"Hallmarks of Creation" vs. Actual Signs of Artificial Products

[theprestige]

There are many many parts in genetics that could be designed far better than nature did.
Seperate chromosomes, ribosomes and tRNA's for mitochondria or mitochondria and chloroplasts in Eukaryotes for instance have no inherent extra value over just using a single set, whereas they cost tons of energy to create and maintain.

Sure, we can use the cop-out of not knowing what a designer would want, but if you look at how genetics is 'organized' either that designer is intentionally making mistakes to hide its existence of just does not exist.

My view is that you are not qualified to make such judgements, having no experience in the discipline of designing evolving ecosystems on a planetary scale.

 

[novaphile]

My view is that you are not qualified to make such judgements, having no experience in the discipline of designing evolving ecosystems on a planetary scale.

My view is that we've struck a nerve and you've revealed yourself.

 

[Wowbagger]

To show that life evolves, we can demonstrate how evolution works- the drivers (environmental pressures, natural selection), and the process (mutations leading to greater survival rates).
To show something is manmade, we can demonstrate how it is made. You can disassemble it and look at the individual parts, and show how they could be made, and you can also show how a factory could assemble the whole thing.

This is a good summary, but I think it's the specific list of items we are forming here, that provide the details.

 

[Wowbagger]

My view is that you are not qualified to make such judgements, having no experience in the discipline of designing evolving ecosystems on a planetary scale.

My view is that we've struck a nerve and you've revealed yourself.

theprestige already admitted he doesn't have any better arguments here:

You know what? I don't think I have a rebuttal. I said earlier that I think there are good arguments against intelligent design, but now that I think about it I'm not sure what they might be.

I actually think it's safe to ignore him.

 

[Roboramma]

My view is that we've struck a nerve and you've revealed yourself.

theprestige already admitted he doesn't have any better arguments here:



I actually think it's safe to ignore him.

Neither of these posts address the issues raised by thepresige here. They're just assertions that he can be ignored. Why? Because "he's revealed himself", I suppose the revelation is that he doesn't think the standard arguments against intelligent design work? That revelation isn't an argument, and neither of you have addressed his criticism.

To be clear, I don't think his critique is valid. I also think an earlier post of mine actually addressed it. I was thinking of making that point more clearly in response to his last post, but decided not to because it just seemed like pointless piling on, and he is raising meaningful issues that are worthy of discussion, which can actually help us all to better understand the case for evolution vs. ID, rather than a caricature of it.

I'll write my response to thepresige later today.

 

[angrysoba]

There are many many parts in genetics that could be designed far better than nature did.
Seperate chromosomes, ribosomes and tRNA's for mitochondria or mitochondria and chloroplasts in Eukaryotes for instance have no inherent extra value over just using a single set, whereas they cost tons of energy to create and maintain.

Sure, we can use the cop-out of not knowing what a designer would want, but if you look at how genetics is 'organized' either that designer is intentionally making mistakes to hide its existence of just does not exist.

One frequently cited example of inefficiency is recurrent laryngeal nerve which is a nerve that got snagged around the heart and thus grew longer over time as vertebrates' necks got longer, with the giraffe being the most obvious example of a massively inefficienly long laryngeal nerve, and presumed even more inefficient examples in sauropods.

It may be an "argument from incredulity" that it beggars belief that an intelligent designer would create such a thing, but I think it puts the onus on creationists to explain what such a thing is supposed to achieve.

 

[Roboramma]

One frequently cited example of inefficiency is recurrent laryngeal nerve which is a nerve that got snagged around the heart and thus grew longer over time as vertebrates' necks got longer, with the giraffe being the most obvious example of a massively inefficienly long laryngeal nerve, and presumed even more inefficient examples in sauropods.

It may be an "argument from incredulity" that it beggars belief that an intelligent designer would create such a thing, but I think it puts the onus on creationists to explain what such a thing is supposed to achieve.

This is what I was talking about in an earlier post. And I think, as I said, the "argument from incredulity" is avoided by noting that there is a sound evolutionary explanation for how this inefficient design evolved, but we don't see examples of similarly "apparent" inefficiencies of design without such sound explanations. There is a clear pattern here in the inefficiencies of design in living things, and its that pattern of inefficiencies that requires explanation, not just the fact that apparent inefficiencies exist at all.

Another example of this pattern is that the ways in which the human body most readily fails are correlated with recent evolutionary changes. The story that apparent inefficiencies are actually design tradeoffs can't explain that correlation. Why is it that a species that recently evolved bipedalism tends to knee and back problems? Why is it that a species that recently evovled large brains tends to a difficult and often fatal birthing process? These don't just seem like bad design problems: if they are design tradeoffs why don't we face similar tradeoffs in traits that arose further back in evolutionary time?

The tradeoff explanation seems to make sense from the perspective of any particular trait (maybe there are tradeoffs that we just lack the knowledge to understand), but can't explain this correlation, whereas the evolutionary explanation can.

