Why complex form requires an Intelligent Designer

I don't agree.

so you would rather we not attempt to root out bias by examining motives?all you've said is that it's wrong to attack the person, and the motive. and you've linked the two. you haven't shown why it's wrong to attack the motive, other than to say, "it just is".Examining bias, as I pointed out, is a crucial part of history and even science. May as well add philosophy to that too. And in understanding international relations. And in trying to figure out how to properly respond to other nations. If we don't examine motives, we may as well be those with "child like faith".You don't insult Iran by saying something like "they're nothin' but a bunch of arab terrorists" (they are, for the most part, persian. second, most of the them aren't terrorists)you do question why they want to make a nuclear power generator with enriched uranium, when they can be operated with non-enriched uranium (as far as I understand it, they can be, so . . .).

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

I think different terminology would make the point clearer.A diest who believes that god works thourgh natural processes might well be motivated in his natural investigation by his desire to know more about his vision of god. However, so long as he uses the scientific method in his approach, none of us would cricitize him. What's more, if a creo were trying to prove creationism or the variant commonly referred to as ID, and was motivated by a desire to prove the word of god was true, but used the scientific method, again, we would not object.The problem is not the motivation of creos, but their method. They begin by assuming that evolution cannot be the way life was created and go from there. Various statements that they have made reveal that their method begins by denying evolution and attempting to bolster creationism. Thus, the significance of those statements is not what they reveal about the creos' motives, but what they reveal about their method.

---

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

Because bias does not necessarily mean fixation of results. Because biased motive does not necessarily mean rigged results. I'm not dismissing the examination of bias (or ulterior motive) at all. In fact, I have admitted many times in this thread that you guys are probably right about their motive. What I don't agree with is using their personal motive to debunk their argument. Now, you're just being child-like. No offense, by the way.You do absolutely question why they want to make nuclear power generator with enriched uranium because it is apparent that they can acheive the same results, or similar results, with non-enriched uranium. But in this particular case, the question comes AFTER we've been able to show that they COULD use non-enriched uranium instead of enriched.The reason I said this line of your reasoning is child-like because it is almost a random thought that, while relates somewhat to what we are talking about, does not represent the nature of our topic. But that's just my thinking.Anyway, the last half a dozen posts by me has been just repetitions of what I'd said earlier. In other words, I've already stated what I wanted to say. I'm not one that must absolutely have to have the last words, so ta ta, unless of course there's something new to talk about.

okay, now you're just being a touch wierd. Not against examining motive, but at the same time, we shouldn't because it doesn't necessarily skew one's perceptions and/or results? I think that you're position is from the third quote, so the others become a touch odd.as to the last one--Herodotus is dismissed on many things. Egyptian records are often dismissed. The "official" date of Kim Jong Il's birth is dismissed (official, that is, as given by the DPRK government). ICR is dismissed because of their bias/motive. I am wary, highly wary, of a translation of Hammurabi's code that only has forty of the over two hundred laws in a history book. Personal motive is enough to destroy a person's position. Their bias is enough to destroy a their position. Their motive is enough to destroy their position.My Iran example, while apparently random, deals directly with the specific off-topic topic we're on. I meant it as an example of where questioning motive is incredibly important. And notice how the motive (that we think they have) destroy's Iran's position of "just wanting it for peace"?It seems we're moving a little bit with this off-topic topic, with the bias/motive thing. I just want to clarify, that the motive establishes a bias. A bias doesn't necessarily establish a motive, but I'd say that it often happens (if you're biased in favor of something, you will, even if it's subconciously, portray it in a better light, the motive being to show how much better it is. a tad confusing, I think . . .)

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

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".

I would assume that the answers to those questions is all the same: That is the way things evolved.

It is likely I may be mistaken. I thought I had read on this forum from a reliable source that this was the case. At the time it seemed reasonable but since I can't find the argument presented and I am unable to reproduce it myself I won't press the issue. Perhaps it is sufficient that the benefits of one pipe outweigh the drawbacks and this is why the system evolved the way it did. Maybe it isn't a case of "bad" design but rather a compromise? There does seem to be an old discussion about it here:http://EvC Forum: design evidence #320,098,754: the crossover food and air tubes in humans -->EvC Forum: design evidence #320,098,754: the crossover food and air tubes in humans

nwr Writes: [qs]Are you saying that trial and error experimentation is not a valid design methodology? Are you also ruling out Monte Carlo methods?That would be what I'm saying.
Do you have something that can find finite sets from an infinite set with the monte carlo method?

That's not a problem that evolution needs to solve.

---

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

RAZD writes: Show me any complex interactive mechanical system that can function continuously without control. I am not looking at an end product and asking anything. I observe functional mechanical form and ask what logical steps would result in functional form period.
I am working from the ground up. Any form must have have function to be selectable and fix in the population. Thus there must be an accounting of its advantage from a single cell to a functional form.Simply asserting that form arises continues to blanket the how of its mechanics. What advantage is one or even a few bone cells that produce unorganised bone formations? What resources would they use up continuously without controls and while awaiting for control to magically evolve what limits the cells contructive abilities?

subbie writes: If you think thats what i'm doing then define exactly how i'm doing it. Got it. just needed to adapt or maybe evolve.

RAZD writes: If its wrong then you must have the correct exact mechanical analysis of the formation proceedure. I am all ears to this information. Blanket terminology is a no-no BTW. So I will await to hear this evidence that flatly proves that I am incorrect.Logical arguements start from the beginning and define the specifics along the way and then draw a conclusion.

What point are you making? Are you trying to argue that intelligently designed systems (such as mechanical systems) do not work as well as evolved systems?If that's your point, I agree with it. But it would seem to be an argument against ID.

---

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

RAZD You are completely blanket terming every mechanical alteration. This is a black box assumption. Essentially saying "I don't know how it happened since I can't define it step by step so I'll just assume that it happened", "we are here right? so it must have happened that way"
Curiously we only see functional formations in all fossils we don't ever see the step by step additions. We also don't see the results of what should be the evolutionary mechanism which should be spitting out all the evolutionary rejects that would have to accompany any of the good mutations along the way. Where are all the partial formations or the oddly shaped bones that would have preceeded the functional ones? Curiously evolutionist just brush this off, but the facts are that for every good mutation hypothesized to have occurred there would have been billions of failures. Indeed where is all the evolutionary garbage that should appear just from vertebrates that leave behind fossilised bone.
If I blindfold you in a room full of glass objects and had you find the one in a billion that had a functional form that would be to your advantage I would expect some breakage.Thus your conclusion that such things can happen by an evolutionary path is invalidated by the evidence.
Evidence including the absence thereof checkmates assertion every time.