Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Convergent evolution evidence of a designer

janesix
Posts: 3,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 2:22:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I say convergent evolution is evidence for a common designer, reusing designs in different organisms for efficiency etc. Advocates for natural evolution say convergent evolution is a result of the same environments evolving the same organisms. But there are examples of convergent evolution where the environments are completely different. Such as the chamelion type of eye evolving in both a land and aquatic environment. How does natural evolution explain this?
Reasonslap
Posts: 221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 2:27:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/10/2015 2:22:58 PM, janesix wrote:
I say convergent evolution is evidence for a common designer, reusing designs in different organisms for efficiency etc. Advocates for natural evolution say convergent evolution is a result of the same environments evolving the same organisms. But there are examples of convergent evolution where the environments are completely different. Such as the chamelion type of eye evolving in both a land and aquatic environment. How does natural evolution explain this?

This is natural selection. If the eye does not work well underwater, it will be eliminated over time.
janesix
Posts: 3,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 2:29:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/10/2015 2:27:15 PM, Reasonslap wrote:
At 7/10/2015 2:22:58 PM, janesix wrote:
I say convergent evolution is evidence for a common designer, reusing designs in different organisms for efficiency etc. Advocates for natural evolution say convergent evolution is a result of the same environments evolving the same organisms. But there are examples of convergent evolution where the environments are completely different. Such as the chamelion type of eye evolving in both a land and aquatic environment. How does natural evolution explain this?

This is natural selection. If the eye does not work well underwater, it will be eliminated over time.

TRhe question is how did nature land on the same eye in the first place, without common decent?
janesix
Posts: 3,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 2:35:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
http://www.cell.com...(99)80189-4?_returnURL=http%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0960982299801894%3Fshowall%3Dtrue&cc=y=

Chameleons have a number of unusual, highly specialised visual features, including telescopic visual optics with a reduced lens power, wide separation of the eye"s nodal point from the axis of rotation, a deep-pit fovea, rapid pre-calculated strikes for prey based on monocular depth judgements (including focus), and a complex pattern of partially independent alternating eye movements. The same set of features has been acquired independently by a teleost, the sandlance Limnichthyes fasciatus. Despite its underwater lifestyle, this fish displays visual behaviour and rapid strikes for prey that are remarkably similar to those of the chameleon
Reasonslap
Posts: 221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 7:10:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/10/2015 2:29:54 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/10/2015 2:27:15 PM, Reasonslap wrote:
At 7/10/2015 2:22:58 PM, janesix wrote:
I say convergent evolution is evidence for a common designer, reusing designs in different organisms for efficiency etc. Advocates for natural evolution say convergent evolution is a result of the same environments evolving the same organisms. But there are examples of convergent evolution where the environments are completely different. Such as the chamelion type of eye evolving in both a land and aquatic environment. How does natural evolution explain this?

This is natural selection. If the eye does not work well underwater, it will be eliminated over time.

The question is how did nature land on the same eye in the first place, without common decent?

The descent is from the water. Go pick up a good science book.
janesix
Posts: 3,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 10:13:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/10/2015 7:10:07 PM, Reasonslap wrote:
At 7/10/2015 2:29:54 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/10/2015 2:27:15 PM, Reasonslap wrote:
At 7/10/2015 2:22:58 PM, janesix wrote:
I say convergent evolution is evidence for a common designer, reusing designs in different organisms for efficiency etc. Advocates for natural evolution say convergent evolution is a result of the same environments evolving the same organisms. But there are examples of convergent evolution where the environments are completely different. Such as the chamelion type of eye evolving in both a land and aquatic environment. How does natural evolution explain this?

This is natural selection. If the eye does not work well underwater, it will be eliminated over time.

The question is how did nature land on the same eye in the first place, without common decent?

The descent is from the water. Go pick up a good science book.

"The same set of features has been acquired independently by a teleost, the sandlance Limnichthyes fasciatus. Despite its underwater lifestyle, this fish displays visual behaviour and rapid strikes for prey that are remarkably similar to those of the chameleon"

The scientists themselves say they evolved INDEPENDENTLY. That's what convergence means.
Accipiter
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 11:09:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/10/2015 2:22:58 PM, janesix wrote:
I say convergent evolution is evidence for a common designer, reusing designs in different organisms for efficiency etc. Advocates for natural evolution say convergent evolution is a result of the same environments evolving the same organisms. But there are examples of convergent evolution where the environments are completely different. Such as the chamelion type of eye evolving in both a land and aquatic environment. How does natural evolution explain this?

