Evolution is mathematically impossible

[OldWiseGuy]

Most people see awesome functional complexity, not design.

They are close...very close.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

They are close...very close.

Not necessarily - some of the best designs are known for their awesome functional simplicity.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Not necessarily - some of the best designs are known for their awesome functional simplicity.

I meant that 'they' are very close to seeing design.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I meant that 'they' are very close to seeing design.

How can you possibly know that? how would 'they' even know?

 

[Speedwell]

I meant that 'they' are very close to seeing design.

Design is intention. You can sometimes infer intention behind and object, but you can't see it.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

They are close...very close.

I think you may have come close to understanding the difference between inferring design and seeing design. Why not could give it another shot, then you'll have achieved something new

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Design is intention. You can sometimes infer intention behind and object, but you can't see it.

See..infer, same/same.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I think you may have come close to understanding the difference between inferring design and seeing design. Why not could give it another shot, then you'll have achieved something new

I chose the term "takeaway". I think that covers it.

 

[pitabread]

See..infer, same/same.

Regardless of how you want to characterize it, you haven't really supported your case for design in anatomy other than via circular logic and gut feelings. There doesn't appear to be a substantive argument here.

 

[Speedwell]

See..infer, same/same.

Not necessarily. There is nothing in human anatomy from which to infer design.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Not necessarily. There is nothing in human anatomy from which to infer design.

I infer it from form and function.

 

[VirOptimus]

I infer it from form and function.

Its an unsupported (and uninformed) opinion.

It has no weight and can be ignored.

 

[bhsmte]

How can you possibly know that? how would 'they' even know?

Its just wishful thinking. We get a lot of that around here.

 

[Speedwell]

I infer it from form and function.

"Form and function" are not evidence of design, whether you are talking about a man-made object or a naturally occurring one.

 

[pitabread]

"Form and function" are not evidence of design, whether you are talking about a man-made object or a naturally occurring one.

Hence the circularity of the argument: It is designed because it has function. It has function because it is designed.

And round and round we go...

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Its an unsupported (and uninformed) opinion.

It has no weight and can be ignored.

So ignore it.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Hence the circularity of the argument: It is designed because it has function. It has function because it is designed.

And round and round we go...

Don't forget to add if it quacks like a duck.

 

[xianghua]

Just stop. I'm not discussing your silly fantasy cars.

why not? because it falsify your argument?

 

[Speedwell]

why not? because it falsify your argument?

No, because they are (poorly contrived) analogies and analogies aren't scientific evidence.