Why complex form requires an Intelligent Designer

Not to mention heredity.

welcome to the fray KBC1963Just a note at the start: type [qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:A little assertive eh? We'll see how well this attitude holds up. The femur in the sauropod, the human and the shrew is essentially the same, mathematically, topologically and functionally. The differences between the femurs in these examples is less than the difference between a femur and a hip. This is what is known as the old "baffle them with BS" kind of argument. Impressive lists of words are easy to assemble, but putting together an argument that is logical and derived from structured precepts is a different matter. Certainly if we substitute any one of those shapes for the femur it would become functionally less able to support the survival of the organism involved and would be quickly eliminated from the shallow end of the gene pool.The question though, is NOT to change the shape of the femur to some fantastical intellectual abstraction, it is to adapt it to the best advantage of the organism for survival.What we see in the sauropod, human and shrew is that this organic feature is adapted to the use made by the organism involved: it is big to support the size and skeletal standing arrangement of the sauropod, it is sized to support the human standing on the ground, it is sized to support the shrew. Yes, that is one of the things DNA does in fully developed evolved species. If bones did not grow with the organisms and even change as they change with ages (think frogs as a more extreme example) then those organisms would be selected against.You are forgetting that you are dealing with a system that has evolved for 3.5 billion years, it is not something that just occurred out of the blue. Except (1) you have not really touched on the "enormity of what comprises mechanical form" or (2) shown that it in any way applies to the argument of biological systems or (3) demonstrated that a limited number of possibilities is necessary for evolution. In other words you are constructing a strawman argument that is false to begin with. I point out your introduction: You have just made an argument from incredulity. Almost a self-fulfilling prophesy eh?The difference is that we do not need to change femurs into oblate spheroids orbiting suns, they just need to adapt to the slight changes in organisms as they progress through one species to the next.If the femur grows in size due to mutations and that new size is beneficial to the species then it will be selected for future generations of that species.If the femur shrinks in size due to mutations and THAT new size is beneficial to the species then it will be selected for future generations of that species.Over time some organisms may grow to the size of sauropods and some may shrink to the size of shrews - but NEITHER is impossible because it is taking a known useful size and shape and modifying it slightly with each generation as controlled by (1) available genetic variety in length, density, thickness, etc and (2) natural selection for the species in the environment it inhabits. As noted you are dealing with a 3.5 billion year old product of evolution with a number of selections in the past that have gone in different directions, resulting in different genetic history: genes working in different directions are not uncommon, and the interplay between them in the development of species is one of those things that results in ... diversity. Except the argument is neither logical nor reasoned, but arbitrary and based on assertion without factual basis. Several fallacies are involved in the argument presented.The conclusion is not present in any of the precepts you have discussed, regardless of their validity (and they are invalidated btw), so THIS is a logical fallacy.oh, and your argument is "checkmated" until you answer each point raised by all respondants.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : edited KBC1963 formating to remove unecessary line breaks

---

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.

You have an astounding misconception about what DNA actually does. No, it doesn't.DNA encodes proteins and encodes gene expression. That's it. It's not at all a blueprint, in the sense that a blueprint is a diagram of the physical layout of an object.DNA codes for proteins in genes, and controls the expression of those genes. That's all it does. DNa doesn't code for shape. The three-letter codons that make up genes are codes for different amino acids. They're not codes for shapes. No, it's not. An argument of "this one aspect of living things is pretty complicated; therefore I don't believe it could have evolved" doesn't constitute a proof of anything except how much learning you have ahead of you. Particularly learning about how logical arguments are constructed, like this: This isn't an argument, it's an assertion, and you give us no reason whatsoever to indicate why it should be true.

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.

Firstly, demanding that others must refute your own assertions is a bit rich. They are your assertions to clearly demonstrate - something you have utterly failed to do in your little essay.Secondly, you consistently refer to an "infinite set of possibilities", but you also consistently ignore the potential for environmental and selective pressures over time to constrain them.I don't think your understanding of science or evolution is anywhere near as good as you seem to think it is...Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

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.

How do you know the mutations are "random"? My understanding is that the basis of evolution is "natural selection". An Atheist would obviously assume as there is no god it is random, but a Theist sees it as intelligently designed.To say that the mutations are random is no more scientific than it is to say that they are intelligently manipulated. Science can only use the science to show that the mutations occurred. Randomness or intelligent design are both attempts to say why they occurred.Here is a part of an interview of Francis Collins the head of the "Human Genome Project", who says that the evidence for evolution is virtually irrefutable.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

type [qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:When the first bone cell evolved the DNA of the organism involved the necessary code for that cell.That is all that is necessary. No, it is selected over time from variations within the populations, some of which are more advantageous than others for survival or reproduction, some are less advantageous, the more fit ones reproduce more offspring and spread the advantages into the next generation. Don't need to. You are confusing what has happened with purpose for that to happen.This is a false image - a straw man - of how evolution works. Your assertions are based on false premises. False. You are confusing a fully developed evolved organism that is a product of 3.5 billion + years of evolution, with how a single organism develops.At each stage in the history of the evolution of that organism the different mechanisms evolve -- via mutation of existing systems and natural selection of beneficial, deselection of harmful, features.The DNA to grow a femur is not needed for an animal without one. But the animal that is intermediate between one without and one with doesn't need all the DNA to grow a femur, just the DNA to grow the intermediate feature present in the intermediate form.Evolution is change in species over time.Existing elements in the organism change via mutations, creating a diversity of variations on existing themes. Those variations have some that benefit survival or reproduction, some that are detrimental to survival or reproduction, and some that are neutral. Natural selection then selects the better and deselects the worse, and each generation is different than the previous one.Over time these differences are enough to cause speciation.Over longer time those species also undergo speciation and diverge further from the original ancestral population.But there is no need to grow a femur, that is just one feature that happened along the way in the evolution of land based mobile life forms.Enjoy.

---

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.

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.

Are you saying that trial and error experimentation is not a valid design methodology? Are you also ruling out Monte Carlo methods?

---

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

type [qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:But you are missing the point that control is not needed. Your false image of a purpose to evolution is preventing you from seeing the true perspective.Evolution is NOT controlled, it just happens.What happens is that generation{A} produces generation {B} with variations on features in population {A} due to mutations, SOME of those variations allow individuals in population {B} to survive and reproduce better than other individuals in population {B} - so they DO survive and reproduce better, passing on the variations that made it possible to the next generation - while SOME of those variations inhibit individuals in population {B} from surviving or reproducing as well as other individuals in population {B} - so they do NOT survive or reproduce better, restricting the passage of their variations to the next generation.That is what happens.Looking at an end product of billions of generations of this kind of thing and thinking "how did they chose to grow a femur" is a post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy.You are arguing against a false perception with false premises and bad logic.Enjoy.

---

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.

No, a strawman argument misstates a particular position and then shows that the misstatement is false.BTW, your posts would be much easier to follow if you would use quote boxes, rather than quoting the way you do. Several people in this thread have shown you how to do that.

---

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

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.

type [qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:Correction: Logically invalid arguments are like that.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : pyto

---

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.