Re: CONTRARY EVIDENCE (WASRe: Evide)nce!

Dexter wrote:

erik simpson wrote:
 

On 3/16/24 3:37 PM, Ron Dean wrote:

jillery wrote:

On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 23:38:10 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>

jillery wrote:

On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 23:08:26 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>

jillery wrote:

On Sat, 9 Mar 2024 12:27:49 -0500, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>

jillery wrote:

On Sat, 09 Mar 2024 11:12:52 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>

wrote:

>

jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
>

On Fri, 08 Mar 2024 17:44:11 +0000, Richmond  <dnomhcir@gmx.com>

wrote:

>
>
<snip uncommented text>
>
>

The blind watch maker didn't have any designs, not even in
Braille.
>
I think using the word 'design' in a metophorical sense in
a  discussion about evolution is going to cause no end of
problems.

>
>
These problems are the basis of ID, and so already exist.
There's no "going to" about it.
>

This is true! But since the observation of design aligns with
the  first principle of the scientific method, then it follows
that ID is scientific.  By contrast evolution pretends that
observation is  false, misleading and deceptive.

>
>
Your comment above uses a nonsense understanding of
"observation".  The design to which Dawkins refers is of pattern,
a noun, not of purposeful design, a verb.

>
    You are "interpreting"  what Dawkins said. His actual words were:
>
“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the
appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” {Richard
Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1}
Another comment:
>
“Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does
not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view.
Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress
us with the illusion of design and planning.” {Richard Dawkins, The
Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 21.}

>
>
The above quotes show I interpreted Dawkins correctly, and show you
continue to quotemine him.  Neither quote shows Dawkins implies design
as a verb is observed.  Instead, he explicitly says such observations
are illusions due to the natural but incorrect conclusions that
design as a noun necessarily are purposely created by intelligence.
>

A quote mine is when the meaning of a statement is altered. The quotes I
offered were not altered nor was the meaning changed. So, what's your
problem? Dawkins is quite capable of expressing his views, so an
interpretation of what he wrote is unnecessary.

>
>
Everything everybody reads and hears are interpreted.  Your objection
above is both mindless and pointless.
>

This is idiotic! You are wrong. I did not interpret anything, I simply
quoted his own words. If there is any interpretation it's by you. The
point is, you find no fault in my comment above, so you resort to
smearing. That disguising!

>

I acknowledged the fact
that Dawkins  represents the _appearance_of design in nature to be
false, misleading or an illusion. There was nothing in my quotes of
Dawkins that proposed or implied that design was purposely created by
intelligence. He's an atheist, so why would I contend what you
suggested? I definitely would not!

>
>
Then explain your purpose for asking your question immediately below:
>
"So, how does he know that what is observed here is not the actual
case?"
>

Because, it's just his opinion based upon his atheist paradigm. It's
impossible to prove or disprove. So, no one can possibly know for an
absolute certainty. It simply comes down to a belief or a faith, not
knowledge.
>

>

Once again, you identified no observation of design as a verb, only
observation of design as a noun.  Just as a thirsty desert traveler
will observe a mirage and conclude water, you observe design as
a noun and conclude design as a verb.
>

No, I drew no such conclusions from anything Dawkins wrote.

>
>
You, Ron Dean, observe the appearance of design in nature, and from
that observation you conclude actual design.  You have argued this
in the past, and your previous question implies you do again.  If
that's not the case, then what's the point of your question?
>
>

If it has the overwhelming capacity to impress us with the illusion
of design and planning. If this is not the case, then the designer
purposefully, willfully and deliberately deceived us.

>
Incorrect.  It merely shows natural human tendencies to perceive
patterns where none exist, and to perceive intent in inanimate
objects,  a tendency trivially explained by natural selection.

>

   Not that I disagree with your statement, but your comment here,  has
no bearing on what I wrote.

>
>
To the contrary, it's entirely relevant to what you wrote.  It
identifies the fatal flaw in your line of reasoning against evolution
and for ID.  For you to say it has no bearing shows you have no idea
what you're talking about.
>

It's you who fails to understand. To perceive intent in inanimate  objects
is insanity. No where is this a comment and inference or a  position. This
proves you failed to understand.

>
>

It's my contention
that Dawkins or anyone can know for certain. In reality, this is a
psychological position and a philosophy, and since
atheism is his supreme paradigm, he has no option. His paradigm
takes priority and overwhelms
everything, including observation, evidence and facts.

>

     When you, Ron Dean, say " If it looks to

be designed then it is designed.", you have jumped to a
conclusion.
>

No, but I admit I went too far out on a limb.

>
Actual observations are not informed by limb length; conclusions are.
Your admission shows you know you jumped to a conclusion.  Just admit
it.
>

I said nothing about limb length. It's you not reading, but you are
jumping to unrelated conclusions.

