Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[The Cadet]

They have no purposeful function a function that is complex within the complex.

Are you writing on your phone? I don't understand what you're saying here.

The fact that we can recognize design says it all.

Okay. I recognize design in the Big Dipper. Did god somehow design those stars in that particular pattern?

 

[Jan Volkes]

I would ask what you call phenomenally complex that we know for certain were made by natural processes alone.

These are formed naturally by the wind in deserts, unless you think they are designed.
http://www.spiritrockshop.com/Desert_Rose.html

 

[Oncedeceived]

Are you writing on your phone? I don't understand what you're saying here.

No lack of focus I am babysitting. Let me try again. In snowflakes and crystals there is no complexity in function or purpose. The molecular machines in living things are very purposeful and complex. So much so that we ourselves can not come close to producing them ourselves.

Okay. I recognize design in the Big Dipper. Did god somehow design those stars in that particular pattern?

You are confusing sight patterns with complex function and purpose.

The cell above.

 

[Loudmouth]

Provide the evidence for those precursors for life in the Cambrian that I am ignoring.

I am talking about the human precursors that you are ignoring.

Also, present the evidence that those precursors don't exist. Nowhere in the theory of evolution does it state that those precursors should be fossilized, and at such a rate that they would be known to modern humans. Nowhere. You are the one making the claim that they should have been found in the fossil record if they existed in the past. Where is your evidence for this claim?

We always find a place to put them in the nested hierarchy.

Which is why fossils are evidence for evolution, not design.

Right now we have no evidence for precursors of the Cambrian fauna.

Science deals with the fossils we do have, not the fossils we don't have.

Also, you still don't have an explanation for the nested hierarchy within the domain of common design. This is the fact that you are ignoring.

 

[Oncedeceived]

These are formed naturally by the wind in deserts, unless you think they are designed.
http://www.spiritrockshop.com/Desert_Rose.html

The same problem that Cadet is having.

 

[Loudmouth]

They have no purposeful function a function that is complex within the complex.

Sure they do. Snowflakes are complex, and they serve the function of storing water at high elevations during the winter. They also serve the function of slowing the frozen water down at is falls towards Earth.

 

[Loudmouth]

The same problem that Cadet is having.

It appears to be your problem since complexity and function do occur through natural processes.

 

[Loudmouth]

You are confusing sight patterns with complex function and purpose.

Not at all. The Grand Canyon drainage basin is also complex, and it serves the function of moving water from the upper basin towards the Pacific Ocean.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I am talking about the human precursors that you are ignoring.

Where have I ignored them?

Also, present the evidence that those precursors don't exist. Nowhere in the theory of evolution does it state that those precursors should be fossilized, and at such a rate that they would be known to modern humans. Nowhere. You are the one making the claim that they should have been found in the fossil record if they existed in the past. Where is your evidence for this claim?

How convenient. Once doesn't ask for evidence of a negative...remember?

Which is why fossils are evidence for evolution, not design.

No, this is a process that we have labeled. We are looking back into time and making a determination on what occurred and how. There is an appearance of design in the life forms on earth which is dismissed by materialist so that it is not attributed to actual design.

Science deals with the fossils we do have, not the fossils we don't have.

And we have no precursors for the Cambrian Explosion fuana.

Also, you still don't have an explanation for the nested hierarchy within the domain of common design. This is the fact that you are ignoring.

This is just an assertion on your part. There is no reason that Design can not create the nested hierarchy that man has devised to categorize life forms.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It appears to be your problem since complexity and function do occur through natural processes.

We have stories but we have no evidence for how molecular machines using evolution alone evolved.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Not at all. The Grand Canyon drainage basin is also complex, and it serves the function of moving water from the upper basin towards the Pacific Ocean.

It is not complex in function as are molecular machines. Water naturally flows downhill. Not complex at all.

 

[Loudmouth]

Where have I ignored them?

In post #1135

How convenient. Once doesn't ask for evidence of a negative...remember?

You don't remember that. Double standard, much?

If you can't live to your own standards, don't use them.

No, this is a process that we have labeled. We are looking back into time and making a determination on what occurred and how.

We are looking at the genomes and living species in the present. We are looking at the evolutionary mechanisms at work NOW. We observe that those mechanisms produce a nested hierarchy NOW, IN THE PRESENT. We have an observed mechanism that produces a nested hierarchy. We observe that life falls into a nested hierarchy. Ergo, we conclude that modern biodiversity is a product of those mechanisms.

