Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[Oncedeceived]

You keep ignoring the possibility of evolution giving the results we see, instead of design. Why do you ignore the usual scientific reason for the patterns we see in living things?

Why do accept that evolution produces the results rather than design when the evidence supports design and evolution has no evidence that explains it?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Right, there is observation, very plain indicators of design. There is no question a motor is designed, unless one is into denial of the obvious.

Denial is obvious.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Do you have evidence, based on the scientific method, that bacterial flagellum and tactile sensory units are created by Darwinist evolution?

He has admitted that there is no evidence but then turns around and says that evolution did it. Evolution in the gaps.

 

[justlookinla]

He has admitted that there is no evidence but then turns around and says that evolution did it. Evolution in the gaps.

He's kinda confused.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You mean, some unnamed biologists may have an opinion that some things may appear designed. Is that all you have?

I gave a few names, the most famous ones. I've provided information in a following post to you.

 

[Oncedeceived]

He's kinda confused.

Or something...

 

[Smidlee]

In case you miss it here in this video the woman slipped up and said "intelligent" when someone tried help her out to say "careful selected" which is what intelligence does. They having a hard time denying intelligent design because their mind is shouting it.

 

[Davian]

Biological systems exhibit the properties of sophisticated engineered systems that resemble

Resemble?

methods developed by human engineers to accomplish complicated tasks. In biological systems we have those systems similar in human designs that include control signals that include information, detection and decision, signaling to induce a response from other systems all for a set goal. Planning is shown from mechanisms that are for correction and back-up systems that do not go into effect unless some event occurs which shows planning to address possible occurrences.

We see

See?

in human engineering of computational systems parts that executes actions in response to external inputs as well as internal stored information, in which timing and sequence are critical. Biological systems have clocks and an exquisite structure for synchronization of different processes, with triggers, delays, and several different clock cycles operating simultaneously.

Biological systems have similar

Similar?

mechanisms that reflect human designs in the machine. Rotors, structures that have similar mechanical design as those in human machines but much much more efficient and much faster too. We have gears and turning mechanisms that work in the same way as those humans design.

We see similar elements in biological systems that we find in computer design. We see

See?

levels of tasks and subtasks as in modularity and folder systems in computers. A cell has a community of molecular systems that show this type of system.

Here is a video that Scientific Animation created to show the powering of the cell: Mitochondria

That is not criteria. Nothing tested, nothing measured. Like I said, you are just looking at things and claiming "design".

 

[Davian]

Intelligent Design finding those properties that are recognized as design in systems and life forms that can't be shown to be by evolution alone.

Step up to the plate, and show us how you test for "intelligent design".

Or, evade and try to shift the burden of evidence yet again.

 

[Davian]

He has admitted that there is no evidence but then turns around and says that evolution did it. Evolution in the gaps.

When it should be your god-of-the gaps. Amirite?

 

[Davian]

I gave a few names, the most famous ones. I've provided information in a following post to you.

That is opinion, not science.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Resemble?

See?

Similar?

See?

That is not criteria. Nothing tested, nothing measured. Like I said, you are just looking at things and claiming "design".

Oncedeceived said: ↑
No, actually. When one claims that something has certain properties like what we find in human design it is inductively determined to fit the criteria of design.
Davian said: I have never seen these "criteria of design". What are they?

Are you trying to claim that those items I presented are not in evidence from human designs?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Step up to the plate, and show us how you test for "intelligent design".

Or, evade and try to shift the burden of evidence yet again.

The evidence is the design in life forms.

 

[Davian]

Oncedeceived said: ↑
No, actually. When one claims that something has certain properties like what we find in human design it is inductively determined to fit the criteria of design.
Davian said: I have never seen these "criteria of design". What are they?

Are you trying to claim that those items I presented are not in evidence from human designs?

No.

 

[Davian]

The evidence is the design in life forms.

You mean, the appearance of design. Not the same thing.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That is opinion, not science.

False. That is an observation made by scientists who study biological systems, it is without question as far as biological system's design being human like in their construction and function.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You mean, the appearance of design. Not the same thing.

The design, the system designs, the structural designs, the functional designs, the purposeful designs are human like in "design". It is what they are, what they do, when they do it, how they do it that shows design.

 

[Davian]

False. That is an observation made by scientists who study biological systems, it is without question as far as biological system's design being human like in their construction and function.

<looks for scientific citation to back up this vacuous claim - sees nothing>

 

[Davian]

The design, the system designs, the structural designs, the functional designs, the purposeful designs are human like in "design". It is what they are, what they do, when they do it, how they do it that shows design.

But you cannot, in any way, show that that there was any "intelligence" behind what you see as "design" in nature - correct? Yes or no?

 

[Oncedeceived]

<looks for scientific citation to back up this vacuous claim - sees nothing>

"The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines...Why do we call the large protein assemblies that underlie cell function protein machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts." Bruce Alberts, "The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists," Cell, Vol. 92: 291 (February 6, 1998).