tactile sensory units, 2

[justlookinla]

Cause he says so.

Cause complex, functional and purposful tactile sensory units don't just create themselves willy-nilly.

 

[justlookinla]

Where have you pointed out design in a living organism?

I've pointed out elements of design in tactile sensory units, be they living or non-living.

 

[crjmurray]

I've pointed out elements of design in tactile sensory units, be they living or non-living.

Elements of design in a living organism? Where?

 

[justlookinla]

Elements of design in a living organism? Where?

Complexity, functionality and purpose in the tactile sensory units.

 

[crjmurray]

Complexity, functionality and purpose in the tactile sensory units.

Got nothing huh?

 

[justlookinla]

Got nothing huh?

Complexity, functionality and purpose in tactile sensory units.

 

[crjmurray]

Complexity, functionality and purpose in tactile sensory units.

Pointing out arbitrary similarities and using technical jargon to label organic parts is not evidence of design. If you actually want to answer how to detect design feel free to do so.

 

[justlookinla]

Pointing out arbitrary similarities and using technical jargon to label organic parts is not evidence of design. If you actually want to answer how to detect design feel free to do so.

Of course it's evidence of design. The comparable elements of complexity, functionality and purpose indicate one of two things....

1) Design is present in the tactile sensory units as evidenced by the shared elements within the designs.

2) The tactile sensory units are not designed but rather the products of willy-nilly, random, chance, haphazard creation.

Which will it be?

 

[crjmurray]

Of course it's evidence of design. The comparable elements of complexity, functionality and purpose indicate one of two things....

1) Design is present in the tactile sensory units as evidenced by the shared elements within the designs.

2) The tactile sensory units are not designed but rather the products of willy-nilly, random, chance, haphazard creation.

Which will it be?

You failed at number one.

Show the elements of design in a living organism. Leave your TSU phrase in the other thread.

 

[justlookinla]

You failed at number one.

What about #2?

Show the elements of design in a living organism. Leave your TSU phrase in the other thread.

This thread is about tactile sensory units (see thread heading).

A few of the shared design elements of the tactile sensory units are circuitry interconnected for a purpose, programming, feedback for a purpose, language and common sensory information.

 

[crjmurray]

What about #2?



This thread is about tactile sensory units (see thread heading).

A few of the shared design elements of the tactile sensory units are circuitry interconnected for a purpose, programming, feedback for a purpose, language and common sensory information.

I'm not going to address the second one if the first one is ridiculous.

See, you're just asserting that there are similarities, therefore design. Point out design features. Show us design elements. Arbitrarily pointing out similarities is not evidence for design.

 

[justlookinla]

I'm not going to address the second one if the first one is ridiculous.

The second one is the option if the first one isn't valid. Simply because you'll not address it doesn't mean it's going away.

See, you're just asserting that there are similarities, therefore design. Point out design features. Show us design elements. Arbitrarily pointing out similarities is not evidence for design.

Point out design features? Are you reading my posts.

1) circuitry interconnected for a purpose
2) programming
3) feedback for a purpose
4) language
5) common sensory information

Now again, are these features of design (intelligence) or products of willy-nilly, random, chance, haphazard creation?

 

[Loudmouth]

Point out design features? Are you reading my posts.

1) circuitry interconnected for a purpose
2) programming
3) feedback for a purpose
4) language
5) common sensory information

Now again, are these features of design (intelligence) or products of willy-nilly, random, chance, haphazard creation?

Humans fail on the very first one. Designed systems use wire conductors to pass electrons between voltage differences that are at the end of the wires. The human nervous system has positive ions moving through gates that are parallel to the nerve impulse. They are not comparable. Therefore, humans are not designed.

 

[justlookinla]

Humans fail on the very first one. Designed systems use wire conductors to pass electrons between voltage differences that are at the end of the wires. The human nervous system has positive ions moving through gates that are parallel to the nerve impulse. They are not comparable. Therefore, humans are not designed.

