Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
As I stated before like many fossilized creatures there is no way of getting any direct evidence from their DNA as they are for obvious reasons millions of years old. But because almost every scientists agrees that many of the Cambrian creature cover all the major modern body plans as well as some displaying similar features to their modern counterparts they can predict what their genomes would be. This method has been used for many evolutionary claims so I cant see there being a problem to use this as a good indication for what the Cambrian creatures possible genetic makeup was.
As above with the comparison to their modern versions being much the same. So if their features and level of complexity is the same it stands to reason that the genetic code to make those features and create that level of complexity would be the same.
No I am proposing that it is another alternative model to Darwinian evolution that fits the evidence better. But you are right all these are hypothesis and theories so nothing is definitely verified including Darwinian evolution.
My thought processes are fine. They are in line with many other people. It seems that when someone disagrees with Darwinian evolution and comes up with challenging evidence it causes some to attack the person rather then deal with the content of what is being presented. This is a good example and I have noticed it happens regularly when a simple question is posed. You keep asking how I am determining the level of genetic makeup for the Cambrian creatures. I stated that its logical and many scientists agree that if the level of feature and complexity is the same then the genetic code that makes those similar body plans will be the same. Rather then answer that with a clear reply as you keep asking this same question you attack me instead. Just a simple answer will do either yes I agree or no I disagree and why.
Why does that matter when you keep claiming that I havnt shown evidence for that design in the first place. You are putting the cart before the horse. Lets concentrate on whether there is design in nature and then we can talk about where it came from. The mechanism for design may not be known but that doesn't stop you from knowing or acknowledging that something is designed. Not many people know the mechanism for how a computer software program is made. But they still realize it was designed by an intelligent agent.
Why.
Yes there is logic in it and you just said it. The logic tells us that an intelligent designer/agent had something to do with picking the numbers and it wasn't a case of chance or random probabilities. The logic is you have deduced that for a set of numbers or for a event to happen that falls into a very narrow parameter where there were many other possibilities to happen by chance is impossible and has to have some help. The only other possibility is that a lot of time went by and the random search finally found the right combinations. But that is even impossible because the level of complex life and the codes needed for life happened at such an early stage that evolution just didn't have the time to go through that process. In fact the amount of events and coded info that needed to be found would make it impossible. It isn't a case of just getting one lot of numbers right in one lottery. It a case of getting multiple numbers right in multiple lotteries. Now logic tells us this is definitely impossible.
I did read it and the reason I posted it was they also said that Darwinian evolution wasn't the cause of how animals change. In fact she said that mutations may produce a bigger egg which is just micro evolution. But it also produces wobbly legs in that same chicken. So its not a case of whether there is a degree of evolution in life. Its the level and ability that Darwinian evolution gives it. The reality is mutations and natural selection dont creation innovative functional, better, more complex and fitter life. They actually lose info and cause things to be less fit in the end. This has been the whole point all along. Its not a case of evolution verses religion or God. Its a case of how far evolution can go. But you want to keep turning into a evolution v religion debate.
No that tells us nothing. If I say the designer can do everything that we see in life that would match the evidence you would ask for evidence for the designer. That then turns the debate into proving a designer and not proving the design itself. Like I said we can discuss the evidence for how a car is designed without bringing any manufacturer in at all. If you find a painting in a second hand shop without a signature you will still be able to tell it has been produced by a artist without having to know the artist. Its irrelevant to proving design in life.
I asked the question. Of course I believe that God is the designer. But I also know that its irrelevant to design and cannot be verified scientifically. I could go into some of the indirect evidence I think God or a supernatural agent can design. But that would then be assuming that you accept that there is design which I dont think you do. Wouldn't that be silly to move onto that when you dont even believe there is design in life.
Once again I am asking the question of why cant there be a designer if we know that everything else in life that is designed has a designer.
Yes but w have similar principles for our designs. We have certain laws such as maths in our designs such as architecture and engineering. We have certain codes in our computer software that govern how it operates. Its the same principle. Its the laws and codes behind things that make it behave the way it does and not the object itself.
This is something you will have to refer to a engineer and its out of my depth. I can read and understand the basic ideas and principles of design engineering. But to get an in depth and detailed explanation you would need to be someone like an engineer. In fact engineering often turn to nature to get design ideas. Like the bird wing we havnt been able to design anything like it for flying. But there are certain principles that are used such as with aerodynamics which can be used from a bird. But the important point is that for all those examples you posted its the laws and codes that make them operate and not the objects themselves. Though even the objects themselves conform to certain laws such as physics and quantum mechanics.
