Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Charlemagne]

Thomas Aquinas, Theologian

"Nature is nothing but the plan of some art, namely a divine one, put into things themselves, by which those things move toward a concrete end: as if the man who builds up a ship could give to the pieces of wood that they could move by themselves to produce the form of the ship."

Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, Book II, Chapter 8

[Sculptor1]

The purpose of this thread it to bring forward all the arguments and evidence that we humans and the world around us is designed/created rather than the result of a process.


DNA is likely designed

What is the likelihood and why do you think so?

You seem to dance about the topic.

If it was consciously (which I presume you mean) designed, then why has it taken billions of years?
If humans were conceived in some mind or minds then what were those minds doing for 14 billion years?
And what reason do they have for, say, Pluto?
WHy is 99.9999999999999999% of the universe apparently functionless and lifeless?

Interesting question. Perhaps the billions of years strike you as unnecessary. On the other hand, since God exists outside time and created time, the reason for taking so long to create us was to give us a reason to ask questions about the creation, to seek to know, for example, when the moment of creation began (with the Big Bang) and all the other questions that keep scientists digging to know the mind of God. So perhaps that vast universe is full of function and life after all?

no

[3017Metaphysician]

Nice trick. I reject emotions and you accuse me of posting emotionally. A career in politics beckons for you.

Aesthetics mean nothing. They most certainly do stem from survival instincts and reproductive drives, some directly and some indirectly. (Amusingly, only #7 was even slightly relatable).

I wish I could say you are doing fine, but that would not be honest.

Does your lack of response mean that you can't support your position? Please feel free to make your case if you are even able to...

It means that I don't think you have the chops, and I seek more sophisticated ideas.

We're confused SB! Let me offer another opportunity for you to support your claim(s):

These random things, relating to quality-of-life stuff, have no survival advantages:

1. SB purchased shoes and a dress because it makes her feel and look good (and has causal effects on her self-esteem)
2. SB fell in love because her partner looks good (causally, certainly the partner can't look bad to her)
3. SB purchased a house because it looks good, and she feels good about it
4. SB wears makeup because it makes her look and feel good, and enhances her self-esteem
5. SB purchased a vehicle because it looks good, and consequently she feels good about it
7. SB purchased a CD, or otherwise likes or dislikes certain kinds of music because it feels good to listen to it

Isn't that a miracle!!

Keep trying SB, you're doing just fine!!!

[Sy Borg]

I have no idea what you are talking about. Besides, only #7 applies, or applied before the advent of MP3s.

Whatever, aesthetics have their roots in evolution.

[EricPH]

Men intentionally design artefacts such as robots.

You recognise that in order for man to copy the design of our bodies, it can only be done by intelligent design, and I agree with you. Engineers can look at hands, feet eyes and plan how they can replicate them. We know engineers have thousands of years of accumulated knowledge, they have blueprints, tools, computers and materials.

Snowflakes and skeletons are designed but nobody designed them.

Blind nature did not have the blueprints, it had no goals, it did not have to create anything. Starting from single cell life 3.5 billion years ago, how did it happen? If life started in the oceans, then what tools did blind nature have? There was the tide to swish chemicals around, sunlight, lightning, hot and cold water. These tools seem very crude and inadequate to make eyes and a skeletal system for fish.

[3017Metaphysician]

I have no idea what you are talking about. Besides, only #7 applies, or applied before the advent of MP3s.

Whatever, aesthetics have their roots in evolution.

SB!

Great. Let's dive into your assertions that they have 'roots in evolution." How does music theory have biological survival advantage? (We'll take one item at a time and see if you can support your assertions).

[Belindi]

Men intentionally design artefacts such as robots.

You recognise that in order for man to copy the design of our bodies, it can only be done by intelligent design, and I agree with you. Engineers can look at hands, feet eyes and plan how they can replicate them. We know engineers have thousands of years of accumulated knowledge, they have blueprints, tools, computers and materials.

Snowflakes and skeletons are designed but nobody designed them.

Blind nature did not have the blueprints, it had no goals, it did not have to create anything. Starting from single cell life 3.5 billion years ago, how did it happen? If life started in the oceans, then what tools did blind nature have? There was the tide to swish chemicals around, sunlight, lightning, hot and cold water. These tools seem very crude and inadequate to make eyes and a skeletal system for fish.

Please remember when you study natural selection you have to factor in geological time scales.

[EricPH]

Please remember when you study natural selection you have to factor in geological time scales.

Of course, but whether the time scale is four million or four billion years, change needs to happen. Apparently, the eye lens could have evolved in less than half a million years. If life started in the oceans, then what tools did blind nature have to cause change? There was the tide to swish chemicals around, sunlight, lightning, hot and cold water, an increase in oxygen levels. These tools seem very crude and inadequate to make eyes and a skeletal system for fish.