You are right that is evidence of a designer, where do you go from there?
janesix
Posts: 3,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 11:54:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/10/2015 11:09:35 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 7/10/2015 2:22:58 PM, janesix wrote:
I say convergent evolution is evidence for a common designer, reusing designs in different organisms for efficiency etc. Advocates for natural evolution say convergent evolution is a result of the same environments evolving the same organisms. But there are examples of convergent evolution where the environments are completely different. Such as the chamelion type of eye evolving in both a land and aquatic environment. How does natural evolution explain this?

You are right that is evidence of a designer, where do you go from there?

For me, I just keep learning more. Not sure what else would be useful.
Nicoszon_the_Great
Posts: 167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 12:27:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/10/2015 2:22:58 PM, janesix wrote:
I say convergent evolution is evidence for a common designer, reusing designs in different organisms for efficiency etc. Advocates for natural evolution say convergent evolution is a result of the same environments evolving the same organisms. But there are examples of convergent evolution where the environments are completely different. Such as the chamelion type of eye evolving in both a land and aquatic environment. How does natural evolution explain this?

Let's all be honest here, there's no reason to believe that evolution, natural or nicht, is divorced from any deity. The biblical scriptures do allow for it if you interpret them in a certain way.
janesix
Posts: 3,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 12:41:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/11/2015 12:27:11 PM, Nicoszon_the_Great wrote:
At 7/10/2015 2:22:58 PM, janesix wrote:
I say convergent evolution is evidence for a common designer, reusing designs in different organisms for efficiency etc. Advocates for natural evolution say convergent evolution is a result of the same environments evolving the same organisms. But there are examples of convergent evolution where the environments are completely different. Such as the chamelion type of eye evolving in both a land and aquatic environment. How does natural evolution explain this?

Let's all be honest here, there's no reason to believe that evolution, natural or nicht, is divorced from any deity. The biblical scriptures do allow for it if you interpret them in a certain way.

Scripture is written by man. Nature is written by God.
Nicoszon_the_Great
Posts: 167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 1:07:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/11/2015 12:41:11 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/11/2015 12:27:11 PM, Nicoszon_the_Great wrote:
At 7/10/2015 2:22:58 PM, janesix wrote:
I say convergent evolution is evidence for a common designer, reusing designs in different organisms for efficiency etc. Advocates for natural evolution say convergent evolution is a result of the same environments evolving the same organisms. But there are examples of convergent evolution where the environments are completely different. Such as the chamelion type of eye evolving in both a land and aquatic environment. How does natural evolution explain this?

Let's all be honest here, there's no reason to believe that evolution, natural or nicht, is divorced from any deity. The biblical scriptures do allow for it if you interpret them in a certain way.

Scripture is written by man. Nature is written by God.

So there's no problem then, good. Cool.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 6:14:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/10/2015 2:22:58 PM, janesix wrote:
I say convergent evolution is evidence for a common designer, reusing designs in different organisms for efficiency etc. Advocates for natural evolution say convergent evolution is a result of the same environments evolving the same organisms. But there are examples of convergent evolution where the environments are completely different. Such as the chamelion type of eye evolving in both a land and aquatic environment. How does natural evolution explain this?

Let's just suppose for a moment that evolution does not have an explanation for this. Now what? How do we get from that to an intelligent designer?
Accipiter
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 7:29:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/11/2015 11:54:22 AM, janesix wrote:
At 7/10/2015 11:09:35 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 7/10/2015 2:22:58 PM, janesix wrote:
I say convergent evolution is evidence for a common designer, reusing designs in different organisms for efficiency etc. Advocates for natural evolution say convergent evolution is a result of the same environments evolving the same organisms. But there are examples of convergent evolution where the environments are completely different. Such as the chamelion type of eye evolving in both a land and aquatic environment. How does natural evolution explain this?

You are right that is evidence of a designer, where do you go from there?

For me, I just keep learning more. Not sure what else would be useful.

