The condition of necessity

Gus Bovona

Member
Evolution necessarily predicts that certain patterns of similarities and differences in organisms will be observed, and necessarily predicts that other patterns of similarities and differences will not be observed.

To my knowledge, the design claim however, does not necessarily predict the pattern of similarities and differences that we observe in organisms, nor necessarily predicts that other patterns will not be observed.

An important aspect of this is the fact that such patterns must *necessarily* follow from the claim. In the case of the designer, one might satisfy that necessity condition by showing that, perhaps, the designer could not have created, because of some stated external restriction, certain patterns of similarity and difference in organisms; or, perhaps, some stated internal characteristic of the designer would lead to certain similarities and differences, but not others. There might be other ways, too.

Can anyone satisfy this condition of necessity for the design claim?
 

CrowCross

Active member
Evolution necessarily predicts that certain patterns of similarities and differences in organisms will be observed, and necessarily predicts that other patterns of similarities and differences will not be observed.

To my knowledge, the design claim however, does not necessarily predict the pattern of similarities and differences that we observe in organisms, nor necessarily predicts that other patterns will not be observed.

An important aspect of this is the fact that such patterns must *necessarily* follow from the claim. In the case of the designer, one might satisfy that necessity condition by showing that, perhaps, the designer could not have created, because of some stated external restriction, certain patterns of similarity and difference in organisms; or, perhaps, some stated internal characteristic of the designer would lead to certain similarities and differences, but not others. There might be other ways, too.

Can anyone satisfy this condition of necessity for the design claim?
When God designed animals..and needed a set of legs to provide locomotion in a certain way to acheive a certain purpose it would make sense that the animals that God of the bible intelligently designed to walk/run/hop in a certain way would have used similar leg parts.
God could have put alligator legs on a horse...but then the horse wouldn't do well in the Kentucky Derby.

You had said in your post..."To my knowledge, the design claim however, does not necessarily predict the pattern of similarities and differences that we observe in organisms" ...I think you could predict God would not put fins on a kitty cat.

Then again God did create the platypus....and the living creatures such as described in Rev 4.
 

Gus Bovona

Member
When God designed animals..and needed a set of legs to provide locomotion in a certain way to acheive a certain purpose it would make sense that the animals that God of the bible intelligently designed to walk/run/hop in a certain way would have used similar leg parts.
Having it make sense does nothing to address the points in the OP. Unfalsifiable hypotheses typically make sense, that is, they are internally consistent. But that's not the point in the OP.
God could have put alligator legs on a horse...but then the horse wouldn't do well in the Kentucky Derby.
Assuming there doesn't have to be a Kentucky Derby with horses as we know them, I'm not sure I need to take this point seriously.

You had said in your post..."To my knowledge, the design claim however, does not necessarily predict the pattern of similarities and differences that we observe in organisms" ...I think you could predict God would not put fins on a kitty cat.
What characteristic of God requires that there be no fins on cats?

Then again God did create the platypus....and the living creatures such as described in Rev 4.
Which argues against your point about cats.
 

CrowCross

Active member
Having it make sense does nothing to address the points in the OP. Unfalsifiable hypotheses typically make sense, that is, they are internally consistent. But that's not the point in the OP.
And here I thought I addressed the OP. Maybe you could do a better job of presenting it.
Assuming there doesn't have to be a Kentucky Derby with horses as we know them, I'm not sure I need to take this point seriously.

God made "kinds" The horse could be identified by Adam....do you know how?
What characteristic of God requires that there be no fins on cats?
None, unless you want a catfish.
Which argues against your point about cats.
 

Gus Bovona

Member
And here I thought I addressed the OP. Maybe you could do a better job of presenting it.
The OP isn't invalidated because some claim is internally consistent. All you did was present something that was internally consistent. That's why it doesn't address the OP.
None, unless you want a catfish.
The OP is all about the necessity of the claim *requiring* (=predicting) some observation. If there's no requirement for God to design in any particular way, there's no refutation of the OP.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
Evolution necessarily predicts that certain patterns of similarities and differences in organisms will be observed, and necessarily predicts that other patterns of similarities and differences will not be observed.
Speculationism.

Based on microscopic studies of prokaryotes demonstrate the first launch of a central Nervous System. How it was predicted.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
When God designed animals..and needed a set of legs to provide locomotion in a certain way to acheive a certain purpose it would make sense that the animals that God of the bible intelligently designed to walk/run/hop in a certain way would have used similar leg parts.
God could have put alligator legs on a horse...but then the horse wouldn't do well in the Kentucky Derby.

You had said in your post..."To my knowledge, the design claim however, does not necessarily predict the pattern of similarities and differences that we observe in organisms" ...I think you could predict God would not put fins on a kitty cat.

Then again God did create the platypus....and the living creatures such as described in Rev 4.
The Royal Society of Speculationism is stumped on their evoStory of bilaterian creatures. Creature has the same root as creation.

Mention walking upright. Human spinal cord comes down from the skull. Humans are not apes.

Foramen magnum in apes and humans dumps another blunder into evoStory.
 

CrowCross

Active member
The OP isn't invalidated because some claim is internally consistent. All you did was present something that was internally consistent. That's why it doesn't address the OP.

The OP is all about the necessity of the claim *requiring* (=predicting) some observation. If there's no requirement for God to design in any particular way, there's no refutation of the OP.
....and???
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
To my knowledge, the design claim however, does not necessarily predict the pattern of similarities and differences that we observe in organisms, nor necessarily predicts that other patterns will not be observed.



Can anyone satisfy this condition of necessity for the design claim?

How did your speculationism predict reptiles would require transition to a flow thru avian lung?

Oh, you can't prove some reptiles became birds and grew wings with feathers.
 
Top