Barbarian explains:
Because it has obvious signs of manufacture. You can, for example, show marks where the various parts were stamped, cut, or machined. And of course, we have all sorts of evidence that people make watches.
Thanks for making the case for intelligent design.
No problem. As you see, "Intelligent Design" applies to man-made things, but not to nature, which was created, not designed.
Life has obvious signs of manufacture.
I know you want to believe that but so far, nothing like that has been found.
We can show how the genetic code is digital encoded information with semantic and syntactic properties.
Sorry, analogue, not digital. And almost any string of characters can be "decoded" to have "semantic and syntactic properties." But IDers can't detect them, unless they've agreed in advance if they have it or not. Would you like to put that to a test?
Barbarian observes:
Failing to show that geneticists saw non-coding DNA as being functionless, you repeated your assertion. When will we see your supporting data?
We're going in circles. You say show us, I do.
Then you deny Darwinists had anything to do with junk DNA
Scientists refer to it as "non-coding" DNA. There is some that is obviously junk, and the fact that huge amounts of it have been removed from the genome of animals with no detectable effects, pretty much ends the idea that it was "designed."
because one anecdotal example. We're back to the "show us" the presuppositions so here it is:
Susumu Ohno (1972)- So much junk DNA in our genome.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/5065367
Richard Dawkins (1976) - The selfish gene.
"The simplest way to explain the surplus DNA is to suppose that it is a parasite, or at best a harmless but useless passenger, hitching a ride in the survival machines created by the other DNA."
Ken Miller (1994)-
In fact, the genome resembles nothing so much as a hodgepodge of borrowed, copied, mutated, and discarded sequences and commands that has been cobbled together by millions of years of trial and error against the relentless test of survival.
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/lgd/
This doesn't say what you seem to think it says.
Barbarian explaining why transitional forms to the "gear" exist:
The basic idea is repetitive "teeth" in which two parts of the exoskeleton interdigitate and move against each other. So, this is a pretty good example of exaption, a feature evolved for one purpose, that's recruited for another.
There's simpler examples of this for locomotion as well; the furca of springtails has teeth that interdigitate and then release to allow jumping. So the argument boils down to "I just don't think it could evolve, even though there are simpler examples."
Yep. What you were told was irreducibly complex, turns out to be entirely consistent with incremental change.
Barbarian observes:
It shows that evolution of developmental gene regulation is a fact, contrary to your denials. The genes persist, but contrary to your assumptions, they evolve over time, so they aren't the same.
Quoting a paper, that couldn't stress it enough, that the developmental gene regulatory network remaining unaltered for half a billion years doesn't help your case at all.
As you learned, some of it hasn't changed much. But that's consistent with evolutionary theory. And of course, it still changed, albeit slowly. Which is the difficulty for ID. If it was designed by God, it wouldn't change at all. Of course, if it was designed by what your guys call the "space alien", that might make some sense. Is that your position?
