Some random discussion on evolution...

[Speedwell]

a natural process cant make human genome. only design.

No, that's what you're trying to prove. You can't use it as a premise in your argument.

In any case you have stated it incorrectly, because a natural process does not rule out design.

 

[xianghua]

Not necessarily. The first life may have arisen from non-living matter by a natural process, in which case we wouldn't be able to tell whether it was designed or not.

but we can say the same for a plastic. so why you conclude design when you see aplastic but not in living thing?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

have you seen a living thing evolving from non living thing? if not then what is true for a plastic is also true for a living thing. case close.

Not closed in the slightest.
To get any of your claims to work, you'd have to show plastic being formed via natural process. Which is impossible. Now that is case closed.

 

[Speedwell]

but we can say the same for a plastic. so why you conclude design when you see aplastic but not in living thing?

I have never seen molded plastic components in a living thing.

 

[pitabread]

we will see about that.

We already know. This isn't a point for debate. An argument based on logical fallacies is by definition not a strong argument. And your arguments are full of logical fallacies.

Now if you wanted to make better arguments, you could re-work your arguments to avoid the fallacies you keep making. But in the two years you've been here, you haven't shown any interest in doing so.

since the genome code for complex biological systems (including motors) thuse we can conclude design when we see a human genome. a natural process cant make human genome. only design.

This isn't a method for detecting design; it's just an assertion of the very thing you're being asked to demonstrate. This is called Circular reasoning and it's another logical fallacy.

Regardless, you don't appear to know how design is really detected. However, I can tell you in the case of human-modified how it actually is detected.

Currently the only methods for detecting human-modified genomes is:

a) pre-existing knowledge of the modifications including the specific modified genetic sequence(s) and/or modified proteins;
b) comparison of an organism's genome to those known human-modified genetic sequence(s) and/or protiens.​

In other words, like everything else design detection in this case requires pre-existing knowledge of the design.

There are some attempts to improve detection methods to detect genetically-modified organisms of unknown origin. Even those methods still rely on the knowledge of how organisms are genetically modified and looking at specific indications that such organisms underwent a genetic modification process.

You can read more about it here: Detection of genetically modified organisms - Wikipedia

 

[Kylie]

its a theoretical question. so can you detect design if you will see a self replicating car or not?

Why do you keep pretending your imaginary things reflect reality? I know for a fact you've been told countless times they do not.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

but we can say the same for a plastic.

No we can't. Every plastic we are aware of has been created by humans using well documented processes and ingredients. If you can demonstrate the same for living things then please do so.

so why you conclude design when you see aplastic but not in living thing?

Because we know how plastics are made by humans. There is no evidence of them being made by any natural process.

 

[46AND2]

so a self replicating car isnt evidence for design?

The fact that you have to resort to imaginary objects to prove your imaginary being should tell you something...

Wanna know what it tells us?

 

[xianghua]

Not closed in the slightest.
To get any of your claims to work, you'd have to show plastic being formed via natural process.

i will try to do that when you will show me how life evolved from non-life. if you cant then what is true for a plastic is also true for life.

 

[xianghua]

I have never seen molded plastic components in a living thing.

how is that relevant? you said that a plastic is evidence for design since we never seen a natural process making a plastic. so the same is true for life- we never seen how a narual process can make life from non life. thus according to your criteria life also need design.

 

[xianghua]

Why do you keep pretending your imaginary things reflect reality?

because we do find such complex system in reality. not a car but something no less complex.

 

[xianghua]

There is no evidence of them being made by any natural process.

exactly like a living creature.

 

[xianghua]

This isn't a method for detecting design; it's just an assertion of the very thing you're being asked to demonstrate. This is called Circular reasoning and it's another logical fallacy.

its not. when we see a spinning motor we know that a natural process cant make such a motor. thus we can detect design. its not at all a circular reasonning.

on the other hand- if an artifical genome will be indetical to a "natural" one how your "human design detection" will work?

 

[Speedwell]

how is that relevant? you said that a plastic is evidence for design since we never seen a natural process making a plastic. so the same is true for life- we never seen how a narual process can make life from non life. thus according to your criteria life also need design.

Changing the terms of your argument is not going to help you. Evolution is about how living creatures change and diversify after life exists. How life first came into existence from non-life is a separate question.

 

[Speedwell]

its not. when we see a spinning motor we know that a natural process cant make such a motor. thus we can detect design. its not at all a circular reasonning.

No, we don't know that. In fact, the theory of evolution has a plausible explanation for it.

on the other hand- if an artifical genome will be indetical to a "natural" one how your "human design detection" will work?

It won't. The presence of intelligent design cannot always be detected.

 

[Speedwell]

because we do find such complex system in reality. not a car but something no less complex.

System complexity is not evidence of design.

 

[xianghua]

Changing the terms of your argument is not going to help you. Evolution is about how living creatures change and diversify after life exists. How life first came into existence from non-life is a separate question.

so you agree that the first life need design like a plastic need?

 

[Speedwell]

so you agree that the first life need design like a plastic need?

I don't know. Know one does at this point, but it is relatively certain that if life did arise by a natural process with or without design, it wasn't by the same process as evolution.

 

[pitabread]

its not. when we see a spinning motor we know that a natural process cant make such a motor. thus we can detect design. its not at all a circular reasonning.

It's circular reasoning because you're merely asserting the very thing you are being asked to demonstrate. On top of that, you're engaging in equivocation using the term "motor". And when you start comparing non-living and living things, invariably you invoke the False Equivalence fallacy.

Your arguments are just a giant bucket of logical fallacies. Which is why they are bad arguments.

If you wanted to improve your arguments you could. But you'd first need to understand and acknowledge the fallacies you keep making. Do you want to do that?

on the other hand- if an artifical genome will be indetical to a "natural" one how your "human design detection" will work?

First starters, human modified organisms are not identical to what is in nature. Otherwise, we wouldn't be modifying organisms in the first place.

But if we were to create something that for all intents and purposes is completely identical to something that already existed in nature, then you wouldn't be able to detect design.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

i will try to do that when you will show me how life evolved from non-life. if you cant then what is true for a plastic is also true for life.

No, you're the one making the extraordinary claim without presenting any evidence.
And abiogenesis is not the topic of discussion on this thread. Evolution is.