Intelligent Design: Did you design yourself?

[Heywood]

If the burden of proof is shifted it is because of a change in circumstance. Further I do not need to show you the intelligent designer. All I need to do is make the case that something falls into the category of being intelligently designed. If that thing falls into the category of being intelligently designed, it is strong evidence of an intelligent designer.

I bolded the bit I'm addressing there.... make the case? What is this? Jury duty?

I made the case several times already. So far everyone has buried their head in the sand about it. We have a way of telling if something is intelligently designed or not. Experience. If it becomes our experience that new lineages of life come into existence via intelligent design and never experience lineages of life coming into existence via some natural process, then we can categorize lineages of life as things which are intelligently designed. Quit ignoring this argument. Accept it or criticize it....but don't pretend it wasn't made.

If you find a watch on the beach, you don't need to see the maker in order to know there was one. Your counter argument fails.

Knowing that watches are made by man, then any watch I find is assumed to have been made by man.
Knowing that self-replicating molecules replicate themselves naturally, through chemical reactions and that, sometimes, these replications carry errors, I expect to find, after a lot of time, self-replicating molecules that have accumulated lots and lots of "errors"... first and foremost, the errors that managed to keep the molecules replicating, and those that made it replicate even better.
All this is natural and follows physics and its subset known as chemistry.

If you wish to make the case that self-replicating molecules exist because they were designed, then you must show the designer.
Like we see the man that designs watches and cars and planes and cogs and electronics chips, etc., so too, I'd expect this designer you claim must exist to come forth. Until then, all I see is Nature working as Nature does.

You are claiming that life came from self replicating molecules. You haven't substantiated this claim. Your claim implies another claim....that self replicating molecules of the kind required for the existence of life, come into existence outside of living systems....this is also a claim you need to substantiate. You basically claim life can come into existence via some natural process, but so far that is just a claim. If you can prove it as fact, they will give you the Nobel prize. Your hypothesis about how life could come into existence naturally....is just that.....a hypothesis....it is not a potent counter argument.

[Cyberman]

[The Grand Nudger]

Still waiting to hear the difference between a lineage and a sub-lineage.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

All materials are made of atoms. While atoms may have an electrical charge they are lifeless. You are made of atoms. Yet you "live" even though your basic materials are lifeless.

[Heywood]

Still waiting to hear the difference between a lineage and a sub-lineage.

A sub-lineage is a branch off the lineage of life.



Sub-lineages all have a path back to the Universal Common Ancestor. Plants are a sub-lineage. Animals are a sub-lineage. Both plants and Animals belong to the same lineage of life. All life on earth exists in a sub-lineage but is still related to each other because it all belongs in the same lineage.

[The Grand Nudger]

Isn't every branch just some other branch past the starting gate? If "plants" are a monolithic sub-lineage why are so many infertile? This is getting disappointing.

(or, as in the graph you sent..do you think that a designer only intervened three times but everything else within could be handled by natural processes?)

[Heywood]

Isn't every branch just some other branch past the starting gate? If "plants" or a monolithic sub-lineage why are so many infertile?

Every branch belongs to the lineage of life that all traces back to a Universal Common Ancestor.

[The Grand Nudger]

So it's just a name for a label- thats the only dissimilarity, you don't actually realize that there is no fundamental difference...do you? DO id a favor.....don't ever repeat the contents of this thread...-facepalm-

[Whateverist]

Isn't every branch just some other branch past the starting gate? If "plants" or a monolithic sub-lineage why are so many infertile?

Every branch belongs to the lineage of life that all traces back to a Universal Common Ancestor.

Sure, it seems very likely given that everything seems to share immense amounts of DNA. But I wouldn't say there is any in-principle reason to rule out an alternative to the assumption of a common ancestor. It could well be that the conditions which give rise to life in similar but separate regions would develop along a narrow range of possibilities. I don't see how we can rule that out.

If abiogenesis no longer occurs it could be because the presence of more evolved models suppresses initial states of life. Or perhaps the necessary conditions no longer exist. Never under estimate just how much we don't know.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's not just the shared amount, but also it's arrangement. It doesn't take so much similarity to build similar structures.....but it stretches credulity to imagine that two creatures with dissimilar lineages end up find the same thing exactly the same way with the same makeup as well.

(thats how lineage can be used properly in this convo heywood...take notes)