No you interpret that the paper to mean what you want it to. Or pull out bits that mention evolution and then say the paper isn't backing what I said. So far you have only focused on one or two and ignore plenty of others maybe because those one or two had more to use that you could take the focus off what I was saying. All those papers supported what particular points I was making even if some still supported evolution. It was the point that they challenged the dogma of evolution or the traditional view that wasn't supported anymore by the evidence. But you overlooked all that as well as most of the papers and article I posted. So it seems you are being choosy and mining for things that suit your views.
No I disagree. As with the paper you grab onto minor and rare occurrences and make them everything. I have rarely mentioned God as the designer and in the one or two occasions have posed a question rather than make a claim. You are the one who keeps injecting God into it by constantly claiming that we cant discuss design unless we talk about which designer it is.
But you can do that without knowing the designer. If you find a rock with a carving in it that is of a boat you know its designed compared to a rock that has no carving. You dont need to know who made the carving to establish that.
No I posed the idea and asked the question. If something is designed would it have a designer. So I posed the question if there is design in life then why couldn't God be the designer. That was one of the only times I have mentioned this. I can show you the many times you keep mentioning God yourself. Its almost like you think Gods responsible more than me by constantly bringing Him into the equation. Anyway Like I said we are really going around in circles here.
No you can't. Just a few paragraphs above, you can't even do it for stuff where we know the particulars of the designer. Doing it for an unspecified designer is completely pointless.
Isn't the papers on the modern day versions of Cambrian doing that.
That living things had a high level of genetic info even at the beginning of their existence. That level of complexity ability was on par with modern day living things. That rather then living things mutating new genetic material that increased info and complexity as Darwinian evolution states the info was mostly already there to be utilized by either switching on the vast available genes or combining existing genetic material to create new functions. This fits the evidence better such as the sudden arrival of a vast variety of complex creatures which required a high level of complex genetic info from virtually out of nowhere and without much trace of the Darwinian process of gradual transitions from simple to complex. It stands to reason that early life was very complex and had a high level of variety that it would need a similar level of complex genetic info like today's creatures even though they looked different.
If they find similar compound eyes from the Cambrian creatures like the trilobites in modern day creatures then it stands to reason that the genetic info is similar in its complexity. This goes for all the features the Cambrian creatures had that is found in modern day living things even if they are not exactly the same creature. Bacteria found to be much older than the Cambrian period is said to have had similarities to modern day bacteria. Its not as if early creatures has some simple genetic version for making the same features as today. In other words the receipt hasn't changed that much in millions and millions of years. Your example works the same. Though a bat and birds wings are different they both require a similar level of complexity in their genetic info to make. They will both have similar structures to make those wings functional. Therefore they will have similar genetic info to build those wings and make them work more or less.
Not really. your starting with the most logical step of proving there is design before proving who the designer is or whether there is a designer. If I said there is a designer the first thing you would say if prove it. How do you do that with scientific verification. You cant. But you can prove design itself by looking at nature and how it works and determining it through mechanisms like engineering. Once you prove design then you can talk about what is possibly responsible for it. But where try and work out what is responsible for design if you dispute it isn't real. By claiming there is a God or advanced alien designers is not going to prove design alone.
No you are not getting what I mean. Remember I was talking about the ability for nature to find the right 3D structures of the essential life building proteins so early and quickly out of all the possibilities that are available. So the lottery probably isn't a good example because the end result doesn't do anything apart from find the right numbers. The numbers dont have any function in themselves. So may something like a car engine or computer. The ability for all the components to find their right place and function correctly without any intelligent intervention would be impossible. A different example with lotteries or finding combinations may give a better example.
The maths or the process would be similar to modern day explanations for how life works and what it takes to make it operate. So any biological paper explaining this will do. I am not a biologists so I cant do it for you. But luckily we have experts who can. IE sponges which were around before the Cambrian explosion have 70% of human genetic code.
Its easy to make assertions. Like I said I have plenty of time to read and study.
The only problem is you have misunderstood intelligent design or design in life theory. It has nothing to do with the supernatural so this doesn't present any cause any problems at all. It is based in science and therefore cannot use anything supernatural just like any other science. Thats the whole point of it.
