no. because human have a free will. so now lets go to the main part of detecting design, do you think that this object is evidence for design if it had a self replicating system and organic component?
Upvote
0
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.
If you would refer to all 4 in that picture with the term "robot", do you think people will agree to that? WOULD YOU?????
If it can be shown to have been manufactured. Otherwise not.no. because human have a free will. so now lets go to the main part of detecting design, do you think that this object is evidence for design if it had a self replicating system and organic component?
https://cdn.notonthehighstreet.com/...ages/002/097/428/original_wood-watch-bear.jpg
...so therefore the eye, brain, connections and the whole animal instantly popped into existence out of nothing?Also when a change is mutated such as say a lens is produced or a change in the lens strength this will not work without the connects to the brain. The chances of those happening at the same time are impossible and have never been produced in tests.
why not? i already said that it has those living traits. so according to your criteria its not a watch. in such a case. (by the way you link above is broken).
Ok, so if this watch had free will you would call it a human?no. because human have a free will. so now lets go to the main part of detecting design, do you think that this object is evidence for design if it had a self replicating system and organic component?
Free will doesn't demonstrably exist. Our universe could be entirely deterministic, and we wouldn't be able to tell.no. because human have a free will.
The video I linked on the previous page is one example #728. This is an eye specialists who best knows about the makeup of the eye. As mentioned some of components that do seperate jobs need to be present together otherwise the associeted mechanism will not function. Yet it is impossible for random mutations to produce those different components at the same time. Also when a change is mutated such as say a lens is produced or a change in the lens strength this will not work without the connects to the brain. The chances of those happening at the same time are impossible and have never been produced in tests.
Like I said it is easy to cite a light sensitive patch as one stage of an eye and then a cup eye. But no one has ever explained how these happened and the smaller steps that go with them. There are around 50 odd components to a so called simple light sensitive patch. Plus no one has even explaned the other million plus components of the eye besides the simple examples given. It is assumed from the over simplistic examples that evolution by natural selection can do this.
I am not saying that. If you would have read the articles you will see that there are other mechanisms where living things dont have to rely on adpative evolution to change. The genetic info is already there and just needs to be switched on. When is an enviroment that puts them under pressure this can activate processes that can switch on and express genes in response that help them to adpat. Or when creatures are coexisting with other creatures and organisms they can co-evolve where genetic info is shared. The enviromentacts as a conduit.
Living things and the enviroment act and work together changing whole ecosystems. It isnt all about survival of the fittest or predator against prey. Much of life is designed to cohabitate and work as one big organism which changes all living things on an ongoing basis. It makes much more sense as well becuase we know there is a vast amount of DNA that is more functional than we realize and hqave recently discovered. Rather than creatures trying to find the right genetic info to change by a blind and random process that requires a lot of hit and miss they can just tap into the vast amount of pre-existing genetic info or recombine what is already there.
I have posted the evidence for this is you care to read it. It is quite interesting. The classic idea of Neo Dawinisn is changing as more discoveries are being made just like it changearound 100 years ago. Darin did not know and could not have known a lot of what is being found today.
no. because human have a free will.
I don't know. Why don't you point me to such an object so that I can investigate it? Ow, right....so now lets go to the main part of detecting design, do you think that this object is evidence for design if it had a self replicating system and organic component?
Becuase a lot of the new discoveries/changes have replaced Neo-Darwinism as the main force behind how living things change. If you look on this site most people believe that natural selection is the driving force for evolution giving selection a great deal of creative power. That idea is no longer tenable in the light of new information. Natural selection has not only been deminished in its creative power it is said by some to actually be a hinderance to the evolution of complexity.Very true, though you appear to be somewhat behind the curve on those changes. But how does that disprove the theory of evolution?
It is said by some that the earth is flat.it is said by some to actually be a hinderance to the evolution of complexity.
Wait, we just get to make up traits about something and pretend it has those traits?
I think you've either misunderstood what @Speedwell said or you've conflated the "Theory of Evolution" with "fixation of (rare) beneficial mutations by natural selection" when in fact, the latter is actually just a small part of the former.Becuase a lot of the new discoveries/changes have replaced Neo-Darwinism as the main force behind how living things change. If you look on this site most people believe that natural selection is the driving force for evolution giving selection a great deal of creative power. That idea is no longer tenable in the light of new information. Natural selection has not only been deminished in its creative power it is said by some to actually be a hinderance to the evolution of complexity.
So, it isn't the case that any aspect of the Theory of Evolution is being done away with, just that the various selection pressures and ways by which that refinement comes about naturally within the Theory of Evolution are now better understood and well documented. For example, if you look at the summary table on this research paper: Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics - you'll see that the Theory of Evolution still holds true to naturalistic explanations - albeitwith a wider diversity by which it comes about naturally. Why are you going against the very research you posted?There is no consistent tendency of evolution towards increased genomic complexity, and when complexity increases, this appears to be a non-adaptive consequence of evolution under weak purifying selection rather than an adaptation.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2651812/
Are you even reading these research articles? From the opening paragraph of this one:What is in question is whether natural selection is a necessary or sufficient force to explain the emergence of the genomic and cellular features central to the building of complex organisms.
The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity
I'm not sure if you've missed something here, because even the cited creation "research" you've quoted (not sure of your source, whether it be Is Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics an Appropriate Example of Evolutionary Change? - Creation Research Society , Islam and Evolution - Ummah.com - Muslim Forum or even Bacterial resistance to antibiotics: No argument for evoluti ) goes on to contradict itself by giving examples of mutations that change the structure of an enzyme (i.e. not a loss of function after all) to cause a resistance to Ciprofloxacin.Bacteria being able to become anti-bioctic resistant is actually a loss of function ot a gain.
Resistance to the antibiotic can occur by mutations in the 16S rRNA gene, which reduces the affinity of streptomycin for the 16S molecule (Springer et al., 2001). Reduction of specific oligopeptide transport activities also leads to spontaneous resistance of several antibiotics, including streptomycin (Kashiwagi et al., 1998). In these examples, resistance occurred as a result of the loss of a functional component/activity.
Besides anti-bioctic resistance has been around for thousands of years so it designed with the ability
Resistance to antibiotics is ancient
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110831155334.htm
HGT IS Evolution. Why would you think it isn't?Not just that if simple celled organisms are going to change and gain new genetic info it is going to be more likley because of HGT than evolution. Bacteria can also transfer DNA to humans
Bacterial DNA in Human Genomes
https://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/36108/title/Bacterial-DNA-in-Human-Genomes/
so how do you know what hand you will move before its happen? another question: if there is no will then when someone create a car its the result of a natural event (because there is no such a thing as will in this case)?Free will doesn't demonstrably exist. Our universe could be entirely deterministic, and we wouldn't be able to tell.
actually i said that in this case there is no selection pressure in this case since there is no advantage to a single part without the other one. so this is indeed a random event or very close to.For a start, you are assuming that evolution is random. It is not.
so you cant detect design just by looking at this image? :I don't know. Why don't you point me to such an object so that I can investigate it? Ow, right....
-_-so you cant detect design just by looking at this image? :
yep. why not? its a theoretical question. so this is a watch or not if it has living traits?
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?