Why complex form requires an Intelligent Designer

Damn. Took you 2 sentences to completely lay waste to his argument.

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.

There is an infinite number of potential geometrical shapes, but that doesn't stop the guys at Oak Ridge from using genetic algorithms to produce new designs for nuclear reactors. There is an infinite number of potential computer programs, but that doesn't stop computer scientists from using genetic algorithms to produce computer programs. There is an infinite number of potential electronic circuits, but that doesn't stop engineers from using genetic algorithms to produce functional electronic circuits.This is because it is not necessary to search the entire space of possibilities to produce something that works. If it was, then evolution would be impossible --- and so would design be, for anyone not omniscient.

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.

Empirical evidence can only tell you what occured. There is empirical evidence for the process of evolution and for genetic mutations and natural selection. There is no empirical evidence that can show why the process took place. We can only say that it did. Random chance is one answer and intelligent design is another but either position is a philosophical or faith issue, so I guess you are stuck in your agnosticism because the empirical method won't provide you with the answer.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Put it down to enlightened self-interest. Now impress me with an argument that relates to the discussion.Your 3D models are not the same as the real object, thus your analogy is false from the start. What you need to consider is what you need to change to make a model 1% bigger. Both models are virtually identical and the only difference is scale, and a little scale is easy.The three femurs are all real objects. Functionally they are similar, structurally they are similar, topologically they are similar, biologically they are similar. There is a difference due to the cube/square problem - body mass relates to the cube of a dimension and the strength of bones relates to the square (cross-section area), so bones will be thicker in bigger more massive organisms, but topologically they are virtually identical.I can map one femur to the others and morph them back and forth with relatively few changes. The internal structure is even simpler, as it is basically repetitions of basic building blocks, and a lot of the change can be accomplished by changing cell size ... which matches observations btw.You are mistaking quantity of change for quality of change.The DNA that codes for the amino acids that build the bones is the same basic set in all three organisms, the sequence they are employed in the formation of the organism's fetal development is also similar. No great change needed to get from one to the other.In fact many of these genes could be swapped between organisms and there would be no difference to the overall development of the organism. IIRC this has actually been done, but one of the geneticists here would have to corroborate that. In other words you wanted to impress your audience with excessively profligate barrage of technical sounding mathematical verbiage, to awe them with a visual image avalanche of impressively irrelevant intellectual concepts, and to side track them from the real issue at hand, the slight difference between one femur and another ... or in other words: baffle them with BS. But an infinite set of possible all the possible forms in the universe is totally irrelevant to the change from one femur to another from one generation to another. This is a straw man fallacy and building on it you are basically arguing that something irrelevant is impossible. Sorry to say, but no matter how impossible you make your argument from incredulity appear it is still irrelevant to the question of evolution of femur size in organisms.You are arguing from a false bottom and throwing logical fallacy after logical fallacy at it.In the human population about 90% of all adult males are between 5'-6" and 6'-2" -- a 10% variation in natural occurring size within the population. This shows 'natural' variation within a populationAlso the average size of humans has increased in several countries in recent years - certainly within recorded history. This shows change over time.All of these differences include variations in the sizes of the femurs of the individuals -- without needing to consider any extraneous shapes and configurations.All you need is an envelope of +/-5% around the surface of an "average" femur to define the boundaries of the femurs in 90% of the human adult male population. Even that overstates the amount of variation needed within the population as proportions would not be significantly different. Topologically they are the same. This from the person that incredulously sticks impossible straw men into the argument. At least my "blanket statement" is based on reality. Actually I was using the terminology that applies and that describes the process of "how" ... specifically the later of:

quote:

---

a·dapt v. a·dapt·ed, a·dapt·ing, a·dapts
v. tr.
To make suitable to or fit for a specific use or situation.
v. intr.
To become adapted: a species that has adapted well to winter climes.

