Subduction Zone
Regular Member
Ask a biologist. Just because I can't answer your questions where you are grasping at straws does not mean that someone else can't answer you. That is too far out of my comfort zone.
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.
How do simple chemical reactions cause cells to make proteins and replicate as needed by the rest of the body? How do cells communicate without a language?
It's an emergent property of imperfect replicators. We observe it in any system where imperfect replicators are subject to a selection pressure. Asking "where did it come from?" is kind of meaningless. You might as well ask where any other universal constant comes from. I, personally, believe that God designed the universe to work that way, others will disagree.Okay, where did the selection mechanism come from in the case of life?
The Earth is flat from our perspective, but spherical from a heavenly perspective. But, from every perspective we can find, life seems intricately designed. Is there a perspective on life in which it does not appear designed?And it doesn't take too much explaining to see that the earth looks flat. Until you provide the evidence of viewing it from space!
Okay, care to explain?No and no. DNA is not language and language is not intelligence.
We either are designed or we are not. I say we are, and life very clearly looks it. You must prove that life doesn't need a designer.Again you attempt to shift the burden. I do not have to prove that we are not designed. You are making the claim that we are, so you must provide the evidence.
And if you wish to view the evidence in favour of evolution, I suggest that you enrol in a basic, free online course. The volume of evidence is too massive to present it in a discussion forum!
Care to explain how it is inferior? How would you have designed the human body?Well, things like the human retina are clearly inferior in layout to other examples, like the octopus' retina.
Who said they don't? And why do you think that's problematic for the TOE?You are just explaining it with more evidence that cells communicate in some form or fashion.
Okay, where did the selection mechanism come from in the case of life?
The Earth is flat from our perspective, but spherical from a heavenly perspective. But, from every perspective we can find, life seems intricately designed. Is there a perspective on life in which it does not appear designed?
We either are designed or we are not. I say we are, and life very clearly looks it. You must prove that life doesn't need a designer.
The Earth is flat from our perspective, but spherical from a heavenly perspective. But, from every perspective we can find, life seems intricately designed. Is there a perspective on life in which it does not appear designed?
We were discussing if a computer could arise from a junkyard. He said it could if there was a selective mechanism. I asked where it would come from if we were talking about life. Do you believe the environment chose to assemble life?Selection comes from the environment that a population lives in. If you observe nature you will see that it is somewhat "cruel". Animals produce more young than can live in an area. The ones that succeed in breeding and passing on their genes successfully are the ones that are "selected".
In the human eye the retina is made up of several layers of different kinds of cells. The sensitive rods and cones are at the back of the retina, facing away from the light. To reach them the light first has to travel through blood vessels, nerve fibres and then several layers of retinal nerve cells. The octopus eye, it seems, evolved independently to ours and whilst it is similar in many ways the octopus got the retina in ‘the right way’. Its rods and cones face forwards, and blood supply and nerves come from behind.Care to explain how it is inferior? How would you have designed the human body?
I meant that when you look at life as it is, is there anywhere we can look and not see design? The theory of evolution is only trying to explain away the appearance of design, but that doesn't mean we don't see the design.Yes, it's called the theory of evolution! Have you been paying attention?
Again, can you explain how that is superior to our eye? The octopus, from a creationist perspective, is an entirely different creature with an eye that is used for entirely different purposes. In the evolutionary perspective, how is the octopus eye better?In the human eye the retina is made up of several layers of different kinds of cells. The sensitive rods and cones are at the back of the retina, facing away from the light. To reach them the light first has to travel through blood vessels, nerve fibres and then several layers of retinal nerve cells. The octopus eye, it seems, evolved independently to ours and whilst it is similar in many ways the octopus got the retina in ‘the right way’. Its rods and cones face forwards, and blood supply and nerves come from behind.
Yes, I believe we are designed, and life looks designed. That is my evidence, yet you don't believe it for some reason. What reason is that? Yes, yes, evolution, I know. Can you now prove it?I must do no such thing because I am not making a claim. YOU ARE!
Entirely different purposes? What, they dance the Can Can with it?Again, can you explain how that is superior to our eye? The octopus, from a creationist perspective, is an entirely different creature with an eye that is used for entirely different purposes.
It doesn't detach, for a start. It doesn't have fauveal blind spots, the light receptors aren't behind a bunch of light diminishing structures...In the evolutionary perspective, how is the octopus eye better?
That isn't "evidence", by any meaningful definition. It's an opinion, a belief, an ad hoc assumption. It's not evidence.Yes, I believe we are designed, and life looks designed. That is my evidence, yet you don't believe it for some reason. What reason is that? Yes, yes, evolution, I know. Can you now prove it?
Yeah, do humans and octopuses live in the same environment or do the same things? Or rather, is God obligated to create all of His creatures with the same set of eyes?Entirely different purposes? What, they dance the Can Can with it?
It doesn't detach, for a start. It doesn't have fauveal blind spots, the light receptors aren't behind a bunch of light diminishing structures...
If you stumble across a painting on a cave wall, and you observe all of the design present in the painting and conclude that a human painted it, then isn't the appearance of design a clear evidence of it?That isn't "evidence", by any meaningful definition. It's an opinion, a belief, an ad hoc assumption. It's not evidence.
Based on survivability, both eyes ARE pretty good! That's the point! Evolution provides "good enough" solutions. Intelligent design, one would think, should provide better ones, without the problems inherent in an iterative, evolved system. A "top down" designed eye should look more like an octopus eye than a human one.Yeah, do humans and octopuses live in the same environment or do the same things? Or rather, is God obligated to create all of His creatures with the same set of eyes?
What I should have been asking is this: In the evolutionary perspective, how is one design better than another? If it is based on survivability then I'd say our eyes have done us pretty good.
There are any number of natural formations in the world that "look" designed. Look at various tessellated rocks and columnar stones. Yes, a painting on a cave wall LOOKS designed, but we can test it closely to see if it WAS designed. Tessellated rocks fail at this step, as does biology. Just because something looks like something at first glance doesn't mean it IS.If you stumble across a painting on a cave wall, and you observe all of the design present in the painting and conclude that a human painted it, then isn't the appearance of design a clear evidence of it?
Your point is weak here. Yes, there is design, but there is also much chaos. As Hume once remarked, at attacking the design argument, the womb of nature spews forth all sorts of abominations. Order schmorder. To strengthen your posit90on, you need to account for this disorder and chaos.I meant that when you look at life as it is, is there anywhere we can look and not see design? The theory of evolution is only trying to explain away the appearance of design, but that doesn't mean we don't see the design.
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?