According to Nisson, random mutation had to make over 1800 improvements to the design of an eye lens. But what tools did random mutation have to come up with these improved incremental modifications each time? Natural selection had to work 1800 times to select the best modification. Failures happened along the way, but the end result was still 1800 wins.

[Belindi]

Please remember when you study natural selection you have to factor in geological time scales.

Of course, but whether the time scale is four million or four billion years, change needs to happen. Apparently, the eye lens could have evolved in less than half a million years. If life started in the oceans, then what tools did blind nature have to cause change? There was the tide to swish chemicals around, sunlight, lightning, hot and cold water, an increase in oxygen levels. These tools seem very crude and inadequate to make eyes and a skeletal system for fish.

According to Nisson, random mutation had to make over 1800 improvements to the design of an eye lens. But what tools did random mutation have to come up with these improved incremental modifications each time? Natural selection had to work 1800 times to select the best modification. Failures happened along the way, but the end result was still 1800 wins.

"Each time" you say . Most individuals died before they got to reproduce their genes. Of the individuals that survived long enough to reproduce, some of them were simply lucky enough to live that long. Others had light sensitive bits of skin that could detect the movement of a predator. Some other individual had a few extra smell detectors that enabled her to have a slight advantage over others. Over hundreds or millions of "each times" the better smeller and the better movement detector reproduced exponentially as compared with the less well endowed individuals.

The basic algorithm is :
Struggles for existence plus randomly mutated genes = natural selection (over thousands or millions of years).

[Sy Borg]

I have no idea what you are talking about. Besides, only #7 applies, or applied before the advent of MP3s.

Whatever, aesthetics have their roots in evolution.

SB!

Great. Let's dive into your assertions that they have 'roots in evolution." How does music theory have biological survival advantage? (We'll take one item at a time and see if you can support your assertions).

If you were even slightly interested in the answer, you would have checked the answer yourself and realised that there is copious information freely available about the purported evolutionary benefits of music. A simple Google search yields plenty of answers.

Do your own work. I'm not here to coddle the lazy and incurious.

[EricPH]

The basic algorithm is :
Struggles for existence plus randomly mutated genes = natural selection (over thousands or millions of years).

The algorithm seemed dormant for the first two to three billion years of single cell life. There seemed little need for eyes, jaws, fins, teeth etc. But then the absent algorithm woke up and in a mere few million years natural selection did it.

The limited range of tools at evolution's disposal seemed to be, currents swirling chemicals around in the ocean, temperature change, sunlight, lightning and more oxygen. These tools cannot explain the complexity of life we see today.

[3017Metaphysician]

I have no idea what you are talking about. Besides, only #7 applies, or applied before the advent of MP3s.

Whatever, aesthetics have their roots in evolution.

SB!

Great. Let's dive into your assertions that they have 'roots in evolution." How does music theory have biological survival advantage? (We'll take one item at a time and see if you can support your assertions).

If you were even slightly interested in the answer, you would have checked the answer yourself and realised that there is copious information freely available about the purported evolutionary benefits of music. A simple Google search yields plenty of answers.

Do your own work. I'm not here to coddle the lazy and incurious.

Let me ask you again. How does music theory have biological survival advantages? Remember, we are taking 1 of 7 slowly. I'll keep asking you until you can support your position.

[Belindi]

Creationism and so-called 'intelligent design' are bad for Christianity, because when you support these you make Xianity disreputable. You need to be aware that Xianity is larger than Biblical literalism.

[Belindi]

The basic algorithm is :
Struggles for existence plus randomly mutated genes = natural selection (over thousands or millions of years).

The algorithm seemed dormant for the first two to three billion years of single cell life. There seemed little need for eyes, jaws, fins, teeth etc. But then the absent algorithm woke up and in a mere few million years natural selection did it.

The limited range of tools at evolution's disposal seemed to be, currents swirling chemicals around in the ocean, temperature change, sunlight, lightning and more oxygen. These tools cannot explain the complexity of life we see today.

Certain wild disease bacteria which are single -celled life forms are caught and bred in labs. In the lab conditions these bacteria colonies have cushy lives and need not struggle for existence. The result is that the lab bred colonies would die out in the wild environment. When the weakened bacteria are injected into your muscle they cause you to make antibodies to the disease without giving you the disease.

I tell you this because the inoculation method as described illustrates how struggle for existence is necessary for natural selection. Artificial selection, as in the case of the lab grown bacteria, does not rely on struggle for existence.

[3017Metaphysician]

Creationism and so-called 'intelligent design' are bad for Christianity, because when you support these you make Xianity disreputable. You need to be aware that Xianity is larger than Biblical literalism.

Why?