Natural selection v Intelligent design

[stevevw]

Not at all.

Are you serious. Not at all. Are you honestly saying there are no similarities.

I interpret ignoring as ignoring. You whine about how people treat your posts dismissively. Yet when they do a detailed analysis showing that you are wrong, you just ignore it and ramble on.

No just you. I have posted many links you have ignored. You ask for evidence and when I post it you then say you not interested. Why ask for evidence. Just by the way you talk about whining. No one is whining. I am merely saying you keep asking for evidence and then ignore it with some reason. You imagine you have some detailed analysis of showing me wrong. But your analysis amounts to about four words. Ive already addressed that. Then when you go and find what you have said it amounts to nothing.

There is ample evidence to the contrary on this thread.

Such as.

Snowflakes. You really don't listen, do you?

So this is a good example how the communication breaks down and that you are interpreting my disagreement and responses as not listening. I did respond to this and stated that snow flakes are not an example of a random design in nature. As I already said they are controlled by forces that are predictable. So you know very well that I heard you because I responded with that answer. You have just chosen to ignore my answer and pretend that I am not listening because I havnt agreed with you.

How are YOU defining "boundaries"?

The same way as evolution does, beyond the species level.

This paragraph makes no sense. What is a "type of animal"?

One that is beyond the species level.

You seem unable to comprehend that macroevolution is just the result of accumulated microevolution. It's evolution at a larger scale.

I do understand it.I just disagree with evolution that it happens. There is no direct testable evidence. Evolution uses what has been observed and tested and uses it for something that has not been proven or tested. Micro evolution changes the colors of hair in dogs for example. But that change is within the dog type animal. When I say type I mean all the dog species. But you have to be careful of using the word species as it has so many different meanings. There are 100s of bat species. But they are all shaped like bats. You could even say they are the same as dogs in that there are many different types of dogs but they are all basically dog shapes that you can recognize.

Just because an animal cannot breed with another even though they are still the same animal shape and type doesn't mean that they are on their way to completely morph into a different animal such as a dino to bird for example. This is what evolution does. It takes micro evolution which is proven with say hair color changes and says that this same mechanism can the change limbs into wings and and fins into legs.

Already addressed this. Go back, re-read.

Unless you have posted some link with direct testable evidence I'm afraid you word isn't good enough.

Given your posts, I think not.

Well I keep posting the evidence and you keep ignoring it.

What sort of "big changes" are you expecting? What makes a change "big"? What "boundary" needs to be crossed?

Ive already answered this several times so you need to go back and re read them.

Why "wolf"? Why not the last common ancestor between wolves and bears?

Such as. Is there any evidence for this last common ancestor. How do you know dogs have always been that shape. There is evidence for many many animals not having change at all for millions and millions of years. They are the same shape as they are now.

 

[stevevw]

double post

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Are you serious. Not at all. Are you honestly saying there are no similarities.

No similarities to what?

No just you. I have posted many links you have ignored. You ask for evidence and when I post it you then say you not interested. Why ask for evidence. Just by the way you talk about whining. No one is whining. I am merely saying you keep asking for evidence and then ignore it with some reason. You imagine you have some detailed analysis of showing me wrong. But your analysis amounts to about four words. Ive already addressed that. Then when you go and find what you have said it amounts to nothing.

Already answered. Go back, re-read.

Such as.

Start reading from page 1.

So this is a good example how the communication breaks down and that you are interpreting my disagreement and responses as not listening. I did respond to this and stated that snow flakes are not an example of a random design in nature. As I already said they are controlled by forces that are predictable. So you know very well that I heard you because I responded with that answer. You have just chosen to ignore my answer and pretend that I am not listening because I havnt agreed with you.

Yes, this is where the communication breaks down because you don't listen. I didn't say that snow flakes were "an example of a random design in nature."

The same way as evolution does, beyond the species level.

One that is beyond the species level.

An example?

I do understand it.I just disagree with evolution that it happens. There is no direct testable evidence. Evolution uses what has been observed and tested and uses it for something that has not been proven or tested. Micro evolution changes the colors of hair in dogs for example. But that change is within the dog type animal. When I say type I mean all the dog species. But you have to be careful of using the word species as it has so many different meanings. There are 100s of bat species. But they are all shaped like bats. You could even say they are the same as dogs in that there are many different types of dogs but they are all basically dog shapes that you can recognize.

Of course they are! What do you expect? You keep saying you "understand" how it works, yet you seem to expect something else entirely.

Just because an animal cannot breed with another even though they are still the same animal shape and type doesn't mean that they are on their way to completely morph into a different animal such as a dino to bird for example. This is what evolution does. It takes micro evolution which is proven with say hair color changes and says that this same mechanism can the change limbs into wings and and fins into legs.

What's so implausible about that?

Unless you have posted some link with direct testable evidence I'm afraid you word isn't good enough.

I've posted many links. Have you read them all? I doubt it.

Well I keep posting the evidence and you keep ignoring it.

Please stop being dishonest.

Such as. Is there any evidence for this last common ancestor. How do you know dogs have always been that shape. There is evidence for many many animals not having change at all for millions and millions of years. They are the same shape as they are now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caniformia#Evolution

 

[stevevw]

No similarities to what?

You dont see any similarities between nature and design.

Already answered. Go back, re-read.

Yes I have gone back and read but I find it is an insufficient answer.

