Example of Creation or Design

[rikuoamero]

In the 'Ask a Group' subforum, the following question was posed to creationists and/or intelligent design advocates.

Creationists and proponents of Intelligent Design are often critical of the theory of evolution. But their criticism leaves their opponents with the feeling that they don't actually understand evolution.

Question for Creationists and proponents of Intelligent Design: can you explain what is meant by evolution?

User 2timothy316 has gotten into a discussion with me, and in one of his most recent responses to me, where he opined

Because creation/intelligent can be observed

I asked for an example

Where? When? Can you show me a creature being designed (not by humans) and show me the designer?

So the topic for discussion here is for 2timothy316 (or anyone really) to give examples of what they think is creation/intelligent design (not by humans, since what's the point of looking at examples from humans?) of lifeforms, and of the designer/creator.

[2timothy316]

2Timothy, the definition for instinct you give actually defeats your own argument. Look at the last three words of it.
Without involving reason.

Who says that reason is necessary for intelligence? If we found life such as a bird on another planet wouldn't that be called 'intelligent life'? Are we to only use your definitions for words?

The dictionary says: the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills:

Are you saying that birds are not intelligent because they don't fit you definitions for the word?

[2timothy316]

rikuoamero wrote:


Quote:
evolution says its random and accidental.

Nope. Do you understand what random means? What the world would actually look like if chemistry and biology WERE random?

So these people at Berkeley have it wrong?

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... tations_07

Quote:
Mutations are random

Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs." Factors in the environment may influence the rate of mutation but are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation. For example, exposure to harmful chemicals may increase the mutation rate, but will not cause more mutations that make the organism resistant to those chemicals. In this respect, mutations are random " whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.

I never did get an answer to the above.

[Bust Nak]

So these people at Berkeley have it wrong?

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... tations_07

No, they have it spot on.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 10 by JehovahsWitness]

This is why if we find a key and a lock we do not presume there was an explosion in a metal factory and then someone waited a long long (long) l o n g time and the key and lock "evolved".

That would be because keys and locks don't evolve. They're not life forms. So this is a strawman.

It's not a strawman because there are flora and fauna that are like a lock and a key. Humming birds and some flowers are like a lock and a key. The humming bird is the only animal that can reach certain flowers' nectar and the plant benefits because its pollen will reach other plants like itself. There are many examples of 'lock and key' type relationships in nature. Darwin even understood this. He observed a flower with an extremely long petals. Its stems and pistol deep in the flower. Darwin purpose that their must be a bird or animal that must be able to get at the flowers nectar. After he died, scientist did find such a bird. Which was the key to the plant's propagation.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Bird ... 652872.php

[2timothy316]

So these people at Berkeley have it wrong?

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... tations_07

No, they have it spot on.

Ok cool thanks for the confirmation, I was pretty sure I thought that what it was. I thought perhaps that the theory had changed recently. So what I was told was incorrect by another evolutionist.

"Quote:
evolution says its random and accidental.

Nope. Do you understand what random means? What the world would actually look like if chemistry and biology WERE random?"

[Neatras]

Your particular position is not the common reason evident in the activity of those who frequent this forum and argue with theists who specifically adhere to the Abrahamic idea of GOD.

Support this claim with evidence.

Thus such injected references do 'belong' here as they are part and parcel of debating Christianity and religion.

No, the OP is using just as much generality as the average intelligent design proponent; I suggest you read up on the movement and its association with anti-evolution.

Indeed that was the invitation in the OP, so if you don't think it 'okay' then why are you even making any comment in this thread?

Sure, if you intentionally ignore what the post says and see "proof" that he's really talking about the abrahamic God because of reasons you won't elaborate on. Face it, you're reaching.

So the topic for discussion is for anyone to give examples of what they think is creation/intelligent design of lifeforms, and of the designer/creator.

Indeed, and you making a reference to the Abrahamic God is, at best, a red herring so you can wax on about all those silly evolutionists and how their reasoning is totally about hating gods instead of being invested in intellectual honesty or scientific progress. You do not speak for us. I suggest you talk to H. Sapiens about if he accepts evolution just because he doesn't want to believe in God.

Me adding additional observation re why I also think that those who prefer to interpret mindlessness as being responsible for life forms on the planet, are doing so primarily because they cannot stand the thought of the Abrahaic idea of GOD being the one who is responsible, is not inclusive of everyone who is against the idea of mindful creation.

And you are definitely free to make up whatever you want, but your observations are based on your own confirmation bias. You are an unreliable observer, with no objectivity and no interest in actually demonstrating your claims. So why should we listen to this rant?

The mythical abrahamic god is of no import when discussing biology.

is the discussion about biology? Or are you in the wrong forum?

Seeing as how the OP is asking about the binary state of "designed" or "not designed" in life, biology is exactly the subject we are discussing. No red herrings available for you to try and draw us into a detour, I'm afraid.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 19 by Neatras]

The mythical abrahamic god is of no import when discussing biology. So stop trying to inject references where it doesn't belong, okay?

