Why complex form requires an Intelligent Designer

Hello everyone,I would like to discuss this essay that I have put together which I believe poses a new angle on the Intelligent design POV.
I feel tht this POV will form a distinct method for scientists to confirm the necessity of a designer for comples functional mechanical form (life)
This essay is basic in its design but it can become quite involved as more information dealing with specifics arises, so don't be put off by its simplicity of original form.-------------------------------------------------------------------This paper is for all of those people that have looked
at the structure exhibited by life and thought it was
beyond the possibility of evolutions mechanism to acheive.
For most people making this assertion turns into an argument
from incredulity because you can't explain exactly what
makes such structures impossible for evolution to form.This problem is about to end.The answer to why random mutation can't create complex
mechanical formation is because of the infinite
possibilities for 3 dimensional geometry.Our DNA provides the blueprint for every structure formed
in our bodies. DNA codes for every aspect of 3 dimensional
form that we see, such as the femur of a sauropod, the
largest of which is about 6 1/2 feet tall. Pictured
below is a man standing next to a giant femur:USAHA188: Situs Judi Slot Pulsa Online Tanpa PotonganAnd this same DNA can also code for the same bone in the
Shrew [Microtus agrestis] which has a femur length of
approximately 15mm or about 1/2 inch.
This observation opens up some undertanding as to what is
possible for the DNA to form, but it doesn't truly open
your eyes until you understand a little bit about 3D
geometry.
In school we all touched on geometry in math class and we
have all seen the various forms such as cubes and spheres
and that was no big deal as these were just common shapes
that made sense, however geometry is a much greater tool
for understanding than you thought.
3 dimensional geometric forms are so versatile that they
can't all be defined, they are in fact infinite in
possibility. As I showed above the 3 dimensional form of
just a single functional bone type within a living system
can exist in very extreme sizes, but that is just the tip
of the range of what possible shapes can be coded for by DNA.
What you don't see is all the other possible shapes that DNA
can code for. The 3 dimensional geometry of a femur can be
infinitely configured, it can be most any of the shapes
listed below or it could incorporate any of these geometries
as part of its shape:polygon, bicentric polygon, concave polygon, constructible
polygon, convex polygon, cyclic polygon, decagon, digon,
dodecagon, enneagon, equiangular polygon,equilateral polygon,
henagon, hendecagon,heptagon, hexagon, Lemoine hexagon,
Tucker hexagon, icosagon,swastika, octagon, pentagon, cyclic pentagon, regular polygon, regular decagon, regular dodecagon,
regular hendecagon, regular hexagon, regular icosagon, regular octagon, regular pentagon, star polygon, decagram, dodecagram,
octagram, heptagram, hexagram, nonagram, pentagram, triangle,
acute triangle, anticomplementary triangle, equilateral
triangle, excentral triangle, tritangent triangle, isosceles triangle, medial triangle, auxiliary triangle, obtuse triangle
rational triangle, right triangle, 30-60-90 triangle, isosceles right triangle, scalene triangle, Reuleaux triangle.
parallelogram, rhombus, Lozenge, rhomboid, Penrose tile,
Penrose dart, Penrose kite, rectangle, diamond, Harborth's
tile, square, trapezium, isosceles trapezium, quadrilateral,
cyclic quadrilateral, tetrachord, chordal tetragon ?
Brahmagupta's trapezium, equilic quadrilateral kite,
rational quadrilateral, strombus, tangential quadrilateral, tangential tetragon, trapezoid, isosceles trapezoid, Curved,
annulus, arbelos, circle, disc, Archimedes' circle, Bankoff