Yes, this is where the communication breaks down because you don't listen. I didn't say that snow flakes were "an example of a random design in nature."

Then how do you explain their design. Where did that design come from.

An example?

It could be any number of examples evolution have claimed. Apes to humans is an obvious one. But Pakicetus which is a land dwelling creature to Ambulocetus which is a sea dwelling creature. This is the transitional stages evolution claims whales had. So from Pakicetus to Ambulocetus we have a dramatic transformation which steps outside the boundaries of what micro evolution states. These transformations are not just within a species with the smaller changes like hair color or texture. These changes are beyond that to things like structural changes to skeletons, system changes such as respiratory, nervous or digestive systems. These things have not been verified in tests and are only assumed. In fact as I have shown in the links I have posted the tests show that it cant happen or is near impossible.

Of course they are! What do you expect? You keep saying you "understand" how it works, yet you seem to expect something else entirely.

Evolution takes varieties of bats or any other animal and breaks them down into species. They then claim that because there are different species of those animals like all the bat species and this is proof that animals have transitioned form each other and become new and different type animals. IE a dog like Pakicetus into a aquatic animal, a Dino into a bird or an ape into a human. But all the different bat species for example are really just variations of bats. But because bats can have a great amount of variation doesn't mean that the mechanisms that give it variations can continue on and turn them gradually into something new like the examples of have given earlier.

So when I say they are all bats I mean that all those species of bats are just variations of bats and are not the beginnings of them turning into a new and different creature. That is the same for apes and all their variations or what ever other animal you want to use. All the apes are variations of apes and they are not signs that apes were turning into humans. It is only a sign of variation within the same type of animal. Variation within a type of animal can be great if you look at dogs for example.

What's so implausible about that?

Because it has no proof. Genetic testing shows it impossible. Artificial selection shows when you move to far away from the original natural state to make changes to features the animals become sick and less fit. Mutations are harmful and are a copying mistake. Even the so called beneficial ones are very very rare and normally come with a fitness cost because they are still altering what was already good. The perceived benefit is normally the result of a loss of info and not a gain in info or complexity.

I've posted many links. Have you read them all? I doubt it.

Yes I have just gone through all your posts and you havnt posted such evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caniformia#Evolution

This is just another story that evolution has interpreted. There is not testable evidence to prove this. This could also be a representative of what dogs were like back then. Most animals have stayed relatively the same throughout time. They may have bigger versions of them or they may look different. But for each animal there are variations and ancient versions of them that are still part of the same kind of animal we see today. So any ancient dog type even it is a wolf or some strange prehistoric looking dog. Its still a dog that has gradually changed as their genes have been mixed throughout time. Its the same for every animal including humans and apes.

What evolution calls ancestors of humans is a mixture of ancient and extinct apes that look different to today's apes and ancient humans who look different from today's humans. All the rest are just variations of this. So they are mistaking the vast variety within a single ancient creature and using some of those variations to make transitions. But humans have always been humans with great variation and apes are just apes with great variation that may have been different in the past due to the different genomes they had which were not mixed as much.

Today humans have mixed their genes so that we have a more blended look. But back then it was more defined and what we perceive as ancient looking. So dogs are the same. What looks ancient and different and is called the ancestor of dogs is just a dog that looks different because it had a less mixed genes and therefore looked more defined and less blended. Wolves and their offshoots were a progression from those earlier ancestors and so were still less mixed. Today we have many different breeds in dogs. But the basic domesticated dog is closer to the wolf look which is more blended look from all the different types of wild dogs.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You dont see any similarities between nature and design.

What similarities specifically? You seemed to be talking about designers drawing inspiration from natural processes to improve their design.

Yes I have gone back and read but I find it is an insufficient answer.

Oh well.

Then how do you explain their design. Where did that design come from.

What design? I assume you are referring to the structure snow flakes exhibit. I already answered that.

It could be any number of examples evolution have claimed. Apes to humans is an obvious one. But Pakicetus which is a land dwelling creature to Ambulocetus which is a sea dwelling creature. This is the transitional stages evolution claims whales had. So from Pakicetus to Ambulocetus we have a dramatic transformation which steps outside the boundaries of what micro evolution states. These transformations are not just within a species with the smaller changes like hair color or texture. These changes are beyond that to things like structural changes to skeletons, system changes such as respiratory, nervous or digestive systems. These things have not been verified in tests and are only assumed. In fact as I have shown in the links I have posted the tests show that it cant happen or is near impossible.

If many "smaller changes" accumulate over time, what do you think the outcome will be? Do you think it could add up to a "large change"?

Evolution takes varieties of bats or any other animal and breaks them down into species. They then claim that because there are different species of those animals like all the bat species and this is proof that animals have transitioned form each other and become new and different type animals. IE a dog like Pakicetus into a aquatic animal, a Dino into a bird or an ape into a human. But all the different bat species for example are really just variations of bats.

Of course they are! Why is that a surprise? And humans are a variation of apes.

So when I say they are all bats I mean that all those species of bats are just variations of bats and are not the beginnings of them turning into a new and different creature.

What would count as a "different" creature? They already are different; that's what it means to say there are variations of bats.

That is the same for apes and all their variations or what ever other animal you want to use. All the apes are variations of apes and they are not signs that apes were turning into humans. It is only a sign of variation within the same type of animal. Variation within a type of animal can be great if you look at dogs for example.