The experts can determine design so its not just up to me. So the question is very logical question.
I think its the other way around. A world view want to make out what looks designed in every way as compared to a logical and common sense understanding of design in nature is not really designed but the product of a self creating naturalistic process. I think thats more of a stretch and illogical. If we assign design to human made things that look every bit as designed as life then why not life and nature itself. But some want to make what has been designed the designer. Thats like saying a designed computer program can then design its own new versions every year without any help from humans.
This is a good example of how you want to latch onto something I have said or that is in a paper and run with it out of context or forget the other things said which put it into context. You know I stated that I may not know in detail how to explain the processes of design but that luckily we have experts that can for which we can refer to. So you choose to ignore that part of the experts opinions because you can use my admission out of context to try and undermine my entire argument. I have posted papers on design in life through engineering concepts which you have ignored which support my position.
What ideas am I proposing.
Because it is not relevant at this point. I can talk about the fine tuning of the universe for life. I could talk about how the genetic code for life is fine tuned. I could talk about other things like dark matter, an ever increasingly faster expanding universe and quantum theories which cannot be explained by classical physics and may point to something beyond the science explanation. But these may be indirect evidence of a God or some some other agent beyond our world. But it is also beyond the science so what is the use for that.
Of course we can. If we see a house we know its designed. We dont have to know who the particular designer is but we know some intelligent designer made it. We tell by the structures and planing and complex ordered features. The mathematical equations, algorithms, codes, laws, language and all the trademarks that we know make up design. So when we see that in life we can know that some designer was involved. It doesn't matter who. The important point is that it was designed and just like the house didn't just build itself.
Like I keep saying the evidence comes from modern day assessments of the Cambrian period done by scientists including those who support evolution. I'm surprised you keep asking for evidence when it is common knowledge that the Cambrian period is famous for producing a lot of today's type features and body plans in a very short time. Thats why its called the Cambrian Explosion. If they acknowledge that the Cambrian creatures have all the modern day body plans in them then how else would they get those modern day body plans unless they had the genetic codes for them.
What I find ironic is that evolutionists like yourself will allow a lack of direct evidence such as having ancient genetic sequences available to prove evolution. They make claims about how evolution gradually evolved genetic info and that it morphed from simple to complex without that genetic evidence. So why has the criteria changed all of a sudden when something that is claimed goes against evolution. But anyway heres some evidence for how ancient genetic info was similar to modern day types.
I didn't miss that post and you know I replied to it. I said that we dont need to find every modern day animal in the Cambrian period. Just finding most modern day body plans is enough to show that modern type features existed early in evolution. Just showing one is enough because even if there was one modern type it means that modern type levels of features and genetic info existed then. If evolution is a slow and gradual process then we shouldn't see any. We should find more simple life back then with fossilized transitions going from simple to complex over a very long period of time. Not a sudden burst of modern type body plans virtually out of nowhere.
It is logical that similar features require similar genetics. What scientists call complex as in a feature or function requires more genetic info as there is more components to it.
A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis
Where did you get that idea. Intelligent design has nothing to do with creationism. Creationism bases itself in supernatural creation events. ID bases itself in verifiable scientific theories. Two completely different things when it comes to evidence.
That court case was along time ago and was politically motivated. A court from a pro evolutionary point of view deciding its own validity. It had little to do with the actual evidence for ID and all to do with the politics. Much of what was claimed about Id has since been verified anyway with modern day discoveries and testing.
I cant but experts can. You rely on experts all the time to support your case unless you claim you know everything about everything. Whats the difference. I have posted expert evidence for my case.
No I am honestly only concerned with design in life at the moment. You can separate each topic and look at the evidence for each. I am more than capable of looking at one thing at a time. I thought you wanted to deal with scientific evidence. How can we look at supernatural events scientifically. Lets keep to the science.
... How can we look at supernatural events scientifically. Lets keep to the science.
The Cambrian explosion basically produced fish. Over millions of years...
Really? No amphibians evolved during in the Cambrian explosion. Most revealing is that just after the end of the Cambrian Explosion, we still have almost nothing even remotely resembling anything in a zoo: no primates, no mammals, no reptiles, no amphibians, no jawed fish, no birds, no insects, no land life, no bunny rabbits, and no puppy dogs. And no wales or dolphins, either.