>
>
That number of times you say you didn't say what you actually said is
unbelievable.  Try reading your posts before you put your foot in
your mouth.
>

"Going too far out on a limb", is a fairly common phrase. It says  nothing
about the length of a limb. I thought you were more intelligence  than
that!. The phrase is an idiom.
  https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/go-out-on-a-limb
>

It's you not reading, but you are jumping to unrelated conclusions.

>
>
You mean like you saying that you didn't write
>
"I went too far out on a limb"
>

I did, but it's nothing about the length of a limb! You are being idiotic.

>
and then complain that I made an unrelated conclusion about you going
out on a limb, while you completely ignored my point that you
repeatedly insisted "If it looks to be designed then it is designed."
>

I explained what I meant you ignored it!

>
is a case of you jumping to the conclusion aka "going out on a limb",
that appearance of design is evidence of design? You mean like that?
Or are you making pointless and mindless objections for the sake of
it?
>
<comment mode off>
>

I know there are things
that give a false impression. Stars appear to be tiny dots of light
on a black background, the earth appears to be stationary, with the
sun traveling around it. And there are others. Mountains in the
distance appear to be small. But there absolutely must be
examination and testing. You can travel to the mountain and
determine its not tiny.  There are ways to determine star distances
and sizes. The earth movements, can be understood relative to the
changing patterns of  stars.  But how can you determine that life
was not designed? If the  present is key to the past, we know from
Pasteur's experiment and from present experience life comes only
from preexisting life and from the _key_this must have been true in
the past "And God breathed the breath of life into nan and man
became a living soul". So, far there's no better explanation! So,
how do we know that the record of complex creatures first appearing
during the Cambrian were not just placed  there?
>
The origin of complex information contained in DNA.  In every case
in the present all complex information is derived from intelligence
-  that is a mind: there is no exceptions today and so it must have
been so in the past - 3.8 - 4 billion years ago according to the
present day observations.
Not that evolution cannot theorize explanation for what is observed.
However, I see evolution as a deliberately conceived alternative to
intelligent design.
>
I believe there are many cases where evolution and design can be
seen as the explanation, but there are examples where, except for
biases, deliberately engineered design seems to be the better
explanation.  This is in reference to the _master_control_genes_
called the "homobox genes".
The eye is one that's readily comes to mind, but is just one of many
homeboy genes. It is often stated that the eye evolved independently
over a period of millions of years at least 39 times.  However,
it's know that many of these trilobites had highly developed eyes
when they first appeared in the fossil record over 520 million
years ago.

>

>

https://www.amnh.org/research/paleontology/collections/fossil-invertebrate-collection/trilobite-website/the-trilobite-files/trilobite-eyes

>

>

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/08/429-million-year-old-trilobite-already-had-modern-like-compound-eyes/

>
    So, evolution of a highly developed eye already existed during
the Cambrian which contradicts the long standing doctrine regarding
the  long term multiple and independent gradual development or the
origin of  eyes; that is except for a theoretical rendition of an
evolutionary process leading to highly developed eyes before or
during the early  Cambrian for which evidence is scant if at all.
Another important characteristic of homeobox genes is they are
extremely ancient, these master control genes are universal and
they are   fixed or stable virtually unchanged from the beginning.
Evidence of this is an experment where eye gene called Pax6 gene was
taken from a mammal a mouse and placed in the fruit fly and the
mouse master control genes controlled the downstream specific eye
genes  of the fly to produce fly eyes. IOW the Mouse gene
controlled the  development of the fly eye in the fruit fly.

>

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_04.html

>

>

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/04/4/text_pop/l_044_01.html

>

"....unusually high degree of homology between Drosophila ey(e) and
both the mouse and human PAX6 genes...."

>

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5746045/
>
This is an outstanding example of a highly developmental form of a
proficient and an excellent engineering practice. Of course the same
Pax6 gene is involved in human eyes.

>
>
<comment mode on>
>
>

Your "observation" aka conclusion is no more valid than if I said
that by observing the constellation Taurus, I saw an actual bull
in night sky.  Even electrical engineers should be able to
understand the difference.
>

That's a stupid example! I gave you more credit that - Jill!

>
>
That's a stupid opinion!  You don't even try to say how my example is
stupid.
>

Seeing a bull animal in the sky is a stupid comment! It's so extremely
far-fetched that even my beautiful and very smart pet cat would see it
as an absurd joke.

>
>
And now you pointlessly deny the historical fact of astrology.  Not
sure how can sound more absurd.
>

There is no fact - IE nothing is factual about astrology!

>

   In fact, it's a perfect example of your expressed line of
reasoning: "If it looks to be designed then it is designed." Either
acknowledge the analogy or admit you don't understand the difference.
Pick your poison.
>

You have no idea as to what I meant by appearance of design... I
expressed exactly what I meant above which, you failed to read of failed
to understand or just failed to comment on.

>
>
I stipulate that I might not know what you mean.  That would be
because I can only go by what you post.  Here's a suggestion: Try to
make what you write better fit what you mean, if only for the novelty
of the experience.
>
>

But you are right in one respect, as I discussed above. design can
be deceptive, but if you cannot prove that it's false or an
illusion, then there is no reason and no justification for ruling
out design.