Humans are a variation of apes.

Because it has no proof. Genetic testing shows it impossible. Artificial selection shows when you move to far away from the original natural state to make changes to features the animals become sick and less fit.

Artificial selection, steve!

Mutations are harmful and are a copying mistake. Even the so called beneficial ones are very very rare and normally come with a fitness cost because they are still altering what was already good. The perceived benefit is normally the result of a loss of info and not a gain in info or complexity.

Define "complexity."

This is just another story that evolution has interpreted. There is not testable evidence to prove this. This could also be a representative of what dogs were like back then.

Yeah, that must be it.

Most animals have stayed relatively the same throughout time. They may have bigger versions of them or they may look different. But for each animal there are variations and ancient versions of them that are still part of the same kind of animal we see today. So any ancient dog type even it is a wolf or some strange prehistoric looking dog. Its still a dog that has gradually changed as their genes have been mixed throughout time. Its the same for every animal including humans and apes.

Yeah, that's known as descent with modification, otherwise known as evolution!

 

[Foxhole87]

I've been following the thread for many pages now, and Steve really lost me at the point where he called snowflakes "designed" because the snowflakes formed by way of natural means. I mean, he "lost" me a few times, but this one really takes the cake.

OK I must have missed this. The snow flake does imply design. You think it just forms randomly and then we have some complex designs in nature floating around from no apparent reason. But snow flakes are the results of laws and processes that will determine their specific shapes and designs. These are to do with water molecules that can come in a multitude of designs.

If something that is so unambiguously not the result of careful and intentional intervention of an intelligent force "implies design", you either need to (a) concede that the "implied design" of the snowflake is the same as the "implied design" of the human body (which is an argument I'm both excited to hear you make and dreading to have to read), or (b) concede that you've stapled this supernatural intelligent designer to any fully-capable natural answer as to how something that "implies design" could arise.

"Zeus makes lightning!"
-Actually, we know what makes lightning: the stored current from ice particles bumping into each other in clouds eventually discharges into lightning.
"Zeus made it so the stored current from ice particles bumping into each other in clouds eventually discharges into lightning, isn't Zeus great and wise!?"

You are sliding the goalposts straight out of the stadium.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If something that is so unambiguously not the result of careful and intentional intervention of an intelligent force "implies design", you either need to (a) concede that the "implied design" of the snowflake is the same as the "implied design" of the human body (which is an argument I'm both excited to hear you make and dreading to have to read), or (b) concede that you've stapled this supernatural intelligent designer to any fully-capable natural answer as to how something that "implies design" could arise.

If the argument is that God doesn't design each snowflake by direct manipulation, but lets consistent laws of physics do the job, it's a line of argument that ends with a God that sets the universe running at some point (the big bang or before), with the physical laws we observe, and then takes no further part - which appears to describe the universe we observe, except that we have no knowledge of its origins, or if a God was involved. Ockham would wield his razor.

 

[pshun2404]

Ah Frumious always so refreshing...the Biblical view of God (notwithstanding the Calvinist interpretation) is that He does both...He sets the laws in motion but watches it all foreknowing all that will happen and on occasion He intervenes and even sometimes does some things that appear to us flyspecks to violate natural law...volcanoes and earthquakes are just natural occurrences on a world such as ours but on occasion has sent a storm or opened the earth for His purpose...He created some creatures directly, but commands the earth and sea to bring forth species as well (the set in motion laws at work)...hope Ockham got a good shave!

 

[stevevw]

I've been following the thread for many pages now, and Steve really lost me at the point where he called snowflakes "designed" because the snowflakes formed by way of natural means. I mean, he "lost" me a few times, but this one really takes the cake.

If something that is so unambiguously not the result of careful and intentional intervention of an intelligent force "implies design", by you either need to (a) concede that the "implied design" of the snowflake is the same as the "implied design" of the human body (which is an argument I'm both excited to hear you make and dreading to have to read),

It depends on what you mean by design. If a rock falls down a mountain out of control and scatters material everywhere the end result is not designed. Even if the resulting pile of rubble may somehow fall into some shape. It is random and that rubble could have fallen anywhere.

or (b) concede that you've stapled this supernatural intelligent designer to any fully-capable natural answer as to how something that "implies design" could arise.

Maybe its the other way around. Afterall it is harder to explain how a naturalistic process could make order out of disorder. The more precise and ordered things are the more it looks designed. When we look at human made things like computers or building we immediately recognize this as ID. Yet when we see the complexity of our bodies and how they are constructed with codes or letters that must spell out a specific language it is the same as man made design. Both life and the material things need a blue print or plan to go by to design things so what is the difference.

"Zeus makes lightning!"
-Actually, we know what makes lightning: the stored current from ice particles bumping into each other in clouds eventually discharges into lightning.
"Zeus made it so the stored current from ice particles bumping into each other in clouds eventually discharges into lightning, isn't Zeus great and wise!?"

This is a false dichotomy. What if Zeus made the physics that makes lightening in the first place. You have decided that the only way a designer can design a snow flake is to have an supernatural intervention only just when snowflakes are made and make them out of thin air. Whereas snowflakes are the end result of other complex laws and controlling factors that will produce them. Without those things they wouldn't exist. A snowflake is a visible sign of the complex world of water molecules. Water is a specific element that is needed for life and therefore is complex and unique in itself. It is a finely tuned material that only happens here on earth. So you need to state the context for which you want to show design or non design.