---

From Adapt Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.comOrganisms become adapted to the environment through natural selection of existing variations within populations, some are better adapted than others. But the overall change from generation to generation to generation is adaptation to fit the selection pressures as best as a species variations allow. Denial won't make it go away either. Evolution is change in species over time.Within every population of every organism there is variation in size and structure, and in each generation these variations are a little different. The variations are due to differences in genetics and environment, and the variations that are due to genetic changes - mutations - get passed to the next generation depending on how useful/harmful they are. Basic mutation and natural selection eh?We saw above where there is a natural 10% variation in height in the human population. There is similar variation in size in all organisms. And there is similar variation in bone structure in all vertebrates.To get from a 1/2" shrew size to a 6'-6" sauropod size - a 156 fold increase - with a limit of 1% change per generation - well within the natural variation limits - will only take:1.01^{^n}=156
where n = generations
... and n = 507.5 generations. Child's play in terms of evolution time. Even if the organism generation was 100 years long that would be less time than has transpired since the K-T boundary at the end of the age of dinosaurs (including sauropods).Using a more likely generation length of 20 years (generation not life span eh?) this works out to a paltry 10,150.1 years - back to the time when agriculture was being developed by Homo sapiens. A drop in the bucket compared to the length of time life has existed on this earth.Thus to say that this kind of change is impossible is incredibly naive. At best.Of course we also have in the fossil record the changes in size of mammals since the K-T boundary, from an animal the size of a ?average? dog up to the now extinct Mammoth and back to the going extinct African Elephant, so we have fossil evidence of similar changes in the same kind of time span even though the evolution of large land animals is not necessary.And the kicker is, that within each generation the femur will be a femur that is relatively indistinguishable from the femurs of previous generations, gradually adding diameter as needed for the increased demand for strength due to body size. Adaptation.As a curious note, one hypothesis for the Cyclops of greek myth is that they found fossils of mammoths and thought they were giant people with one big eye where the hole for the trunk is in the skull (the eye sockets being small in elephants and elephants being unknown in ancient greece). That would show that they did not think the femur of the mammoth was significantly different from a human femur eh? Backed up by fossil evidence, backed up by genetic evidence, backed up by observations of actual evolution speciation events and mountains of related data and not a bit of contradictory evidence or invalidation.Meanwhile you assume in your conclusion something that nobody has seen, felt, smelled, heard, tasted, weighed, tested or sensed in any way. Yes, which is why we have no birth defects, no "Siamese" twins, no spontaneous abortions, no still-births, no infant mortalities from sever internal complications.That is why all adult males are exactly 5'-10" tall to the nearest decimal of a millimeter.Obviously from the above examples things are NOT controlled as much as you think they are. There is variation around an average for every population for every generation, and the average value changes over time. Because femurs are femurs from generation to generation, and cannot become planet sized oblate spheroids in any one generation: your premise is false and based on a false concept. You are wrong because you started with a fallacy The argument from incredulity again eh? Gosh, how do billions of atoms arrange themselves into a human being?The process is called growth. Fetal development is fairly well documented, not just for humans but for pigs and chickens and fish and thousands of other organisms. It happens over time with each generation making essentially the same pattern over and over while adding in some new variations on a theme and subtracting others, so that generations change gradually from previous ones. Lets cut to the chase: all you have added is more erroneous material, assertion and logical fallacies. Your essay is not "general" it is simply wrong. It is logically invalid. It is false. You can complicate the invalid, false and wrong information all you want, but it won't make it any more valid, correct or right. Now on top of an argument from incredulity we have an argument from authority. Surprising as it may sound I already pegged you for an ME that was ~43 years old (2006-1963), so you are not telling me anything that is new. Surprising as it may sound, I am totally unimpressed by this information. Surprising as it may sound I am less impressed that you think mentioning it is relevant to or validation for the argument.What is your training in biology? genetics? fetal development? ecology? evolution? -- these are the areas you are discussing and your ME degree and 21 years of experience are totally irrelevant to this discussion. No, they have been dodged and danced around. I don't need to "delve into the mechanics of the process" that does not relate to reality. Your argument is falsified, it is invalid, you are, quite simply, wrong.When you are ready to learn about the real world, start asking questions. And that is why you concluded that a 'designer' had to be invoked? Tell me about the fish you caught.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : expanded calculation with 20 year generation

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

A load-bearing truss produced by a genetic algorithm. Just one of an infinite number of possible geometric forms. The result, a twisted, organic-looking structure that has been compared to a human leg bone, uses no more material than the standard truss design but is lightweight, strong and far superior at damping out damaging vibrations, as was confirmed by real-world tests of the final product. And yet "No intelligence made the designs. They just evolved" (Petit 1998). More here.

