My favorite argument for the existence of God

[xianghua]

But you can't prove this. Just because a biological system needs several 'parts' does not means it's inherently unevolvable especially given what we do know about evolution co-opting existing parts via functional changes.

you cant do that too. if you want to add your car a video camera, you cant do that by mixing existing parts in the car.

 

[pitabread]

you cant do that too. if you want to add your car a video camera, you cant do that by mixing existing parts in the car.

We're not talking about cars. We're talking about biological systems which naturally evolve via reproduction and the inheritance of hereditary genetic material. And the mechanisms acting on this genetic material include gene duplication and variation.

Considering we have demonstrable evolutionary pathways of these mechanisms and the evolution of functional changes, it's too quick to just dismiss such evolution as 'impossible'.

In order to truly demonstrate it as impossible, you'd have to demonstrate some sort of physical barrier preventing such changes from occurring. And you haven't done that.

 

[xianghua]

In order to truly demonstrate it as impossible, you'd have to demonstrate some sort of physical barrier preventing such changes from occurring. And you haven't done that.

if we cant made a video camera stepwise then why it will be possible in the eye case?

 

[pitabread]

if we cant made a video camera stepwise then why it will be possible in the eye case?

Camera are not living things. They are not the same as biological systems. You're making invalid comparisons.

 

[TBDude65]

if we cant made a video camera stepwise then why it will be possible in the eye case?

You don't think humans made video cameras stepwise? You think we started off with moving pictures?

Primitive drawings -> paintings -> portraits -> invention of the camera -> invention of the video camera -> improvements to the camera and video camera over the course of the last century from film to digital to increasingly better resolution of digital

Even your example shows how humans have evolved our own technology

 

[Speedwell]

if we cant made a video camera stepwise then why it will be possible in the eye case?

Who says we can't? We don't, because humans don't tend to manufacture things in that way, except in special instances. But can't? I don't think so.

But this, like all of your other tricks, fails badly. You cannot show that functional complexity, in itself, is evidence of design. You cannot even trick us into agreeing that functional complexity is evidence of design, trap us with your self-replicating wooden autogyros on the moon, and flapping mechanical penguins and all of your other ridiculous rhetorical game-playing stunts.

Because, ordinary people just don't depend on functional complexity as evidence when they try to determine whether an object is designed or not.

 

[Obliquinaut]

you cant do that too. if you want to add your car a video camera, you cant do that by mixing existing parts in the car.

Have you ever seen an episode of McGuyver?

 

[xianghua]

Camera are not living things.

so what? we are talking about ic system. such systems exist in both living things and non living things. so this is a good comparison.

 

[pitabread]

so what? we are talking about ic system. such systems exist in both living things and non living things. so this is a good comparison.

No, it's not a good comparison since non-living things do not possess hereditary material, they don't reproduce, and they don't undergo evolutionary processes.

If you want to argue that there are biological forms that are unevolvable, you're not going to be able to argue that via analogy. You have to address the biological forms directly. And that means specifically defining the physical barrier(s) that would make such evolution 'impossible'.

 

[xianghua]

You don't think humans made video cameras stepwise? You think we started off with moving pictures?

Primitive drawings -> paintings -> portraits -> invention of the camera -> invention of the video camera -> improvements to the camera and video camera over the course of the last century from film to digital to increasingly better resolution of digital

its not stepwise. the first camera isnt made from one part. you will need several parts at once for the first camera.

 

[xianghua]

Have you ever seen an episode of McGuyver?

even McGuyver cant do that!

 

[xianghua]

If you want to argue that there are biological forms that are unevolvable, you're not going to be able to argue that via analogy. You have to address the biological forms directly. And that means specifically defining the physical barrier(s) that would make such evolution 'impossible'.

so if we will have a self replicating car and we want to add it a video camera, in this case you will agree that its possible because in this case the car has a living traits?

 

[pitabread]

so if we will have a self replicating car and we want to add it a video camera, in this case you will agree that its possible because in this case the car has a living traits?

Self replicating cars don't exist. If your argument rests on arguing about things that don't exist, then you don't really have an argument.

Again, what are the biological/physical barriers that would prevent the evolution of something like an eye? Please provide real-world examples in biology, not silly analogies.