You are sliding the goalposts straight out of the stadium.

No it is just stating the way it is and has always been. For God to create everything he had to create the laws and all the other codes and systems that run everything. It has always been said that God created the code for life (DNA). This is a good example of how design can work to produce a specific outcome. If it wasn't for the specific codes in our DNA that are the building instructions for our features then there wouldn't be any living forms. God doesn't just pop a human into existence without the mechanisms that make them in place as well. It is probably best seen in the finely tuned universe for life. There are 100s of constants that need to be just right to produce existence as it is and to produce life in our little spot in the universe. One minute change in any of those constants and we wouldn't have existence or even life itself.

It is these complexities beneath things that we need to look at to see how things are made. A snow flake isnt a direct sign of design but it reflects the underlying complexity of life. When it becomes to complex and specific it becomes to hard and unreal to start saying these things came about by a naturalistic process that stems from disorder to order and less complex to more complex. That is the way evolution and a world view of nature is. The thing is some make nature itself the God. But nature is already there and established using all the elements of God.

 

[Foxhole87]

Ah Frumious always so refreshing...the Biblical view of God (notwithstanding the Calvinist interpretation) is that He does both...He sets the laws in motion but watches it all foreknowing all that will happen and on occasion He intervenes and even sometimes does some things that appear to us flyspecks to violate natural law...volcanoes and earthquakes are just natural occurrences on a world such as ours but on occasion has sent a storm or opened the earth for His purpose...He created some creatures directly, but commands the earth and sea to bring forth species as well (the set in motion laws at work)...hope Ockham got a good shave!

Do you normally post by drive-by jabbings or did you get around to figuring out how your use of the word "information" makes no sense the last time you posted in this thread?

 

[Foxhole87]

It depends on what you mean by design. If a rock falls down a mountain out of control and scatters material everywhere the end result is not designed. Even if the resulting pile of rubble may somehow fall into some shape. It is random and that rubble could have fallen anywhere.

No, that pile could have only fallen exactly how physics would allow it to. The very same mechanisms that give a snowflake its geometry is what makes a rock bounce and roll and break and scatter. You are straight-up incorrect.

Maybe its the other way around. Afterall it is harder to explain how a naturalistic process could make order out of disorder. The more precise and ordered things are the more it looks designed. When we look at human made things like computers or building we immediately recognize this as ID. Yet when we see the complexity of our bodies and how they are constructed with codes or letters that must spell out a specific language it is the same as man made design. Both life and the material things need a blue print or plan to go by to design things so what is the difference.

It isn't hard to explain how a naturalistic process can make order out of disorder. I can take several milliliters of liquid substances with various densities, combine them into a jar, shake them up, and they will sort themselves by density with the densest material on the bottom and the least dense on top. It will do this every time and with only gravity at work. You are attempting to staple some "intelligent designer" to the natural explanation of a phenomenon, which makes your argument ridiculous.

Do you mean to tell me that the snowflake needs a plan or a blue print? LOL, do you believe that water molecules have DNA?

This is a false dichotomy. What if Zeus made the physics that makes lightening in the first place. You have decided that the only way a designer can design a snow flake is to have an supernatural intervention only just when snowflakes are made and make them out of thin air. Whereas snowflakes are the end result of other complex laws and controlling factors that will produce them. Without those things they wouldn't exist. A snowflake is a visible sign of the complex world of water molecules. Water is a specific element that is needed for life and therefore is complex and unique in itself. It is a finely tuned material that only happens here on earth. So you need to state the context for which you want to show design or non design.

WRONG.
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG.
I have to assume you are being purposefully deceitful in the bold, because water exists all over the universe, even in the solar system; I can't believe you would actually make the statement that you did in the bold (my emphasis).
Also, if you just staple Zeus on to the back end of any natural explanation, you have created a nonfalsifiable position that isn't worth arguing about or considering. We might as well be living in a computer simulation.

No it is just stating the way it is and has always been. For God to create everything he had to create the laws and all the other codes and systems that run everything. It has always been said that God created the code for life (DNA). This is a good example of how design can work to produce a specific outcome. If it wasn't for the specific codes in our DNA that are the building instructions for our features then there wouldn't be any living forms. God doesn't just pop a human into existence without the mechanisms that make them in place as well. It is probably best seen in the finely tuned universe for life. There are 100s of constants that need to be just right to produce existence as it is and to produce life in our little spot in the universe. One minute change in any of those constants and we wouldn't have existence or even life itself.

It is these complexities beneath things that we need to look at to see how things are made. A snow flake isnt a direct sign of design but it reflects the underlying complexity of life. When it becomes to complex and specific it becomes to hard and unreal to start saying these things came about by a naturalistic process that stems from disorder to order and less complex to more complex. That is the way evolution and a world view of nature is. The thing is some make nature itself the God. But nature is already there and established using all the elements of God.

If your response to "you are moving back the goalposts" is "just stating how it is and has always been", then you don't understand my objection. "It has always been said" was only said after the discovery of DNA.
The fine-tuning argument fails twice, and it fails hard: your idea that the universe has been fine tuned is a non-idea seeing as how you can't compare it to anywhere else beyond the solar system, and even then, the solar system as a whole says that we are more a product of circumstance rather than fine tuning.