ETA: The website "The Panda's Thumb" was named after a similar case of recently evolved traits being sub-optimally designed. This pattern isn't just apparent in humans but all through the tree of life. The optimization process of evolution takes time. This pattern of apparently sub-optimal designs doesn't have an explanation from the point of view of creationism, but has a very obvious and clear explanation from the point of view of evolution.

 

[Wowbagger]

For the list of signs of actual artificial creation:

Functional specificity of components and subunits. The steel in the frame of the factory building that holds the roof up isn't also used as a store of iron for the factory's operation, even if that operation sometimes requires additional trace amounts of iron. Contrast with calcium compounds in vertebrate skeletons. Airplane seat cushions might be usable as flotation devices in an emergency, but they don't also absorb CO2 from the cabin atmosphere while being edible to provide in-flight snacks and available to be converted into fuel for the jet engines if they run low.

If I am not mistaken, I think I remember the words "When Co-Option is not an option!" associated with this idea. Unless I am getting it wrong, and someone corrects me, I think I might use those words in part of my presentation.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

I strongly disagree with this claim.

We can infer how evolution works. But the evolutionary process of speciation via random mutation and natural selection over time happens over timescales that are far beyond our ability to experience, observe, or demonstrate.

No, they are not. We have directly observed evolution in the lab.

A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers’ eyes. It’s the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.

And because the species in question is a bacterium, scientists have been able to replay history to show how this evolutionary novelty grew from the accumulation of unpredictable, chance events.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab/

You absolutely cannot demonstrate the evolution of an eyeball. You cannot even demonstrate the process of carcinization, even though it's pretty obviously happening.

You cannot demonstrate the evolution of land creatures from sea creatures. You infer it because you believe in evolution, and you can draw a line between the gross phenotypes - eyes to eyes, spine to spine, fins to feet, scales to hairs, etc.

You have the cart before the horse. It is not a case of scientists, or atheists, first believing in evolution, and then looking for evidence. It is the fact that the evidence points to evolution, that leads us to accept it. (Provisionally, of course). Conflating the thought processes of science and religion is a classic creationist piece of sophistry.

Many scientists and philosophers of science have described evolution as fact and theory, a phrase which was used as the title of an article by paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould in 1981. He describes fact in science as meaning data, not known with absolute certainty but "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent". A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of such facts. The facts of evolution come from observational evidence of current processes, from imperfections in organisms recording historical common descent, and from transitions in the fossil record. Theories of evolution provide a provisional explanation for these facts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory

Note that the highlighted reiterates my point that evolution can be directly observed.

But remember what Myriad said about modularity being a hallmark of design? What if a designer just reused a lot of the same phenotype modules for land and sea creatures? What if you can draw a line between them not because one evolved from the other but because they both came from the same design studio and the same asset library?

Or remember what Ryan O'Dine said about discontinuity being a hallmark of design. So okay, whales, humans, birds, and fish are all clearly using a lot of the same modules, but what about the octopus? Where did that come from? Sure, the eyeball looks like a highly modified version of the standard eyeball module, but what about the rest of that octopus nonsense? Random mutation and natural selection, resulting in a discontinuous phenotype? Or a studio skunkworks challenging the design paradigm with a discontinuous design?

Provide evidence of a creator, a design studio and an asset library, then we have something to talk about.
OTOH, the idea of natural selection requires no such assumptions.

I'm not saying evolution is wrong. I'm saying it's one thing to have a solid theory with a lot of good evidence to support it, and it's another thing entirely to let it go to your head. The theory of evolution is nice and all, but what would really impress me is if skeptical atheists developed a theory of not letting things go to their head same as happens to everyone else.

Who is letting what go to their head? Sorry, but what does that even mean?

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

My view is that you are not qualified to make such judgements, having no experience in the discipline of designing evolving ecosystems on a planetary scale.

I also lack a experience in many things. Like automotive design. Extrapolating this attitude means I should not comment that a factory that creates a line of cars that puts in two different petrol engines one of which powers three wheels and the other which powers one wheel is less than efficient?

Or if someone designs a building with a hole in the roof, which is then patched via a leaky slide to take the water out is less efficient then a building with a complete roof?

 

[Cat Not Included]

For signs of artificial creation, how about a total absence of earlier types? The creationist claim of irreducible complexity means that everything was created as it is now, without any sign of evolution, prototypes or extinctions.This would also include the absence of evolutionary markers, like that nerve in a giraffe's neck, fused bones, vestigial organs and the like.
Also, thinking about the 'you're walking through a forest and you see a watch' argument: this assumes there is a distinction between natural objects such as trees, and artificial ones, like a watch. Artificially-created objects, therefore, must be different in some way from natural ones. Now, I'm not a creationist, so I don't know what that difference is, and how you would quantify it, but they claim it's there, so presumably there is some way to tell.

What's always puzzled me about the 'watch in the forest' claim and its ilk is that the people using it claim everything was created by an intelligent designer. The watch, the tree, the squirrel on the tree, the acorn the squirrel was eating, the squirrel poop...all were made by the same intelligent designer. You can't differentiate "made by a designer" and "not made by a designer" if you claim literally everything IS made by designer!