No. Not 'okay'.

Your particular position is not the common reason evident in the activity of those who frequent this forum and argue with theists who specifically adhere to the Abrahamic idea of GOD.

Thus such injected references do 'belong' here as they are part and parcel of debating Christianity and religion.

Indeed that was the invitation in the OP, so if you don't think it 'okay' then why are you even making any comment in this thread?

So the topic for discussion is for anyone to give examples of what they think is creation/intelligent design of lifeforms, and of the designer/creator.

Me adding additional observation re why I also think that those who prefer to interpret mindlessness as being responsible for life forms on the planet, are doing so primarily because they cannot stand the thought of the Abrahaic idea of GOD being the one who is responsible, is not inclusive of everyone who is against the idea of mindful creation.

The mythical abrahamic god is of no import when discussing biology.

is the discussion about biology? Or are you in the wrong forum?

I don't fully understand how you justify this claim of yours. Especially when you limit it to just the Abrahamic god. How is it that you have ruled out all the other god concepts, not to mention god concepts that haven't been invented yet?

If it were shown to be the Abrahamic god behind all this, I would be both terrified and also fulfilled by now knowing how it all happened.

Your argument basically states that you think people don't want to know how it happened and that just does not seem reasonable.

If your child went missing, you might dread to find out that it was kidnapped by a child molester, but would you actually resist the knowledge to find out who was behind it? I would think not.

[Clownboat]

That would be because keys and locks don't evolve. They're not life forms. So this is a strawman.

It's not a strawman because there are flora and fauna that are like a lock and a key.

Please show me this lock and key that reproduce via sexual reproduction with mutations.

Humming birds and some flowers are like a lock and a key.

Again, humming birds and flowers reproduce via sexual reproduction which include mutations. We can examine changes within species in the here and now. This is not the case with locks and keys.

The humming bird is the only animal that can reach certain flowers' nectar and the plant benefits because its pollen will reach other plants like itself.

This tells me that over the many years as a flower changed, the humming birds that had a beneficial mutation like say a longer beak, changed along with it. I'm just not seeing locks and keys.

There are many examples of 'lock and key' type relationships in nature.

Due to your last attempt at justifying this statement, I must continue to doubt this claim.

Darwin even understood this. He observed a flower with an extremely long petals. Its stems and pistol deep in the flower. Darwin purpose that their must be a bird or animal that must be able to get at the flowers nectar. After he died, scientist did find such a bird. Which was the key to the plant's propagation.

Not sure what this has to do with flowers and humming birds evolving together. Please explain why if a population of flowers changes over the years that a humming bird population cannot change along with it. What allows the flower to mutate, but not the humming bird in this example of yours?

[2timothy316]

Darwin even understood this. He observed a flower with an extremely long petals. Its stems and pistol deep in the flower. Darwin purpose that their must be a bird or animal that must be able to get at the flowers nectar. After he died, scientist did find such a bird. Which was the key to the plant's propagation.

Not sure what this has to do with flowers and humming birds evolving together. Please explain why if a population of flowers changes over the years that a humming bird population cannot change along with it. What allows the flower to mutate, but not the humming bird in this example of yours?

It appears you didn't read the article I submitted.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Bird ... 652872.php

Two biologists studying the lives of hummingbirds and flowers on Caribbean islands have discovered a remarkable example of animals and plants that evolve to meet each other's needs.

The beaks of the birds have developed in size and shape so that they pollinate the flowers more effectively, while the flowers have developed in color and shape to fit the evolving bird beaks more easily, the scientists find.

Yet the theory of evolution states,

"Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs." Factors in the environment may influence the rate of mutation but are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation."

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... tations_07

Do you see the problem here? Evolution states that things mutations are completely random and "mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs." Yet, that is not what biologist are observing. They are not random but spot on. The lock is changing and the key is adapting with no problems. It also happens quickly not millions of years.

Explain this please. Why are all the mutations beneficial for both bird and flower when the theory doesn't support such behavior? The mutations are meeting a purpose are they not?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 10 by JehovahsWitness]

This is why if we find a key and a lock we do not presume there was an explosion in a metal factory and then someone waited a long long (long) l o n g time and the key and lock "evolved".

That would be because keys and locks don't evolve. They're not life forms. So this is a strawman.

The point is that "design" is the conception of working components which combien to carry out a purpose. From the human eye to the brain to our DNA to the Empire state building .... anything that has working components which alone serve little no purpose alone but a combintion of which result in a whole that does, is displaying by definition evidence of design"

The material is irrelevent, undirected forces don't have imagination so they cannot design.



Yaroslav Dovhanych: A Zoologist Explains His Faith
https://tv.jw.org/#en/mediaitems/Origin ... 04_2_VIDEO


[youtube][/youtube]

RELATED POST

How would we recognize intelligence and design?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 282#888282