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.
But your made up animal/car/transformers don't actually exist. And even if intelligently designed animals for driving around in existed, that would not demonstrate that all animals were intelligently designed.
Only if it shows evidence of human manufacture. Otherwise you can't tell--it might be designed, it might not.so a car that is able to reproduce is evidence for design then?
Like I said, all an intelligently designed life form would demonstrate is that some life forms were designed. But your made up bio-cars don't even exist.so a car that is able to reproduce is evidence for design then?
It doesn't make sense because you defined:It does make sense.
You haven't pointed out the need for design. Mutations are random, the appearance of design is just that happenstance will create advantage. The scale of populations of organisms allows for chaos to produce advantage then natural selection is exactly that, no choices, designers or plans necessary.Richard Dawkins once said evolution gives the appearence of design. That appearence goes right down to the molecular level. So in some ways Dawkins is acknowledging that life has all the hallmarks of design. He and others just attribute that ability to create something that looks designed to a naturalistic process but can never explain how that happens. Over time as we have discovered how complex life is they have had to credit evolution (natural selection) with more and more creative power and yet cannot explain how this can happen which really requires faith to believe. That is why Dawkins is always praising natural selections ability to just about create anything.
We know how it happens (heritable variation with selection) - we've used the same basic principle to generate designs better than we could design, e.g. NASA's evolved antennae, using evolutionary algorithms to:... in some ways Dawkins is acknowledging that life has all the hallmarks of design. He and others just attribute that ability to create something that looks designed to a naturalistic process but can never explain how that happens. Over time as we have discovered how complex life is they have had to credit evolution (natural selection) with more and more creative power and yet cannot explain how this can happen which really requires faith to believe.
You’ve been shown that cars are not biological.here is a transitional form:
but it doesnt prove any evolution even if those vehicles were self replicate or were made from organic components like a living thing.
(image from The Difference Between Personal and Commercial Auto Insurance)
It doesn't make sense because you defined:
A therefore B == True
and
B therefore A == True
This means that it is impossible for
B therefore NOT A == True
This is just illogical. It means that A is the same as NOT A. It's nonsense, in the absolutely literal sense.
So animal_1 becomes animal_1a but animal_1a doesn't exist? That's gibberish of the highest order. You surpass even your best efforts.If:
Genetics_1a changed animal_1 to animal_1a,
it does not mean genetics creates new life form (animal_1a). Because animal_1a does not exist.
No. I did not say that at all.
I said A "has" B,
not A "therefore" B.
Backward, I said:
B1 shown as A1.
This is not a "therefore" relationship either.
What I said is a nature of identity, not a process.
More:
animal_1 "has" genetics_1
If:
Genetics_1a changed animal_1 to animal_1a,
it does not mean genetics creates new life form (animal_1a). Because animal_1a does not exist.
Faces in clouds is a simplification of what happens with design. Seeing a face in a cloud does not show detail of the features and just the outline. But seeing a machine for example or finding computer software definitely shows design. There are systems within systems, specified information and complexity within life that is beyond evolution to account for.You haven't pointed out the need for design. Mutations are random, the appearance of design is just that happenstance will create advantage. The scale of populations of organisms allows for chaos to produce advantage then natural selection is exactly that, no choices, designers or plans necessary.
It's same as faces in tree bark or shapes in clouds.
The difference is with biological evolution there are non-beneficial mutations that need to be dealt with. The systems are already working at their best and any mutation is really a threat to undermining that system. There are other mechanisms besides adaptations that can produce the best results for how living things can change. Life can change environments rather than adapt to them, life can co-op with other life to gain what is need to fit into an environment because the other living things have the right stuff already for that environment. Plasticity allows living things to change in features without the need for adaptive evolution. There are developmental processes that allow living things to switch on pre-existing genes to help them adapt without having to blindly find the right stuff through evolution. Other influences can sidetrack adaptive evolution and dictate terms of what will happen ie epigenetics.We know how it happens (heritable variation with selection) - we've used the same basic principle to generate designs better than we could design, e.g. NASA's evolved antennae, using evolutionary algorithms to:
"...automatically find novel antenna designs that are more effective than would otherwise be developed"
I've posted this several times before, so this is for those with 'poor memories' or who haven't seen it before.
