DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Angrboda]

More lies.  I have had numerous respectful conversations with serious and honest theists like Steve and Neo.  You simply aren't a member of that group.

And I wasn't particularly angry so much as disturbed by the fact that you continue to be a dishonest douche bag, as you are in claiming that I don't have a case for my denial.

If you want to show the case for your denial, you can.  I'm not interested in helping you Jo, you are so far gone in hate, you can't see reason and light, and you can't acknowledge truth anymore, you are so far gone.

More lies. Fine, I'll point out with a simple example. Cancer and neurofibromatosis, in which tumors grow on the nervous system, are caused by one or several mutations. Neurofibromatosis is thought to be caused by mutations occurring during early development, though the genes can be passed on hereditarily. In both cases a new biological behavior results from one or more mutations. Since these new behaviors are a result of evolutionary processes, they are not irreducibly complex. I don't know what rudimentary consciousness evidenced itself as originally, but as in cancer and neurofibromatosis, it is entirely possible for a new function or behavior to arise via mutation in a single generation. You have in the past argued that consciousness cannot arise by only one or several mutations by arguing that it is too complex to have arisen this way. But that is a misunderstanding of what you are arguing, as well as an example of the genetic fallacy. I would agree that what we identify as consciousness in humans likely did not evolve in one generation, but that's assuming that consciousness when it originally evolved was like consciousness such as we display, and that none of those intermediary steps between the first consciousness and modern day examples of it could have occurred through mutation. Most of the problems stem from not being clear on what you mean by consciousness. If consciousness is some specific type of "stuff happening" in the brain, there is no obvious obstacle to that kind of stuff happening arising in one generation, regardless of how one defines consciousness. If one defines it as akin to our modern consciousness, then anything even slightly less or different from that type is clearly a precursor to consciousness which could occur as a result of one or several mutations. If you define human consciousness as the standard, then the intermediaries from animal consciousness are by definition not consciousness, by your hypothesized argument, and the steps between animal non-but-close-to-consciousness and our own become explicable by evolutionary steps. If you move the line back, you simply move the precursors back. You need at least two things to show that consciousness could not have evolved in a single step by evolutionary processes: 1) a clear and unambiguous definition of consciousness in terms of material processes, and 2) a demonstration that there could not exist any creature possesing less than the full measure of your definition which could not reach that full measure through natural means.

You have shown neither and have essentially done nothing but assert that consciousness is too complex to have arisen through evolutionary processes, an ipse dixit argument that is eminently impeachable on its face. Consciousness in its original incarnation did not need to be anything even resembling what we as humans have today, and pointing to either human consciousness or any of its precursors is futile unless you accomplish the two things stated above. You haven't done any such thing.





This idea that I am too far gone in hate is nothing more than your own attempt to dismiss anyone who substantially disagrees with you by resort to ad hominems and poisoning the well. A habit of yours that I can demonstrate, unlike your ridiculous lies.