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.
I already have demonstrated that the blind process of evolution produces the appearance of deliberate design.
You failing to see the obvious of these simple principles at work, is your problem.
Why do you continue to pretend that HGT is a problem for evolution?
It's quite well understood how it works and, perhaps more importantly, how it does NOT work.
HGT is just part of the evolutionary understanding. I have no clue why you think it is a problem.
And already, they provide the illusion of design incredibly well. Just imagine what they could do with 4 billion years of runtime, massive generations, and all the extra tools evolution has to work with!They are solutions using only simplistic principals of evolution.
With parameters and knowledge provided by intelligence which shows the need for intelligence.And already, they provide the illusion of design incredibly well. Just imagine what they could do with 4 billion years of runtime, massive generations, and all the extra tools evolution has to work with!
Which is true with any finding. It can be weaved into the already little understood and vastly cumbersome theory that started with gradual, minute changes over immense time.Probably because it is and you are in denial
Thats just bluster. Its the subject of ongoing research. No need to pretend like its all figured out
Its amazing the things people claim after the fact. A few decades ago almost no one was talking about HGT but ahem....cough....cough....its just is part of an evolutionary understanding now that it is showing itself to be more predominant than ever suspected
If this is a true representation of evolution and of the natural world provide the actual evidence in nature that provides confirmation that evolution can produce the illusion of deliberate design in living organisms. Provide the evidence of a simpler form evolving gradually and optimizing to reach the design in a living cell.
Would putting my arguments in bold help you understand...GA isn't a blind process. It has knowledge put into the program. You are unable to come up with any natural evidence for the simplest life form on earth the bacteria, and taking just one cell of its makeup showing a simpler form evolving gradually step by step into the one with apparent design. Got it?GA's apply the blind process of evolution.
These GA's produce designs without any "intelligent intervention".
Thus GA's prove your claims about "appearance of design therefor actual design" to be false, wrong, incorrect.
Well not only that I just love how whenever we find something exists or is more prevalent than anyone thought before Darwinists are the only ones that always say....oh we knew that oh that was part of our understanding of Evolution.Which is true with any finding. It can be weaved into the already little understood and vastly cumbersome theory that started with gradual, minute changes over immense time.
And already, they provide the illusion of design incredibly well.
I know right! How do they expect anyone not to know and understand how this type of program works let alone how much it doesn't include and then claim it show evolution and proves no design in living forms. It is beyond imagination.Are they really trying to claim that a program proves this point? They can't be serious. that happens to be my field and there is simply no way whatsoever to not employ intelligent design into a program. Perhaps I read it wrong but unfortunately it wouldn't be unprecedented since people who cannot think have made the claim numerous times
At this point I'm rather at a loss, given that no objective mechanism was ever provided to determine what counts as the appearance of design or how to determine whether something with that appearance actually was designed, so you tell me.Illusion of design based on what criteria?
Yes, and many scientists don't take on these unfounded claims either. It is only very atheistic materialists that seem to do so.Well not only that I just love how whenever we find something exists or is more prevalent than anyone thought before Darwinists are the only ones that always say....oh we knew that oh that was part of our understanding of Evolution.
In real direct observation based sciences like Cosmology they don't play those games. They just honestly say - we didn't know this before
See this is your problem, you on one hand claim we can't know what is design and then go on and claim that GA proves that the design we observe is an illusion based on evolution. You self-refute yourself.At this point I'm rather at a loss, given that no objective mechanism was ever provided to determine what counts as the appearance of design or how to determine whether something with that appearance actually was designed, so you tell me.
At this point I'm rather at a loss, given that no objective mechanism was ever provided to determine what counts as the appearance of design or how to determine whether something with that appearance actually was designed, so you tell me.
I know right! How do they expect anyone not to know and understand how this type of program works let alone how much it doesn't include and then claim it show evolution and proves no design in living forms. It is beyond imagination.
See this is your problem, you on one hand claim we can't know what is design and then go on and claim that GA proves that the design we observe is an illusion based on evolution. You self-refute yourself.
What?I'm trying to understand where you're coming from, which proves difficult when you absolutely refuse to provide anything resembling objective criteria. So I aim for things that, to me, seem more designed than the human eye. And apparently you don't see that as designed.
Yet another person who thinks we're saying this is proof of evolution. It's not. It's proof that evolution can produce the appearance of design.This is the kind of thing that people are saying proves their case
It would be funny if they didn't really believe it.ROFL.........I don't think I have had as good a laugh as this from a forum post in a long time. I wasn't going to take the time to read through the thread but took a little time
This is the kind of thing that people are saying proves their case
http://boxcar2d.com/
LOL..........THIS???? I almost want to check my office for hidden cameras to see if I am being punked
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?