Understanding Evolution (2)

[Loudmouth]

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?

Just because humans dug the Erie Canal does not mean that humans dug the Mississippi River.

 

[DerelictJunction]

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?

I guess you don't remember it the same as I do. I said the Boeing 777 was more complex right away.
How is that relevant to this discussion?

Are you really going to repeat your utterly and repeatedly refuted assertion that "complexity implies design"?

Why don't you skip that losing proposition and just show how Complexity with Information suggests design?

 

[Loudmouth]

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?

None of those things arise through embryonic development or biological reproduction. They aren't comparable to biology.

 

[justlookinla]

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.



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

They both use wheels, a common design element. Assuming the bicycle and shuttle are actually designed of course.

 

[PsychoSarah]

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?

Only because obviously all pumps will have something in common with every other pump, given the shared action. That shouldn't seem surprizing or significant to you. I mean yes, a pump in nature is going to have some similarities to the pumps we create, especially considering how often we draw inspiration from nature for our designs.

 

[Loudmouth]

They both use wheels, a common design element. Assuming the bicycle and shuttle are actually designed of course.

Bicycles and shuttles do not fall into a nested hierarchy, they are not the product of biological reproduction, and they did not arise through embryonic development. They aren't comparable.

Still waiting for you to address the ERV evidence.

 

[DerelictJunction]

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?

No, not personally. However, it has all the hallmarks of pumps designed by humans as documented in records at patent offices and manufacturing plants. The Wright brothers kept records of the design process they used to develop the biplane. We have records and examples of designed objects.

Does the human heart resemble any of those designs aside from the fact that it moves fluid? Show me something like it in all of human design history.

What are the indications that the human heart was designed by an intelligent designer. Are there tool marks? Did the designer put a label on it? Did this intelligent designer leave mechanical drawings or a journal showing the design and the process used to produce the human heart?

How did the intelligent designer produce this complex and information laden device? What was the process?

 

[selfinflikted]

That's what I have to offer. Accept it or reject it.

This isn't an accept or reject scenario. I'm trying to gauge your understanding of the topic. It's impossible to do since all you do it copy/paste or post nothing of substance. Therefore, I can only conclude you don't really understand it.

 

[justlookinla]

And?

And, there's not a single solitary example of only naturalistic mechanisms producing the human machine.

 

[justlookinla]

Only because obviously all pumps will have something in common with every other pump, given the shared action. That shouldn't seem surprizing or significant to you. I mean yes, a pump in nature is going to have some similarities to the pumps we create, especially considering how often we draw inspiration from nature for our designs.

There's that 'design' word again. Design from nature?

 

[Loudmouth]

And, there's not a single solitary example of only naturalistic mechanisms producing the human machine.

We do have tons of examples of natural mechanisms producing the human machine, and not a single example of supernatural mechanisms creating the human machine.

 

[justlookinla]

Bicycles and shuttles do not fall into a nested hierarchy, they are not the product of biological reproduction, and they did not arise through embryonic development. They aren't comparable.

Still waiting for you to address the ERV evidence.

I'm still waiting for you to show that ERVs proves that only naturalistic mechanisms produced all of life from a single life form of long long ago.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm still waiting for you to show that ERVs proves that only naturalistic mechanisms produced all of life from a single life form of long long ago.

Right after you show the predictions that common design makes with repsect to ERV's, and CERV's specifically.

Added in edit: The usual game that you play is to let people explain what type of evidence evolution would produce, and then claim that common design would produce that same evidence. I am not going to let you play that game. You need to show what common design actually predicts, and why it predicts what it does. No more acting like common design will look just like evolution. Prove to us that common design can make predictions on its own.

If you can't tell us what evidence would or would not be consistent with common design, then you have absolutely zero business telling us that common design explains the pattern of ERV's in primate genomes.

 

[justlookinla]

No, not personally. However, it has all the hallmarks of pumps designed by humans as documented in records at patent offices and manufacturing plants. The Wright brothers kept records of the design process they used to develop the biplane. We have records and examples of designed objects.

Does the human heart resemble any of those designs aside from the fact that it moves fluid? Show me something like it in all of human design history.