Don't you think it would be useful to religious people who say it proves there is a god?
janesix
Posts: 3,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 12:28:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/11/2015 6:14:46 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 7/10/2015 2:22:58 PM, janesix wrote:
I say convergent evolution is evidence for a common designer, reusing designs in different organisms for efficiency etc. Advocates for natural evolution say convergent evolution is a result of the same environments evolving the same organisms. But there are examples of convergent evolution where the environments are completely different. Such as the chamelion type of eye evolving in both a land and aquatic environment. How does natural evolution explain this?

Let's just suppose for a moment that evolution does not have an explanation for this. Now what? How do we get from that to an intelligent designer?

I would be happy to consider any other alternative explanation.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 1:38:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 12:28:08 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/11/2015 6:14:46 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 7/10/2015 2:22:58 PM, janesix wrote:
I say convergent evolution is evidence for a common designer, reusing designs in different organisms for efficiency etc. Advocates for natural evolution say convergent evolution is a result of the same environments evolving the same organisms. But there are examples of convergent evolution where the environments are completely different. Such as the chamelion type of eye evolving in both a land and aquatic environment. How does natural evolution explain this?

Let's just suppose for a moment that evolution does not have an explanation for this. Now what? How do we get from that to an intelligent designer?

I would be happy to consider any other alternative explanation.

That's not how rational justification works.

If you don't have an explanation for something then you don't have an explanation for it. Asserting that an explanation is reasonable because you have no other explanation is an argument from ignorance, which is a logical fallacy for a reason. You're saying "I don't understand X, therefore Y". This is of course a logical contradiction because you are actually saying that because you don't understand something, you understand it.

And this is all of course under the assumption that biology does not have an answer for this, which I am sure biologists do not agree with.
ranchero
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 1:40:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/10/2015 2:22:58 PM, janesix wrote:
I say convergent evolution is evidence for a common designer, reusing designs in different organisms for efficiency etc. Advocates for natural evolution say convergent evolution is a result of the same environments evolving the same organisms. But there are examples of convergent evolution where the environments are completely different. Such as the chamelion type of eye evolving in both a land and aquatic environment. How does natural evolution explain this?

Everything that is observed has a design, all the way down to quantified levels such as an atomic element, which looks similar to a distant galaxy.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 2:49:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/10/2015 2:22:58 PM, janesix wrote:
I say convergent evolution is evidence for a common designer, reusing designs in different organisms for efficiency etc. Advocates for natural evolution say convergent evolution is a result of the same environments evolving the same organisms. But there are examples of convergent evolution where the environments are completely different. Such as the chamelion type of eye evolving in both a land and aquatic environment. How does natural evolution explain this?

Its the same reason why all planets are spherical. Where are the square, triangle shaped planets?

Specific environments produce similar results because those are the most efficient. Planets are spherical because that is the most efficient shape it produces with regards to gravity. Different types of animals have similar morphological characteristics because these are the most efficient methods of surviving in that environment.
janesix
Posts: 3,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 5:10:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 1:38:50 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 7/12/2015 12:28:08 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/11/2015 6:14:46 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 7/10/2015 2:22:58 PM, janesix wrote:
I say convergent evolution is evidence for a common designer, reusing designs in different organisms for efficiency etc. Advocates for natural evolution say convergent evolution is a result of the same environments evolving the same organisms. But there are examples of convergent evolution where the environments are completely different. Such as the chamelion type of eye evolving in both a land and aquatic environment. How does natural evolution explain this?

Let's just suppose for a moment that evolution does not have an explanation for this. Now what? How do we get from that to an intelligent designer?

I would be happy to consider any other alternative explanation.

That's not how rational justification works.

If you don't have an explanation for something then you don't have an explanation for it. Asserting that an explanation is reasonable because you have no other explanation is an argument from ignorance, which is a logical fallacy for a reason. You're saying "I don't understand X, therefore Y". This is of course a logical contradiction because you are actually saying that because you don't understand something, you understand it.

And this is all of course under the assumption that biology does not have an answer for this, which I am sure biologists do not agree with.

It looks designed,and science can't explain it. What more evidence do I need? Intelligence agency is the only current known designer.
janesix
Posts: 3,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 5:12:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 2:49:43 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 7/10/2015 2:22:58 PM, janesix wrote:
I say convergent evolution is evidence for a common designer, reusing designs in different organisms for efficiency etc. Advocates for natural evolution say convergent evolution is a result of the same environments evolving the same organisms. But there are examples of convergent evolution where the environments are completely different. Such as the chamelion type of eye evolving in both a land and aquatic environment. How does natural evolution explain this?

