Where did the laws of nature come from?

[stevevw]

double post

 

[stevevw]

Oh, we're doing this dance again? Great! Can you propose a condition by which your hypothesis would by falsified? Doesn't have to be anything that actually applies, but it must at least in theory be possible for your idea to be false in some hypothetical reality. What would a hypothetical reality that wasn't designed look like?

I don't think there's really an answer to this question. After all, the designer could be explicitly deceptive, and form a reality that has none of what you consider "hallmarks of design".

Gee talk about a bolt from the blue. here I was deeply immersed in genetics and now am thrown into the world of design in nature. We have to refer to the evidence from the experts as to what constitutes design and what doesn't. Such as from areas like engineering ect. The funny thing is you can apply much of what scientists say design is to nature but then the same scientists say its not really design. But if it looks designed and acts designed then maybe its designed. A good example of detecting design is that you cannot really apply Shannon info to how information is applied to biology for example as Shannon info doesn't explain all that happens with information in genetics. Information in genetics can also have complex ordered function which gives it another dimension.

The point is if we can use some of the ideas that scientists use such as multiverses, hologram worlds and things like worm holes that are all part of explaining our reality and existence in the universe for example which can never be verified or falsified if proposed then what difference would it be to also propose God. I think its only fair that we consider all possibilities and not eliminate particular ones because of someones biased beliefs.The God hypothesis or intelligent agent idea can be just as indirectly supported as some of the crazy ideas scientists come up with that are regarded as distinct possibilities based on little of no evidence.

No, of course not, because all examples of glass/plastic manipulation we have ever observed have come from humans, and no examples have ever come from nature. We can't really pull any analogy to reality as a whole, though, as we have no such basis for comparison. It's not like we've been inside a world factory to watch gods build all kinds of worlds. The comparison doesn't work

But wouldn't it be logical to apply the same rules, codes, and criteria that determines design for man made things to nature to determine if its designed. We dont need to go inside the Gods factory to determine if somethings designed. We measure that by the ways we measure anything designed.

How about a Koi Pond? Imagine you come across a small pond in the wilderness filled with Koi and surrounded by beautiful plant life. How would you go about determining whether this was designed by humans or not?

Well you would try to find out how it was possible fro a pond with Koi could exist in the wilderness. If there wasn't any explanation that was within the cause and effect parameters of what we would consider possible to exists then we would begin to wonder how on earth it was possible. We would begin to suspect that someone has put it there somehow. Its a natural conclusion. It also has to do with the amount of things going on. The more unusual and ordered info involved the more explaining we would have to do for how that could happen. But usually we find a logical explanation.

Its when we cant and dont find one that we begin to spectate and wonder. The point is when it does defy logic we shouldn't discount possibilities beyond what we know. To say that there must be some logical explanation that we dont know of but is somehow still logical can be a cop out and to appeal to some other unknown beyond what we know yet is beyond the parameters of our reality is much the same as appealing to God.So therefore God is just as valid.

(Notice how I always say "designed by X". This is because our ability to detect design is necessarily contingent on who the designer is. We can spot design by humans, or design by beavers, or design by honeybees pretty well, but as of yet, I'm not aware of any heuristic to spot design independent of who made the object.)

So why do we send out certain radio signals that have a certain design to them to find alien life thinking that this is suitable for aliens to understand as intelligent life. We understand the makeup of the universe. We can more or less understand that a distant planet is a sphere of gas or liquid or rock and there isn't much on it apart form more of the same. But if we seen a defined shape of say a metal pyramid or even a shape we have never seen but it had certain mathematical equations to it chances are we would think its designed. What about the UFOs that people say they have seen, they always seem to be a certain shape. A comet is a certain shape of nature thats not designed. A spaceship is designed.

 

[KCfromNC]

Just found this paper in checking back through posts. So if you think that I am wrong in what I am pointing out about these papers then please tell me 1) what I am referring to so that I am clear you understand 2) and what the papers are referring to.