It does more than just move fluid, it has valves, chambers, power, inter-machine communication, information, sensors,ruggedness, inherent healing ability. I could go on and on.

What are the indications that the human heart was designed by an intelligent designer. Are there tool marks? Did the designer put a label on it? Did this intelligent designer leave mechanical drawings or a journal showing the design and the process used to produce the human heart?

See the attributes that I listed above.

How did the intelligent designer produce this complex and information laden device? What was the process?

Like all intelligent designers produce their designed product, by assembling the product from the inventory of the designer-builder.

 

[justlookinla]

We do have tons of examples of natural mechanisms producing the human machine, and not a single example of supernatural mechanisms creating the human machine.

You don't have a single example of only naturalistic mechanisms producing the human machine from a single life form of long long ago.

 

[justlookinla]

I guess you don't remember it the same as I do. I said the Boeing 777 was more complex right away.
How is that relevant to this discussion?

Are you really going to repeat your utterly and repeatedly refuted assertion that "complexity implies design"?

Why don't you skip that losing proposition and just show how Complexity with Information suggests design?

There is no example one can give with the complexity and information contained in the human machine which wasn't designed.

 

[justlookinla]

Right after you show the predictions that common design makes with repsect to ERV's, and CERV's specifically.

Right, this means you can't do it.

Added in edit: The usual game that you play is to let people explain what type of evidence evolution would produce, and then claim that common design would produce that same evidence. I am not going to let you play that game.

The usual game you play is to introduce ERVs which does not address the issue of only naturalistic mechanisms producing the incomprehensible complexity and variety of life we observe today, all from an alleged single life form of long long ago.

You need to show what common design actually predicts, and why it predicts what it does. No more acting like common design will look just like evolution. Prove to us that common design can make predictions on its own.

Common design uses common building blocks to create complex and functional designs. That's seen throughout creation, over and over.

If you can't tell us what evidence would or would not be consistent with common design, then you have absolutely zero business telling us that common design explains the pattern of ERV's in primate genomes.

You have absolutely zero business suggesting that ERVs are evidence that only naturalistic mechanisms produced the human machine from an alleged single life form of long long ago. It's not.

 

[DerelictJunction]

It does more than just move fluid, it has valves, chambers, power, inter-machine communication, information, sensors,ruggedness, inherent healing ability. I could go on and on.

Doesn't look like any human design or contain any attributes that we see in human designs.

What are the indications that the human heart was designed by an intelligent designer. Are there tool marks? Did the designer put a label on it? Did this intelligent designer leave mechanical drawings or a journal showing the design and the process used to produce the human heart?

See the attributes that I listed above.

I asked you what indications you have that the human heart was designed by an intelligent designer and you basically said 'it has a function and performs that function'. How does that point to an intelligent designer?

Like all intelligent designers produce their designed product, by assembling the product from the inventory of the designer-builder.

This nonsense is not an explanation of how the human heart was produced. 'It was built from parts the designer had' is not a description of the process. "Mutation and natural selection" is a more thorough explanation than you provided.

 

[DerelictJunction]

There is no example one can give with the complexity and information contained in the human machine which wasn't designed.

Sure, I can for complexity....a whale...an octopus....the Andromeda galaxy.....
You cannot show evidence that any of those had an intelligent designer....so, they must not have had one.

As for information: you cannot show that the human body has information in its construction....so it doesn't have to be addressed.

 

[justlookinla]

Doesn't look like any human design or contain any attributes that we see in human designs.

You don't see valves, chambers, power, inter-machine communication, information, sensors,ruggedness, inherent healing ability in human designs?

I asked you what indications you have that the human heart was designed by an intelligent designer and you basically said 'it has a function and performs that function'. How does that point to an intelligent designer?

No, I listed several attributes one sees in design. Here they are again. Valves, chambers, power, inter-machine communication, information, sensors,ruggedness, inherent healing ability. Well, maybe the inherent healing ability not so much, that's something the great designer designed which is basically unique to the human machine.

This nonsense is not an explanation of how the human heart was produced. 'It was built from parts the designer had' is not a description of the process. "Mutation and natural selection" is a more thorough explanation than you provided.

Random chance mutation doesn't produce a complex machine such as the human machine. That's simply a faith-based view.