I'll let you do a little science (well, part of science): If the universe is fine-tuned to produce life, should we expect to find an abundance of life?

All of those "constants" need to be how they are for life as we know it. Your arrogance misleads you.

And again, you slide the goalposts right back; you've knocked a snowflake down from something that is an example of design to something that implies design of something else by way of analogy.

You'd do great behind a debate podium, but you'd fail out of physics class.

 

[stevevw]

What similarities specifically? You seemed to be talking about designers drawing inspiration from natural processes to improve their design.

Thats one way to look at it. But are they natural processes. What is a natural process. Is there a blue print for everything to operate by and how did that blue print come about.

What design? I assume you are referring to the structure snow flakes exhibit. I already answered that.

Once again I replied to you answer and challenged the claims that nature can create its own design. The patterns and language you interpret as part of nature had to be created in the first place. It doesn't just appear out of nothing and less designed things cannot make more complex designed things.

It goes back to how nature operates and where nature got those operating mechanisms. A naturalistic view states that it came about from disorder, chaos and less complexity. So even if nature claims to have some design qualities about it how could it have created that design from something that wasn't designed in the first place. IE paint is just paint and made up of chemicals. But that paint will just sit there and mean nothing without someone coming along with a brush and painting a picture to give it meaning and design. The design in that picture comes from a source of intelligence.

If many "smaller changes" accumulate over time, what do you think the outcome will be? Do you think it could add up to a "large change"?

No because the small changes have limits. Evolution has speculated that the small changes add up to big one without any direct evidence which is needed to verify a hypothesis. So they breach their own verification rules by doing so. We have tested the small changes (micro evolution) and found it can occur such as dogs getting different colored hair or different sized dog limbs and heads. WE have seen this with bacteria being able to become antibiotic resistant. But these changes are playing around with the existing genes. Most of the time it is a loss of info that enables the change and therefore incurs a fitness cost as well.

But for evolution to go beyond these changes to add new complex abilities and info that wasn't there in the first place has not been verified in tests. There is a limit that is reached which then cannot go further as it either brings harm, is not selected for or would take to long to achieve beyond what evolution claims.

Of course they are! Why is that a surprise? And humans are a variation of apes.

No apes are variations of apes and all the other ape types in existence. Humans have a great deal of variation and are different creatures. All life has similar blue prints for design and apes happen to be closer to humans for those blue prints.

What would count as a "different" creature? They already are different; that's what it means to say there are variations of bats.

So if we have variations of humans in that they have the similar amounts of variations that bats would have between them then how is this different. The range of difference in variations of bats is not different to the range of variations in humans. They are all bats and none are on their way to become anything else but a bat. Just like humans are not on their way to become anything but a human or are the result of becoming something else that wasn't a human.

Humans are a variation of apes.

Then what do you call the variations of humans. Humans look very different to apes and have different abilities. Though humans and apes are closet in their design they are still two separate creatures. Its no more the same for a cat and a dog to be variations of each other. They both have 4 legs with paws, similar bodies with hair and similar heads with ears ect.

Artificial selection, steve!

Artificial selection is a representation of selection. They have tried it in 100s of different ways. Its not the selection that is the problem its the mutations. Most if not all mutations bring a cost in some way to fitness. Human selections of all sorts of things have found that there are barriers for change. Nothing that has been experimented with has become something else along the way. Or even shown signs of doing that. They have become many variations of what they are but they have remained what they are.

Define "complexity."

I think some examples of complexity would be better at defining complexity.
Recent studies have described even more layers of codes and ways the genetic system is ordered in each cell. Two completely new superimposed codes have been described that greatly complicate genetic regulation—messenger RNA folding, and multi use codons called “duons.”
FANTOM project published 16 studies that demonstrate vast new complexity in the way DNA regions are triggered. In fact, more and more new studies reveal higher levels of genetic complexity.
Genome Network and FANTOM3: Assessing the Complexity of the Transcriptome
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1449904/

The human genome contains about 3 billion "base pairs" of genes. Each base pair can exist in one of four possible combinations of the four bases that make up DNA:

In some DNA there are two superimposed codes at once.
Scientists discover double meaning in genetic code
Genomes use the genetic code to write two separate languages. One describes how proteins are made, and the other instructs the cell on how genes are controlled. One language is written on top of the other.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131212142151.htm

"Altogether the total number of connections in the human brain approaches 1015 or a thousand million million. Numbers in the order of 1015 are of course completely beyond comprehension. Imagine an area about half the size of the USA (one million square miles) covered in a forest of trees containing ten thousand trees per square mile. If each tree contained one hundred thousand leaves the total number of leaves in the forest would be 1015, equivalent to the number of connections in the human brain."

"Altogether a typical cell contains about ten million million atoms. Suppose we choose to build an exact replica to a scale one thousand million times that of the cell so that each atom of the model would be the size of a tennis ball. Constructing such a model at the rate of one atom per minute, it would take fifty million years to finish, and the object we would end up with would be [...] twenty kilometres in diameter, with a volume thousands of times that of the Great Pyramid."

Professor Ervin Laszlo, in this highly acclaimed book Science and the Akashic Field, states: "We have seen that the oldest rocks date from about 4 billion years ago, while the earliest and already highly complex forms of life – blue-green algae and bacteria – are over three and a half billion years old.

