(January 8, 2016 at 4:32 am)robvalue Wrote: What does "it designed itself" mean? If that means it just happened without an intelligence designing it, then yes, that's what is most likely. It's a very strange way of putting it though.
No, it's not at all apparent that life is designed. That requires evidence, not just the observation of complexity and astonishment.
I'm not claiming it definitely wasn't designed, just that there is no good evidence that it was. Trying to trash the theory of evolution does nothing to demonstrate design.
Also, it's a terrible design. If you think God did it, you're calling God useless.
Designed itself just means somehow arranged itself into an evolvable structure.
Life shows specific codes that have a purposeful sequence of bases. The nucleotides are present in a specific and necessary sequence. This quality is known to arise from a designing intelligence. It may have a natural explanation, but I think that the natural explanations have serious problems. Do I have to exhaust ALL the natural explanations before I conclude that it was most likely designed?
It isn't terrible design. Is the 14 subunit DNA polymerase III poor design? Is the mechanism of attenuation poor design? Is the exquisitely tight regulation of the cell cycle using kinases and cyclins poor design? Is the p53 protein pathway poorly designed? Is the brain poorly designed? Are supercoiling, histone proteins, or nucleosomes poor design? Is the consensus sequence that allows for variability poor design?
Is it just the fact that you'd rather have your trachea somewhere besides near your esophagus? Or the nerves in the spine? Or some other small anatomical feature that you claim could be better without recognizing that things can only be improved to a certain point before it negatively effects other aspects of the body?
Sorry if I'm ranting, but I really don't think the poor design argument can stand up to the observations. For every claimed "bad design" there are thousands of unbelievably intricate and genius ones.