circle, circumcircle, excircle, incircle, nine-point circle,
crescent, lune, oval, Reuleaux polygon, rotor, Reuleaux
triangle, sphere, salinon, semicircle, triquetra,
Archimedean spiral, cubocycloid, deltoid, ellipse, smoothed
octagonThis list is by no means complete, these are just the shapes
that we have assigned names to for communication purposes.
The reality is that the range that geometric shapes can exist
in is infinite.
DNA could be coded to cause an infinite range of possible
forms just for one single bone, however, when it comes to
functional interactive mechanical form there is an extremely
finite range of possibilities that will allow for optimal
functionality in a mechanical system or a chemomechanical
system.
Our bone structure is controlled from the begining of our
existence till our death. Bone is constantly being
remodelled as we grow and it requires control throughout
its existence or it will cease to be an optimal component
within our mechanical system. One of the best ways to
visualize the level of control needed to keep our bone
structure relative mechanically is to see what the
structure of the bone is made of.
Osteoblasts are the cells that form new bone, they are
approximately 20 microns in diameter, which is equal to
about one thousandth of an inch. So every square inch of
bone surface has about 1,000,000 Osteoblasts. All of
these cells in each bone must conform to the blueprint
provided by the DNA in order to allow for optimal
mechanical form and function to exist within our living
system.Now that we have delved into the enormity of what
comprises mechanical form we can confront the
evolutionary mechanism of random mutation head on.
The evolutionist belief that your structure can be
randomly found by mutation of genetic structure is
only realistic if there are finite possibilities for
a form to exist in. Their theory that by randomly
changing the code they can eventually hit a shape
that can be selected is unfounded in reality. It
becomes impossible when confronted with infinity for
possibilities that only contain a tiny range of
working possibilities.One further wrinkle that we should note from current
research is shown below:Quantitative Trait Loci for Femoral Size and Shape in
a Genetically Heterogeneous Mouse Population
Suzanne K. Volkman, Andrzej T. Galecki, David T. Burke,
Michael R. Paczas1, Maria R.Moalli1, Richard A. Miller,
& Steven A. Goldstein1.Abstract
The aim of this study was to examine the genetic effects
on cortical bone geometry. Genotypes from 487 mice were
compared to geometric traits obtained from CT. We found
14 genetic markers that associate with geometric traits, demonstrating the complexity of genetic control over bone
geometry.
PubMed
&db=PubMed&list_uids=12929939&dopt=AbstractOur DNA controls bone form by a multitude of separate
genetic influences and any one of these genetic influences
has an infinite range of possible values. Therefore we can
now show that our bones shape is not just infinite, it is
14 times infinite because of the vast array of other
parameters that accompany mechanical form. Remember, each
bone must grow in accord with the rest of the bones in
your body so You must also consider time and rate of growth
parameters for the entire life of the mechanical system
and any of these parameters can have a nearly infinite value.With an infinite range of possible shapes and properties
random mutation has no hope of providing continuous
selectable changes over time to create the variety of
comlex mechanical forms we observe in living systems.
The only possible mechanism that can provide for the
patterns of mechanical form is intelligence since it
can logically choose the extremely minute functional
possibilities from within a sea of infinite nonfunctional possibilities.Evolution is now checkmated by a logical and definable
reason, and we can infer directly the necessity of an
Intelligent Designer.