Sir Fred Hoyle and Professor Chandra Wickramasinghe calculated that the odds of randomly producing the required enzymes for a simple living cell were 1 in 1040,000. Since the number of atoms in the known universe is only 1080, they argued that even a whole universe full of "primordial soup" wouldn't stand a chance.

Your body and its functions are unimaginably complex. Simply cataloging the structure and function of all the cells in your body right now would take countless terabytes of data -- more than a million times larger than "megabytes" of data.

So considering all this complexity had to form from nothing and more simple existence it seems amazing if not impossible that this could all be created by a process that can take tiny steps to add that extra complexity bit by bit. Not just that when it somehow creates the mechanism for DNA it then has to create more better, fitter and complex life from something that is primarily a copying mistake of something that was good in the first place.

Even if the very very rare beneficial mutations do add some small advantage the amount of very very rare mutations needed to build the millions of complex networks and components described above would take more time than the earth has been around. Let alone have to also deal with the multitude of harmful mutations that would also have to be created just to get those very very rare beneficial ones.

Yeah, that's known as descent with modification, otherwise known as evolution!

It is a massive amount of complex creativity to mutate into existence. Do you have any evidence for this.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Thats one way to look at it. But are they natural processes. What is a natural process. Is there a blue print for everything to operate by and how did that blue print come about.

Once again I replied to you answer and challenged the claims that nature can create its own design. The patterns and language you interpret as part of nature had to be created in the first place. It doesn't just appear out of nothing and less designed things cannot make more complex designed things.

It goes back to how nature operates and where nature got those operating mechanisms. A naturalistic view states that it came about from disorder, chaos and less complexity. So even if nature claims to have some design qualities about it how could it have created that design from something that wasn't designed in the first place. IE paint is just paint and made up of chemicals. But that paint will just sit there and mean nothing without someone coming along with a brush and painting a picture to give it meaning and design. The design in that picture comes from a source of intelligence.

This is inane rambling. I have no idea what you are talking about.

No because the small changes have limits. Evolution has speculated that the small changes add up to big one without any direct evidence which is needed to verify a hypothesis.

That simply isn't true.

So they breach their own verification rules by doing so. We have tested the small changes (micro evolution) and found it can occur such as dogs getting different colored hair or different sized dog limbs and heads. WE have seen this with bacteria being able to become antibiotic resistant. But these changes are playing around with the existing genes. Most of the time it is a loss of info that enables the change and therefore incurs a fitness cost as well.

But for evolution to go beyond these changes to add new complex abilities and info that wasn't there in the first place has not been verified in tests. There is a limit that is reached which then cannot go further as it either brings harm, is not selected for or would take to long to achieve beyond what evolution claims.

It's pretty clear at this point that you have no idea what you are talking about.

No apes are variations of apes and all the other ape types in existence. Humans have a great deal of variation and are different creatures. All life has similar blue prints for design and apes happen to be closer to humans for those blue prints.

Yes, because humans are a variation of apes. I thought you said that you studied this? So why is this news to you?

So if we have variations of humans in that they have the similar amounts of variations that bats would have between them then how is this different. The range of difference in variations of bats is not different to the range of variations in humans. They are all bats and none are on their way to become anything else but a bat. Just like humans are not on their way to become anything but a human or are the result of becoming something else that wasn't a human.

For goodness sake, we've been over this a million times... Evolution doesn't anticipate a crocoduck! You keep saying that you understand, you understand, you understand... like a broken record. Yet you show signs of not understanding.

Artificial selection is a representation of selection. They have tried it in 100s of different ways. Its not the selection that is the problem its the mutations. Most if not all mutations bring a cost in some way to fitness. Human selections of all sorts of things have found that there are barriers for change. Nothing that has been experimented with has become something else along the way. Or even shown signs of doing that. They have become many variations of what they are but they have remained what they are.

This has already been addressed. Go back, re-read.

 

[stevevw]

No, that pile could have only fallen exactly how physics would allow it to. The very same mechanisms that give a snowflake its geometry is what makes a rock bounce and roll and break and scatter. You are straight-up incorrect.

No there are restricted ways a snow flake can form. The basic mechanism is from water freezing and different temperatures. Though snow flakes have many different patterns these are set patterns and the basic hexagonal pattern repeats over and over. It is the water molecules that create the different patterns. Falling rocks have gravity but there is nothing directing where they fall apart from random bumps and deflections.

If they were operating under the same principle then why dont the falling rocks make many pretty patterns all over the mountain side. There maybe a small amount of controlling factors such as gravity but it is primarily random. Even if you want to say that the falling rocks have a pattern about them then it still supports design. Where would the controlling factors for those falling rocks come from. If they show order how does that order come from non order.

It isn't hard to explain how a naturalistic process can make order out of disorder. I can take several milliliters of liquid substances with various densities, combine them into a jar, shake them up, and they will sort themselves by density with the densest material on the bottom and the least dense on top. It will do this every time and with only gravity at work. You are attempting to staple some "intelligent designer" to the natural explanation of a phenomenon, which makes your argument ridiculous.

That is different to rocks falling down a mountain side. You have now made a controlled experiment in a jar. It has no place to go except within the jar. So of course it is going to form layers according to the heavier layers. But this is still not random because it is completely predictable. Gravity along with the different weights will cause this to happen.

Do you mean to tell me that the snowflake needs a plan or a blue print? LOL, do you believe that water molecules have DNA?

