Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[DogmaHunter]

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.

In other words, the PRATT known as "irreducible complexity" with some teleological sauce on top...

 

[Oncedeceived]

What kind of answer are you looking for here?
Do you expect me to line out the exact evolutionary pathway of every corner of a cell - which would span a time period of about 2 to 3 billion years before multi-cellular life existed?

If you want to make the claim that evolution could explain the design found in life forms then yes. The complexity that was required for even the first replicating cell is included in that claim. We find evidence for life as far back as 3.2 billion years ago which does not give you the 2 to 3 billion years as you said. If life was present 3.2 billion years ago as evidence suggests then there is a very short period in evolutionary terms for this replication to arise.

Yes, we are. Or at least... I am.

Yes, you are and that is the problem.

What is your evidence for these claims?

See video I presented to Loudmouth.

/facepalm

Right back at cha.

Whenever I end up in a discussion with you, eventually we always come to a point where you seem to have complete amnesia of everything that was said.
And then this picture goes through my mind:

As I have said several times in the last 2 posts........
Natural selection is what is responsible for the perceived design of living organisms. There is no designer, there is no purpose and there is no planning.[/Quote]

You are making a very bold claim here. Provide evidence that confirms that there is no planning or purpose in the inner workings of the cell.

There is only the natural process of competing systems who reproduce with variation. Which inevitably leads to the systems becoming "optimised" or "specialised" for the environment in which they live.

This is impossible without the complexity of the replicating cell. The very first living organism was extremely complex with a inner life very similar to a working factory humans have created.

The very real inevitable consequences of this inevitable process, combined with the much dreaded mountains of evidence for evolution, does not suggest any planning or purpose whatsoever.

Repeat mantra.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Thank you!

I'm with you until you get to: "...that appear to have planning to achieve a set purpose." How does something inanimate have a purpose?

What do you mean by inanimate?

 

[Oncedeceived]

In other words, the PRATT known as "irreducible complexity" with some teleological sauce on top...

Do you think that is what Dawkins, Crick and Davies are referring to when they claim the appearance of design?

 

[RickG]

What do you mean by inanimate?

Non living things. Are they designed? Do they have a purpose?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Non living things. Are they designed? Do they have a purpose?

I am just arguing biological systems that biologists have claimed the design we see in these systems is just an illusion.

 

[RickG]

I am just arguing biological systems that biologists have claimed the design we see in these systems is just an illusion.

So there is no design in Elements, Isotopes, Molecules, or Compounds?

 

[Loudmouth]

I am just arguing biological systems that biologists have claimed the design we see in these systems is just an illusion.

Is the duck in this cloud just an illusion?

Or, as you argue, is that a real duck since it has the appearance of a duck?

 

[Oncedeceived]

So there is no design in Elements, Isotopes, Molecules, or Compounds?

I am not referring to them specifically in regard to the systems being discussed. All "things" are made up of matter and matter of elements and so forth.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Is the duck in this cloud just an illusion?

Or, as you argue, is that a real duck since it has the appearance of a duck?

Patterns are not what I am discussing and you know that but you feel more comfortable with bunnies and ducks in clouds.

 

[lifepsyop]

Is the duck in this cloud just an illusion?

Or, as you argue, is that a real duck since it has the appearance of a duck?

Sorry but this is just hilarious as in the nested hierarchy thread you're posting pictures saying it is undeniable evidence of shared ancestry because it has an appearance of similarity. Your whole reality is based on darwinian illusions.

I already posted the evidence. Are you telling me you can't spot the evidence for homology in this picture?

 

[Loudmouth]

Sorry but this is just hilarious as in the nested hierarchy thread you're posting pictures saying it is undeniable evidence of shared ancestry because it has an appearance of similarity. Your whole reality is based on darwinian illusions.

Are you telling me that you can't determine if this is a human or not?

Remember, don't use any similarities.

 

[Loudmouth]

Patterns are not what I am discussing and you know that but you feel more comfortable with bunnies and ducks in clouds.

You are talking about patterns in proteins. You know that.

 

[AV1611VET]

Is the duck in this cloud just an illusion?

This isn't though:

 

[RickG]

I am not referring to them specifically in regard to the systems being discussed. All "things" are made up of matter and matter of elements and so forth.

Thus animate objects are made up of inanimate objects? Yes, we are talking about the same thing, I'm just starting at the very base, or genesis if you prefer. By what mechanism are these basic inanimate objects derived?

 

[Loudmouth]

Do you think that is what Dawkins, Crick and Davies are referring to when they claim the appearance of design?

Why don't you read their works and find out. That's what we did, and we understand what they are saying. For example, find out what Dawkins has to say about the coco-de-mer.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Do you think that is what Dawkins, Crick and Davies are referring to when they claim the appearance of design?

This implies that they would agree with your loaded perception of design.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You are talking about patterns in proteins. You know that.

You are talking about visual patterns.

 

[Loudmouth]

You are talking about visual patterns.

As are you.

 

[lifepsyop]

Are you telling me that you can't determine if this is a human or not?

Remember, don't use any similarities.

Unfortunately, nobody has informed Loudmouth that we can actually observe humans descending from humans.