What paper?

 

[KCfromNC]

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8597.full

So how is this not referring to natural sections ability to create all complex life.

It talks about the importance of natural selection in quote like this, for example: "Natural selection is just one of four primary evolutionary forces."

No as from the section from the paper above I am finding entire papers. Read the paper it is full of quotes and references stating the same as what I have posted above.

I did. It has quotes like this : "Natural selection is just one of four primary evolutionary forces." And yet somehow you've managed to selectively quote it to try and make it look like it supports your claim "Natural selection (adaptive forces) are negligible and/or minimal when it comes to how life can change and develop."

It looks like your latest tactic here is to nitpick over exactly why this is an example of dishonest quote-mining while ignoring the big picture : the paper you're quoting from directly contradicts your claim. If that's the best you have I'm not that impressed.

But ignored the rest of the quote which also said insufficient and unnecessary which is the same as minimal and negligible.

It would be more convincing if you could find papers which actually used the words you're wishing that they did. And given the lack of context and the examples of quote-mining above, who knows what the author actually intended here.

This Analysis shows that many of the qualitative features of known transcriptional networks can arise readily through the non-adaptive processes of genetic drift, mutation and recombination, raising questions about whether natural selection is necessary or even sufficient for the origin of many aspects of gene-network topologies.
KCfromNC said
Same problem as above. Try again.

You said that "Natural selection (adaptive forces) are negligible and/or minimal when it comes to how life can change and develop." Not that there are questions about it. Not that other mechanisms can also drive evolution. That it was a definite conclusion. Get back to us when you find actual scientists who agree with you .

As I said insufficient and not necessary mean more or less minimal and negligible.

And you continue to be wrong. There's a reason you can't actually find papers which make the same claims you do, you know.

 

[KCfromNC]

I havnt changed in the least. When I have said natural selection is minimal or negligible that doesn't say I am stating that natural selection doesn't happen. So what is the difference in saying its does happen but its not dominate. Not dominate can mean anything form minimal to negligible.

Or even just short of a majority. But that's still negligible. Or maybe minimally dominant. Or negligibly minimal. Would you take negligibly dominant?

These sorts of mental gymnastics must be tiring. Relax, just admit you were wrong and move on. Since this has nothing to do with you trying to rationalize your religious faith it simply isn't that important.

But what is the problem anyway I have supplied support for all those definitions of natural selection because that is what the evidence states.

You know, all of the words that your sources have written matter, not just the ones you pull out of context. For example:
"First, evolution is a population-genetic process governed by four fundamental forces. Darwin (6) articulated one of those forces, the process of natural selection, for which an elaborate theory in terms of genotype frequencies now exists"

For an author trying to prove that natural selection is negligible, it is very strange that they list it first in a list of fundamental forces of evolution. Perhaps you should shoot them an e-mail and let them know they made a mistake.

 

[KCfromNC]

But wouldn't it be logical to apply the same rules, codes, and criteria that determines design for man made things to nature to determine if its designed.

Yep. We look to see if the "designed" things fall within the known capabilities of humans to design and manufacture them. So let's do the same for your proposed designer - what characteristics and capabilities are you proposing it to have, specifically?

 

[KCfromNC]

It is impossible to understand evolution purely in terms of natural selection, and many aspects of genomic, cellular, and developmental evolution can only be understood by invoking a negligible level of adaptive involvement
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8597.full

You want to come clean on the context of this quote or should I post it for you?

 

[The Cadet]

But wouldn't it be logical to apply the same rules, codes, and criteria that determines design for man made things to nature to determine if its designed.