I am not sure if this is a response to my post or not I will await further information.

Quote "Perhaps, but no one claims that random mutations by themselves are all that is necessary for evolution to occur. You forgot the take into account natural selection. Random mutation with a nonrandom selection process just might be able to produce these forms."I have indeed taken NS into account. NS can only select from what is presented therefore it is fully upon random mutation to make the structure for NS to choose it.

Quote "Why is a "logical choice" needed? Cannot the physical nature of the material itself (and the environment in which it operates) dictate structure? Ever seen a snowflake?"Mechanically functional form has no law to cause it to arise therefore it must be formed some other way.
Our environment cannot dictate form otherwise you could not get diversity.
A snowflake follows rules of form according to atomic structure of water. Your bone structure has no atomic structure to cause a specific formation, thus you can have a bone in the shape of a femur or a pelvis, both of which are distinctly different in mechanical function and form.

Quote "First, that there are an infinite number of possible genetic combinations and that these possible combinations could produce an infinite number of possible bone shapes."From the moment when the first bone cell would have been caused by the genome it would have had the possibility to code for production of an infinite amount of them since it could have continuously produced them during its entire existence and since the range of shapes is entirely dependant on number of cells to make a shape then from the beginning it had infinite possibility, whether it actively positioned the individual cells or not.
Cancer shows what happens when the regulatory systems that control specific cell numbers are removed. Thus it is not an assumption that infinite possibilities exist. Only by a orchestrated intraction of different mechanisms is form controlled and they all would have had to be in place before the first functional mechanical form arose.Second, that the genetic combination that produces a bone shape for a given organism is simply plucked at random from among the infinite number of possible combinations.Unless you could show that any specific shape is constrained to occur then our observation of all the billions of shapes shows us that form is not constrained and thus can be any of an infinite set of possibilities

Quote "I can't comment on the biology but it would seem to me that evolution can't be ruled out the basis that you outlined if you accept the concept that evolution could have been intelligently designed."Since the foundation of evolution is "random" mutations that are subsequently selected based on fitness for an environment then it would eliminate a design inference because the randomness of mutation could never be controllled to cause a contiguous existence of functional formations.

Quote "Random occurrences with a non-random selection process can reduce the odds against a improbable event. This is well known. Gamblers use this to their advantage. In computer science genetic algorithms produce solutions to problems too complex to be designed by a designer. You are assuming that the probablities of each possibility is independent, but they are not; natural selection eliminates most of the possibilities."The random you allude to is based on a finite set of possibilities, thus it is possible to narrow down to only those possibilites that would be most selectable in a set environment that does not change.
The possibilities for a gambler are always specified and unchanging, the cards are always the same and the parameters of their selection are always specific.
natural selection can only choose for a specific instance where a form fits specifically ro a specific environment. Thus as environmental parameters change natural selections parameters would change as well. Thus what may have been initially selectable would require a change of form to fit within natural selections new parameters as each succeeding form faced differing environments. Therefore NS is not a set mechanism to eliminate possibilities when confronted with infinite possibilities. If as you feel it was capable of eliminating possibilities then as the environmental parameters changed to require a different form NS would have already eliminated the possibilities required to fit within the new environmental parameters based on a previous different parameter set. Therefore you could not get diversity of form.Quote "You are misapplying probability. My guess is that you don't have much training in probability, and I am certain you don't have any training in biology. The entire OP shows a lack of understanding of the subject matter."Simply because my analysis of probability differs from yours is no reason to personally attack me or my educational background. If I am wrong then simpply defining exactly how is a sufficient method of refutation. I make no presumption or assumptions about you or your background nor will I resort to such actions to make my position appear more plausible. If you continue in this manner I will simply not address your posts.

Quote "Forgive me, but it really looks like you are using a very cleverly disguised creationist strawman. You worded your 'essay' to sound like the entire bone just popped up from mutation overnight. In other words, you are arguing from the point of view that evolution says something like the mandible just came into existence fully formed fully functional. That's not how evolution works!
PS You're not talking to a bunch of dumbasses. Flashy words and clever sentences won't impress anyone here."My essay comes to the conclusion of a design necessity only after analysing how step by step formation is beyond the capabilities of the evolutionary mechanism. A strawman argument does not define the particulars of the assertion. It simply makes assumptions that they exist. I have defined the particulars of the mechanics behind the assertion thus making it arguable based on specifics.
Please note that I have not used inappropriate language with anyone here so I will not in the future reply to posts that include such language.
The wordings used in my post were in no way an attempt to deceive. I am trying to express understanding in a way that I can best communicate it. If it seems foreign to you then I am sorry but unfortunately I cannot create a simple set of wordings that work for every observer.

KBC1963 writes: Our environment cannot dictate form otherwise you could not get diversity.anglagard writes:
What is this statement supposed to mean?
I would say that it would be a bit difficult for people to breathe on the bottom of the ocean, or for most fish to walk around in the desert. Environment cannot dictate form?Quite simply it means that our environment does not cause specific formations to arise to fit it. The form must arise prior to being selectable for the environment. Otherwise you would have to posit that evolution could select proactively for a future application.
Thus when properly understood people could not have breathed at all unless the exact mechanism existed to be selected for, And fish could not walk at all except the mechanically functional form occured first to allow for selection.
Structure must always preceed function, thus it is up to random mutation alone to create a functional mechanical form before natural selection can choose it based on its function within a specific environment.