Its the same reason why all planets are spherical. Where are the square, triangle shaped planets?

Specific environments produce similar results because those are the most efficient. Planets are spherical because that is the most efficient shape it produces with regards to gravity. Different types of animals have similar morphological characteristics because these are the most efficient methods of surviving in that environment.

What in science says life has the need to adapt and survive?
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 5:47:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 5:10:41 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/12/2015 1:38:50 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 7/12/2015 12:28:08 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/11/2015 6:14:46 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 7/10/2015 2:22:58 PM, janesix wrote:
I say convergent evolution is evidence for a common designer, reusing designs in different organisms for efficiency etc. Advocates for natural evolution say convergent evolution is a result of the same environments evolving the same organisms. But there are examples of convergent evolution where the environments are completely different. Such as the chamelion type of eye evolving in both a land and aquatic environment. How does natural evolution explain this?

Let's just suppose for a moment that evolution does not have an explanation for this. Now what? How do we get from that to an intelligent designer?

I would be happy to consider any other alternative explanation.

That's not how rational justification works.

If you don't have an explanation for something then you don't have an explanation for it. Asserting that an explanation is reasonable because you have no other explanation is an argument from ignorance, which is a logical fallacy for a reason. You're saying "I don't understand X, therefore Y". This is of course a logical contradiction because you are actually saying that because you don't understand something, you understand it.

And this is all of course under the assumption that biology does not have an answer for this, which I am sure biologists do not agree with.

It looks designed,and science can't explain it. What more evidence do I need? Intelligence agency is the only current known designer.

First of all "it looks designed" and "science can't explain it" are not evidence, they are assertions.

The reason why you think the universe looks designed is because you are looking at it backwards. That is, you are looking at the result then assuming that because you find some benefit to the way things are, that it must have been intended. You have absolutely no basis for this other than your own personal bias. This kind of thinking can affirm anything you want. Conspiracy theories are a great example of this as they use the exact same line of reasoning.

The way that we actually recognize design is by comparing things we know to be designed with nature. How do we know buildings are designed? Because we see people designing them and have never seen a building grow out of the ground on its own. How do we know paintings are designed? Because we see people making paintings and we have never seen a painting just pop out of the earth. The fact that these things have never been observed to occur without our intervention is by definition what makes them non-designed, yet your position is that that which has been observed to occur on its own is designed. That is absurd. You've essentially taken all meaning out of the word "designed" since by that thinking everything in the universe is now designed, hence my quote...

Argument from Intelligent Design: To look at what nature produces and say "Nature can't produce that!"
janesix
Posts: 3,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 7:32:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 5:47:55 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 7/12/2015 5:10:41 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/12/2015 1:38:50 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 7/12/2015 12:28:08 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/11/2015 6:14:46 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 7/10/2015 2:22:58 PM, janesix wrote:
I say convergent evolution is evidence for a common designer, reusing designs in different organisms for efficiency etc. Advocates for natural evolution say convergent evolution is a result of the same environments evolving the same organisms. But there are examples of convergent evolution where the environments are completely different. Such as the chamelion type of eye evolving in both a land and aquatic environment. How does natural evolution explain this?

Let's just suppose for a moment that evolution does not have an explanation for this. Now what? How do we get from that to an intelligent designer?

I would be happy to consider any other alternative explanation.

That's not how rational justification works.

If you don't have an explanation for something then you don't have an explanation for it. Asserting that an explanation is reasonable because you have no other explanation is an argument from ignorance, which is a logical fallacy for a reason. You're saying "I don't understand X, therefore Y". This is of course a logical contradiction because you are actually saying that because you don't understand something, you understand it.

And this is all of course under the assumption that biology does not have an answer for this, which I am sure biologists do not agree with.

It looks designed,and science can't explain it. What more evidence do I need? Intelligence agency is the only current known designer.

First of all "it looks designed" and "science can't explain it" are not evidence, they are assertions.

The reason why you think the universe looks designed is because you are looking at it backwards. That is, you are looking at the result then assuming that because you find some benefit to the way things are, that it must have been intended. You have absolutely no basis for this other than your own personal bias. This kind of thinking can affirm anything you want. Conspiracy theories are a great example of this as they use the exact same line of reasoning.

