Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why complex form requires an Intelligent Designer
KBC1963
Inactive Member


Message 129 of 165 (358655)
10-24-2006 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by nwr
10-22-2006 10:01 AM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by nwr, posted 10-22-2006 10:01 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by nwr, posted 10-24-2006 10:19 PM KBC1963 has not replied

  
KBC1963
Inactive Member


Message 131 of 165 (358658)
10-24-2006 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by RAZD
10-22-2006 10:13 AM


RAZD writes:
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.
Show me any complex interactive mechanical system that can function continuously without control.
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.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by RAZD, posted 10-22-2006 10:13 AM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by nwr, posted 10-24-2006 10:42 PM KBC1963 has not replied

  
KBC1963
Inactive Member


Message 132 of 165 (358659)
10-24-2006 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by subbie
10-22-2006 10:18 AM


subbie writes:
No, a strawman argument misstates a particular position and then shows that the misstatement is false.
If you think thats what i'm doing then define exactly how i'm doing it.
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.
Got it. just needed to adapt or maybe evolve.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by subbie, posted 10-22-2006 10:18 AM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by subbie, posted 10-25-2006 12:13 AM KBC1963 has not replied

  
KBC1963
Inactive Member


Message 133 of 165 (358660)
10-24-2006 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by RAZD
10-22-2006 10:25 AM


RAZD writes:
after incorrectly analysing how step by step formation is beyond the capabilities
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 10-22-2006 10:25 AM RAZD has not replied

  
KBC1963
Inactive Member


Message 135 of 165 (358664)
10-24-2006 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by RAZD
10-22-2006 10:46 AM


Re: What on Earth?
RAZD
And a fish that develops the ability to breath air as well as use gills can move into areas were the oxygen level in the water is reduced due to being overpopulated with oxygen breathing microbes or other organism or from silt and mud. It opens up new areas for it to obtain food and to escape predators, so it will survive and reproduce.
Likewise a fish that develops bones in it's fins so that it can propel itself in muddy areas like tidal flats and swamps increases it's ability to obtain food and escape predators.
And then it becomes able to move onto land, tentatively at first, but then with more assurance as those bones and muscles and lungs develop further. Curiously this is what the fossil record shows.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by RAZD, posted 10-22-2006 10:46 AM RAZD has not replied

  
KBC1963
Inactive Member


Message 136 of 165 (358666)
10-24-2006 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by RAZD
10-22-2006 10:54 AM


RAZD
The fossil record is littered with extinctions (evolution explains these extinctions as lack of fitness for a changed environment, design on the other hand has no excuse for failed species).
Except of course ID can posit failure as simply a variation within a specie type that does not fit the conditions for that variation so it ends. How many variations of dog are there? And yet they are all still dogs. suppose we had a radical climate change and there was an ice age. most dog types would die but, not all. Thus a future investigator might see a multitude of dog breeds go extinct and yet dogs would still exist and still posess the ability to form those same extinct breeds again once the environment became more friendly again. Just as we empirically observed in the peppered moths. The light colored ones never died off and when environment changed the numbers of light colored moths returned and they are still moths.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by RAZD, posted 10-22-2006 10:54 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by RAZD, posted 10-25-2006 11:29 PM KBC1963 has not replied

  
KBC1963
Inactive Member


Message 137 of 165 (358669)
10-24-2006 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by RickJB
10-22-2006 11:49 AM


RickJB writes:
The evidence we have shows that it can. You must remember that the changes we are talking about are very gradual. Fish didn't evolve limbs in a single generation. This is a straw man assertion - evolution makes no such claims.
Ahh. but you have not shown this at all. I would like to see the beginning of bone formation and the myriad of steps (selectable) it went through. Do you have any of that kickin around the fossils?
You know, like maybe the gradual formation of a back bone and then the gradual formation of ribs or tails or legs or arms.
And where is all the evidence for the evolutionary garbage along the way? where are all the evolutionary errors? obvious disfunctional forms that would have to accompany even one correctly functional form.
Amazingly every form seems to be fully functional in its own right, no little transitional step by step fossils.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by RickJB, posted 10-22-2006 11:49 AM RickJB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by RickJB, posted 10-25-2006 4:49 AM KBC1963 has not replied
 Message 146 by RAZD, posted 10-25-2006 11:46 PM KBC1963 has not replied

  
KBC1963
Inactive Member


Message 138 of 165 (358672)
10-24-2006 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by DominionSeraph
10-22-2006 4:22 PM


KBC1963 writes:
Our DNA provides the blueprint for every structure formed
in our bodies. DNA codes for every aspect of 3 dimensional
form that we see
DominionSeraph writes:
No it doesn't.
Then you may wish to let these scientists know the truth, as you see it:
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.
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17333654
The number of dimensions a shape can really take up is limited to the number there really are. And, once you run out of things with which to make a shape, you can no longer add more things to it.
Reality is quite confining.
And by this you believe that gemetric shape is limited. So tell me exactly how many 3 dimensional geometric shapes there are?
According to your statement there would only be 3.
Take, for example, a shape that's so complex that, if you coded it chemically, you'd have a structure with so much mass that it'd collapse into a neutron star. There'd go your code.
You obviously don't have a handle on either math or the limitations imposed by reality. Try again once you do.
Stating that you may run out of "disc space" per se and thus can't code for the whole shape does not mean you can't code for part of a complete shape. Therefore the only thing that would "go" would be the evolutionary garbage that had unfinish coding for one of an infinite set of geometries composing only a finite set of selectably functional shapes. Where are all those fossils? I wonder why we only find fully functional fossils when evolution admits to billions of incorrectly made forms being randomly formed until a good mutation occurs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by DominionSeraph, posted 10-22-2006 4:22 PM DominionSeraph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by DominionSeraph, posted 10-25-2006 2:02 AM KBC1963 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024