RickJB writes: The assumption here is that what worked in an initial environment could continue to be selectable in a different environment. If a new or differing environment meant that the previous form was no longer selectable and thus requiring a change of form to become selectable then how did it live long enough for mutation to provide for the right combination of form to be found in an infinite selection set of possible forms so that it would then be selectable for the diffent environment?
Thus we see that unless random mutation could have provided a specifically selectable form for each environmental change when the environmental change occured then the existing form would have been selected out causing extintion.Edited by KBC1963, : No reason given.

Thx for the quote assist.
To say those three are the same is not true. I make 3 dimensional models and I have modeled many items that have similar appearing forms and they are not coded the same. Each of these bones is distinctly and spacially different just as the parts on a model car differ from a real car. To assert what you have is to overlook a huge mechanical and coding difference. Well in this case it is used as the "wow, I never realized that 3 dimensional form could be so diverse" information part. It should open up a bit of understanding. 3 dimensional form is not a simple thing to construct nor is it easy to create functional mechanical form much less rearrange its structure. My point was not for anyone to envision substituting anything. My point was that with an infinite set of possible forms it would be impossible for random mutation to code for a selectable mechanically functional form. I am arguing from the bottom up. What you are doing without realizing it is making a blanket statement.
By saying "adapted" you have completely black boxed the question of "how" mechanically the adaptation occured.
I'm sure will posit random mutation and natural selection. This would be the standard reply, but it still does not truly address the question mechanically. You need to be able to explain the mechanics of how something works before you posit the results optainable by it. A bit of assumption on the evolved part. DNA controls every aspect of integrated growth. It is called controlled for a reason. There are genetic controllers for everything and as I pointed out there are 14 separate genes that code for the shape of the femur alone. Since shape can be anything how does random mutation find the specific limited functional form combinations in a sea of infinite possibilities? Further how do you at the same time control its growth/formation rate within the organism. Every bone cell is positionally controllled by the DNA we observe today so the question to answer is how you can accurately change the genetically controlled cellular positions when you are talking about millions to billions of cells that require accurate positioning of each of them to "adapt" to different form.
You can try and push for the time reference but the trilobyte was proof for genetic control of mechanical form existing at that time so not much has changed since then. Everything is still positionally controllled by genetic coding of form. Thus, now there must be an explanation of how that occured mechanically. As was noted this is a very general essay but, as also noted we can get as involved as needed. As you will further note I have done just that in my reply above.
Why would I need to "demonstrated that a limited number of possibilities is necessary for evolution" When I am showing that there is an infinite variety of shapes that can be chosen from?
The only thing that is limited is functional form and knowing that it is limited is an axiom of logic. Not quite. I do not find evolution's proposed system incredulus. I find it impossible from a mechanical standpoint. Thus I don't argue from what I don't know or understand. I know system mechanics inside and out, I have 21 years as a mechanical engineer for experience. I know what it takes to create mechanically functional form. Your opinions have been addressed above. When you are ready to delve into the mechanics of the process so that you can disprove my essay then I will be ready to respond. An assertion does not die based on the opinion about it, it dies by the evidence and logic. Since my essay deals strictly with the mechanics of form then it is within the realm of science proper. Agnosticism serves me well in this regard.