The way that we actually recognize design is by comparing things we know to be designed with nature. How do we know buildings are designed? Because we see people designing them and have never seen a building grow out of the ground on its own. How do we know paintings are designed? Because we see people making paintings and we have never seen a painting just pop out of the earth. The fact that these things have never been observed to occur without our intervention is by definition what makes them non-designed, yet your position is that that which has been observed to occur on its own is designed. That is absurd. You've essentially taken all meaning out of the word "designed" since by that thinking everything in the universe is now designed, hence my quote...

Argument from Intelligent Design: To look at what nature produces and say "Nature can't produce that!"

Outboard motors are designed. When you see one in nature, you can assume it was designed too.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 7:43:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 7:32:58 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/12/2015 5:47:55 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 7/12/2015 5:10:41 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/12/2015 1:38:50 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 7/12/2015 12:28:08 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/11/2015 6:14:46 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 7/10/2015 2:22:58 PM, janesix wrote:
I say convergent evolution is evidence for a common designer, reusing designs in different organisms for efficiency etc. Advocates for natural evolution say convergent evolution is a result of the same environments evolving the same organisms. But there are examples of convergent evolution where the environments are completely different. Such as the chamelion type of eye evolving in both a land and aquatic environment. How does natural evolution explain this?

Let's just suppose for a moment that evolution does not have an explanation for this. Now what? How do we get from that to an intelligent designer?

I would be happy to consider any other alternative explanation.

That's not how rational justification works.

If you don't have an explanation for something then you don't have an explanation for it. Asserting that an explanation is reasonable because you have no other explanation is an argument from ignorance, which is a logical fallacy for a reason. You're saying "I don't understand X, therefore Y". This is of course a logical contradiction because you are actually saying that because you don't understand something, you understand it.

And this is all of course under the assumption that biology does not have an answer for this, which I am sure biologists do not agree with.

It looks designed,and science can't explain it. What more evidence do I need? Intelligence agency is the only current known designer.

First of all "it looks designed" and "science can't explain it" are not evidence, they are assertions.

The reason why you think the universe looks designed is because you are looking at it backwards. That is, you are looking at the result then assuming that because you find some benefit to the way things are, that it must have been intended. You have absolutely no basis for this other than your own personal bias. This kind of thinking can affirm anything you want. Conspiracy theories are a great example of this as they use the exact same line of reasoning.

The way that we actually recognize design is by comparing things we know to be designed with nature. How do we know buildings are designed? Because we see people designing them and have never seen a building grow out of the ground on its own. How do we know paintings are designed? Because we see people making paintings and we have never seen a painting just pop out of the earth. The fact that these things have never been observed to occur without our intervention is by definition what makes them non-designed, yet your position is that that which has been observed to occur on its own is designed. That is absurd. You've essentially taken all meaning out of the word "designed" since by that thinking everything in the universe is now designed, hence my quote...

Argument from Intelligent Design: To look at what nature produces and say "Nature can't produce that!"

Outboard motors are designed. When you see one in nature, you can assume it was designed too.

Like another user pointed out to you already, you appear to have no interest in productive rational discourse. If this is all you have to say in response then I am wasting my time. Enjoy your not so in depth search for answers.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 7:50:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/10/2015 2:22:58 PM, janesix wrote:
I say convergent evolution is evidence for a common designer, reusing designs in different organisms for efficiency etc. Advocates for natural evolution say convergent evolution is a result of the same environments evolving the same organisms. But there are examples of convergent evolution where the environments are completely different. Such as the chamelion type of eye evolving in both a land and aquatic environment. How does natural evolution explain this?

You should learn about evolution before you declare it evidence for your claim.
janesix
Posts: 3,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 7:59:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 7:43:55 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 7/12/2015 7:32:58 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/12/2015 5:47:55 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 7/12/2015 5:10:41 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/12/2015 1:38:50 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 7/12/2015 12:28:08 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/11/2015 6:14:46 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 7/10/2015 2:22:58 PM, janesix wrote:
I say convergent evolution is evidence for a common designer, reusing designs in different organisms for efficiency etc. Advocates for natural evolution say convergent evolution is a result of the same environments evolving the same organisms. But there are examples of convergent evolution where the environments are completely different. Such as the chamelion type of eye evolving in both a land and aquatic environment. How does natural evolution explain this?