Common design, on the other hand, does NOT produce a nested hierarchy.

There is an appearance of design in the life forms on earth which is dismissed by materialist so that it is not attributed to actual design.

So where is the evidence that it is due to actual design?

And we have no precursors for the Cambrian Explosion fuana.

We have no fossils right now. As already shown, that is not evidence that they didn't exist.

This is just an assertion on your part. There is no reason that Design can not create the nested hierarchy that man has devised to categorize life forms.

What reason is there that a designer would create life so that it fell into a nested hierarchy? If you can't produce one, then you have no explanation.

[They say] "We do not know how this is, but we know that God can do it." You poor fools! God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so.--William of Conches​

 

[Loudmouth]

It is not complex in function as are molecular machines.

Yes it is.

Water naturally flows downhill. Not complex at all.

Proteins naturally form. Does that make them not complex?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes it is.



Proteins naturally form. Does that make them not complex?

No. Go ahead and give the evidence for the complexity of the inner cell by evolutionary processes. Explain how each function arose and how those proteins came to give rise to those machines.

 

[Loudmouth]

No. Go ahead and give the evidence for the complexity of the inner cell by evolutionary processes.

I am showing that natural processes can produce complex systems that have function. So far, I have shown you the snowflake and the Grand Canyon drainage system.

Unless you can show how an intelligent force is involved in their formation instead of natural ones, I have disproven your premise.

 

[Jan Volkes]

The same problem that Cadet is having.

I'm not the one with the problem you are.

 

[Oncedeceived]

In post #1135



You don't remember that. Double standard, much?

It was you making the double standard.

If you can't live to your own standards, don't use them.

You are the one using it.

We are looking at the genomes and living species in the present. We are looking at the evolutionary mechanisms at work NOW. We observe that those mechanisms produce a nested hierarchy NOW, IN THE PRESENT. We have an observed mechanism that produces a nested hierarchy. We observe that life falls into a nested hierarchy. Ergo, we conclude that modern biodiversity is a product of those mechanisms.

Common design, on the other hand, does NOT produce a nested hierarchy.

Right, no evidence of how molecular machines could arise or how their purposeful function arose with them.

In fact, man produced the nested hierarchy using ad hoc categorization with creatures that were created through adaptation and change in a process that looking back upon can be put into different kinds of life forms. Exactly what we would expect with what Genesis says we should see.

So where is the evidence that it is due to actual design?

The recognition of design is present, it is hand waved away by claiming it is an illusion. The evidence is the design seen in life forms.

We have no fossils right now. As already shown, that is not evidence that they didn't exist.

Exactly, just like we don't find evidence for trees and flowers in the pre-cambrian like Genesis 1 claims. We don't have those fossils but that doesn't mean they didn't exist.

What reason is there that a designer would create life so that it fell into a nested hierarchy? If you can't produce one, then you have no explanation.

We are looking back at creation. Life is made up of different kinds that came from the same kinds prior to them and followed by others of the same. We see it because that is how we have categorized life forms.

[They say] "We do not know how this is, but we know that God can do it." You poor fools! God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so.--William of Conches

Nonsense.

 

[Loudmouth]

No. Go ahead and give the evidence for the complexity of the inner cell by evolutionary processes.

Please provide the supernatural process used to produce proteins. All of the proteins I am aware of are produced by very natural processes in the cell.

Explain how each function arose and how those proteins came to give rise to those machines.

I thought you already understood how transcription and translation worked?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcription_(genetics)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Translation_(biology)

 

[Jan Volkes]

No. Go ahead and give the evidence for the complexity of the inner cell by evolutionary processes. Explain how each function arose and how those proteins came to give rise to those machines.

Let me get this straight, if something is complex then a magic man must have designed it because there is no other way
[as far as you're concerned] it could have come about, am I close?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I am showing that natural processes can produce complex systems that have function. So far, I have shown you the snowflake and the Grand Canyon drainage system.

Which in both cases do not have purposeful function.

Unless you can show how an intelligent force is involved in their formation instead of natural ones, I have disproven your premise.

Unless you can show how complex life including brains and a multitude of eyes with no fossil evidence for any precursors I've dis-proven your premise that all life has a Universal common ancestor.