Plausible? The Model T Ford did not have electric windows and yet later vehicles do, and I still havn't seen any evidence of Henry Ford in any of them. Should I proclaim to all that Henry Ford never existed?
"Appearance of design", because we know of and have in fact observed the natural process that causes this phenomena, and it isn't an intelligent designer - it is Evolution by natural selection! We've observed it to no end, we've documented many, many ways in which it happens and we've never been able to falsify it. Why don't you ask these Biologists why they don't believe in any Intelligent Designer....after all, they are absolutely qualified, and have followed the evidence to its inevitable conclusion, right? Of all people you could ask, surely they'd be in the know?
It doesn't take a qualified bioligist to know that Natural Selection only works on populations of self replicating organisms.
It does not invent anything rather it selects by survival of the fittest and population dynamics for beneficial mutations.
At the point of origin of life Natural Selection has no part to play because there is nothing to work with.
Subsequent mutations are accidental and purposeless (unless they form a part of the designed flexibility of the organism), so the only part NS has to play is in the selection of whether a particular mutation in a population is beneficial.
The path of NS to a functionally coherent and novel organism must be beneficial to the population of the organism at each and every step or it is selected against.
It doesn't take a molecuar biologist with an appreciation for the incredible complexity and very high levels of funtional coherence in even the most basic life form to understand that this birdy does not fly.
That's presumptuous to say a natural explanation will never be known - you might be right but even if you are right and we'll never have a verified explanation, that's still not confirmation that it didn't happen naturally.
Over 150 years and thousands upon thousands of people studying the topic so as to keep the foot of a designer out of the door, and nothing to show for it.
I have had evolution rammed down my throat for 38 years now, but not one single plausible explanation for origins that does not involve a designet has raised its head.
I would rather go to the grave presumptuosly aknowledging the designer than hanging to a whole lot of empty promises from people who beleive in biological fairy tales.
The process of Evolution gives rise to this phenomenon. If you understood it, you'd know this.
We have a wide variety of verifiable documents, photography and
It hasn't and is still in full effect - nothing has changed with respect to evolution, and it's all working as it has all along just fine. Why do you say all that when it's not what we observe? What's your reference?
Study the mutation rates of Malaria, HIV and E-Coli. These organisms reproduce and mutate at some of the highest rates observable and E-Coli was (or is) the subject of an evolutionary study that was up to more than 50 000 generations the last time I looked.
It is estimated that HIV mutates at all single points in every person who carries the virus every single day. Millions upon millions of generations and many more millions of mutations.
Malaria operates at similar high rates of reproduction and yet is the only one of tje 3 that has evolved a beneficial multiple point enzyme mutation on one protein in millions upon millions of generations.
At this observed rate of mutation and Natural Selection it would take many more billions of years than the universe has existed for even one protein to evolve into something new.
My post sure is designed, no problem there.
Wow! A confirmation of the process. Although as a good student of evolution perhaps I'm jumping the gun. I still havn't met the designer yet.
So for things that display even higher levels of FC, say a single functional protein, the probability of coming together by accident as a new invention is significantly lower.
Such a thing cannot happen by accident, it must therefore have happened by means of a process with purpose.
You're right, even the environment for the experiments are designed too, but the evolutionary reaction to the intelligently designed environment (i.e. the topic of study) is completely natural. Literally the only thing designed is the environment, and that's so we can study how evolution reacts to such conditions and changes in nature. I understand you don't like that we make these observations that continue to affirm the Theory of Evolution, but perhaps you could accept the evidence since it is reality after all, plenty of other religious folk of all stripes (not just Christianity) can do it, so you can too.
If you're thinking about the sort of algorithm that Dawkins produced to evolve the sentence "methinks it's a weasel" in a short series of steps, it's shot through with intelligent interference guiding the process to a desired result. Very disingenous.
No, it just isn't. Evolution (as mentioned innumerable times by people working in this field) creates the illusion of design without any intelligence involved - we've seen it happen in real
Show me the Designer then. We have demonstrable evidence that Evolution does it already, so your evidence of a "designer" will have to be just as convincing as the evidence we already have in spades for Evolution.
A loud honking of just so stories is not evidence. Perhaps my skepticism is to well developed, but I do not find it at all convincing the idea that once upon a time in a land far far away magically popped into existence (and it must have been magically because there is no natural law or no designer to do the job).
No, because we literally have the evidence of a designer designing these tools, even if we haven't seen the specific designer for this specific designed thing, we have a well-established history of these things being designed and relocated accordingly. Nothing like that for naturally occurring organisms.
The repeated independant confirmation of design should then enable us to recognise design even in the absence of the confirmation.
Particularly when the only plausible explanation available points to a designer.