I'll get back to the rest of the post when I have more time, but this is, in my opinion, the key problem: no. It is not logical. We have a massive number of hard and fast rules for checking, "Is this man-made", because we know humans, we know what things made by humans look like, and we also know what things not made by humans look like. We have learned the hallmarks of human design* by spending our entire lives comparing and contrasting things designed by humans with things not designed by humans. And even then, we still often manage to trip ourselves up with megaliths or stone carvings that look like they could be designed, but were actually entirely natural. But we have absolutely no demonstrable examples of something designed by a god. And again, how could we tell? Even if we didn't find whatever hallmarks of design you might bring up, could we reasonably claim that an omnipotent designer couldn't design something explicitly lacking those qualities?


*Yes, the emphasis here is important, it's not just "design", it is explicitly human design. Design by beavers, warblers, or honeybees exist; they also have completely different hallmarks. I have yet to see any particular hallmark that demonstrably applies to all design.

 

[Loudmouth]

No you refuse to accept that the paper I posted was only one of many which were all saying the same thing.

They weren't, stevew.

You refuse to acknowledge that those other papers elaborated on what natural selection was capable of and the description they also placed on natural selection ie

* whether natural selection is necessary or even sufficient

Sufficient for what?

* natural selection may not only be an insufficient mechanism for the origin of genetic modularity

Genetic modularity is not adaptive change.

* natural selection may actually promote the opposite situation, alleles under unified transcriptional control

What is the opposite situation?

* If complexity, modularity, evolvability, and/or robustness are entirely products of adaptive processes, then where is the evidence

?

Complexity, modularity, and evolvability are not the whole of adaptive change.

* As stated before insufficient means not enough; inadequate, limited, restricted and unnecessary means not needed, worthless, useless.

Insufficient for what?

* The paper saying natural selection promotes the opposite of function gene networks goes beyond proving what I stated that natural section is negligible and minimal.

No it isn't. You care claiming that natural selection is minimal for evolution as a whole. Your source is saying that natural selection is only minimal in a select few cases that are a subset of evolution as a whole. The complexity of gene networks is not evolution as a whole.

Its actually claiming its worse than that.
* But heres the cruncher, the papers I have posted even say exactly what I stated in natural selection or (adaptive involvement) being negligible.

Negligible for what?

It is impossible to understand evolution purely in terms of natural selection, and many aspects of genomic, cellular, and developmental evolution can only be understood by invoking a

negligible level of adaptive involvement

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8597.full

Certain aspects of genomic, cellular, and developmental evolution are not evolution as a whole.

 

[The Cadet]

We have to refer to the evidence from the experts as to what constitutes design and what doesn't. Such as from areas like engineering ect. The funny thing is you can apply much of what scientists say design is to nature but then the same scientists say its not really design.

"We have to refer to the evidence from the experts"
"Then the same scientists say it's not really design"

Huh. So should we trust the experts, or not?

Look, the reason these scientists say it's "not really evidence of design" is probably because they know something you don't. Evolution is a process of gradual revision over multiple generations. It's unguided, but it will end up looking a whole lot like design despite that; check out http://boxcar2d.com/ if you don't believe me.

But if it looks designed and acts designed then maybe its designed.

But how do we establish that? And equally important, how do we establish if something isn't designed?

A good example of detecting design is that you cannot really apply Shannon info to how information is applied to biology for example as Shannon info doesn't explain all that happens with information in genetics. Information in genetics can also have complex ordered function which gives it another dimension.

Maybe it's that second beer talking, but I literally have no idea how this connects to the previous statement at all.

The point is if we can use some of the ideas that scientists use such as multiverses, hologram worlds and things like worm holes that are all part of explaining our reality and existence in the universe for example which can never be verified or falsified if proposed then what difference would it be to also propose God. I think its only fair that we consider all possibilities and not eliminate particular ones because of someones biased beliefs.The God hypothesis or intelligent agent idea can be just as indirectly supported as some of the crazy ideas scientists come up with that are regarded as distinct possibilities based on little of no evidence.

I have little interest in junk science in any field; the fact that Physics gets away with way more than it should* does not somehow make it okay to blatantly break the rules in other areas. It just doesn't. See, here's the thing: if the "god hypothesis" is unfalsifiable, then what that means is that it is literally impossible for a point of data not to support it. It doesn't matter what the actual state of the universe is, whatever state that is comports to the theory, so there is nothing that can invalidate it. So again, it comes back to the same question: what would falsify the design hypothesis? When your god is all-powerful and can do anything, there is literally nothing that could falsify it.

*AFAICT, most of those things you brought up are more in the realm of philosophy. Wormholes are a hypothetical construct that could exist but for which there is little evidence either way. It is also treated as such.

But wouldn't it be logical to apply the same rules, codes, and criteria that determines design for man made things to nature to determine if its designed. We dont need to go inside the Gods factory to determine if somethings designed. We measure that by the ways we measure anything designed.

Already addressed this:

I'll get back to the rest of the post when I have more time, but this is, in my opinion, the key problem: no. It is not logical. We have a massive number of hard and fast rules for checking, "Is this man-made", because we know humans, we know what things made by humans look like, and we also know what things not made by humans look like. We have learned the hallmarks of human design* by spending our entire lives comparing and contrasting things designed by humans with things not designed by humans. And even then, we still often manage to trip ourselves up with megaliths or stone carvings that look like they could be designed, but were actually entirely natural. But we have absolutely no demonstrable examples of something designed by a god. And again, how could we tell? Even if we didn't find whatever hallmarks of design you might bring up, could we reasonably claim that an omnipotent designer couldn't design something explicitly lacking those qualities?


*Yes, the emphasis here is important, it's not just "design", it is explicitly human design. Design by beavers, warblers, or honeybees exist; they also have completely different hallmarks. I have yet to see any particular hallmark that demonstrably applies to all design.

Moving on:

Well you would try to find out how it was possible fro a pond with Koi could exist in the wilderness. If there wasn't any explanation that was within the cause and effect parameters of what we would consider possible to exists then we would begin to wonder how on earth it was possible. We would begin to suspect that someone has put it there somehow. Its a natural conclusion.

It's an argument from ignorance as stated here. The key thing missing? We already know humans:
A) exist
B) design things
C) build koi ponds

Its when we cant and dont find one that we begin to spectate and wonder. The point is when it does defy logic we shouldn't discount possibilities beyond what we know. To say that there must be some logical explanation that we dont know of but is somehow still logical can be a cop out and to appeal to some other unknown beyond what we know yet is beyond the parameters of our reality is much the same as appealing to God.So therefore God is just as valid.

The track record of such claims is exactly zero.

Lightning was the gods being angry. So was volcanoes. Diseases were caused by demons. Everything that didn't make sense to us, which defied our logic at the time... We said "God did it". We blamed the supernatural. And every single time, we've been wrong. We've either found that the real culprit was something very much natural and physical, or we simply haven't found anything to work with. If we don't know what the answer is, the only correct answer, the only honest answer, is "I don't know". Because it's true. We don't know. And inserting god into the gap makes as little sense as inserting the flying spaghetti monster or the invisible pink unicorn.

So why do we send out certain radio signals that have a certain design to them to find alien life thinking that this is suitable for aliens to understand as intelligent life.

Because we assume certain mathematical constructs are ubiquitous enough in carbon-based life to be near-universal. It would be a strong indicator of intelligent life as we know it.
Keyword: "as we know it".

 

[RealityCheck01]

So I have read what you have said on the 18/7/16 and cant see how this is even valid.

I said the obvious - that imaginary non adaptive forces cannot explain anything because they are fantasies. !
I know that the actual, real non adaptive forces that exist in evolutionary theory do explain things.
"I have posted several papers which clearly state that natural selection is as I said minimal and negligible" is a fantasy and getting to be delusional with repetition and the addition of the word "clearly"!
19 July 2016 stevevw: Three citations that do not state "Natural selection (adaptive forces) are negligible and/or minimal..." !
19 July 2016 stevevw: Can you give the scientific evidence "showing that most of the ability for life to change is coming from non adaptive influences such as HGT or in development"?
21 July 2016 stevevw: The hint of cherry picking sources to suit your case even when they do not support you.
21 July 2016 stevevw: Like "not a giant" does not mean "is a dwarf".