Evolved antenna:

KBC1963 writes: I personally find this a very strange statement. I have already seen the argument that because the mind can think of all these possible shapes, the ToE is disproven because it does not use all possible shapes.The past is the key to the present. It limits how much species can evolve in the short term, what can be done politically, what is currently possible economically, indeed even how much change the general populace can undergo in regard to philosophy and religion. Why do you think that what has gone before is not the key to what exists now in biology?I have absolutely no idea how Newtonian physics can be seen to invalidate evolution, nor have I seen any evidence from you that the ToE is somehow in conflict with Newtonian physics-dependent mechanical engineering.Engineers who claim to be authorities in fields in which they lack even the most rudimentary understanding are often the butt of jokes at Panda's Thumb. While engineering is a difficult field of endeavor at best, such a profession does not imply one has the ability to pronounce upon all other forms of knowledge as an expert.To view the ToE solely in mechanical terms, while ignoring the chemistry, the biology, indeed even the history (aka paleontology), is to promote a narrowness of understanding unworthy of a properly broad education.Of course, even the so-called mechanical disproof of evolution has yet to be seen. To the contrary, all we have seen is unfounded assertion.BTW - I earned my degree in geological engineering back in 1982. It was my first of many

Correction: You mean incredible. Incredulous is what you are.

quote:

---

in·cred·u·lous adj.
1. Skeptical; disbelieving: incredulous of stories about flying saucers.
2. Expressive of disbelief: an incredulous stare.

​

-- The Free Dictionary

---

You are therefore incredulous and, your denial notwithstanding, saying you find the idea incredible.This is the essence of the argument from incredulity. 'I find it hard to believe, therefore it cannot be true.'This is a fallacy because an idea's validity does not rest on how easy or difficult one person finds it to accept..

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

This is your crucial mistake. If what you say were true, then, for example, identical twins should have the same fingerprints. Interestingly, they don't. So there must be other factors that influence development. I have no doubt that you know what it takes to create mechanically functional form intelligently. But there are other ways of achieving the same results, if not far superior ones. They have been hinted at already by several respondents here, and it would be prudent if you addressed the argument of genetic algorithms.Finally, a refutation from pure logic: if there were an infinite array of forms to choose from, then how does an intelligent designer ever make a choice? In order to decide whether a form is to be chosen or should be discarded, it has to be at least considered. With an infinite number of forms to consider, the intelligent designer will never make an actual choice.Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given.Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Repetition doesn't make you more right. This is not what DNA does. DNA stores amino acid sequences. No, it isn't. A child can understand the genetic code:What about the above is a "black box"? Seems perfectly simple to me. No, they don't. I suspect you simply cut and paste the first scientific paper you could find, hoping that none of us would be able to tell the difference.I assure you this is not the case. Most of us have at least some training in biology; you appear to have none at all. Certainly you don't seem to know anything about supporting your arguments.Now, for the third time, can you respond to the refutation? DNA is not a code of shapes, it's a code of proteins. Repeating that it is a code of shapes is not an argument; it's nonsense.

And, to take this point a step further, why do all mammals have the same basic femur shape? It's not reasonable to assume that the optimal femur structure for a shrew and a mammoth would be the same basic design given the infinite variety of shapes available to chose from. If an intelligent designer were behind it all, we'd seen much more intelligent designs. Instead what we actually see in virtually every organism is a sort of patchwork, doing the best they can with what was left for them from previous generations. Humans suffer from a myriad of physiological ailments because our bodies were not designed to stand upright. We evolved from prior forms there were much better suited to a quadriped existence.If there was intelligence behind it all, it was a piss poor one.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin