Yet you don't listen to them. You ignore their conclusions and claim that it is more than just an appearance of design, and do so in contradiction to all of the evidence.
Upvote
0
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.
I have provided biologists claiming that life forms appear to be designed and not only life forms but the molecular machines within them appear designed for a purpose.
No kidding.You can lead a horse to water.....
How did the first replicating cell inevitably do it? Explain and present your evidence.Again, it's what the process of natural selection inevitably does.
Compete & survive, compete & find a mate, reproduce with random variation, repeat.
It inevitably leads to illusion of design, because it will inevitably lead to systems (= organisms) that are well adapted to the environment in which they live.
Wich results in it looking like it was designed specifically to be in that environment.
And you know what? IT WAS!! By a natural process of selection based on fitness.
No, I'm not. I'm looking at any lifeform. This would apply to the most simple self-replicating molecule as well as the most complex multi-cellular life form.
Adaptions accumulate.
How did they adapt and accumulate without the cell being able to replicate to make the replicating cell?
How did the adaptations and accumulations needed for replicating adapt and accumulate without replicating?Except that it does, since one-cellular organisms are also competing systems that reproduce with variation.
No, the exact same principles apply to any competing lifeform that reproduces with variation. Big, small, simple and complex.
Yes, after we have life and a way to replicate. Yet to replicate we require complexity and systems that have purpose...how did they do that without being able to reproduce with variation?
Nothing escapes evolution for as long as systems compete for resources and reproduce with variation.
You don't even realize that you are repeating a mantra without really thinking about the real issue. Evolution could not occur without the complexity within the first replicating cell, how did that complexity arise?
If you are going to point to the frontier of scientific study, where answers are still waiting to be found, in order to try and claim that a designer-dun-it, then you're making a giant argument from ignorance.
This is what you are claiming, that you know that the design we see in that first replicating cell is an illusion provided by adaptations and accumulations but that is impossible before the first replicating cell. You are claiming there is all this evidence that I am ignoring but there is no evidence to explain even that first replicating cell being endowed with complex functional design with purpose.
Repeat mantra....Evolution is a very well-evidenced theory.
Evolution: any genetic change in a population that is inherited over several generations. Tons of evidence for genetic change in a population that is inherited over several generations...but it does not explain how the first replicating cell was endowed with complex functional design with purpose.
And it is. As I tried to explain several times now.
The evidence is the evidence for evolution.
The explanation of why things look designed for their niche is natural selection.
See above.
Do you disagree that those that fit their environment better have a higher chance of survival and reproduction, then those who fit their environment not that well?
Certainly...but see above.
See above.If not... then what are you objecting to, really?
They have a materialistic bias that demands that design is not actual. So the question is not that there is evidence of design, it is whether that evidence is just an illusion as they claim. There is no evidence that they present that would confirm it is an illusion.Yet you don't listen to them. You ignore their conclusions and claim that it is more than just an appearance of design, and do so in contradiction to all of the evidence.
The claim is that there is an appearance of design in the life forms on earth. Not only design in the life itself but the makeup of the cell. So the evidence points to design or it would not be necessary to claim it is an illusion. So the evidence is there for design, they are countering that the design with saying it is an illusion.God is also capable of planting DNA at crime scenes. Doesn't mean he does.
God is also capable of making cows spring from trees, but he doesn't.
God is also capable of making it rain unicorns, but he doesn't.
If you are going to claim that God did something, then produce evidence that God actually did it.
So the evidence of design...appearing to be design for a purpose or plan is no evidence for ID? Dogma much?Looks like no evidence has been presented to support id. Shocking.
Why do things that can be connected to natural design process have to be perceived to have been done by an ID, especially when there is absolutely no physical evidence showing any influence to an ID?So the evidence of design...appearing to be design for a purpose or plan is no evidence for ID? Dogma much?
You haven't shown that it can be. No evidence has been provided for the complexity we see in the first replicating cell which is where much of the design in living forms exists.Why does being a process of survival exclude evolution from also being a natural design process? Why can't it be both?
Computer programs are not alive, do not reproduce, and do not evolve through the mechanisms that life does. Poor analogy.
Evasion.Doesn't matter. You might as well argue that we can't use a natural explanation for lightning unless we find a natural cause for the origin of the universe. We can infer proximal causes without needing to know ultimate origins.
You have yet to show that it requires complexity.
The evidence is the design that even the most simple life forms on earth possess.Why do things that can be connected to natural design process have to be perceived to have been done by an ID, especially when there is absolutely no physical evidence showing any influence to an ID?
God is also capable of planting DNA at crime scenes. Doesn't mean he does.
God is also capable of making cows spring from trees, but he doesn't.
God is also capable of making it rain unicorns, but he doesn't.
If you are going to claim that God did something, then produce evidence that God actually did it.
The point is not that I personally think there is design in living things but that those in the current scientific arena think so.I could care less about what Dawkins said. I want to know what you mean by designed, preferably in one sentence.
If you disagree with Dawkins, then show how it is not an illusion. Otherwise, Dawkins is making our point for us. That entire book shoots massive holes in your argument.
I am not discussing intelligent design. I am discussing evolution which is your position which needs explanation just as any other premise. The fact that you won't address your own position and continually derail any discussion of evolution to ID speaks volumes.We aren't going to know the step by step evolutionary pathway of every single base in every single genome. That doesn't change the fact that all of the evidence we do have is consistent with evolution, and you can't present any evidence of intelligent design.
No, the point is I am trying to understand "your" perception of what you mean by design so I can respond properly in context to your posts concerning "design". If you do not wish to provide your specific perception, then please say so and dispense with the obfuscation. Thank you.The point is not that I personally think there is design in living things but that those in the current scientific arena think so.
How did the first replicating cell inevitably do it? Explain and present your evidence.
We are not talking about adaptation to the environment
The first replicating cell is packed full of complexity and molecular machines just to get to that first replication. The very first replicating cell had to have such complexity just to be able to replicate.
So we can agree that the life forms throughout history have the appearance that they were designed with purpose and planning...correct?
I am not sure what you mean by my perception but I'll give it a go. My perception of design is recognition of those elements that show an inner complexity in function and structure that interact with other systems of the same which interact with more of the same within the whole that appear to have planning to achieve a set purpose.No, the point is I am trying to understand "your" perception of what you mean by design so I can respond properly in context to your posts concerning "design". If you do not wish to provide your specific perception, then please say so and dispense with the obfuscation. Thank you.
It was Dogma's analogy so tell him.
They have a materialistic bias that demands that design is not actual.
I am not discussing intelligent design. I am discussing evolution which is your position which needs explanation just as any other premise. The fact that you won't address your own position and continually derail any discussion of evolution to ID speaks volumes.
Thank you!I am not sure what you mean by my perception but I'll give it a go. My perception of design is recognition of those elements that show an inner complexity in function and structure that interact with other systems of the same which interact with more of the same within the whole that appear to have planning to achieve a set purpose.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?