Understanding Evolution (2)

[justlookinla]

This question is nonsensical because of the bolded. How can something be both man-made and not designed?

How can something be as complex and functional as the human pump and not be designed?

 

[PsychoSarah]

It's not semantics games. Maybe I wasn't specific enough in my request. Give an example of a man made pump which is comparable to the human pump and isn't designed. Your use of "design" should suggest something.

I can't give you a designed thing that isn't designed. I can give examples of stuff people made by accident, but the fact that we made it renders this contradictory. It isn't comparable, given that there is a ton of complex stuff we haven't designed. Yes, I can use synonyms for design to avoid the word if I want to though, but I won't because then we would both be just semantically trolling each other.

 

[justlookinla]

I can't give you a designed thing that isn't designed. I can give examples of stuff people made by accident, but the fact that we made it renders this contradictory. It isn't comparable, given that there is a ton of complex stuff we haven't designed. Yes, I can use synonyms for design to avoid the word if I want to though, but I won't because then we would both be just semantically trolling each other.

Like I said, this isn't about semantics. This is about the complexity and functionality of the human pump and if that indicates design. It does in every example we have of somewhat comparable pumps produced by man.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Like I said, this isn't about semantics. This is about the complexity and functionality of the human pump and if that indicates design. It does in every example we have of somewhat comparable pumps produced by man.

Everything we produce is designed, but not everything we design is complex. We certainly haven't created life from scratch, but either way, what we design and how complex it is or isn't says absolutely nothing in regards to ID or evolution. I could literally, for example, develop some means to make a human as it was done in Genesis and that still wouldn't mean creationism was correct. And humanity could have never moved beyond the Stone Age and again, wouldn't make creationism any more likely.

 

[justlookinla]

Everything we produce is designed, but not everything we design is complex. We certainly haven't created life from scratch, but either way, what we design and how complex it is or isn't says absolutely nothing in regards to ID or evolution. I could literally, for example, develop some means to make a human as it was done in Genesis and that still wouldn't mean creationism was correct. And humanity could have never moved beyond the Stone Age and again, wouldn't make creationism any more likely.

You aren't addressing the pump design issue. Again, this is about the complexity and functionality of the human pump and if that indicates design. It does in every example we have of somewhat comparable pumps produced by man.

 

[DerelictJunction]

"Sequence preferences of DNA binding proteins are a primary mechanism by which cells interpret the genome. Despite the central importance of these proteins in physiology, development, and evolution, comprehensive DNA binding specificities have been determined experimentally for only a few proteins. Here, we used microarrays containing all 10–base pair sequences to examine the binding specificities of 104 distinct mouse DNA binding proteins representing 22 structural classes. Our results reveal a complex landscape of binding, with virtually every protein analyzed possessing unique preferences. Roughly half of the proteins each recognized multiple distinctly different sequence motifs, challenging our molecular understanding of how proteins interact with their DNA binding sites. This complexity in DNA recognition may be important in gene regulation and in the evolution of transcriptional regulatory networks."​

Diversity and Complexity in DNA Recognition by Transcription Factors

The entire dialog that resulted in your post:

DNA suggests an intelligent designer.

In your own words, please explain how.

Well that was rather terse. Could you fill in the details as to how Complexity and information are involved?

I see the word "complex" in your cut-and-paste of the overview of the investigation of DNA chemical interactions but no real explanation of how "Complexity and Information" in DNA suggests an intelligent designer. In fact, the word "information" doesn't appear in the post at all.

We have gone round and round on the "complexity implies design" assertion and you haven't supported that statement at all. Perhaps complexity along with information does suggest design.
Do you plan on explaining it?

 

[DerelictJunction]

How can something be as complex and functional as the human pump and not be designed?

Mutation and natural selection.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You aren't addressing the pump design issue. Again, this is about the complexity and functionality of the human pump and if that indicates design. It does in every example we have of somewhat comparable pumps produced by man.

If you are asking for a pump that exists outside of human creation and outside of a biological body, sometimes erosion will produce waterways that have similar effects.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Like I said, this isn't about semantics. This is about the complexity and functionality of the human pump and if that indicates design. It does in every example we have of somewhat comparable pumps produced by man.

Of course, because they are designed by humans. We know that because we can see them being designed.