1) circuitry interconnected for a purpose

There's circuity interconnected for the purpose of passing information. That's not only comparable, but an element of design.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Using only the definition of design biological organisms meet all of the requirements. Further, science, especially evolutionary science, demonstrates this with each new discovery. Simple diagrams done by early biologists reveal design. If living organisms were not designed scientists would be unable to make working diagrams (i.e. reverse engineering) of them.

 

[Loudmouth]

1) circuitry interconnected for a purpose

I already showed you how that isn't found in humans.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The second one is the option if the first one isn't valid. Simply because you'll not address it doesn't mean it's going away.



Point out design features? Are you reading my posts.

1) circuitry interconnected for a purpose
2) programming
3) feedback for a purpose
4) language
5) common sensory information

Now again, are these features of design (intelligence) or products of willy-nilly, random, chance, haphazard creation?

1, since when does life have circuitry? For one thing, not all living things have a nervous system, the closest biological equivalent, such as plants, anything that isn't multicellular... in fact, most living things don't have a nervous system. And while often compared to one, a nervous system works very differently from what one would normally consider to be circuitry. They are not equivalent, and hence, this is not evidence by your own logic.

2, what programming? DNA is not a program, it too works far differently from any program, even more so than the differences between circuitry and the nervous system. They are not equivalent and hence this is not evidence based on your own logic.

3, can you even provide evidence that "purpose" exists beyond some notion we associate with how something can be used? Even if I assume that purpose exists beyond a human construct, no amount of purpose would indicate design, only function.

4, Language is a human construct. Pattern is not language, there are patterns all over the place from which no meaning could ever be derived. DNA is a string of chemicals that catalyze chemical reactions, no more, no less. There are tons of similar things in nature that can cause the molecules in their surroundings to form into the same shape through presence alone; that is how prion diseases like Mad Cow Disease work: a malformed protein causes the other proteins around it to match its shape; a shape that happens to not break down, and it eventually builds up in tissues and causes damage. Additionally, any similarities in DNA between species is better explained by evolution than by intelligent design, because frankly, most DNA sequences don't do anything, and based off of a number of organisms that have significantly less of that junk than other organisms 'Junk' DNA Mystery Solved: It's Not Needed | Carnivorous Plant Has Tiny Genome any suggestion that the junk has a purpose is highly questionable. I can definitely question why any designer would add so much pointless material (the majority of the DNA in most organisms is junk) but evolution accounts for it with ease, because evolution is an imperfect natural process, not an omnipotent and omniscient creator, and is capable of making mistakes. We expect such things from a natural process, not a guided one. One cannot read DNA, nothing reads DNA, not even ribosomes or any other component, they just react to small pieces when exposed to it. Even our repair mechanisms are just skidding along until an incorrect base (which changes the DNA's shape) forces it to stop like a jammed zipper in a bent section.

5, Common sensory information, what are you even going on about? Every sensation, even between individuals of the same species, is going to be experienced differently due to varience in brain development in sensory processing and in sensory organs themselves. I personally have sensory integration disorder, which means my brain gets overwhelmed by certain sensory information and processes it as pain. Mint produces the "delightful" sensation of ripping my tongue with an ice cube, yet it must not be this unpleasant for everyone else, because so many people wouldn't enjoy it if that were the case. And when we do compare different species, the contrast is astronomical, to the extent of there being a different number of senses even. Can you detect electrical signals without some help from technology? A shark can. Can you see in infrared like a snake, or ultraviolet like a bee? Yes, we all live in the same reality, but we sure don't experience the same reality.

You argue in ignorance, as you claim things for comparisons which do not exist.

 

[justlookinla]

I already showed you how that isn't found in humans.

I've shown you how it is found in humans. Electrical circuitry, wiring to transmit and receive information.

 

[justlookinla]

1, since when does life have circuitry?

Since the designer designed the circuitry.