Our DNA provides the blueprint for every structure formed
in our bodies. DNA codes for every aspect of 3 dimensional
form that we see, such as the femur of a sauropod, the
largest of which is about 6 1/2 feet tall. Actually no one is positing that positional coordinates are based on the codons. Just like an encrypted code the information for controlling form is contained within the DNA. Exactly how that encoding is stored is still a black box but, there is enough evidence now for proving that form is coded for, and that it is genetically controlled by the genes that make up DNA
Here are some researchers who agree with my assertion:Subdividing the embryo : A role for Notch signaling during germ layer patterning in Xenopus laevis
The development of all vertebrate embryos requires the establishment of a three-dimensional coordinate system in order to pattern embryonic structures and create the complex shape of the adult organism. During the process of gastrulation, the three primary germ layers are created under the guidance of numerous signaling pathways, allowing cells to communicate during development. Cell-cell communication, mediated by receptors of the Notch family, has been shown to be involved in mediating diverse cellular behaviors during development and has been implicated in the regulation of cell fate decisions in both vertebrate and invertebrate organisms. In order to investigate a role for Notch signaling during boundary formation between the mesoderm and endoderm during gastrulation, we manipulated Notch signaling in gastrula stage embryos and examined gene expression in resultant tissues and organs. Our findings demonstrate a much broader role for Notch signaling during germ layer determination than previously reported in a vertebrate organism. Activation of the Notch pathway, specifically in gastrula stage embryos, results in a dramatic decrease in the expression of genes necessary to create many different types of mesodermal tissues while causing a dramatic expansion of endodermal tissue markers. Conversely, temporally controlled suppression of this pathway results in a loss of endodermal cell types and an expansion of molecular markers of mesoderm. Thus, our data are consistent with and significantly extend the implications of prior observations suggesting roles for Notch signaling during germ layer formation and establish an evolutionarily conserved role for Notch signaling in mediating mesoderm-endoderm boundaries during early vertebrate development.
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17333654

By what method would you like me to prove non-existence?
If I say pixies don't exist am I required to prove that in order for you to beleive?
Science proves what exists not what does not exist.
If my assertion is incorrect then there should exist empirical evidence for a mechanism that is causal to a specific shape. At this time science knows of no such mechanism. Therefore I am free to conclude that there is none. Science has no proof for pixies so
I can also assert that there is none of those as well. By all means then show me the mechanics of how it works if you feel there is a missrepresentation. I am a very good listener. Would you judge me so soon?
How good do I think my understanding is?
Do you suppose that calling something biological exempts it from the rules of mechanics? and thus exempts it from my understanding.

GDR writes: Unless you can show mechanically how "random mutation" is not random when it occurs then I would say it is random.
If you feel that natural selection can steer mutations as to how and where they occur I would be quite interested to hear how this is done.
To this agnostic I require empirical evidence before I believe in anything. If you feel evolution can prove mechanistically how it can create form then I am all ears. I am not really interested in opinions from either side. I am interested in proving the mechanics.

RAZD writes: There is more to this than simple existence.
If as you assert the bone cell (osteoblast) simply comes into existence, then it could simply continue to be made for the life of the organism.osteoblast
a mononucleate cell that produces osteoid...
...which build bone
Osteoblasts also...
...store calcium in the matrix
osteoblasts also secrete enzymes that facilitate mineral deposition within osteoid matrices.As we can see the "bone" cell does a lot of building and there would need to be controls specific to that cell type.1) you need a system to control when and how often they are made
2) you need to control their position within the organism
3) There needs to be a control for how they form the matrix
4) A control for calcium deposition
5) A control for enzyme secretionSimply saying they just came into existence overlooks a lot of mechanical control that must be in place or the cell will simply act according to its own makeup.
Next thing to consider is what advantage does one or even a few of these cells in no coordinated structure provide for the organism to make it selectable by natural selection?KBC writes: RAZD writes: Actually you don't get to play the 3.5myo card because bone first appeared:The first vertebrates appeared about 500 million years ago in the Cambrian Period (just after the so-called "Cambrian explosion" of Metazonan diversity). The best fossil remains consist of a somewhat artificial group of fish known historically as the "Ostracoderms". The name means "shell-skinned'' and refers to the characteristic bony shield that covered most of the body in these fish. These fish achieved their greatest diversity over about a 100 million year span of time.
http://www.zoology.ubc.ca/...or/426www/lectures/agnath1.htmlThus we can pinpoint the age of the origin for the system. Prior to that age there was no bone thus no systems for controlling it. There was no step by step record to show how bone formed into mechanically functional shapes. They simply appear.So rather than simply provide blanket statements about all kinds of systems simply falling into place like domino's, how about we get a description of the mechanics of how it happened since you seem to have the understanding down to a "science".