No the blue print isn't organic but molecular. But both DNA and molecules both have a code or blueprint to go by. They are the basic building blocks of life and matter. When you look at matter the it also has laws and mechanisms that make it what it is. But the ironic thing is when you get down to the point of almost nothing the laws of classical physics break down. Yet the quantum world has been verified and it is how things work at that level. But because it breaks down how classical physics works, it shows that beyond that something else is at work. It suggests that there is another reality at work at work that defies our reality.

WRONG.
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG.
I have to assume you are being purposefully deceitful in the bold, because water exists all over the universe, even in the solar system; I can't believe you would actually make the statement that you did in the bold (my emphasis).
Also, if you just staple Zeus on to the back end of any natural explanation, you have created a nonfalsifiable position that isn't worth arguing about or considering. We might as well be living in a computer simulation.

I didn't realize there was water all over the universe. Well at least water like ours. If there is water all over the universe then why isn't there some sort of life. As where there is water there should be life as water can only form if there are other elements such as oxygen.
A water molecule has three atoms: two hydrogen (H) atoms and one oxygen (O) atom.
The presence of water on the surface of Earth is a product of its atmospheric pressure and a stable orbit in the Sun's circumstellar habitable zone,

They have never found water on any planet outside earth as yet so I dont know where you get your info from. They have found visible traces of liquid and they have found ice but this has not been confirmed as water. Let alone water like we have on earth. The particular water that makes our snow crystals is a unique water that is only on planet earth. It is a sign of life and is only formed by the unique conditions earth finds itself in. For starters our water has oxygen and to get oxygen you have to have certain elements as well as many other exact things in place such as the size, position and age of our sun in relation to earth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterrestrial_liquid_water

If your response to "you are moving back the goalposts" is "just stating how it is and has always been", then you don't understand my objection. "It has always been said" was only said after the discovery of DNA

Fair enough.

The fine-tuning argument fails twice, and it fails hard: your idea that the universe has been fine tuned is a non-idea seeing as how you can't compare it to anywhere else beyond the solar system, and even then, the solar system as a whole says that we are more a product of circumstance rather than fine tuning.

I think the fine tuning argument is based on the fact that we have life in our part of the universe. Just to even have life there needs to be many things that are just right. So I guess if there is life elsewhere in the universe then they too have it just right. But to think that life may be so rare from what we have found so far then even if it is here or there in the universe it still requires some pretty amazing conditions to be just right.

And its not just about life, its also about our whole universe and existence itself. To even have our universe in it had to have many things just right. If we didn't have the right balance of certain constants then we wouldn't have formed stars. If we didn't form stars the way they were formed then we wouldn't have had life. So its all interconnected.
Here are a few constants.
Fine Tuning Parameters for the Universe

1. strong nuclear force constant
   if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
   if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry
2. weak nuclear force constant
   if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
   if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
3. gravitational force constant
   if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
   if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form
4. electromagnetic force constant
   if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
   if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry

There are many more but the one I find most interesting is the cosmological constant as we are still trying to work out what this dark matter and dark energy is.
The cosmological constant. Perhaps the most startling instance of fine-tuning is the cosmological constant paradox. This derives from the fact that when one calculates, based on known principles of quantum mechanics, the "vacuum energy density" of the universe, focusing on the electromagnetic force, one obtains the incredible result that empty space "weighs" 1,093g per cubic centimetre (cc). The actual average mass density of the universe, 10-28g per cc, differs by 120 orders of magnitude from theory.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-04-science-philosophy-collide-fine-tuned-universe.html#jCp

I'll let you do a little science (well, part of science): If the universe is fine-tuned to produce life, should we expect to find an abundance of life?

Not really. The fine tuning for life seems to be just for us. But there maybe other life elsewhere in the universe. Scientists are focusing on other planets in a habitual zones near a star hypothesizing that this may make those planets sustainable for life. But if the universe as a whole was geared to create life then you would think that there would be life abundantly in our universe. If evolution is correct and life can create itself and then evolve and even evolve predictably as some have said then that would make it even more possible.

Some scientists even say that life came from elsewhere in the universe to earth because they find it impossible to explain how it could have started here from non life. But so far this doesn't seem to be the case.We have sent out many signals into deep space. So unless that life cannot respond then there maybe no other life around. In fact I believe that we are the only life in the universe and that the entire universe was made just for us. Earth and life needed the entire universe so that it was possible for us to exist.

All of those "constants" need to be how they are for life as we know it. Your arrogance misleads you.

Its not me that is saying it. Its the scientists and most are non religious ones.
http://phys.org/news/2014-04-science-philosophy-collide-fine-tuned-universe.html

And again, you slide the goalposts right back; you've knocked a snowflake down from something that is an example of design to something that implies design of something else by way of analogy.

Whats the difference.

You'd do great behind a debate podium, but you'd fail out of physics class.

Thanks I think.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That is different to rocks falling down a mountain side. You have now made a controlled experiment in a jar. It has no place to go except within the jar. So of course it is going to form layers according to the heavier layers. But this is still not random because it is completely predictable. Gravity along with the different weights will cause this to happen.

Yes, it's predictable. So does it necessarily follow that is happened by design? Where is the designer involved?

 

[stevevw]

This is inane rambling. I have no idea what you are talking about.

