(October 30, 2015 at 7:18 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Perhaps, Jenny, you should observe Conways Game of Life, btw?  It's not even an open question, as to whether or not something complex requires an intelligence, let alone a vast intelligence, behind it.  You can watch, in real time, a few simple rules yield complex and organized patterns or behaviors wholly out of proportion with the simplicity of the initial condition.  The thing that you think can't or doesn't happen...has very literally been -proven- to happen, and it's available to you, for your enjoyment.

Meh.

http://pmav.eu/stuff/javascript-game-of-life-v3.1.1/

actually it doesnt because a human being has to play the game and create things using intelligence so it supports my position not yours . just like the computer program itself was developed by an intelligent programmer

Oh and before you ask, yes we do know, because we analyzed the DNA, and the analysis confirmed what we thought, based on the predictions you can make using the Theory of Evolution. We now had proof of what had long merely been a good hypothesis, regarding the origin of our mitochondria.

http://cshperspectives.cshlp.org/content...11403.full

(October 30, 2015 at 7:46 pm)jenny1972 Wrote: actually it doesnt because a human being has to play the game and create things using intelligence so it supports my position not yours . just like the computer program itself was developed by an intelligent programmer

LOL, no...you don't have to "play"...you just hit the button and watch.  The computer creates all the fun on the screen, starting from very simple rules...look, the explanation for how it works is actually in the game.  You think that it being a computer program means something that it doesn't.

Simple rules and no interaction from any exterior agent yields complex and organized behaviors out of proportion to those rules and the initial condition.  Sorry, again, this has been proven.  It's a fact.  I put it in front of you for you to witness with your very own eyes. You can no longer claim that you havent seen unintelligent processes create complex or organized this and thats, unless you add the caveat "because I didn't want to see it".

If you need to argue against facts to defend your beliefs, you're in trouble.

(October 30, 2015 at 7:40 pm)jenny1972 Wrote: i see a lot of proof of intelligent design and you dont see any thats fine , moving on , so then you believe that the various different complex systems just developed based on random chance ?

No, because "random" is a misleading representation of what actually happens. Every development in the history of the universe happened within the context of the universe itself, both in what it is, and its history. A system like photosynthesis didn't just develop randomly, it developed at least partially in reaction to the world around it; it was allowed to develop and propagate because if conferred an advantage because it was an energy efficient way to gain sustenance, for example. In a world where photosynthesis would be harmful to the organisms that possessed it, we would have gotten a very different set up, because dead organisms do not allow their traits to develop. In a world without a sun, we would never have gotten it at all, most likely.

These things are not random. They are unguided, but they happen within a set of parameters, which makes all the difference. Every system is scaffolded by the other systems around it and every small change that happened previously within the system. It's like rolling dice: the outcome is unguided and perhaps unpredictable, but it isn't truly random because there are constraints on the results. You'll never get a number seven on your standard six sided dice, obviously, but that's what you'd expect within a random system, rather than a system that contains a number of unguided elements.

She's thinking that because someone had to program in "If three cells are next to the active cell, it dies because of being outcompeted.", it means that someone would also have had to program the universe to do the same thing.

Jenny - the point of the program is to show that, "Given X set of random assigned parameters, our artificial Laws of Physics of this little universe in the program, you can just start with randomness and let it go, playing by the rules randomly set, and it will produce many complex things... even in that tiny, simple little program."

My favorite is the "glider gun".

(October 30, 2015 at 7:30 pm)Rhythm Wrote: We don't have those structures or cells.  That's not the way we went.  Even -within- species that question is meaningless.  It's possible for human beings to be professional boxers...why aren't you a professional boxer?  We do use photosynth, btw....all life on earth uses it as it's the basis of our entire food chain.  Started the process of what; mutation, adaptation?  Abiogenesis, ofc.

ok what do you think started it to begin with ?

Another thing... the big bang is not only non-random and the results are not inevitable... but it also wasn't an explosion and there was no "bang".

(October 30, 2015 at 7:35 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(October 30, 2015 at 7:29 pm)jenny1972 Wrote: but if 'the chemistry for life on this planet allows for it and nothing prevents it'  and thats the reason why it happens then why dont humans use photosynthesis also ? we live on the same planet with the same chemistry .

Because the semi-random genetic mutations that constituted our evolution took us along a different path, supported by an ecological niche that was amenable to our current survival strategies.

Quote: and what do you think started this process to begin with ?

Chemicals working in energetically favorable ways in accordance with the laws of physics and chemistry. If you're just going to turn around and ask what started those, then I need to ask you why you think an "I don't know," answer would suddenly be evidence for intelligent design?

how were the laws of physics and chemistry developed what developed them ?

(October 30, 2015 at 7:53 pm)jenny1972 Wrote:

(October 30, 2015 at 7:30 pm)Rhythm Wrote: We don't have those structures or cells.  That's not the way we went.  Even -within- species that question is meaningless.  It's possible for human beings to be professional boxers...why aren't you a professional boxer?  We do use photosynth, btw....all life on earth uses it as it's the basis of our entire food chain.  Started the process of what; mutation, adaptation?  Abiogenesis, ofc.

ok what do you think started it to begin with ?

I'm sorry....are you asking the same question again?  Did you have some problem with my last answer?  Define "it"?

@Rocket Glider gun, pft...Breeder master race, lol!

This is all irrelevant to evolution of course Jenny, how life or the universe began is not what evolution is about.