More Things to consider

[pshun2404]

Darwin was convinced that the direction of evolution was demonstrated in that simpler forms became more complex forms over long periods of time. He predicted we would find that small successive changes led to the development of all organs as well as to the more complex and higher organisms.

Not being privy to all that we can observe today he theoretically rejected the idea of developmental changes occurring relatively quick. Even the idea of Punctuated Equilibrium would have been rejected as it could not and did not demonstrate what Darwin was predicting we should find, and now after witnessing the phenomena of the seemingly sudden appearance of some already complex creatures having all their subsystems in place and functional (like Nautilus itself) we must admit that at least on this point Darwin was incorrect.

Read, “Evolution, You’re Drunk (DNA studies topple the ladder of complexity)” in the January 2018 issue of Nautilus ( Evolution, You’re Drunk - Issue 9: Time - Nautilus )

The article opens by pointing out that “...amoebas are made of just one cell, researchers assumed they would be simpler than humans genetically. Plus, amoebas date back farther in time than humans, and simplicity is considered an attribute of primitive beings. It just didn’t make sense.”

But why, one may ask? Why doesn’t it make sense? Well because as they point out amoebas have 100s of times more DNA than higher primates. As well we have found that allegedly higher order systems are actually present in some cases prior to the lesser complex ones. Finally in another scenario we can see that some complex features devolve and then return later (Whiting, M. F., Bradler, S. & Maxwell, T. “Loss and recovery of wings in stick insects”, Nature 421, 2003). So what’s happening to the tree? It’s beginning to rot at its base.

 

[Skreeper]

Darwin was convinced that the direction of evolution was demonstrated in that simpler forms became more complex forms over long periods of time. He predicted we would find that small successive changes led to the development of all organs as well as to the more complex and higher organisms.

Not being privy to all that we can observe today he theoretically rejected the idea of developmental changes occurring relatively quick. Even the idea of Punctuated Equilibrium would have been rejected as it could not and did not demonstrate what Darwin was predicting we should find, and now after witnessing the phenomena of the seemingly sudden appearance of some already complex creatures having all their subsystems in place and functional (like Nautilus itself) we must admit that at least on this point Darwin was incorrect.

Read, “Evolution, You’re Drunk (DNA studies topple the ladder of complexity)” in the January 2018 issue of Nautilus ( Evolution, You’re Drunk - Issue 9: Time - Nautilus )

The article opens by pointing out that “...amoebas are made of just one cell, researchers assumed they would be simpler than humans genetically. Plus, amoebas date back farther in time than humans, and simplicity is considered an attribute of primitive beings. It just didn’t make sense.”

But why, one may ask? Why doesn’t it make sense? Well because as they point out amoebas have 100s of times more DNA than higher primates. As well we have found that allegedly higher order systems are actually present in some cases prior to the lesser complex ones. Finally in another scenario we can see that some complex features devolve and then return later (Whiting, M. F., Bradler, S. & Maxwell, T. “Loss and recovery of wings in stick insects”, Nature 421, 2003). So what’s happening to the tree? It’s beginning to rot at its base.

The Theory of Evolution has changed a lot since Darwin. It's important to remember that he kick started the field but I wouldn't recommend taking all of his his material as accurate.

Im still wondering though what you're trying to say with your post? Just because Darwin was wrong about some details doesn't change the fact that the ToE is the best explanation for the diversity of life on earth.

 

[SkyWriting]

Darwin was convinced that the direction of evolution was demonstrated in that simpler forms became more complex forms over long periods of time. He predicted we would find that small successive changes led to the development of all organs as well as to the more complex and higher organisms.

Not being privy to all that we can observe today he theoretically rejected the idea of developmental changes occurring relatively quick. Even the idea of Punctuated Equilibrium would have been rejected as it could not and did not demonstrate what Darwin was predicting we should find, and now after witnessing the phenomena of the seemingly sudden appearance of some already complex creatures having all their subsystems in place and functional (like Nautilus itself) we must admit that at least on this point Darwin was incorrect.

Read, “Evolution, You’re Drunk (DNA studies topple the ladder of complexity)” in the January 2018 issue of Nautilus ( Evolution, You’re Drunk - Issue 9: Time - Nautilus )

The article opens by pointing out that “...amoebas are made of just one cell, researchers assumed they would be simpler than humans genetically. Plus, amoebas date back farther in time than humans, and simplicity is considered an attribute of primitive beings. It just didn’t make sense.”

