with no entailments. So you lose anyway.
If you want to claim what has been put on the table in this thread is the best that ID has to offer with regard to an explanation of the origin of eyes I’m perfectly happy to believe you.
It’s impossible for something with no entailments to be wrong. How can it be shown to be wrong? So in fact you prefer to bet on a coin with two heads coming up heads then take a chance and gain real knowledge.
Any plausible explanation would be a start, although we’d need to verify that it is a plausible explanation (not more obfuscating smoke from the vapid).
As it is, design has never had an entry into any sort of game of inferences. And whined that its non-explanation isn’t allowed.
Glen Davidson
What argument? What alternative explanation for the diversity of life on Earth? Where’s the competition?
You, nor anyone, has presented an alternative. Who else can we argue with?
Unless to want to expand on “product of design” you do not have an explanation. Can you expand on “product of design”? There’s no rush. I’ve been asking this since 2005.
phoodoo,
UD has been confusing their readers with this question for over a decade:
Step one first. No need to concern ourselves with hypotheticals.
Well, here’s one:
It takes 386,000 years, step by step.
Here is another:
It takes 1000 years, one step after another.
Here’s one more:
It takes a week, all of the parts come together.
There now I have already done more than Nilsson- Pelger, I have come up with 3 models!
phoodoo,
Now get it peer reviewed and published and then perhaps there might start to be someone in the world that gives a shit about your opinions. Until then it’s just noise on a message board.
Out of interest, have you actually read the paper you are caricaturing? If you did you’d probably have noticed there was a little more detail then you’ve provided.
OMagain,
You are confused?
Maybe try reading again. Maybe find a tutor.
Well, I did ask for just an outline!
So, readers of posterity. The best explanation that IDers can come up with for the true origin of the eye is that it was designed over some period of time.
Woo-hoo.
It is an assertion more than an explanation. One could merely say it is a product of nature.
No, there is no proposed mechanism which results in the observed existence of the variety of life forms.
Me too, if the limited one could be shown to be correct. If not then the probably wrong one can be more useful.