I am talking about the supernatural and scientific verification. You can prove the supernatural through science so there's no sense in going there. I was trying to keep things within the verifiable parameters. Ironically it was an non believer that wanted to keep moving things into the supernatural. I understand what the natural sciences are but that wasn't the point.
Most Cambrian life came about during about a 10 million year period which is the blink of an eye in evolutionary time. According to what I have read this period produced most of the modern body plans. So I think it was more then just fish shapes. You have to remember creatures dont have to be like land animals to have modern body plans. There were still eyes, gut, intestines, brains, hearts, nervous systems, limbs, joints, muscles, tendons, bone ect ect. The genetic info needed for all this was just as complex as today's animals.
Like I say its the scientists who make the claims that most of the modern day body plans were there during the Cambrian explosion. Just because they were different creatures doesn't mean they didn't have all the body plans of modern day animals. Dolphins and amphibians have tails, tendons, muscles, hearts, brains, eyes, fins, bone ect . all this existed during the Cambrian period.In fact some say there was even more complexity and it has been lost to simpler forms.
And sea life has every bit the same body plans as land life.
So being a Christian how do you suppose life happened. What role did God play. Perhaps a tiny role in creating a speck or a few chemicals mixed together and hey presto life and then the rest made itself. I always wondered about this.
Actually, not so. We don't have DNA sequences from Cambrian fossils because we haven't found any Cambrian DNA to sequence, yet.
Really? I think you made this part up. In other words you told an untruth. Not worth reading the rest of your diatribe after this complete untruth.
Nope. The Cambrian Period lasted around 45 million years. Way more than 10 000 years. The Cambrian explosion lasted around 20 million years. Way more than 10 000 years.
Except for jawed fish, insects, plants, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, birds, land life, bunny rabbits, and also no puppy dogs.
Nope, you weren't. You were telling untruths about the Cambrian explosion. That's all you did.
I thought that DNA doesnt last long. Like with the blood cells that were suppose to be found in Dino bones people said that even blood cells and tissue shouldn't last millions of years let alone DNA which is much more sensitive to deterioration.
Sorry I normally quote that the majority of modern body plans. Though some references do say nearly all or even all of the major body plans. If you check all my other past references for this you will see I have said most of the modern body plans. Besides the important thing is that most of the modern body plans suddenly appeared during this period. As I said before it only takes one or two modern day body plans to show that complex structures and the genetic code was around from an early period.
I mostly refer to scientific material or peer supported journals for my evidence. I know from experience that trying to cite anything remotely religious will get you know where. Even if it may be true and well supported by other non religious sources. There is a bias against it regardless. So most of my support is scientific. I have been reading them for years. The ironic thing is I rarely see those I debate with do the same. All they mostly do is try to undermine me and the sources rather then respond to the content with counter evidence that is supported scientifically.
You have come into a debate that has been going for weeks so you dont know what the context of our debate was about. The main crux of the debate was about design in life and the scientific evidence for it. Therefore I was linking various scientific articles in support for design in life. The Cambrian period as well as many other topics was mentions on a few occasions but was not the main point. KCfromNC kept asking who was the designer of life if there was design in nature. I was saying there's no sense in going into who the designer was because this moved things into the supernatural which was harder to verify.
I think if you check I said 10 million not 10 thousand years. The period varies from site to site. Some say 10 million and some say 20 million. Some even say 5 million. Either way in evolutionary terms its relatively short when you consider some of the time periods they have attributed to the evolution of other creatures. Evolution is suppose to be gradual and slow where it builds complex creatures through a trial and error process. When you consider that there was a great variety of life and complex body plans that may even rival today's life that appeared out of virtually nowhere and certainly from much simpler life forms which had a much less complex genetic code it is quite astonishing.
As I keep saying similar body plans doesn't have to be the same animals. The jointed limbs and eyes on many insects is a similar body plan to the jointed limbs and eyes on some of the Cambrian life. The plant life at the bottom of the Cambrian oceans had similar plans to modern day plant life. The jointed limbs on some of the sea life in the Cambrian period had similar body plans to the limbs of modern day puppies and rabbits. Its the body structures they are talking about like eyes, brains, gut, hearts, limbs, joints, bone structure, tails, heads, fins, antennas, shells, ect that is important. Not the individual animals themselves from today's animals that need to be there.