As FrumiousBandersnatch commented, you aren't making sense.No. I did not say that at all.
I said A "has" B,
not A "therefore" B.
Backward, I said:
B1 shown as A1.
This is not a "therefore" relationship either.
What I said is a nature of identity, not a process.
More:
animal_1 "has" genetics_1
If:
Genetics_1a changed animal_1 to animal_1a,
it does not mean genetics creates new life form (animal_1a). Because animal_1a does not exist.
Specified information is unmeasurable and not really defined clearly. The bald assertion that evolution can't account for it has never been backed up by ID researchers.Faces in clouds is a simplification of what happens with design. Seeing a face in a cloud does not show detail of the features and just the outline. But seeing a machine for example or finding computer software definitely shows design. There are systems within systems, specified information and complexity within life that is beyond evolution to account for.
Examples of large populations have already established their design and are only tinkering with things aaround the edges. Its the smaller population that all life begins with that needs to be explained and accounted for becuase this is where the design of a feature comes from. In fact larger populations increase genetic drift and the chances of deleterous mutations which work against the increase of complexity.
Most of the genetic features of life have been preserved and this seems to have remained the same from the beginning. There are mechanisms to keep things that way they are and if anything random mutations are a threat to this already good working and finely tuned systems of complex life.
There are two main reasons for why evolution cannot account for design in life and how its complexity came about. One is adaptive evoilution cannot explain what we see in any great detail so relies on assumption that it happened and two is there are other mechanisms that point to how life came about and changes. There are non-adaptive processes and other natural processes such as in development and in co-habitations for increasing complexity. One of the criterium for a scientific theory to stand if there are no other explanation for the observations. In this case there are other explanations that are more responsible that evolution by neo-Darwinism.
Both false. Evolutionary algorithms make random variations in the characteristics (traits) of the virtual populations they evolve - many, if not most, of these variations will reduce the effectiveness of the design. These will be culled in the selection process, and the very few that are improvements will be used to produce the next generation. It's a very wasteful process - in a computer, processing virtual designs, it doesn't matter; in the real world, with living creatures, it's an unforgiving slaughter that produces amazing results at terrible cost.The difference is with biological evolution there are non-beneficial mutations that need to be dealt with. The systems are already working at their best and any mutation is really a threat to undermining that system.
Sure; it's well accepted that adaptation precedes evolution - those that adapt less well don't contribute so much to the next generation; hence, evolution.Life can change environments rather than adapt to them, life can co-op with other life to gain what is need to fit into an environment because the other living things have the right stuff already for that environment. Plasticity allows living things to change in features without the need for adaptive evolution. There are developmental processes that allow living things to switch on pre-existing genes to help them adapt without having to blindly find the right stuff through evolution. Other influences can sidetrack adaptive evolution and dictate terms of what will happen ie epigenetics.
Lol! - we took the fundamental principle from nature - we don't need all the bells and whistles in a static well-controlled virtual environment with no competition or resource limitations.... the example of evolving an antenna only shows how the idea of evolution was more about a calculated idea of mathematics rather than a real explanation of an organic process for how life changes that took into consideration the entire picture and influences on life.
As FrumiousBandersnatch commented, you aren't making sense.
"animal_1a" is a part of one of your statements, it can't also not exist.
It seems that A is still the same as NOT A.
Untrue. Mutations happen in the wild all the time. There are strange little regional variations that we have measured.You did not read my original post.
Animal_1a, created by changing genetics_1 to genetics_1a, is a lab animal. It does not exist in the nature.
We do occasionally see deformed animals in the nature. They do not last.
Untrue. Mutations happen in the wild all the time. There are strange little regional variations that we have measured.
Regardless, the point was that you can extract the genetics that define a trait in an animal and insert it to the genes of another individual developing animal and get the same outcome. That demonstrates that the genes cause the change, not the other way around.
If so, back to the OP, why don't we see transitional fossils? If what you said is true, then we should a A LOT, A WHOLE LOT transitional fossils.
Millions of years passed, how many transitional human have we found?
the same with the cars above. lets say that they were even able to reproduce.
you will conclude design or evolution in that case?
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?