Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[Loudmouth]

Just like Loudmouth you are confusing "function" with a "result". A river is just the result of water running down hill.

No different than life being the result of DNA interacting with the environment.

By default people doesn't assume the universe and things we witness in the universe is an illusion unless proven otherwise.

Since you can't present any evidence that design is real, there is no argument that we need to disprove.

 

[Loudmouth]

The design that appears in organisms.

All you have offered is your subjective opinion of what something looks like. Where is the objective evidence?

 

[justlookinla]

Among other illusions, yes.

No evidence for illusion of design?

 

[HitchSlap]

No evidence for illusion of design?

No evidence for design, correct. Hence the illusion you choose to believe in.

 

[justlookinla]

It is well supported by individuals such as yourself. You can't show that is it more than an illusion, can you?

Prove it's an illusion.

 

[justlookinla]

No evidence for design, correct. Hence the illusion you choose to believe in.

What illusion?

 

[Oncedeceived]

No evidence for design, correct. Hence the illusion you choose to believe in.

All you have offered is your subjective opinion of what something looks like. Where is the objective evidence?

I haven't offered my opinion at all. I have presented a quote from Dawkins:

"Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selectioin overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning. The purpose of this book is to resolve the paradox to the satisfaction of the reader, and the purpose of this chapter is further to impress the reader with the power of the illusion of design." Cover

Dawkins and other biologists concur that living things have the overwhelming appearance of design and that that appearance is an illusion.

 

[Smidlee]

No different than life being the result of DNA interacting with the environment.

You doesn't seem to understand living systems . Engineers and those in the medical field can clearly tell the difference. Does the majority of biologist believe like this? If so this reveals just how blind they are from "reality" and someone has good reason to question their claims.

Since you can't present any evidence that design is real, there is no argument that we need to disprove.

Design in part of our universe. If you can't tell the difference between a river and living system I doubt any could accept any amount of evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

I haven't offered my opinion at all. I have presented a quote from Dawkins:

"Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selectioin overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning. The purpose of this book is to resolve the paradox to the satisfaction of the reader, and the purpose of this chapter is further to impress the reader with the power of the illusion of design." Cover

Dawkins and other biologists concur that living things have the overwhelming appearance of design and that that appearance is an illusion.

Where have you shown us that the appearance of design is a scientific observation? Where is the scientific methodology, unit of measure, and statistical tests?

 

[Loudmouth]

You doesn't seem to understand living systems then.

I most certainly do.

Engineers and those in the medical field can clearly tell the difference. Does the majority of biologist believe like this?

Can you name one function in a cell that is not the result of physical interactions, just like how a river is formed?

Design in part of our universe.

Where is the evidence?????

 

[bhsmte]

Where have you shown us that the appearance of design is a scientific observation? Where is the scientific methodology, unit of measure, and statistical tests?

That's all topic secret.

 

[Smidlee]

I most certainly do.



Can you name one function in a cell that is not the result of physical interactions, just like how a river is formed?



Where is the evidence?????

Here someone from the medical field who understands what it takes to stay alive

"If you really want to understand how life came into existence you must first understand how easily it can become non-existent. Just as a mechanic knows that there are many different ways a car can "die," so too every physician knows that there are many different pathways to death. Theories about life that only describe where the different parts may have come from, or even how they may have come together to perform a specific function, as difficult as that may be, are not good enough.For medical science knows that when the body has allowed the rules of physics and chemistry to take over, having lost control and not being able to maintain the right level of any one chemical or vital function, then the consequence is death."
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/02/how_the_body_wo093941.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/02/how_the_body_wo093941.html

A river doesn't have to control water in order to remain a river.

 

[HitchSlap]

I haven't offered my opinion at all. I have presented a quote from Dawkins:

"Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selectioin overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning. The purpose of this book is to resolve the paradox to the satisfaction of the reader, and the purpose of this chapter is further to impress the reader with the power of the illusion of design." Cover

Dawkins and other biologists concur that living things have the overwhelming appearance of design and that that appearance is an illusion.

I read his book and this paradox has been satisfied for me.

 

[bhsmte]

Here someone from the medical field who understands what it takes to stay alive

"If you really want to understand how life came into existence you must first understand how easily it can become non-existent. Just as a mechanic knows that there are many different ways a car can "die," so too every physician knows that there are many different pathways to death. Theories about life that only describe where the different parts may have come from, or even how they may have come together to perform a specific function, as difficult as that may be, are not good enough.For medical science knows that when the body has allowed the rules of physics and chemistry to take over, having lost control and not being able to maintain the right level of any one chemical or vital function, then the consequence is death."
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/02/how_the_body_wo093941.html

A river doesn't have to control water in order to remain a river.

Does this mean the body that is living is immune from the rules of chemistry and physics?

Quite a trick.

 

[Loudmouth]

Here someone from the medical field who understands what it takes to stay alive

"If you really want to understand how life came into existence you must first understand how easily it can become non-existent. Just as a mechanic knows that there are many different ways a car can "die," so too every physician knows that there are many different pathways to death. Theories about life that only describe where the different parts may have come from, or even how they may have come together to perform a specific function, as difficult as that may be, are not good enough.For medical science knows that when the body has allowed the rules of physics and chemistry to take over, having lost control and not being able to maintain the right level of any one chemical or vital function, then the consequence is death."
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/02/how_the_body_wo093941.html

A river doesn't have to control water in order to remain a river.

So the body violates the rules of chemistry and physics? Really? Please, show me the processes in the cell that violate the fundamental rules of the cosmos.

 

[Smidlee]

Does this mean the body that is living is immune from the rules of chemistry and physics?

Quite a trick.

Howard Glicksman explains this clearly if you care to learn.

 

[Loudmouth]

Howard Glicksman explains this clearly if you care to learn.

Please, explain. What physical and chemical laws does the body violate?

 

[Smidlee]

Please, explain. What physical and chemical laws does the body violate?

"Everything in the world is made up of matter. All matter consists of many different types of atoms chemically bonded to form different types of molecules. All matter mustfollow the rules of physics and chemistry. Just like our planet where two-thirds is covered by water and one-third by land, our body is roughly two-thirds water and one-third other matter. But, unlike most of the earth, our "water and dust" is organized for life. The body is made up of trillions of cells each of which contains trillions and trillions of atoms and molecules. Since our cells are made up of atoms and molecules, this means that they too must obey the laws of nature."

"But, like in any game, to follow the rules means that you must first take control. If you're playing baseball you can't hit the ball just anywhere or run the bases any which way. By taking control you must try to keep the ball in fair territory and run the bases correctly. So too, your body must be able to take control of many different chemicals and functions."

 

[Oncedeceived]

I read his book and this paradox has been satisfied for me.

What paradox?

 

[bhsmte]

Howard Glicksman explains this clearly if you care to learn.

Well Howie goes against everything I learned in graduate school level human physiology, because proper function of the body, is 100% dependent on the rules of chemistry, taking over.