>
>
You demand others prove a negative, which I know you know is
impossible.
>

If a scientific theory or purported discovery is not falsifiable, then
it's not science.

>
>
Correct.  That's why ID isn't science.
>
>

It's possible to falsify intelligent design by proving
(not just asserting) that life itself was formed through natural
unguided, blind random processes.

>
>
Incorrect.  Once again, a purposeful designer could make it appear *as
if* life was formed through natural, unguided, blind random processes.
That's why ID is unfalsifiable.
>

The same criteria applies to evolution.

>
Meanwhile, all of the things you baselessly assert to be contrary to
natural, unguided, blind random processes, are instead consistent
with them.  Not sure how you still don't understand this.
>

We don't see unguided random processes developing complex structures or
any complexities today. So, why think it happened in the past? The point
is, one can make  the claims that anything can happen in the distant past,
considering  that observation is impossibility.

>
>

Life appeared abruptly in the fossil record,

>
>
I suppose, if your "abruptly" means over the course of billions of
years.  Why did it take so long for your unknown, unseen, unspecified
Designer to get the job done?
>

Time to us humans is seen in respect to our lifetimes, not in terms of  the
universe.

>

life comes only from life,

>
>
And only chickens lay chicken eggs.  But that's true only by
definition.  Unless chickens existed forever, there must have been a
time when there were no chickens and no chicken eggs.  So how is it
scientific to assert that some unseen, unknown, unspecified Designer
poofed a chicken into existence?  How is it UN-scientific to accept
the evidence that life evolved from not-a-chicken into a chicken?
>
And to preclude yet another example of foot-in-mouth disease, I
acknowledge you didn't say anything about chickens. Try to understand
the point, if only for the novelty of the experience.
>
>

prove that Life appeared not from
non- life which is exactly what a believer would predict.

>
>
I suppose, if your "believer" believes the Bible stories of God
breathing life into dust.
>

I heard this statement as a child. Not sure where in the Bible it's  found.
But you as an atheist naturally would rather die before admitting  there
may be a God (designer).

>
>

Another
example, that would falsify ID prove that the first complex animals that
appeared during the Cambrian arose through numerous transforming links
between the first living cells and the complex multicultural animals
that later came into existence.

>
>
So you continue to cherrypick the evidence that fits your beliefs,
while you continue to ignore the evidence that doesn't.  How is it
scientific to deny that bacterial life existed before eukaryotic life,
>

You're trying to change the subject. Because eukaryotic was not found
doesn't mean it didn't exist, just not found.
>

that single-celled forms existed before multicellular forms,

How do you know this? Can you say tomorrow such evidence will not be
located. If it were found would it be published or kept secret?
>

aquatic life existed before terrestrial life, that simple body plans
existed before complex body plans?  These are evidence of life
evolving.
>
OTOH an example of ID would be to find life out of sequence.  There's
no reason for a purposeful Designer to wait 4 billion years before
creating humans.  Find something like a Cambrian rabbit, and that
would get my attention.  Otherwise, all you got is baseless denial and
willful ignorance.
>

What is four billion years to a being that has no beginning?

>

I went into homeobox genes above, (not commented on  by you)

>
>
You have mentioned homeobox genes many times over many years.  And
every time you do, I and others point out that homeobox genes don't
show ID but instead show evolution using unguided natural processes. I
see no point in going down these same rabbit holes, repeating the same
things, over and over, just so you can ignore them, again and again,
while you continue to deny you wrote what you wrote.
>
>

I think ID
is the better explanation of the virtual uniformity  of these master
control genes (called genetic tool-kit) throughout the animal kingdom
that controls the shape of animal bodies, the eyes, heart,other organs
and body parts arms, legs head etc.

>
>
And you're entitled to believe what you believe. It's just as good as
any other baseless belief.
>

Explain how if eyes evolved independently about 40 times, how is it that
the same master control gene exist in fruit flies, mice and humans. The
eye gene (Pax6 gene) was taken from a mouse and placed into a fruit fly
embryo and the mouse gene produced eyes in the fruit fly, but not mouse
eyes, but fruit fly eyes. . Furthermore, some of the first complex
organisms ie certain species of trilobites had highly complex  functioning
eyes. Is there reason to think the same Pax6 gene was not  involved in the
eyes of trilobites with vision?

--  To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
>

>

You don't sound like the Ron Dean that left in snit yesterday.  Is this your
other personality?  Not that it's much better.

-------------------------------------
 Perhaps he has MPD and doesn't remember?  I've never understood
why people (usually trolls) *_announce_* their departure, like anyone
actually cares.
 

I've been part of this NG for more than a decade. I decided not to allow one dishonest freak run me off!.  I don't recall ever reading or responding to anything you ever wrote. I do not know you, I don't care about you, So, as a new-comer to the NG why is anything I do, any god-damn business of yours?