*related=http://videosift.com/video/Cute-Flying-Humminbird-Mouse-This-is-not-a-bird-its-insect

Cute Flying Humminbird Mouse - This is not a bird, it's insect. has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals.

a common design indicates a common designer

Moterra??

No, actually, it doesn't. It beautifully shows the adaptations species make, over time, to best survive their particular environment. It's called EVOLUTION.

Actually in italian its name is way cooler, we call it Galium Sphinx (Sfinge del Galio), and it's the insect with the best ability to fly of all (in terms of precision I mean).

Whether you accept it as an explanation or not, it's an undeniable fact that a common design indicates a common designer. When you see something like this in nature you don't make the inference because of your belief in evolution from universal common descent, but it is a valid inference to make. You explain it with convergent evolution, but it can also indicate a common designer.

Mosura-kaiju, is mutation not explained in natural evolutionary model-Mothra is result of the atom's rage against nature's imbalance....


モスラ

...only to some....

"...have to...undeniable...." This unfortunately may only be attributed by some as ill considered arrogance and refutable on the face of it.

Dear me... Blah, Blah, Blah. If you have nothing to say, resist the temptation to BLAH.

if life was designed... what designed the designer?!!! ect ect

I did not say "have to", but I do think the idea that a common design points to a common designer is undeniable. If it is arrogant to say that, I don't see how. Neither do I see how it could be refuted, or even why anyone would try to refute it. Note that I am entering the idea as a possible explanation and not saying it is the only possible conclusion one might come to, barring further evidence. I think it is obvious, but I didn't always.

"only to some"

Actually, to most..even in America, the idea of evolution being an unguided process is believed by a small minority of people(15 percent). The majority of Americans believe in creationism:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/05/americans-believe-in-creationism_n_1571127.html

Christians believe that God is an eternal being, meaning that He didn't have a designer; He has always existed. If you don't believe in something eternal then you must believe that something came from nothing, which is a logical impossibility.

You can believe that the universe is eternal without invoking god. Admittedly, belief in an eternal god and belief in an eternal universe are both equally useless and unprovable.

You are ABSOLUTELY correct:

The common designer is the force of evolution to exploit niches and common design features.

The evidence suggests that time, space matter and energy had an absolute beginning at the big bang, so you would have to believe the Universe is eternal contrary to the evidence. So it leaves you with the problem with explaining what the ultimate first cause is. You cannot have an infinite regress of causes, so the buck has to stop somewhere. Either you attempt to conjure something out of nothing or you have to admit that something eternal created this universe.

What is the specific piece of evidence that has you totally convinced that evolution is the ultimate cause of the design rather than a Creator?

How about "we don't know yet"? We're ignorant on many things, and many of the ideas we have about the universe will probably turn out to be false in light of further research. Maybe some of the questions we're asking will turn out to be pointless. That doesn't mean faith-based explanations are correct. It just means we don't know yet.

Science is about making educated guesses, rejecting theories once proven false, coming up with new ones fitting empirical data and above all, having a reasonable process for deciding what explanations for phenomena seem most likely at any given time. Where is that ability for self-correction in religion? How would you decide which religion is most likely to be correct - if any are?

There isn't anything wrong with saying "I don't know". Yet, what I've observed is that there is an obsession with the search. What is the point of the search if not to find the answer? Is it wrong to think there may be an answer?

Christians claim that there is a God who has given us answers, yet this doesn't impede scientific research. Johann Kepler said as he made discoveries that he felt like he was thinking Gods thoughts after him. There is no actual incompatibility with a belief in God and true science. That I claim an answer as to where the Universe came from doesn't prevent anyone from finding out how it works. And finding out how it works doesn't preclude God from having created it. To say it did would be outside the realm of empirical research and be resting on faith.

This is what Robert Jastrow had to say about that dichotomy:

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

Any poll taken is always absolutely correct. I just polled 10 people, none of them picked creationism therefore 100% of Americans believe in evolution.

