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.
The problem is, that the purpose cannot be directly detected in the object. That is why functional complexity--in itself--is not evidence of design. I believe that the universe is infused with divine purpose, but I can't prove it. Intelligent design is an unfalsifiable proposition.I believe everything is a product of purposeful design, even when the design goes wrong and produces a monstrosity. If the wrong chemicals are mixed and blow up the mixture was 'designed' to do so.
Maybe we should examine the 'evolution' of the plants the feed the animals. They must have evolved separately but at the same time, and just in time for dinner.
So, you don't know either.
Shot through with the usual suppositions and giant biological leaps. Nothing new here. Science says that nothing can be proven absolutely, but we are to believe the ToE as absolute fact. Or we are to believe the latest iteration...until a better one is devised. Curious.
If you feel that the information that I give is not correct or sufficient, then you might actually want to explain why that is.
The evolution of the eye (several eyes really, since eyes have evolved independently several times) is well evidenced by all of: physiological, genetic, and fossil evidence. You appear to be trying to just arm-wave that all away.
EDIT: I had a look back and find this:
Again, that appears to be an attempt to arm-wave away humanity's now good understanding of how eyes evolved. Can you actually tell us what is wrong in the article. In detail so that we can discuss your actual reasons for disagreeing with the article.
Humanity believes that eye evolved but has no real clue how, which explains the rather sketchy details (the devil is in them missing details).
In particular the Scientific American article shows that we (humanity) have a very good and detailed idea how the eye evolved. You are attempting to just arm-wave that away, without being able to explain your reasons for doing so. E.g. you mention 'sketchy details' when that is not an accurate description of the state of our knowledge. And you don't even say what the missing details are. I don't believe you do have an argument; if you did, you would be able to support your claims that our understanding of the evolution of the eye is at the level of 'no real clue how'.
Incorrect, you are neglecting animals that consume bacteria. Animals predate plants just slightly. Also note that the first photosynthetic organisms were bacteria, not plants.Maybe we should examine the 'evolution' of the plants the feed the animals. They must have evolved separately but at the same time, and just in time for dinner.
what if we are talking about a robot that made from organic components like a living thing? in this case you will conclude design or a natural process if you will find such one?
Incorrect, you are neglecting animals that consume bacteria. Animals predate plants just slightly. Also note that the first photosynthetic organisms were bacteria, not plants.
Maybe we should examine the 'evolution' of the plants the feed the animals. They must have evolved separately but at the same time, and just in time for dinner.
Actually, while all animal life was still confined to the oceans, plants began to colonize the land, and without anything to eat them they thrived. As amphibians became some of the first animals to transition to land, they found an abundant food source and probably adapted quite easily from eating aquatic plants to those growing on land.
Well, let's turn our attention to those aquatic plants then.
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. All life began as simple single-celled organisms. Over time, these became bigger and more complex as competition increased due to speciation. Some became more efficient producers, while others became consumers. These continued to grow and evolve over time into the earliest forms of plants and animals. Producers had to come first, but consumers probably weren't too far behind once it became more advantageous for some to consume rather than produce their own food. They evolved alongside each other and adapted as they needed.
if there is a code on information and a code reader those are complex languages the motor has to be also directed by a program to assemble every cell in just the right place. Randomness could not assemble a working motor but say it did the information to use the motor is directed not by the motor.
The single celled organism is much more complicated than anyone in the early days of evolution thought.
Even granted that you did get your 1st miracle cell the upward complexity and diversity and balance is designed not engineered.
I used to go to areas looking for arrowheads and there are millions of rocks that are millions of years old and an arrowhead stands out because it has specific design elements.
If nature cannot create an arrowhead by itself you are giving it credit for organizing information to generate billions of life forms that are quantum steps beyond and arrowhead.
The evidence is the same for both sides
as we can look at how many amino acids and all are needed and even break down the code and analyze it.
My world view includes the super natural as part of reality
and others deny the super natural exists.
The scriptures teach of fallen and loyal angels. If you do a study into spirit guides, automatic writing, Satanism and rock and roll there is evidence my world view that includes other dimensions interacting on our own is valid.
If there is a spiritual world then we are spiritual beings
and the conscience we possess and the self awareness are not a mutation upward but an endowment to us.
That's an example of the usual overview. How about some details.
You live in a world where that world view is shoved down your throat to create a world of post modernism and people are now behaving like animals as well without restraint. If given equal time people would change their minds on a lot of things such as man made carbon causing global warming, 9/11 a bunch of guys with box cutters, a real global flood did occur...
Humanity believes that eye evolved but has no real clue how, which explains the rather sketchy details (the devil is in them missing details).
What's wrong with the article is that it is pure speculation, by admission of the author.
You are asking a group of strangers on the internet to give you an unreasonably detailed explanation of molecular mechanisms that take years of study to understand. Now I have studied these mechanisms and understand to a fair extent how they work, but I will not be posting a 300-page dissertation on a web forum. That is an absurd and childish demand to make.
I, and others, have given sufficient overviews of the mechanisms at work to explain the process of evolution. If that is not enough, I recommend you pick up a Molecular Biology college textbook and study it yourself. But do not demand people to give a certain type of answer and then claim to be in the right just because no one wants to sit down and type an answer for an hour or more.
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?