Responding to Justa's Comments On Evolution

[justlookinla]

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.

It's not just design, it's constructs also.

 

[MikeEnders]

Why do you continue to pretend that HGT is a problem for evolution?

Probably because it is and you are in denial

It's quite well understood how it works and, perhaps more importantly, how it does NOT work.

Thats just bluster. Its the subject of ongoing research. No need to pretend like its all figured out

HGT is just part of the evolutionary understanding. I have no clue why you think it is a problem.

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

 

[The Cadet]

They are solutions using only simplistic principals of evolution.

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!

 

[Oncedeceived]

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!

With parameters and knowledge provided by intelligence which shows the need for intelligence.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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

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.

 

[MikeEnders]

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.

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

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

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?

 

[MikeEnders]

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.

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

 

[justlookinla]

And already, they provide the illusion of design incredibly well.

Illusion of design based on what criteria?

 

[Oncedeceived]

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

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.

 

[The Cadet]

Illusion of design based on what criteria?

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.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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

Yes, and many scientists don't take on these unfounded claims either. It is only very atheistic materialists that seem to do so.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

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.

 

[justlookinla]

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 can't. It'd be interesting to see someone post the criteria for the illusion of design though.

 

[MikeEnders]

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.

You are not Darwinist. Everyone else is deficient in imagination comparatively

 

[The Cadet]

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.

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.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

What?

 

[MikeEnders]

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

 

[The Cadet]

This is the kind of thing that people are saying proves their case

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.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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

It would be funny if they didn't really believe it.