Let's just suppose for a moment that evolution does not have an explanation for this. Now what? How do we get from that to an intelligent designer?

I would be happy to consider any other alternative explanation.

That's not how rational justification works.

If you don't have an explanation for something then you don't have an explanation for it. Asserting that an explanation is reasonable because you have no other explanation is an argument from ignorance, which is a logical fallacy for a reason. You're saying "I don't understand X, therefore Y". This is of course a logical contradiction because you are actually saying that because you don't understand something, you understand it.

And this is all of course under the assumption that biology does not have an answer for this, which I am sure biologists do not agree with.

It looks designed,and science can't explain it. What more evidence do I need? Intelligence agency is the only current known designer.

First of all "it looks designed" and "science can't explain it" are not evidence, they are assertions.

The reason why you think the universe looks designed is because you are looking at it backwards. That is, you are looking at the result then assuming that because you find some benefit to the way things are, that it must have been intended. You have absolutely no basis for this other than your own personal bias. This kind of thinking can affirm anything you want. Conspiracy theories are a great example of this as they use the exact same line of reasoning.

The way that we actually recognize design is by comparing things we know to be designed with nature. How do we know buildings are designed? Because we see people designing them and have never seen a building grow out of the ground on its own. How do we know paintings are designed? Because we see people making paintings and we have never seen a painting just pop out of the earth. The fact that these things have never been observed to occur without our intervention is by definition what makes them non-designed, yet your position is that that which has been observed to occur on its own is designed. That is absurd. You've essentially taken all meaning out of the word "designed" since by that thinking everything in the universe is now designed, hence my quote...

Argument from Intelligent Design: To look at what nature produces and say "Nature can't produce that!"

Outboard motors are designed. When you see one in nature, you can assume it was designed too.

Like another user pointed out to you already, you appear to have no interest in productive rational discourse. If this is all you have to say in response then I am wasting my time. Enjoy your not so in depth search for answers.

Good bye.
Cryo
Posts: 202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 11:40:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 5:10:41 PM, janesix wrote:

It looks designed,and science can't explain it. What more evidence do I need? Intelligence agency is the only current known designer.

Which intelligence agency? Are you saying the CIA or MI6 is responsible for evolution? That's a bold claim. They haven't even been around long enough. I call BS.
JMcKinley
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 11:03:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 7:32:58 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/12/2015 5:47:55 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 7/12/2015 5:10:41 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/12/2015 1:38:50 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 7/12/2015 12:28:08 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/11/2015 6:14:46 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 7/10/2015 2:22:58 PM, janesix wrote:
I say convergent evolution is evidence for a common designer, reusing designs in different organisms for efficiency etc. Advocates for natural evolution say convergent evolution is a result of the same environments evolving the same organisms. But there are examples of convergent evolution where the environments are completely different. Such as the chamelion type of eye evolving in both a land and aquatic environment. How does natural evolution explain this?

Let's just suppose for a moment that evolution does not have an explanation for this. Now what? How do we get from that to an intelligent designer?

I would be happy to consider any other alternative explanation.

That's not how rational justification works.

If you don't have an explanation for something then you don't have an explanation for it. Asserting that an explanation is reasonable because you have no other explanation is an argument from ignorance, which is a logical fallacy for a reason. You're saying "I don't understand X, therefore Y". This is of course a logical contradiction because you are actually saying that because you don't understand something, you understand it.

And this is all of course under the assumption that biology does not have an answer for this, which I am sure biologists do not agree with.

It looks designed,and science can't explain it. What more evidence do I need? Intelligence agency is the only current known designer.

First of all "it looks designed" and "science can't explain it" are not evidence, they are assertions.

The reason why you think the universe looks designed is because you are looking at it backwards. That is, you are looking at the result then assuming that because you find some benefit to the way things are, that it must have been intended. You have absolutely no basis for this other than your own personal bias. This kind of thinking can affirm anything you want. Conspiracy theories are a great example of this as they use the exact same line of reasoning.