 

[theprestige]

My view is that we've struck a nerve and you've revealed yourself.

Revealed myself? Am I supposed to be a goddamn ninja or something?

theprestige already admitted he doesn't have any better arguments here:

Not being able to come up with a good argument is not a valid excuse to go with a bad argument instead. Not everything needs a rebuttal. Intelligent design, for example. Both sides of the argument you've framed require expertise that neither side has. Instead of engaging in the same baseless and ill-informed speculation as the creationists, you can simply tell them that's what they're doing and that you're not interested in entertaining it. That is the better argument.

I actually think it's safe to ignore him.

It's never safe to ignore a goddamn ninja.

 

[theprestige]

I also lack a experience in many things. Like automotive design. Extrapolating this attitude means I should not comment that a factory that creates a line of cars that puts in two different petrol engines one of which powers three wheels and the other which powers one wheel is less than efficient?

Built things often make trade-offs, sacrificing efficiency or effectiveness along one axis in order to satisfy some other set of overriding requirements, that may not be readily apparent to a layman. My point is that when it comes to designing planetary ecosystems over evolutionary time, we're all ignorant laymen.

 

[rjh01]

One difference between intelligent design and evolution is that you can classify different species in groups and then those groups in bigger groups and those groups in even bigger groups. Each group would have certain things in common. If you go back in time there are mostly only small changes. Never anything new and big. But man made stuff does not work like that. You get cars that can be grouped together, but if you then say that all transport belongs in the next group up these do not have much in common. Even wheels would be different.

 

[Wowbagger]

I appreciate all the feedback and comments! Some of your input has shaped some parts of my presentation! I don't have time to respond to everyone, though, since I am doing a few other things all at once.

We'll see how it goes.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Built things often make trade-offs, sacrificing efficiency or effectiveness along one axis in order to satisfy some other set of overriding requirements, that may not be readily apparent to a layman. My point is that when it comes to designing planetary ecosystems over evolutionary time, we're all ignorant laymen.

This is where I disagree. We may not have the resources to design a planetary ecosystem, but we do have the knowledge.
And many things in genetics could be easily streamlined without sacrificing anything anywhere else, yet at the same time increasing efficiency in an organism.

Looking at things from the perspective of evolution the random mutations that would need to happen to fully replace the genome and protein production of a product of endosymbiosys are highly unlikely and not something that creates enough genetic pressure to be selected for.
But if you want to argue design then there is no conceivable argument where the current setup is more efficient than just putting everything in the nucleus.

 

[Roboramma]

Built things often make trade-offs, sacrificing efficiency or effectiveness along one axis in order to satisfy some other set of overriding requirements, that may not be readily apparent to a layman. My point is that when it comes to designing planetary ecosystems over evolutionary time, we're all ignorant laymen.

There's a difference between not knowing everything and knowing nothing. It's possible to spot inefficiencies of design without actually being able to produce a design yourself. Our planetary ecosystem would function fine without Giraffes at all, let alone with Giraffes whose nerve doesn't need to do a loop around its heart before returning back up the neck. There's no plausible necessity in designing a planetary ecosystem that requires that.

And, again, if you are going to claim that inefficiencies are only apparent, and not real, because we're overlooking some complex tradeoff that we're just too ignorant to understand, then you still haven't explained why these apparent inefficiencies correlate with evolutionary explanations. That pattern is evidence against your tradeoffs theory.

 

[angrysoba]

So, did you do the presentation? How did it go?

 

[catsmate]

Not sure if that is quite true. Some animals such as monkeys, chimps and crows appear to have actually made tools have they not? I recall seeing that some of the evidence that pointed to early arrival in the Americas turned out to be flint tools likely created by capuchin monkeys. Also, crows apparently not only use sticks to get insects but actually fashion hooks on the sticks to get the insects.

Yes they do. Chimps, Orangutans, and many others. Plus lots of non-primates, such as Corvids and octopi.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Also, thinking about the 'you're walking through a forest and you see a watch' argument: this assumes there is a distinction between natural objects such as trees, and artificial ones, like a watch. Artificially-created objects, therefore, must be different in some way from natural ones. Now, I'm not a creationist, so I don't know what that difference is, and how you would quantify it, but they claim it's there, so presumably there is some way to tell.

What's always puzzled me about the 'watch in the forest' claim and its ilk is that the people using it claim everything was created by an intelligent designer. The watch, the tree, the squirrel on the tree, the acorn the squirrel was eating, the squirrel poop...all were made by the same intelligent designer. You can't differentiate "made by a designer" and "not made by a designer" if you claim literally everything IS made by designer!

Yes. This is what I was alluding to in my post. Saying you're walking through a forest, and you find a watch implies there is some readily identifiable difference between all the natural stuff you've passed, and that watch. They never say 'and you find a twig', or 'you find a rock'.
They then apply this distinction to all the other, natural things we see around us, to prove they are the same as the watch. It is both stupid and dishonest, at the same time.