-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Perfect symmetry by chance???
- Thread starter Rajina
- Start date
Rajina
Member
So do you think that if these were paintings on a wall, there is no intelligent designer needed for it and that it could have come up by chance??
The argument for God by design. I personally believe in a conscious intelligence behind nature but you will hear materialist people argue that this can all occur without conscious design. When I just think of DNA and abiogenesis I really think the materialist position is unlikely to the extreme (but no one can prove it wrong). My reason for 'design' belief entails issues even beyond complexity, people that experience beyond the physical layer and see deeper into the workings of this universe.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
If these were some paintings on a wall and if someone argues that these paintings doesn't have a designer and that the perfect symmetry in those pictures came out by chance by throwing paint on wall for millions of years, would you believe it????
These have a design and they don't have a designer. We can wonder, appreciate, and some of us even give reverence to the awe of creation (if you like) and design. We also give thought of how nature takes care of us. Yet, among all of our connection with nature, I personally can't find a sticker that says "this is made by the creator". We can assume, be poetic, et cetera. and it that doesn't mean our personal connection makes a designer exist.
Logically, how do you get a the design of a flower to an entity?
That, and, without a designer doesn't mean things happened by chance? Even if it did (in my faith, it does), what's wrong with that? It's the nature of life the change and forming of things.
Last edited:
Skwim
Veteran Member
Nope, because that's not how paints behave, whereas nature sometimes does. Or weren't you aware of this? From an article in Wikipedia:
Spirals
Further information: phyllotaxis
Spirals are common in plants and in some animals, notably molluscs. For example, in the nautilus, a cephalopod mollusc, each chamber of its shell is an approximate copy of the next one, scaled by a constant factor and arranged in a logarithmic spiral.[42] Given a modern understanding of fractals, a growth spiral can be seen as a special case of self-similarity.[43]
Plant spirals can be seen in phyllotaxis, the arrangement of leaves on a stem, and in the arrangement (parastichy[44]) of other parts as in composite flower heads and seed heads like the sunflower or fruit structures like the pineapple[45]:337 and snake fruit, as well as in the pattern of scales in pine cones, where multiple spirals run both clockwise and anticlockwise. These arrangements have explanations at different levels – mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology – each individually correct, but all necessary together.[46] Phyllotaxis spirals can be generated mathematically from Fibonacci ratios: the Fibonacci sequence runs 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13... (each subsequent number being the sum of the two preceding ones). For example, when leaves alternate up a stem, one rotation of the spiral touches two leaves, so the pattern or ratio is 1/2. In hazel the ratio is 1/3; in apricot it is 2/5; in pear it is 3/8; in almond it is 5/13.[47] In disc phyllotaxis as in the sunflower and daisy, the florets are arranged in Fermat's spiral with Fibonacci numbering, at least when the flowerhead is mature so all the elements are the same size. Fibonacci ratios approximate the golden angle, 137.508°, which governs the curvature of Fermat's spiral.[48]
From the point of view of physics, spirals are lowest-energy configurations[49] which emerge spontaneously through self-organizing processes in dynamic systems.[50] From the point of view of chemistry, a spiral can be generated by a reaction-diffusion process, involving both activation and inhibition. Phyllotaxis is controlled by proteins that manipulate the concentration of the plant hormone auxin, which activates meristem growth, alongside other mechanisms to control the relative angle of buds around the stem.[51] From a biological perspective, arranging leaves as far apart as possible in any given space is favoured by natural selection as it maximises access to resources, especially sunlight for photosynthesis.[45]
Further information: phyllotaxis
Spirals are common in plants and in some animals, notably molluscs. For example, in the nautilus, a cephalopod mollusc, each chamber of its shell is an approximate copy of the next one, scaled by a constant factor and arranged in a logarithmic spiral.[42] Given a modern understanding of fractals, a growth spiral can be seen as a special case of self-similarity.[43]
Plant spirals can be seen in phyllotaxis, the arrangement of leaves on a stem, and in the arrangement (parastichy[44]) of other parts as in composite flower heads and seed heads like the sunflower or fruit structures like the pineapple[45]:337 and snake fruit, as well as in the pattern of scales in pine cones, where multiple spirals run both clockwise and anticlockwise. These arrangements have explanations at different levels – mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology – each individually correct, but all necessary together.[46] Phyllotaxis spirals can be generated mathematically from Fibonacci ratios: the Fibonacci sequence runs 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13... (each subsequent number being the sum of the two preceding ones). For example, when leaves alternate up a stem, one rotation of the spiral touches two leaves, so the pattern or ratio is 1/2. In hazel the ratio is 1/3; in apricot it is 2/5; in pear it is 3/8; in almond it is 5/13.[47] In disc phyllotaxis as in the sunflower and daisy, the florets are arranged in Fermat's spiral with Fibonacci numbering, at least when the flowerhead is mature so all the elements are the same size. Fibonacci ratios approximate the golden angle, 137.508°, which governs the curvature of Fermat's spiral.[48]
From the point of view of physics, spirals are lowest-energy configurations[49] which emerge spontaneously through self-organizing processes in dynamic systems.[50] From the point of view of chemistry, a spiral can be generated by a reaction-diffusion process, involving both activation and inhibition. Phyllotaxis is controlled by proteins that manipulate the concentration of the plant hormone auxin, which activates meristem growth, alongside other mechanisms to control the relative angle of buds around the stem.[51] From a biological perspective, arranging leaves as far apart as possible in any given space is favoured by natural selection as it maximises access to resources, especially sunlight for photosynthesis.[45]
For more detailed information about how this geometry arises in plants see HERE
.