The way that we actually recognize design is by comparing things we know to be designed with nature. How do we know buildings are designed? Because we see people designing them and have never seen a building grow out of the ground on its own. How do we know paintings are designed? Because we see people making paintings and we have never seen a painting just pop out of the earth. The fact that these things have never been observed to occur without our intervention is by definition what makes them non-designed, yet your position is that that which has been observed to occur on its own is designed. That is absurd. You've essentially taken all meaning out of the word "designed" since by that thinking everything in the universe is now designed, hence my quote...

Argument from Intelligent Design: To look at what nature produces and say "Nature can't produce that!"

Outboard motors are designed. When you see one in nature, you can assume it was designed too.

No. That is a false equivalency and a fallacy.
JMcKinley
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 11:24:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/10/2015 2:22:58 PM, janesix wrote:
I say convergent evolution is evidence for a common designer, reusing designs in different organisms for efficiency etc. Advocates for natural evolution say convergent evolution is a result of the same environments evolving the same organisms. But there are examples of convergent evolution where the environments are completely different. Such as the chamelion type of eye evolving in both a land and aquatic environment. How does natural evolution explain this?

Its quite simple actually. The driving force behind evolution is natural selection. Natural selection is a non-random process by which traits that are beneficial to reproduction can be selected for over time. Similar environments will have similar natural selection pressure. So if the driving forces behind the evolution of two separate species are similar, then it would be expected that sometimes similar traits are selected for. If similar traits are selected for, then over time you would expect similar structures to develop.

This is evidence of non-random selection creating non-random results. Which is what evolution theory predicts. Making a connection between convergent evolution and an intelligent designer is not a logical step.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 1:24:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 5:12:37 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/12/2015 2:49:43 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 7/10/2015 2:22:58 PM, janesix wrote:
I say convergent evolution is evidence for a common designer, reusing designs in different organisms for efficiency etc. Advocates for natural evolution say convergent evolution is a result of the same environments evolving the same organisms. But there are examples of convergent evolution where the environments are completely different. Such as the chamelion type of eye evolving in both a land and aquatic environment. How does natural evolution explain this?

Its the same reason why all planets are spherical. Where are the square, triangle shaped planets?

Specific environments produce similar results because those are the most efficient. Planets are spherical because that is the most efficient shape it produces with regards to gravity. Different types of animals have similar morphological characteristics because these are the most efficient methods of surviving in that environment.

What in science says life has the need to adapt and survive?

Every single organism.
janesix
Posts: 3,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2015 12:39:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/13/2015 11:24:48 AM, JMcKinley wrote:
At 7/10/2015 2:22:58 PM, janesix wrote:
I say convergent evolution is evidence for a common designer, reusing designs in different organisms for efficiency etc. Advocates for natural evolution say convergent evolution is a result of the same environments evolving the same organisms. But there are examples of convergent evolution where the environments are completely different. Such as the chamelion type of eye evolving in both a land and aquatic environment. How does natural evolution explain this?

Its quite simple actually. The driving force behind evolution is natural selection. Natural selection is a non-random process by which traits that are beneficial to reproduction can be selected for over time. Similar environments will have similar natural selection pressure. So if the driving forces behind the evolution of two separate species are similar, then it would be expected that sometimes similar traits are selected for. If similar traits are selected for, then over time you would expect similar structures to develop.

This is evidence of non-random selection creating non-random results. Which is what evolution theory predicts. Making a connection between convergent evolution and an intelligent designer is not a logical step.

Which is why I mentioned the convergence that happened in totally dissimilar environments. How do you explain that?
janesix
Posts: 3,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2015 12:40:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/13/2015 1:24:46 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 7/12/2015 5:12:37 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/12/2015 2:49:43 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 7/10/2015 2:22:58 PM, janesix wrote:
I say convergent evolution is evidence for a common designer, reusing designs in different organisms for efficiency etc. Advocates for natural evolution say convergent evolution is a result of the same environments evolving the same organisms. But there are examples of convergent evolution where the environments are completely different. Such as the chamelion type of eye evolving in both a land and aquatic environment. How does natural evolution explain this?

Its the same reason why all planets are spherical. Where are the square, triangle shaped planets?

Specific environments produce similar results because those are the most efficient. Planets are spherical because that is the most efficient shape it produces with regards to gravity. Different types of animals have similar morphological characteristics because these are the most efficient methods of surviving in that environment.

What in science says life has the need to adapt and survive?

Every single organism.

What scientific explanation does evolution have for that? What makes an organism want to survive?