When you said that you had answered my post about how snowflakes can form without a designer you stated that I was amusing nature doesn't have patterns and systems of complexity without being designed. So I was saying where did those patterns and systems or codes come from in the first place. You can see them now and make up explanations that they formed themselves through some naturalistic process. But how did they come about to begin with. Before there was patterns and codes there was no patterns and only chaos and disorder. How did these patterns and systems or complexity you claim nature has the ability to use and form come about in the first place.

That simply isn't true.

Is there direct evidence for this. By direct evidence I mean how science states that something should be verified.

It's pretty clear at this point that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Then please post the direct evidence to show that this is wrong. I have already posted evidence to support my claims.

Yes, because humans are a variation of apes. I thought you said that you studied this? So why is this news to you?

Its not news to me. I am well aware of what evolution claims. But it seems you make the continued mistake of thinking that when someone disagrees with evolution they must not understand it.

For goodness sake, we've been over this a million times... Evolution doesn't anticipate a crocoduck! You keep saying that you understand, you understand, you understand... like a broken record. Yet you show signs of not understanding.

It seems your not understanding your own theory. No one said anything about a crocoduck which is a silly example anyway. Don't they use the example of say a Dino becoming a bird having Dino and bird features mingled together. Isn't that one of the signs for transition. Isn't this showing that a once Dino is gradually taking on more and more bird like features but still having some Dino features. I mean the fossil of your name sake is used constantly as the prime example of the part Dino and part bird with the Dino features of theropods and the wings of a bird. A bit like a (dinobird) dont you think.Its amusing when they try and draw the illustrations of these transitions. They dont know whether to put more of one animal or the other and try to carefully incorporate a bit of both. They tend to exaggerate the features a bit and always have it looking more transitional that it really is.

This has already been addressed. Go back, re-read.

And I have refuted your explanation if you check.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

When you said that you had answered my post about how snowflakes can form without a designer you stated that I was amusing nature doesn't have patterns and systems of complexity without being designed. So I was saying where did those patterns and systems or codes come from in the first place. You can see them now and make up explanations that they formed themselves through some naturalistic process. But how did they come about to begin with. Before there was patterns and codes there was no patterns and only chaos and disorder. How did these patterns and systems or complexity you claim nature has the ability to use and form come about in the first place.

Hang on, so you finally concede that natural processes are capable of producing complexity?

Is there direct evidence for this. By direct evidence I mean how science states that something should be verified.

Yes, in phylogeny.

Then please post the direct evidence to show that this is wrong. I have already posted evidence to support my claims.

Where?

Its not news to me. I am well aware of what evolution claims. But it seems you make the continued mistake of thinking that when someone disagrees with evolution they must not understand it.

You appeared surprised to learn that human beings are apes. I don't think it is a matter of mere disagreement. You don't understand the fundamentals.

It seems your not understanding your own theory. No one said anything about a crocoduck which is a silly example anyway. Don't they use the example of say a Dino becoming a bird having Dino and bird features mingled together. Isn't that one of the signs for transition. Isn't this showing that a once Dino is gradually taking on more and more bird like features but still having some Dino features. Isn't this how they decide the transitions for ape men. Buy saying that a particular ape has more human features like the pelvis which enables them to stand upright or the larger brain like a human or the teeth or jaw like a human. Yet there still look like an ape as well.

And yet you continually behave as though a crocoduck is what one ought to expect!

And I have refuted your explanation if you check.

I checked. Found no refutation.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Ah Frumious always so refreshing...

That's my aim.

... on occasion He intervenes and even sometimes does some things that appear to us flyspecks to violate natural law...

Such as?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I didn't realize there was water all over the universe. Well at least water like ours.

So now you know.

If there is water all over the universe then why isn't there some sort of life. As where there is water there should be life as water can only form if there are other elements such as oxygen.

There probably is life elsewhere; but your second supposition is incorrect - the presence of water is necessary but not sufficient for life as we know it.

They have never found water on any planet outside earth as yet so I dont know where you get your info from. They have found visible traces of liquid and they have found ice but this has not been confirmed as water. Let alone water like we have on earth. The particular water that makes our snow crystals is a unique water that is only on planet earth. It is a sign of life and is only formed by the unique conditions earth finds itself in. For starters our water has oxygen and to get oxygen you have to have certain elements as well as many other exact things in place such as the size, position and age of our sun in relation to earth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterrestrial_liquid_water

The link you posted contradicts you - liquid water has been found on four bodies in our own solar system; and frozen water appears almost ubiquitous (on comets, moons, and in interstellar space), It's all H2O, Earth's water isn't 'special'. If you want to use science to support your argument, you need to learn a little of it (and read the links you post!).

I think the fine tuning argument is based on the fact that we have life in our part of the universe. Just to even have life there needs to be many things that are just right. So I guess if there is life elsewhere in the universe then they too have it just right. But to think that life may be so rare from what we have found so far then even if it is here or there in the universe it still requires some pretty amazing conditions to be just right.

Which undermines the fine tuning argument as far as life is concerned. The universe appears, in general, extremely hostile to life as we know it.

 

[Foxhole87]

Steve, is a physical dice roll a truly random outcome, or (a mutually exclusive alternative) does the end result of the dice manifest as a matter of physical (and natural) laws?

You are using "random" in such an incredibly wrong way, and you seem to have a penchant for having a hard time with the word.