Not so. Given naturalism, the emergence of human intelligence is unexpected, hence remarkable.
I would infer design, because these clouds conform to pre-specified forms that are so unlikely to arise by the usual process of cloud formation as to be practically impossible.
Now, a couple follow up questions for you: Instead of clouds spelling out a message, you just see normal clouds in random shapes.
Would you be surprised? Would you infer design?
Now, let’s suppose that in this scenario God had actually very carefully and deliberately arranged the clouds into that specific formation, for purposes known only to him.
Would you now consider those clouds to be “designed”? If so, would you be able to detect this design without knowing that God had designed them?
Donald Trump winning the election in 2016 was unexpected, therefore remarkable.
Does that mean it was designed?
Then you agree there is no evidence for any design in planthopper legs because there is no contingency between human produced gears and insect ones. Glad we cleared that up.
1 Like
Why would it be unexpected? Intelligence is a physiological trait which aids in survival and reproduction. It is selectable and heritable just as size and strength and speed and camouflage are. Many other species also exhibit intelligence so it’s not remarkable at all we have it.
I don’t know what you mean by there is no contingency between human produced gears and insect ones? But the right think to say is that there is no dependency between human and insect gears. IOW, the two structures are independant.
Yes you do. It means the two patterns arose independently and having one (human gears) be known to be consciously designed does not mean the other (insect gears) were consciously designed. So you still have no evidence for any conscious design in biological life.
IOW, you would infer design based of the specified complexity criteria.
No and no.
No and no. But please note that the design inference aims at avoiding false positives, not false negatives.
Do you agree claiming leafhopper gears as evidence for design is a false positive?
No. In your cloud case we infer design because of the pre-specified contingent nature of the language used in the cloud message. You already admitted merely being specified (i.e. matching another pattern) is not evidence for Design. You need a way to link the two patterns.
If you really want to call it that, I guess, sure.
The point is there is nothing in biology that meets the same criteria, including the planthopper gears.
It’s as if you were arguing that because we can determine the inside of a Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup is made out of peanut butter, then so are the planthopper gears. Well, no, they aren’t because they don’t meet the same criteria required for something to be made of peanut butter.
No.
Let’s apply the design filter to the planthopper gears.
- Are they contingent : yes
- Are they complex: ?
- are they specified : yes
Based on this analysis, is a designed inference warranted ? Probably not, for, as far as I can tell, it is not possible to rigorously calculate the complexity (improbability) of the planthopper gears.
It’s not unexpected since it’s already happened. Also, if it hadn’t have happened, it wouldn’t be unexpected since there’d be no-one to not expect it. Nor is there any reason to accept your claim since it’s basically just your opinion about a worldview you don’t hold. You haven’t provided any evidence or reasoning.
No, a cloud that superficially looks like Great Britain doesn’t warrant a design inference. Such a cloud would represent what Dawkins calls « designoid ». Given the large number of clouds that forms in the sky, it is not surprising that some of them accidentally display forms that surperficially look like other known forms.
To illustrate the point, see the 3 pictures below:
Which, among these 3 pictures, warrant a design inference and which one is a designoid?
Wrong answer. The correct answer is “no.”
Please try spelling out your reasoning that led you to answer “yes”, and we can try show where you went wrong.
Okay. Since September 2001 already happened, it was expected!!! Very strange logic, to say the least.
Incorrect. And example of something that is “designoid” would be the gears of the planthopper.
Yes. And given the large number of adaptations that evolution produces, it is not surprising that things like the planthopper’s gears or human intelligence arise accidentally. One could not predict that these specific things would arise, just as one could not predict that a cloud looking like Great Britain would arise on a specific day and place. But we can predict with certainty that adaptations of this sort will arise repeatedly thru evolution. Some adaptations just look more impressive to our human minds, for no inherent reason of their own.
TBH, they all look designed to me. Is that not correct?
The Sept 11 attacks were unexpected and remarkable.
The tsunami of Dec 26, 2004, was also unexpected and unremarkable.
So should be we hunting down the terrorists who caused the tsunami, since by your argument it must have been “designed”, and you keep saying your criteria are designed to only eliminate false positives?
1 Like
No. Planthopper gears are not contingent on human designed gears. The two have nothing to do with one another.
Your same reasoning applies to all biological entities since it is not possible to rigorously calculate the complexity (improbability) of any biological feature or system.
It was not only expected, but people printed calendars for it in advance.
But perhaps you are referring to the events of Sept 11 2001 in the USA. They may have been unexpected then (though they were expected by some), but they are not unexpected now because we know they happened. Likewise, even if intelligence was unexpected before it evolved (or even was created), it’s not unexpected now because it already exists.
Do you understand this?
First thought; is Robespierre seeing this?
Secondly, assuming no trick by an arch villain scientist, and that I was not losing it under the madness of the times, I would take it as a supernatural delivery of a message by miracle. That would be because I would find the phenomena inexplicable in natural terms.
If the eye, sense of smell, flight feathers, or camouflages were similarly inexplicable to me in natural terms, I would be open to considering miraculous accounting for their origin. All this design detection really comes down to, does it look like a miracle to you? At one time, Paley’s watchmaker was pretty reasonable, but now I am satisfied that a natural path exists for such features in nature.
I too am curious as to how you arrive at this?
The planthopper gears conform to an independently given pattern, I.e., to human produced gears. Therefore, they are specified. I really don’t understand why this point seems so difficult to grasp for some people here.