But why, one may ask? Why doesn’t it make sense? Well because as they point out amoebas have 100s of times more DNA than higher primates. As well we have found that allegedly higher order systems are actually present in some cases prior to the lesser complex ones. Finally in another scenario we can see that some complex features devolve and then return later (Whiting, M. F., Bradler, S. & Maxwell, T. “Loss and recovery of wings in stick insects”, Nature 421, 2003). So what’s happening to the tree? It’s beginning to rot at its base.

Plus the level of complexity in one cell is no small matter. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to predict that a one celled organism would need to be more complex than the cells in a high differentiated organism with seperate groups of cells for each function.

 

[SkyWriting]

The Theory of Evolution has changed a lot since Darwin. It's important to remember that he kick started the field but I wouldn't recommend taking all of his his material as accurate.

Im still wondering though what you're trying to say with your post? Just because Darwin was wrong about some details doesn't change the fact that the ToE is the best explanation for the diversity of life on earth.

A non-random design engineer fits the data even better.

 

[Skreeper]

A non-random design engineer fits the data even better.

Can you show me this designer or how exactly he managed to design everything and making sure it looks like the result of natural processes?

 

[SkyWriting]

Can you show me this designer or how exactly he managed to design everything and making sure it looks like the result of natural processes?

As I stated, I don't see anything not designed about it, so no.

 

[Skreeper]

As I stated, I don't see anything not designed about it, so no.

Uh-huh. So in your world eveything is the result of design?

And going back to my first question: Can you show me this designer or how exactly he did it?

 

[SkyWriting]

Uh-huh. So in your world eveything is the result of design?

Correct.

 

[SkyWriting]

And going back to my first question: Can you show me this designer or how exactly he did it?

All past events are a matter of some type of faith.
And there is no active creating of any kind now.
Every electron circles in it's cloud as if written
as a screen play.

 

[Speedwell]

A non-random design engineer fits the data even better.

Are there random design engineers too?

 

[Skreeper]

All past events are a matter of some type of faith.

Sorry, I don't do faith.

 

[xianghua]

As I stated, I don't see anything not designed about it, so no.

yep. its like asking were you see non design in a car. or in a spinning motor like this one:the self replicating watch argument

 

[Skreeper]

Correct.

Usually when you try to indentify what something is you have to contrast it with something that it isn't.

e.g. To identify an object as a car you have to contrast it with other things that aren't cars.

If everything is designed then you have nothing to contrast objects to. It becomes a meaningless concept.

 

[Skreeper]

yep. its like asking were you see non design in a car. or in a spinning motor like this one:the self replicating watch argument

Stop it with the idiotic comparisons. It has been explained to you ad nauseam why it does not work.

 

[Speedwell]

yep. its like asking were you see non design in a car. or in a spinning motor like this one:the self replicating watch argument

Nobody sees "non-design." That is just your twisting of our position.

With respect to detecting design in any object or phenomenon, there are only two possible conclusions:
1. It was designed.
2. We can't tell if it was designed or not.

Design can't ever be ruled out, it just cannot always be detected.

 

[xianghua]

Darwin was convinced that the direction of evolution was demonstrated in that simpler forms became more complex forms over long periods of time. He predicted we would find that small successive changes led to the development of all organs as well as to the more complex and higher organisms.

Not being privy to all that we can observe today he theoretically rejected the idea of developmental changes occurring relatively quick. Even the idea of Punctuated Equilibrium would have been rejected as it could not and did not demonstrate what Darwin was predicting we should find, and now after witnessing the phenomena of the seemingly sudden appearance of some already complex creatures having all their subsystems in place and functional (like Nautilus itself) we must admit that at least on this point Darwin was incorrect.

Read, “Evolution, You’re Drunk (DNA studies topple the ladder of complexity)” in the January 2018 issue of Nautilus ( Evolution, You’re Drunk - Issue 9: Time - Nautilus )

The article opens by pointing out that “...amoebas are made of just one cell, researchers assumed they would be simpler than humans genetically. Plus, amoebas date back farther in time than humans, and simplicity is considered an attribute of primitive beings. It just didn’t make sense.”