The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity

Second, all four major forces play a substantial role in genomic evolution. It is impossible to understand evolution purely in terms of natural selection, and many aspects of genomic, cellular, and developmental evolution can only be understood by invoking a negligible level of adaptive involvement (12, 13). Because all three nonadaptive forces of evolution are stochastic in nature, this conclusion raises some significant technical challenges. It is tempting to think that stochastic processes have no implications for the direction of evolution. However, the effects of mutation and recombination are nonrandom, and by magnifying the role of chance, genetic drift indirectly imposes directionality on evolution by encouraging the fixation of mildly deleterious mutations and discouraging the promotion of beneficial mutations.

29 July 2016 stevevw: "many aspects of genomic, cellular, and developmental evolution" is not all or even most of evolution !
It could be "1 , 2, 3 , many" . It is certainly not half/majority/most etc. of evolution.

29 July 2016 stevevw: Quote mining to hide the context of a quote is bad scholarship. Lynch states that "all four major forces play a substantial role in genomic evolution".

29 July 2016 stevevw: Cutting references from a quote is not good scholarship.

12. Kimura M (1983) The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution (Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge). Google Scholar
13. Lynch M (2007) The Origins of Genome Architecture (Sinauer, Sunderland, MA). Google Scholar

 

[RealityCheck01]

I havnt changed in the least.

Actually you did change as post 1386 shows by quoting you.
From "negligible and/or minimal" to "isnt as dominate as made out by some" and now you have reverted to the unsupported "negligible and/or minimal"

Or my record of this assertion.
stevew claimed Natural selection (adaptive forces) are negligible and/or minimal when it comes to how life can change and develop.
None of the papers he cited states that adaption is "negligible and/or minimal". They are one side of the debate about whether adaption is dominant or not.

1. Loudmouth pointed out this error.
2. KCfromNC pointed out this error.
3. You quoted a different assertion from stevew.
   #1348 was stevew changing his original "negligible and/or minimal" assertion to "not dominant".
4. I pointed out his original error in posts about each paper: #1362 #1363 #1365.
5. stevew has returned to his original unsupported assertion, added the word "clearly" to make the assertion even less valid and emphasized that he thinks parts of evolution is all of evolution.
   the others that clearly state that natural selection is insufficient and has inability and is even not necessary
   I have posted several papers which clearly state that natural selection is as I said minimal and negligible
   29 July 2016 stevevw: "many aspects of genomic, cellular, and developmental evolution" is not all or even most of evolution

 

[KCfromNC]

You want to come clean on the context of this quote or should I post it for you?

Looks like someone else beat me to it. Wonder where steve disappeared to?

 

[stevevw]

Or even just short of a majority. But that's still negligible. Or maybe minimally dominant. Or negligibly minimal. Would you take negligibly dominant?

These sorts of mental gymnastics must be tiring. Relax, just admit you were wrong and move on. Since this has nothing to do with you trying to rationalize your religious faith it simply isn't that important.

Luckily the authors elaborated on exactly how they were describing the effects of natural selection with words like insufficient, inability and unnecessary which give us a clearer picture. It seems your the one rationalizing away the truth by continually avoiding their clear descriptions by saying just short of a majority is still negligible. Negligible means, so small or unimportant as to be not worth considering; insignificant. There is a clear difference and I have been pointing this out for some time now. But the fact you want to pump up its worth shows that you are recognizing the importance of what these papers are saying. They are saying natural selection alone is not adequate or good enough to account for how gene networks form. Whereas supporters of Darwin's theory of evolution have made natural selection the all powerful central force that can explain just about every change that has happened in evolution without evidence because it sounded like a good idea. It is now being shown that its not the answer and there are other non adaptive forces which do fit the evidence better.