 

[xianghua]

Again, what are the biological/physical barriers that would prevent the evolution of something like an eye? Please provide real-world examples in biology, not silly analogies.

we have a light detector in both a living things and a non living things. so... do you think that we can build a light detector that base on a single part?

 

[pitabread]

we have a light detector in both a living things and a non living things. so... do you think that we can build a light detector that base on a single part?

Answering a question with a question is not an answer. I'm asking you to explain the biological barriers which would prevent the evolution of something like an eye. You keep claiming it's impossible, I'm asking you to demonstrate why based on real-world biology.

So far, you haven't demonstrated it.

 

[TBDude65]

its not stepwise. the first camera isnt made from one part. you will need several parts at once for the first camera.

And the first animal with an eye didn't just randomly assemble an eye from nothing either. Your arguments are getting dumber

 

[Ana the Ist]

Oh c'mon Jimmy. The fraud was still in the bio textbooks up until 2000 and beyond. It is fair game to expose all the blunders and deceits. Surely you don't want poor students purchasing overpriced textbooks with discredited information in them. It took Well's book to expose all the bogus outdated information in the textbooks including the embryo pics being used as evidence for common descent. Common descent does not self correct unless outsiders expose their errors. It is you guys who should clean up your own mistakes. If you don't then others have to do it for you.

What do Modern Textbooks Really Say about Haeckel's Embryos? | Center for Science and Culture

As Jonathan Wells points out in his recent article, The Cracked Haeckel Approach to Evolutionary Reasoning, “Many modern biology textbooks inform students that Haeckel’s dictum, ‘ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny,’ has been discredited, but the same textbooks often use Haeckel’s drawings (or modern versions of them) to persuade students that human embryos provide clues to our evolutionary history and evidence for Darwin’s theory.” Therefore, what we are claiming is that various modern textbooks have used Haeckel’s embryo drawings in precisely the manner that Darwinists now deny:

• (1) They show embryo drawings that are essentially recapitulations of Haeckel's fraudulent drawings — drawings that downplay and misrepresent the actual differences between early stages of vertebrate embryos;
• (2) They have used these drawings as evidence for evolution — in the present day — and not simply to provide some kind of historical context for evolutionary thought;
• (3) Even if the textbooks do not completely endorse Haeckel’s false “recapitulation” theory, they have used their Haeckel-based drawings to overstate the actual similarities between early embryos, which is the key misrepresentation made by Haeckel. They then cite these overstated similarities as still-valid evidence for common ancestry.

That is why they say things like this. Quote.

''Although it is stated that science is self-correcting, which it is, it is also evident that the theory of evolution, almost exclusively among theories, is massively tarnished by both fraud and mistakes. It isn't wise to present students with confusing information that is quite likely inaccurate or is liable to be so readily overturned by further research.''

Jonathan Wells? The Moonie who went to Berkeley to get a biology degree so that he could, in his own words, improve his credentials in his personal (religious) fight against evolution?

Solid choice there...he surely isn't biased.

 

[Ana the Ist]

but if a walking creature is a kind of a robot

It isn't though...there's a reason why we don't call people robots

then this claim isnt true according to evolution. so the question here is if we can consider a walking creature as a robot. and if it can be consider as a robot then according to evolution a robot can evolve naturally.

we will check this claim later. but first we need to check my first claim about the robot.

Why did you delete my last question? What makes all those other things so different from humanity? Why are they capable of evolving, but humanity must be designed? What's the difference?

 

[doubtingmerle]

i actually never said that. i only said that if a watch need a designer (and it could be any designer) then human need a designer too. very simple.

And as I explained, the "designer" of humans is the process of evolution.

Please explain how you know that the fact that humans design watches proves that mutations and natural selection cannot design humans. I do not think your conclusion follows from your premise.

And please don't evade the question by switching to IC.

You had said,

if a watch need a designer (and it could be any designer) then human need a designer too.
​

Please verify that statement or drop the argument.

you are welcome to believe that a robot can evolve without a designer. so far the scientific evidence point otherwise.

Oh this should be good. What evidence do you have that says it would be impossible for a computer running a genetic algorithm to evolve the design of a robot? Impractical? Probably. Impossible? I know nothing that makes that impossible. Please prove your claim.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Living creatures are not robots.

But one sometimes wanders if the source of the posts under the user name Xianghua is a robot. One would think that a human would get tired of repeating defeated arguments ad infinitum.