Evidence for Design (3)

[createdtoworship]

It isn't, just as the evolution of modern electronic media is unrelated to stellar evolution. The evolution of democracy in 19th century Europe is also unrelated to biological evolution. The evolution of capitalist economies in the 20th century is also unrelated to cosmic evolution.

Just because they both have evolution in the description does not mean they are related.



Evolution is defined as change over time in all of them, and it is used that way in science. What you refuse to understand is that the mechanisms that cause change over time in each system differs.

abiogenesis has change over time

 

[Loudmouth]

abiogenesis has change over time

So do economies, governments, media, sports, fashion, and architecture. Just having change over time does not mean that they are the same as the processes of biological evolution.

Added by edit:

Here is an article about the evolution and the role of news media:

http://ip27.publications.lawcom.govt.nz/The+evolution+and+the+role+of+the+news+media

Do you, in any way, think this is related to the evolution of biological species?

 

[OllieFranz]

Does wind and sand reproduce?

Complexity matters because natural processes do not produce nano-sized complex genetic structures that humans can't begin to reproduce. In fact we often copy designs in nature to make things.

Did God design the entre universe or just theliving things in it? The original Watchmaker argument compared God's works to works designed by man -- none of which is alive. If ID can only be discovered in living things, it does not help your cause one iota.

 

[createdtoworship]

How does this support Intelligent Design? What experiments did they do to test ID hypotheses? What was their null hypothesis?

this is a c&p of the conclusion since you refuse to get off your duff, download and read a free peer review:


"we have considered two examples of design in birds which defy explanation by gradual
changes since to function at all, all the parts necessary for function must be there to begin with. As
examples of irreducible complexity, they show that natural systems have intricate machinery which
does not arise in a ‘bottom up’ approach, whereby some natural selective method of gaining smallscale
changes could give the intermediary creature some advantage. This will not work since, first,
there is no advantage unless all the parts of the new machine are available together and, second, in
the case of the avian lung the intermediary creature would not be able to breathe, and there is little
selective advantage if the creature is no longer alive.
As stated in the introduction, the possibility of an intelligent cause is both a valid scientific assumption,
and borne out by the evidence itself. This approach suggests that there is a basic design of bird
with furcula, keeled sternum, acrocoracoid process, air sac system, counterflow mass exchanger lung
and feathers which have hooked and ridged barbules, which is ancestral and quite different to reptile
design where these salient features are absent."



now you cannot say that ID doesn't have a peer review of avian resperatory and avian wings.

below you can download entire article free:

http://journals.witpress.com/paperinfo.asp?pid=399

 

[createdtoworship]

Yes, along with having an intracellular metabolism that creates a thermodynamic gradient across the cellular membrane. As I said, as soon as you have biological organisms reproducing and competing for metabolic resources you have evolution.



Then find them.



False. Abiogenesis is the current scientific hypothesis that deals with the production of biological reproduction.



Neither. Simple, single celled biological organisms came first.

what are your sources for this?

 

[Loudmouth]

this is a c&p of the conclusion since you refuse to get off your duff, download and read a free peer review:

Isn't it strange that you complain about having to do the very thing you expect everyone else to do?

Also, we don't want cut and paste. We want a discussion. I will repeat what I said in an earlier post:

If you think a peer reviewed article supports ID then tell us why you think that. Show us how the experiments in the paper test specific ID hypotheses, and have sufficient controls to rule out the null hypothesis. This is what real scientists do, by the way.

 

[createdtoworship]

So do economies, governments, media, sports, fashion, and architecture. Just having change over time does not mean that they are the same as the processes of biological evolution.

Added by edit:

Here is an article about the evolution and the role of news media:

The evolution and the role of the news media - Law Commission Issues Paper 27 - The news media meets ‘new media’: rights, responsibilities and regulation in the digital age

Do you, in any way, think this is related to the evolution of biological species?

you said change over time, now you are changing your definition of evolution once again to something more and more involved.

Really evolution can mean anything with change.

 

[EternalDragon]

Did God design the entre universe or just theliving things in it? The original Watchmaker argument compared God's works to works designed by man -- none of which is alive. If ID can only be discovered in living things, it does not help your cause one iota.

It is a fair comparison because the watch requires many fully designed parts to operate. Also you can compare genetic machinery to human designed machinery to see if it looks designed.