You know, all of the words that your sources have written matter, not just the ones you pull out of context. For example:
"First, evolution is a population-genetic process governed by four fundamental forces. Darwin (6) articulated one of those forces, the process of natural selection, for which an elaborate theory in terms of genotype frequencies now exists"
For an author trying to prove that natural selection is negligible, it is very strange that they list it first in a list of fundamental forces of evolution. Perhaps you should shoot them an e-mail and let them know they made a mistake.

That is right and the entire paper matters. The section that quote comes from is describing population genetics and the role of adaptive and non adaptive forces. No one has said that natural selection has a role. It is the degree of that role and the particular role it plays overall. In population genetics there are four forces natural selection, genetic drift, mutation and gene flow. Three of these forces are non adaptive because they are not a function of fitness. So the degree to which natural selection has played a role is subject and relative to the power of the other three forces hence the descriptions that have been given to it previously named.

The author is merely describing how natural selection has been established in the theory that Darwin has made and the elaborate genotype frequencies that have been attributed to it. he isn't saying that the evidence for this has been proven but merely describing what evolution is saying about it. Because he later goes on to say that those very genotype or gene networks are not the product of natural selection but more likely non adaptive forces if you read the whole paper. He is using some of the papers that have been written by other authors about the role of natural selection and non adaptive forces and then comparing the evidence. He is showing that natural selections role is not as great as some have made out in the light of things like population genetics, developmental biology and genomics.

The development of a mature field of evolutionary biology requires the participation of not just population geneticists, but molecular, cell, and developmental biologists. However, the integration of these fields needs to be a two-way street. Because the forces of mutation, recombination, and genetic drift are now readily quantifiable in multiple species, there is no longer any justification for blindly launching suppositions about adaptive scenarios without an evaluation of the likelihood of nonadaptive alternatives. Moreover, if the conclusion that nonadaptive processes have played a central role in driving evolutionary patterns is correct, the origins of biological complexity should no longer be viewed as extraordinarily low-probability outcomes of unobservable adaptive challenges, but expected derivatives of the special population-genetic features of DNA-based genomes.

 

[stevevw]

Actually you did change as post 1386 shows by quoting you.
From "negligible and/or minimal" to "isn't as dominate as made out by some" and now you have reverted to the unsupported "negligible and/or minimal"

I think I know the best way to pin you down on these matters is by only dealing with one thing at a time because you keep side stepping the issues here. So first how can you claim that I have reverted to the unsupported words of negligible and minimal when I have posted the papers showing the use of those very words and even more descriptive words of insufficient and unnecessary to describe natural selection. Here is the post
Tuesday at 3:10 AM #1431

 

[stevevw]

Actually you did change as post 1386 shows by quoting you.
From "negligible and/or minimal" to "isnt as dominate as made out by some" and now you have reverted to the unsupported "negligible and/or minimal"

So what about a month or two months ago or 12 months ago or two years ago when I said things like natural selection plays a minor role or not much role at all. You do realize I am quoting scientists and its not my words. The point is scientists have said all these words about natural selection and I am just repeating them to you.

Jun 30, 2016 #1270
The non adaptive forces work against selection so natural selection plays a minor role in how life can change. It is more likely to happen from non selective and adaptive methods such as those I have posted before
Citation needed.
May 30, 2016 #1114
What about what I said about natural selection back in may
They question the role of natural selection and either diminish it to the side lines or say that it may not play much of a role at all.

 

[KCfromNC]

Luckily the authors elaborated on exactly how they were describing the effects of natural selection with words like insufficient, inability and unnecessary which give us a clearer picture.

You can cherry pick individual words out of context but that doesn't clarify much. Let's actually quote some things in context :

First, evolution is a population-genetic process governed by four fundamental forces. Darwin (6) articulated one of those forces, the process of natural selection, for which an elaborate theory in terms of genotype frequencies now exists (10, 11).

