(March 21, 2016 at 6:10 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(March 21, 2016 at 5:48 pm)AJW333 Wrote: I don't know if you saw my wristwatch analogy but if you found a watch with no markings, you would still conclude that it was designed by someone, even if you couldn't identify that person by looking at the watch. You would still be satisfied that they existed. Tracking down the designer may indeed be difficult but one thing is for certain - they exist. And another thing is possible - if you found him, you may not like him.

How do you determine that? I know this fallacious analogy hinges on just skipping past to the conclusion, but what actual logical steps do you take, upon seeing a watch, upon seeing any object, that leads you to the conclusion that it was designed? What observations do you make to get you to that point?

Entropy. A wristwatch represents a huge reversal of randomness and disorder. Just to make the stainless steel casing requires a huge amount of directed energy. To assemble all of the parts requires ordered, sequential and intelligent construction.

(March 22, 2016 at 4:50 pm)Constable Dorfl Wrote:

(March 21, 2016 at 10:52 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: Spinning evolution out of straw is the ONLY way design proponents can argue against it.  

Remember to give them their proper title, chosen by themselves, "cdesign proponentsists".

Omg, I thought you were kidding! :: facepalm::

(March 22, 2016 at 7:21 pm)AJW333 Wrote: Entropy. A wristwatch represents a huge reversal of randomness and disorder. Just to make the stainless steel casing requires a huge amount of directed energy. To assemble all of the parts requires ordered, sequential and intelligent construction.

I think, I said that before, but you conveniently skipped it, how do you know, you don't have it the other way round. Human design is through observation and learning. To compare nature to human design, on the other hand, is completely asinine. Apart from the fact that you're measuring your supposed omnipotent being with human design, which is full of flaws and mistakes.

I urge you again to take a look outside your bubble. At the evolutionary remnants in our own bodies, which no longer serve any purpose. At recent research concerning animal cognition. But I get the feeling, I'm talking to a brick wall.

(March 21, 2016 at 6:11 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Natural, or designed?  And what are you basing that on?

Definition of design,

"To plan and fashion artistically or skillfully. "

Does this look planned or fashioned skillfully?

Is a wristwatch the product of planning and skillful construction?

(March 22, 2016 at 7:32 pm)AJW333 Wrote: Definition of design,

"To plan and fashion artistically or skillfully. "

Does this look planned or fashioned skillfully?

Is a wristwatch the product of planning and skillful construction?

How about that?

(March 21, 2016 at 6:30 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(March 21, 2016 at 6:26 pm)AJW333 Wrote: For every protein component of the visual system to be created, there must be a section of the DNA that codes for it. How does this code get added to the DNA library?

Do you not know how mutations work? Should I even be surprised, at this point?  

In biology, a mutation is a permanent alteration of the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal DNA or other genetic elements. Mutations result from damage to DNA which is not repaired, errors in the process of replication, or from the insertion or deletion of segments of DNA by mobile genetic elements.[1][2][3] Mutations may or may not produce discernible changes in the observable characteristics (phenotype) of an organism. Mutations play a part in both normal and abnormal biological processes including: evolution, cancer, and the development of the immune system, including junctional diversity.

Mutation can result in many different types of change in sequences. Mutations in genes can either have no effect, alter the product of a gene, or prevent the gene from functioning properly or completely. Mutations can also occur in nongenic regions. One study on genetic variations between different species of Drosophila suggests that, if a mutation changes a protein produced by a gene, the result is likely to be harmful, with an estimated 70 percent of amino acid polymorphisms that have damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or marginally beneficial.[4] Due to the damaging effects that mutations can have on genes, organisms have mechanisms such as DNA repair to prevent or correct mutations by reverting the mutated sequence back to its original state.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation

(March 21, 2016 at 7:51 pm)AJW333 Wrote:

(March 21, 2016 at 11:53 am)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote: Irreducible complexity has been addressed ad nauseum on this forum. Perhaps you could show a little intellectual honesty by researching it yourself before coming here to spew your bile all over the place. Prove you give a shit about truth and honesty. Google "debunking irreducible complexity" and see what you get.

I won't be holding my breath waiting. I know the idea scares the shit out of you.

What I've done in this last segment of the discussion is to examine the complexities of DNA coding and to point out that the necessary development of the code required to produce the integrated systems we see in the body is evidence of design. How is that spewing bile?

What you've done is fancy up the irreducible complexity argument to include DNA coding and ignored not only the huge number of people who have debunked it but also the people here who have explained how DNA can evolve into the first place.

In plain words, you've stuck your fingers in your ears and shouted la-la-la I can't hear you. That's how your spewing bile.

(March 22, 2016 at 7:46 pm)AJW333 Wrote:

(March 21, 2016 at 6:30 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Do you not know how mutations work? Should I even be surprised, at this point?  

In biology, a mutation is a permanent alteration of the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal DNA or other genetic elements. Mutations result from damage to DNA which is not repaired, errors in the process of replication, or from the insertion or deletion of segments of DNA by mobile genetic elements.[1][2][3] Mutations may or may not produce discernible changes in the observable characteristics (phenotype) of an organism. Mutations play a part in both normal and abnormal biological processes including: evolution, cancer, and the development of the immune system, including junctional diversity.

Mutation can result in many different types of change in sequences. Mutations in genes can either have no effect, alter the product of a gene, or prevent the gene from functioning properly or completely. Mutations can also occur in nongenic regions. One study on genetic variations between different species of Drosophila suggests that, if a mutation changes a protein produced by a gene, the result is likely to be harmful, with an estimated 70 percent of amino acid polymorphisms that have damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or marginally beneficial.[4] Due to the damaging effects that mutations can have on genes, organisms have mechanisms such as DNA repair to prevent or correct mutations by reverting the mutated sequence back to its original state.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation

You should really start to consider the possibility that you are wrong, Atlas.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

(March 21, 2016 at 7:54 pm)Kitan Wrote: What confuses me is how you make the leap from complex to design.  You are not giving the allowance for anything else.  That is your problem, due to your already preconceived notions of how you think.  You are not examining anything.  Rather, you are seeking tidbits of information that already supports your dim view of reality.

What confuses me is that you can admit that a watch has evidence of design but that the human body, which is infinitely more complex does not. I've laid out the statistical impossibility of DNA code mutations resulting in the production of the 100,000+ proteins in the body but still you choose to believe that it is possible. I would consider that to be faith of the highest order.

Dawkins himself said that natural selection "has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight." ie it is completely at the mercy of random chance.

Quote:What confuses me is that you can admit that a watch has evidence of design but that the human body, which is infinitely more complex does not.

"Watches" do not breed.  


Let us know when you have that concept firmly planted in your mind.