God designed us in His image, and we design things. So designed non-living things should resemble designed living things and that is exactly what we find.

 

[HitchSlap]

It is a fair comparison because the watch requires many fully designed parts to operate. Also you can compare genetic machinery to human designed machinery to see if it looks designed.

God designed us in His image, and we design things. So designed non-living things should resemble designed living things and that is exactly what we find.

Please name one non-living designed thing that sexually reproduces, then maybe you have a point.

 

[Loudmouth]

what are your sources for this?

We could look at the wiki entry as a decent summary:

"Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, the current understanding is descriptive. Life is considered a characteristic of organisms that exhibit all or most of the following characteristics or traits:[31][33][34]
Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells — the basic units of life.
Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
Adaptation: The ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors.
Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.
Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms."
Life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The main points are the ability to reproduce, an inside vs. outside, self sufficiency, and metabolism.

Biological evolution is loosely defined as a change in alleles in a population over time. In order to have a population you need reproduction among discrete organisms. In order to have alleles you need imperfect replication of genetic material. In order to have selection of alleles you need competition for metabolic sources of energy at a minimum. In other words, you need life before you have evolution.

 

[EternalDragon]

Please name one non-living designed thing that sexually reproduces, then maybe you have a point.

What does reproduction have to do with it? Nothing.

 

[createdtoworship]

"abiogenesis (the development of life through chemical
evolution from inorganic materials)"

from a non ID non creationistic scientific peer review found here:
Impact frustration of the origin of life




found by using:

abiogenesis vs evolution - Google Scholar

 

[Loudmouth]

It is a fair comparison because the watch requires many fully designed parts to operate.

Watches don't reproduce. Life does, which allows life to evolve.

Also you can compare genetic machinery to human designed machinery to see if it looks designed.

When we do compare them we find that human designed machinery does not fall into a nested hierarchy. Life does. A nested hierarchy is the hallmark of evolving systems, unlike designed systems.

God designed us in His image, and we design things. So designed non-living things should resemble designed living things and that is exactly what we find.

That is not what we find. The pattern of shared and derived features in designed systems does not match up to what we find in living organisms.

 

[Loudmouth]

"abiogenesis (the development of life through chemical
evolution from inorganic materials)"

Yes, not through biological evolution. Chemical and biological evolution are different things.

I also found an article that says news media evolves. Do you really think that the evolution of news media is the same as biological evolution? Just having the word "evolution" in it does not mean that they are the same process.

 

[Loudmouth]

What does reproduction have to do with it?

Everything.

 

[createdtoworship]

Yes, not through biological evolution. Chemical and biological evolution are different things.

I also found an article that says news media evolves. Do you really think that the evolution of news media is the same as biological evolution? Just having the word "evolution" in it does not mean that they are the same process.

close enough, so now you are saying not only does evolution mean, change through time, but it's more change, and now it's biological not chemical evolution.

I see the back peddle.

Why didn't you say that chemical evolution = abiogenesis.

off the get go.
I would have agreed.

 

[Loudmouth]

you said change over time, now you are changing your definition of evolution once again to something more and more involved.

No, I am not. What changes from one system to the next are the mechanisms that produce change over time.

Really evolution can mean anything with change.

However, that doesn't mean that evolution occurs through the same mechanisms in every situation.

 

[createdtoworship]

No, I am not. What changes from one system to the next are the mechanisms that produce change over time.



However, that doesn't mean that evolution occurs through the same mechanisms in every situation.

all I was saying was evolution is used to define different mechanisms.

so now that we have that covered.

what evidence do you have that we evolved from a rock, or a puddle or an amoba, or a RNA strand, or whatever.....


take your time.

 

[Loudmouth]

close enough, so now you are saying not only does evolution mean, change through time, but it's more change, and now it's biological not chemical evolution.

Are you aware that context matters?

Does the evolution of architecture occur through the same mechanisms as evolution of biological species? Yes or no?

I see the back peddle.

I see someone with their fingers in their ears and their eyes shut tight.

Why didn't you say that chemical evolution = abiogenesis.

Why do you think that evolution is the same in all systems?

 

[createdtoworship]

Are you aware that context matters?

Does the evolution of architecture occur through the same mechanisms as evolution of biological species? Yes or no?



I see someone with their fingers in their ears and their eyes shut tight.



Why do you think that evolution is the same in all systems?

going to have dinner,

think aboutmy last question