Earth: the common designer.

If that were true, then people wouldn't be able to design things that are similar to other things. Yet, almost everything that is designed is similar to something else. Of course, your real mistake is the fallacy of many questions. You assume there is a design, but that isn't proven.

The discovery of the DNA molecule and genetics in general.

Also, the complete and total lack of any empirical evidence of a supernatural creator.

It's true that separate people can design things which are similar, however, let us say that you saw two 747s flying on different continents..would you assume that they were separately designed?

According to your beliefs, as some have pointed out, the hummingbird and hummingmoth were designed by the evolutionary process, so the observation would hold true; a common design does indicate a common designer. You may believe that designer is evolution, and the miracle of the hummingbird wing was independently developed in the hummingmoth, but that strains credulity and probability. It is more reasonable to believe that they were intelligently designed.

It would not be correct to say that I assume that there is a design. I know there is a design because I know there is a God.

It's interesting that you would mention DNA because there is more evidence there of intelligent design than anywhere else. Did you know that DNA is more sophisticated than any code we have ever developed? It has digital information storage and retrieval, optimization, redundancy, and error correction.

DNA is also a language, and it has an alphabet, a coding system, correct spelling, grammar, meaning and intended purpose. Because DNA can be both classified as a code and a language, both of which we know only come from minds, we can reasonably conclude that DNA was intelligently designed.

Here is a book you might enjoy on the subject:

http://www.amazon.com/Beginning-Was-Information-Scientist-Incredible/dp/0890514615

"Also, the complete and total lack of any empirical evidence of a supernatural creator."

I would pose the question..how would you tell the difference between a Universe that was designed and one that wasn't? How would you know which one you were in?

If it's true that separate people can design things which are similar, then we're done. Your point is invalid. Your analogy about 747s is irrelevant, but even if it wasn't, it still isn't an accurate analogy since two 747s are the exact same design. We're talking about similar designs, and there are many, many airplanes that have a design that's similar to a 747.

Evolution, though, isn't a designer. It's just a word we use to describe a process. That process results in some life looking similar to other life, which isn't surprising considering that many of the environments that have life are similar.

Your assertion about the hummingbird wing being independently developed straining credulity and probability is just a bare assertion. Similar things have happened many times. I don't understand why it's surprising that species in a similar environment would development similar solutions to similar problems. To say that they were designed by a force that you don't understand isn't reasonable. It's not even an explanation.

DNA is not a language. The word language implies that someone created it, but we haven't proven that. DNA contains molecules that do certain things. Those molecules could be interpreted as information, but so could any other matter, such as the rings of a tree. Just because DNA works a certain way doesn't mean that we get to slap any label we want on it.

How would I tell the difference between a universe that is designed, and one that wasn't? Just like I tell that anything else was designed. I compare the two. Do you have a designed universe for me to compare this one to?

Shinyblurry,
Is there some reason the creator could not have created evolution?

If you believe DNA was the result of intelligent design, then the creator did an absolute shit job of it: there's so many ways that things can and do go wrong at the genetic level -- cancer, birth defects, aging, death -- that you would have to conclude the creator has a special love for causing suffering based on his bad designs; the creator is a rampant sadist.

Your second question is silly: how would you know if you were living in a universe where bananas are grapes and grapes are monkeys? But I understand what you're trying to get at and the answer is that the universe I live in has no empirical evidence for a creator and a very workable theory for how life came about and evolved over time.

So here's a question for you: if there is a creator, why is he so incredibly bad at it (99.9% of all species that ever lived are now extinct) and why does he like beetles so much (there's a staggering number of beetle species)?

@StukaFox OH, oh, I know the answer to this one: Because God loves rock'n roll....reflected in creation through beatles, rolling stones, arctic monkeys, etc.

With about 400,000 species, I would say that the dude was obsessed with them critters. I, for one, welcome our new beetle overlords.