That says nothing about an object that was not designed by humans. You have to determine if the functionality of the object was intentional. How do you do that for the human heart?

Example: The Grand Canyon is complex and it functions as a conduit for the Colorado River. Was the Grand Canyon designed? Support your answer with evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

Or it's common design.

Let's see how well your theory works.

Both chimps and gorillas have a type of ERV called CERV's (aka PtERV's). This family of retroviral DNA is not found in humans.

Using "common design", should I find CERV insertions at the same locations in the gorilla and chimp genomes? Explain your answer.

When you are finished, I will give the predictions made by the theory of evolution, and why the theory makes those predictions.

If you can't make these predictions, then you can't claim common design.

Because a bicycle uses wheels and the space shuttle uses wheels does not mean they have a common ancestor, it means there's a common design which uses wheels.

Bicycles and shuttles do not reproduce. Therefore, they are not valid comparisons.

 

[Loudmouth]

No. The development of the heart is incredibly amazing.

And?

 

[Loudmouth]

You cannot give an example of a pump which has the complexity, and functionality, of the human pump without using "design". It's simple enough.

Yes, we can. We can use the heart as an example of a naturally occuring pump that arises through embryonic development and evolution.

Which step in biological reproduction and embryonic development are you claiming is supernatural?

 

[Loudmouth]

Like I said, this isn't about semantics. This is about the complexity and functionality of the human pump and if that indicates design. It does in every example we have of somewhat comparable pumps produced by man.

Why does complexity and function imply design?

 

[DerelictJunction]

Did you plan on replying to my post #54?
It is reprinted below:

You see, you, as well as others, attempt to circumnavigate the core issue. Who/what created you and how? That's the question that will continue despite efforts to change the focus.

I am not concerned with the who/what unless the evidence points to a particular who/what. I'm not circumnavigating the how at all. I want to know the how. You know the how? Then explain the how.

Don't tell me the who or the what. Tell me how it was done.

You say humans and chimps don't have a common ancestor despite the evidence in the fossils and the DNA.

So, how did humans come into existence and what is your evidence to support your conclusion?

 

[justlookinla]

The entire dialog that resulted in your post:




I see the word "complex" in your cut-and-paste of the overview of the investigation of DNA chemical interactions but no real explanation of how "Complexity and Information" in DNA suggests an intelligent designer. In fact, the word "information" doesn't appear in the post at all.

We have gone round and round on the "complexity implies design" assertion and you haven't supported that statement at all. Perhaps complexity along with information does suggest design.
Do you plan on explaining it?

I have over and over and over. Remember the Wright biplane - Boeing 777 example which took you quite a few posts over several days to determine which was more complex?

 

[justlookinla]

Mutation and natural selection.

Prove it.

 

[justlookinla]

If you are asking for a pump that exists outside of human creation and outside of a biological body, sometimes erosion will produce waterways that have similar effects.

No, that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking about the complexity and functionality of the human pump and if that indicates design. It does in every example we have of somewhat comparable pumps produced by man, doesn't it?

 

[Loudmouth]

I have over and over and over. Remember the Wright biplane - Boeing 777 example which took you quite a few posts over several days to determine which was more complex?

You have never shown that all complexity requires a designer, and that complexity can not arise through natural mechanisms.

 

[Loudmouth]

Prove it.

Let's see how well your theory works.

Both chimps and gorillas have a type of ERV called CERV's (aka PtERV's). This family of retroviral DNA is not found in humans.

Using "common design", should I find CERV insertions at the same locations in the gorilla and chimp genomes? Explain your answer.

When you are finished, I will give the predictions made by the theory of evolution, and why the theory makes those predictions.

If you can't make these predictions, then you can't claim common design.

 

[justlookinla]

Of course, because they are designed by humans. We know that because we can see them being designed.

That says nothing about an object that was not designed by humans. You have to determine if the functionality of the object was intentional. How do you do that for the human heart?

Example: The Grand Canyon is complex and it functions as a conduit for the Colorado River. Was the Grand Canyon designed? Support your answer with evidence.

No, you don't see them being designed. Did you see the Wright biplane designed? Of course not. How about the Boeing 777? I doubt it.

How about this pump. Did you see it designed and built?