Second, all four major forces play a substantial role in genomic evolution.

Go ahead, explain how the author saying that natural selection is one of the fundamental forces of evolution and how it plays substantial role means that it is negligible. I need the entertainment.

 

[stevevw]

"We have to refer to the evidence from the experts"
"Then the same scientists say it's not really design"

Well thats not completely true. Some say its not design but will use language to describe it like its designed. This is the paradox that happens often with perception and how we are influenced by many things including our beliefs for positive and negative conclusions about design in nature. Often DNA is described as codes, languages, sequences, structures, systems even codes within codes. Often engineers use nature to learn about design IE the water proof membranes of leaves and feathers ect and making waterproof cloths. The aerodynamics of the wings of insects and birds for human flying and the interconnecting structure of dragon fly wings for making stronger structures for use in commercial structural applications.

Look, the reason these scientists say it's "not really evidence of design" is probably because they know something you don't. Evolution is a process of gradual revision over multiple generations. It's unguided, but it will end up looking a whole lot like design despite that; check out http://boxcar2d.com/ if you don't believe me

This is based on a false analogy. You are assuming natural selection is true to the point it is capable of building complex designs from scratch in a step by step process. Whereas the evidence points to genetic structures being vastly complex and having the qualities of preset forms that cannot be explained by step by step process to build. Natural selection only comes in after that level of complex order has been established and teeters with the end results.

But how do we establish that? And equally important, how do we establish if something isn't designed

I dont know you tell me. Its amazing how even totally unrelated or distantly related things follow certain patterns. You would think that a random and blind process would keep bring up the same types of things whether it be in plants, sea life, fruits, the universe or the cell itself.

But heres a couple of papers that may help.
The Coherence Of An Engineered World
http://www.witpress.com/elibrary/wit-transactions-on-ecology-and-the-environment/114/19279
Complexity, self-organization, and emergence at the edge of chaos in life-origin models
https://www.researchgate.net/public...ce_at_the_edge_of_chaos_in_life-origin_models

Maybe it's that second beer talking, but I literally have no idea how this connects to the previous statement at all

Maybe so except I dont drink. Its more likely tiredness so I will have to leave it there and get back to the rest.

 

[KCfromNC]

This is based on a false analogy. You are assuming natural selection is true to the point it is capable of building complex designs from scratch in a step by step process. Whereas the evidence points to genetic structures being vastly complex and having the qualities of preset forms that cannot be explained by step by step process to build. Natural selection only comes in after that level of complex order has been established and teeters with the end results.

Speaking of assumptions, do you have anything to back these claims up or are they just gut feelings?

I dont know you tell me. Its amazing how even totally unrelated or distantly related things follow certain patterns. You would think that a random and blind process would keep bring up the same types of things whether it be in plants, sea life, fruits, the universe or the cell itself.

People are good at finding patterns even when they aren't tehre. Care to list all of the examples of organisms which don't have spiral patterns in them, or are we just supposed to think the fact that you found 3 out of how man millions of species is significant in any way?

 

[The Cadet]

I dont know you tell me. Its amazing how even totally unrelated or distantly related things follow certain patterns. You would think that a random and blind process would keep bring up the same types of things whether it be in plants, sea life, fruits, the universe or the cell itself.

Again, I'm sorry, I know you wrote a whole lot more, but we really need to cut to the point here. You need to know the answer to that question. If your claim is "This looks designed", then the question "how do you know this looks designed, and how could you tell if it wasn't designed" is not only not unreasonable, you literally cannot make the claim without knowing the answer. Yes, it may very well be amazing that unrelated things follow certain patterns (not that amazing once you know more about chemistry, but...); but why is that evidence of design? What does a non-designed object look like? This should not be a hard question if your assertion is that you can determine whether or not something was designed.