But why, one may ask? Why doesn’t it make sense? Well because as they point out amoebas have 100s of times more DNA than higher primates. As well we have found that allegedly higher order systems are actually present in some cases prior to the lesser complex ones. Finally in another scenario we can see that some complex features devolve and then return later (Whiting, M. F., Bradler, S. & Maxwell, T. “Loss and recovery of wings in stick insects”, Nature 421, 2003). So what’s happening to the tree? It’s beginning to rot at its base.

we also need to consider those cases:

for instance: the first animal in the fossil record is no less complex then modern ones:

Demosponge EST Sequencing Reveals a Complex Genetic Toolkit of the Simplest Metazoans

"Sponges (Porifera) are among the simplest living and the earliest branching metazoans. We show that even the earliest metazoan species already have strikingly complex genomes in terms of gene content and functional repertoire and that the rich gene repertoire existed even before the emergence of true tissues, therefore further emphasizing the importance of gene loss and spatio-temporal changes in regulation of gene expression in shaping the metazoan genomes. Our findings further indicate that sponge and human genes generally show similarity levels higher than expected from their respective positions in metazoan phylogeny"

"Our findings also raise many questions about the roles of numerous genes/proteins in the life of such a simple animal"

this is also true for the first trees:

Oldest Trees Appear To Be The Most Complex That Ever Existed

"
The fossilized remains of a tree that lived 374 million years ago suggest that the earliest trees we know of might also have been the ones with the most complex internal structure in the history of our planet."

“There is no other tree that I know of in the history of the Earth that has ever done anything as complicated as this,"

"This raises a provoking question: why are the very oldest trees the most complicated?”


evolution doesnt predict this.

 

[pshun2404]

N

The Theory of Evolution has changed a lot since Darwin. It's important to remember that he kick started the field but I wouldn't recommend taking all of his his material as accurate.

Im still wondering though what you're trying to say with your post? Just because Darwin was wrong about some details doesn't change the fact that the ToE is the best explanation for the diversity of life on earth.

Not trying to say anything. As with all of this series (this is about the 7th) I want people to read or listen and consider FOR THEMSELVES what the implications may mean. By the way I do agree with your first paragraph entirely. As the author points out

"..."the textbook scenario on early animal evolution. It essentially goes as follows: Single-celled organisms gained the ability to adhere to and communicate with one another more than 600 million years ago, and from the resulting colonies, the first multicellular animals emerged. Today’s sponges, sedentary animals on the sea floor with no guts, brains, or tissue layers, descend directly from some of these creatures. Some early animals then organized their cells into distinct tissue layers, and some of the cells formed nerve cells, muscle cells, and other types. Later yet, some animals developed serially repeated segments that served as a platform for legs and claws in their descendants. Then an animal with a spinal column evolved, and then one with a column surrounded by bony vertebrae. A recent branch to split from the tree blossomed into humans.

Scientists’ belief in this scenario has remained relatively unchanged for a century."

How many people were indoctrinated into believing this? I certainly was! But it simply is not true. Yet so many will cling to the status quo, how sad.

 

[pshun2404]

Can you show me this designer or how exactly he managed to design everything and making sure it looks like the result of natural processes?

If such an intelligence exists it did so by making laws and using principles that govern all natural processes. Natural processes are the intent, the how, they do not account for the why or the who if there is such a being. This intelligence would have created the laws of chemistry and physics to assure the final product. All matter/energy must follow and conform to these laws and principles...it has no choice (and like any well defined or governed system there are occasional exceptions to the rule).

 

[pshun2404]

Sorry, I don't do faith.

Yes you do. All the time. Your whole life experience is largely one of faith.

 

[Speedwell]

N


Not trying to say anything. As with all of this series (this is about the 7th) I want people to read or listen and consider FOR THEMSELVES what the implications may mean. By the way I do agree with your first paragraph entirely. As the author points out

"..."the textbook scenario on early animal evolution. It essentially goes as follows: Single-celled organisms gained the ability to adhere to and communicate with one another more than 600 million years ago, and from the resulting colonies, the first multicellular animals emerged. Today’s sponges, sedentary animals on the sea floor with no guts, brains, or tissue layers, descend directly from some of these creatures. Some early animals then organized their cells into distinct tissue layers, and some of the cells formed nerve cells, muscle cells, and other types. Later yet, some animals developed serially repeated segments that served as a platform for legs and claws in their descendants. Then an animal with a spinal column evolved, and then one with a column surrounded by bony vertebrae. A recent branch to split from the tree blossomed into humans.

Scientists’ belief in this scenario has remained relatively unchanged for a century."

How many people were indoctrinated into believing this? I certainly was! But it simply is not true. Yet so many will cling to the status quo, how sad.

That is a very general statement. How does any of what you posted show it to be entirely untrue? What "truth" would you put in it's place?