Re: CONTRARY EVIDENCE (WASRe: Evide)nce!

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. 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!

 

So, how does he know that what is observed here is not the actual case?

  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.

 

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.

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.

 

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.
>

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.
  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.

 

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. It's possible to falsify intelligent design by proving (not just asserting) that life itself was formed through natural unguided, blind random processes. Life appeared abruptly in the fossil record, life comes only from life, prove that Life appeared not from non- life which is exactly what a believer would predict. 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.
I went into homeobox genes above, (not commented on  by you) 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. One example of a single master control gene is the P6 eye gene which is
functions in mice, fruit flies and humans. (I discussed this above)
 >
More to the point, every one of your examples are of

design as a noun, from which you say you "observe" design as a verb,
but instead jump to that illogical conclusion.  Not sure how even you
still don't understand the difference.
 

However, for some people  there is a _purpose_ for doing just that. IE
for philosophical reasons there is the need for  the elimination or
removal of design from the picture of life.
Even science has later in its development has assumed this philosophy -
which was a foreign notion to the founders of modern science.

  Once again, you assert negative motives to others you know you can't
know, and don't even try to show.  This is not the legacy I would want
to leave behind on this Earth.  Apparently your mileage varies.
 

Here I have provided a small number of reason I take and defend my
position as to origins. Of course it's your right to reject any or all
of my reasons, I think as I do and no hard feelings. Whether or not we
agree, I do have an appreciation and a respect for you.

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