For one thing, not all living things have a nervous system, the closest biological equivalent, such as plants, anything that isn't multicellular... in fact, most living things don't have a nervous system.

Another thing is that this is about tactile sensory units. Do try to stay on topic if you wish to discuss the subject of the thread.

And while often compared to one, a nervous system works very differently from what one would normally consider to be circuitry. They are not equivalent, and hence, this is not evidence by your own logic.

Electrical circuity is used to transmit, and receive, information. Elements of design.

2, what programming? DNA is not a program, it too works far differently from any program, even more so than the differences between circuitry and the nervous system. They are not equivalent and hence this is not evidence based on your own logic.

Remember, tactile sensory units. When the sensor senses, information is produced. Information formatted to convey specific information. Programming is present to properly convey the information in a usable and repetitive manner.

3, can you even provide evidence that "purpose" exists beyond some notion we associate with how something can be used? Even if I assume that purpose exists beyond a human construct, no amount of purpose would indicate design, only function.

If you believe that the tactile sensory units were designed, and created, for a purpose other than tactile sensory units, please present your reasoning for such a view.

4, Language is a human construct. Pattern is not language, there are patterns all over the place from which no meaning could ever be derived. DNA is a string of chemicals that catalyze chemical reactions, no more, no less. There are tons of similar things in nature that can cause the molecules in their surroundings to form into the same shape through presence alone; that is how prion diseases like Mad Cow Disease work: a malformed protein causes the other proteins around it to match its shape; a shape that happens to not break down, and it eventually builds up in tissues and causes damage. Additionally, any similarities in DNA between species is better explained by evolution than by intelligent design, because frankly, most DNA sequences don't do anything, and based off of a number of organisms that have significantly less of that junk than other organisms 'Junk' DNA Mystery Solved: It's Not Needed | Carnivorous Plant Has Tiny Genome any suggestion that the junk has a purpose is highly questionable. I can definitely question why any designer would add so much pointless material (the majority of the DNA in most organisms is junk) but evolution accounts for it with ease, because evolution is an imperfect natural process, not an omnipotent and omniscient creator, and is capable of making mistakes. We expect such things from a natural process, not a guided one. One cannot read DNA, nothing reads DNA, not even ribosomes or any other component, they just react to small pieces when exposed to it. Even our repair mechanisms are just skidding along until an incorrect base (which changes the DNA's shape) forces it to stop like a jammed zipper in a bent section.

Language is created to exchange ideas and views, convey information, record information, disseminate information. Where language is found, intelligence is an integral part of it.

5, Common sensory information, what are you even going on about? Every sensation, even between individuals of the same species, is going to be experienced differently due to varience in brain development in sensory processing and in sensory organs themselves. I personally have sensory integration disorder, which means my brain gets overwhelmed by certain sensory information and processes it as pain. Mint produces the "delightful" sensation of ripping my tongue with an ice cube, yet it must not be this unpleasant for everyone else, because so many people wouldn't enjoy it if that were the case. And when we do compare different species, the contrast is astronomical, to the extent of there being a different number of senses even. Can you detect electrical signals without some help from technology? A shark can. Can you see in infrared like a snake, or ultraviolet like a bee? Yes, we all live in the same reality, but we sure don't experience the same reality.

Tactile sensory information is basically the same, touch something hot and the designed system goes to work.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I can definitely question why any designer would add so much pointless material (the majority of the DNA in most organisms is junk) but evolution accounts for it with ease, because evolution is an imperfect natural process, not an omnipotent and omniscient creator, and is capable of making mistakes. We expect such things from a natural process, not a guided one. One cannot read DNA, nothing reads DNA, not even ribosomes or any other component, they just react to small pieces when exposed to it. Even our repair mechanisms are just skidding along until an incorrect base (which changes the DNA's shape) forces it to stop like a jammed zipper in a bent section.

Hasn't science determined that crazy thoughts can alter DNA? Based on my experience most people are nuts to one degree or another (including myself) and therefore capable of really screwing up their DNA.