Some random discussion on evolution...

[Speedwell]

no you dont. you just see a car. a car can be made by different ways.

And all of those ways we know about leave evidence of intentional manufacture. If I just "see a car" without seeing any evidence of those ways being used to build it then I don't know if it was designed or not.

and again: we also know how genomes are deigned. so what is your point actually?

We only know that for man-made genomes.

 

[xianghua]

And I asked you before: how would you detect design in a human designed genome?

like you detect design in a car.

 

[pitabread]

like you detect design in a car.

Which is...?

You're still not answering the question. Explain to me the process of how you would detect design in a human designed genome.

 

[xianghua]

--

 

[Speedwell]

and you said that the plastic is evidence of intentional manufacture since we have no evidence that such a plastic can evolve naturally. this is why i asked you if you can show me how a natural process can evolve a living creature. can you show that?

Nobody knows that. Nobody knows how life first arose from non-living matter.

 

[xianghua]

Which is...?

you tell me.

 

[pitabread]

you tell me.

No, you tell me. You're the one making the argument for detecting design, but you don't appear to know how that works.

If you don't know how to detect design in a human designed genome, then how would you know it's designed in the first place?

 

[xianghua]

Nobody knows that. Nobody knows how life first arose from non-living matter.

great. so the same conclusion about plastic can be made about living things.

 

[xianghua]

No, you tell me

fine. i know that since i know that things like gears and spinning motors (objects that exist in nature) are the product of design. thuse i can conclude design when i see living things.

 

[VirOptimus]

fine. i know that since i know that things like gears and spinning motors (objects that exist in nature) are the product of design. thuse i can conclude design when i see living things.

That argument is in error and logicaly unsound.

 

[Ophiolite]

fine. i know that since i know that things like gears and spinning motors (objects that exist in nature) are the product of design. thuse i can conclude design when i see living things.

xianghua, what is the point of all this? You have been making the same arguments for years(?), or forever. The flaws and failures in your arguments have been shown to you by many others, many times. You keep revealing the same lack of understanding; you ignore the counter arguments; you present illogical models, readily and routinely dismissed.

There was sound reason to present your arguments once, to rephrase them following the first refutations, but to go on and on and on and on, like a broken record, is valueless. It is now a monumental waste of time.

I could just stop opening these threads, but if you have nothing new to offer - and there is no evidence that you do - why not call it day. Just stop.

Please.

Pretty please, with ornamental gardens and great works of art attached.

 

[pitabread]

fine. i know that since i know that things like gears and spinning motors (objects that exist in nature) are the product of design. thuse i can conclude design when i see living things.

First, your continuous claims about motors and gears is just yet another example of an argument based on equivocation and the false equivalence fallacy. This is why your arguments will never be convincing to anyone. They are fundamentally weak arguments.

Second, you are again changing the subject. We're not talking about spinning motors or gears. We're talking about human designed genomes. You brought this up as an argument for design in living things.

So how would you detect design in a human-designed genome?

The fact you can't seem to answer this question speaks to the fact that you don't know how design is really detected.

 

[pitabread]

That argument is in error and logicaly unsound.

He's been making logical errors in his arguments since day 1 and he seems to have little interest in improving his arguments.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

great. so the same conclusion about plastic can be made about living things.

Except we can't because the process to make plastic cannot be done in nature. It requires five materials to start with (cellulose, coal, natural gas, crude oil and salt) which are hardly ever found together, and requires a hefty, machinery heavy process to create plastic.

Show me something like that in nature.

 

[Kylie]

so? what about the car? can you detect design when you see a self replicating car?

Show me the replicating car and we'll see if I can detect design.

 

[xianghua]

Show me the replicating car and we'll see if I can detect design.

its a theoretical question. so can you detect design if you will see a self replicating car or not?

 

[xianghua]

Except we can't because the process to make plastic cannot be done in nature. It requires five materials to start with (cellulose, coal, natural gas, crude oil and salt) which are hardly ever found together, and requires a hefty, machinery heavy process to create plastic.

Show me something like that in nature.

have you seen a living thing evolving from non living thing? if not then what is true for a plastic is also true for a living thing. case close.

 

[xianghua]

Nobody knows that. Nobody knows how life first arose from non-living matter.

so by your criteria a living thing also need design like a plastic.

 

[xianghua]

They are fundamentally weak arguments.

we will see about that.

So how would you detect design in a human-designed genome?

since the genome code for complex biological systems (including motors) thuse we can conclude design when we see a human genome. a natural process cant make human genome. only design.

 

[Speedwell]

so by your criteria a living thing also need design like a plastic.

Not necessarily. The first life may have arisen from non-living matter by a natural process, in which case we wouldn't be able to tell whether it was designed or not.