Something I have noticed. People who compare evolutionary process to randomly throwing paint always turn out to know very little about the science.
Tom
Evolution isn't a 'by chance' process. The mutations are by chance, the environmental selection isn't. The reason patterns reflect the Fibonacci sequence, (though seldom exactly) especially in plants, has to do with efficient structures selected over time by environmental selection. In plants case, efficient light capture for photosynthesis or advertisement to pollinators or a combination of both. In the case of shells, it's structural stability.
The fact that not all plants and shells are confined to the golden mean would suggest, however, that any potential intelligent designer would have made some things less efficiently than others (unintelligent design). But it makes perfect sense in evolution as some would evolve more efficiently than others due to environmental factors and the rise of particular genes which can be selected for those patterns.
The fact that not all plants and shells are confined to the golden mean would suggest, however, that any potential intelligent designer would have made some things less efficiently than others (unintelligent design). But it makes perfect sense in evolution as some would evolve more efficiently than others due to environmental factors and the rise of particular genes which can be selected for those patterns.
How are you determining likeliness? What model of probability are you using? I find that most creationists or intelligent designers tend to manufacture probability off inconsistent or outright unscientific models ( like this http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/views.gif ). Basically building strawmen out of abiogenesis and evolution.
You are right that any mathematical argument is beyond me. I am just using my intuition and common sense thinking. I think even the great atheist Antony Flew became convinced of the argument for conscious design from his study of DNA. Certainly, the more certain argument from design for me comes from the teachings and experiences of those who I believe can experience and perceive beyond the familiar physical level.
Skwim
Veteran Member
And speaking of an intelligent designer. How about the human body. For all its great attributes the designer made some god-awful blunders, such as putting the openings for the trachea and the esophagus right next to each other. Sure there's the epiglottis that covers the opening to the larynx whenever you swallow, but sometimes the epiglottis just isn’t fast enough. Choke! Choke! And how about our spine, which is ill-suited for bipedalism, and far better suited for going on all fours. Or the much too narrow pelvis in women. Why make giving birth such an excruciating painful ordeal when it doesn't have to be? And why are our genitals so close to our rectum? As has been said, If God was a city planner he'd be putting playgrounds next to sewage systems.
.
.
Last edited:
It isn't really a fair comparison to a painting. There would have been millions of paintings leading to the point of being able to produce a flower. Since everything uses the same pieces and they only ever fit together symmetrically, increased complexity isn't much of a surprise.If these were some paintings on a wall and if someone argues that these paintings doesn't have a designer and that the perfect symmetry in those pictures came out by chance by throwing random paints on wall for millions of years, would you believe it????
Ahem.....there are materialists that don't have a problem with intent being involved but still consider the spawning of life to be a somewhat drawn out process.
The paintings on the wall are all acts of nature, not of a designer. There is not a painting anywhere in any medium that didn't occur as 'act of nature.' Therefore no designer needed.
Is how I hear some of the responses in this thread being filtered. But fact is, all paintings everywhere are natural. Them the facts.
It's called physics, chemistry, biology, etc.If these were some paintings on a wall and if someone argues that these paintings doesn't have a designer and that the perfect symmetry in those pictures came out by chance by throwing random paints on wall for millions of years, would you believe it????
Plants have a unique biology that makes them grow in a self-similar fashion. I generated this image to show how an absurdly simple math equation (Mandelbrot) can result in complex geometry and symmetry that goes beyond what is normally seen in nature:
Edit: This isn't to prove or disprove the premise of the thread, only to add interest.
Edit: This isn't to prove or disprove the premise of the thread, only to add interest.
Unless someone could provide evidence for the claim, no, I wouldn't believe it. I don't know what your point is, though. It's certainly not about evolution, because evolution doesn't work that way.If these were some paintings on a wall and if someone argues that these paintings doesn't have a designer and that the perfect symmetry in those pictures came out by chance by throwing random paints on wall for millions of years, would you believe it????
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
If these were some paintings on a wall and if someone argues that these paintings doesn't have a designer and that the perfect symmetry in those pictures came out by chance by throwing random paints on wall for millions of years, would you believe it????
That which is designed is not necessarily symmetrical -and the pattern of thrown paints could be symmetrical if the environment they were thrown in, etc., caused them to be. (If the throwing action was symmetrical or the canvas was spinning or moving in a symmetrical pattern, etc..)
Those plants above HAVE design -are of a specific design -and we KNOW that the specific design of plants is generally not the result of a DIRECT design decisions by an intelligent designer -though we, ourselves, can make direct design decisions which affect their design. Design does not have to be direct -and systems can be of a design which in turn produces design decisions without self-awareness.
As things are now in motion and interacting based on the nature of the various elements and forces, many symmetrical and non-symmetrical designs are being produced by such, but things can also be designed using those things by a self-aware intelligence -and those designs can be a reproduction of that which would or could happen without them, or can be designs which would or could not happen without them.
What needs to be determined is the most basic nature of all things, and from there what must have been responsible for what at any given point.
We know from our own environment that -at this point -some things can happen without us -and some things cannot happen without us.
If we understand the most basic nature of all things, we may determine whether a self-aware designer was required for various things -what might have been designed directly or indirectly -and even the nature of that designer.
(also... An intelligent designer can throw a bunch of paints at a canvas just to see what happens -because it is fun -whatever)
Last edited:
Theory two is that design is by nature beings/spirits that are beyond us in their area of intelligence but not Omni-anything. They worked and experimented with the physical elements to advance life.