Fine tuning/ programming

Well, I hope I do not make this discussion just an emotional, argumentative one. Initially what attracted me to this site was the amazing knowledge and skill in reasoning that people here displayed in the discussions. I am willing to learn, and to be confronted. My knowledge of the evolutionary theory and the others that support it is limited, and that's the main reason why I originated this discussion. I use the exmaple as a springboard to (hopefully) start a meaningful discussion and again, understand the evolutionary rationale. I wil not make dogmatic statements saying "Evolution is false!" without providing adequate proof for it.Thank you for the welcome.

Thanks for the welcome. Isn't descent with modification accomplished through gradual changes in DNA sequencing? Edited by Dr. Sing, : inserted a word

When I use the word argument I don't use it in the pejoritive sense. I merely mean to say that it appears that you are saying (in this case): to the effect that "I can't understand why this should be this way; therefor something/someone does something to make it work".This does not follow. I'm inferring (perhaps incorrectly) from this that you are implying a designer, here. But this does not logically follow.The points you raise are interesting but do they point to a designer but to simply a gap in our knowledge.As any scientist doing active research will tell you a gap in our knowledge (or research for all you MSc/PhD candidates out there) is great as it gives us something to sink our teeth into and get working on.The other option is to say 'goddidit' and not apply for any more funding.

DNA sequencing is something we do. Did you mean sequences?Were you referring to my comment on this phrase? If so, I agreed that it's fanciful because mutations do not work together toward a goal. They just happen.Mutations are the source of the "variation" in my answer to your O.P. question (1).It's a common mistake to see things nature in terms of goals or purpose, both words that you use in your second post.

That would be where natural selection comes in. The exact same process that takes place when we breed animals or plants for desired traits. Except with nature rather than us as the selecting "agent". And over timespans a great deal longer. That is pretty much the very definition of the argument from incredulity that you are being accused of. What you personally find convincing has no bearing on the evidenced reality of the situation.Welcome to EvC by the way. You are saying that there exists an observable level of complexity that you believe is unable to be accomplished by nature alone. But how can we objectively tell intelligent design from non-design on the basis of complexity? That is the question being asked here. If complexity is the key then how do we objectively measure complexity? How do we define complexity? What units could complexity even be measured in? Unless there is a way to objectively measure complexity any argument for design on the basis of complexity will be purely subjective and ultimately boil down to incredulity on the part of IDists. The argument from incredulity which, as has already been pointed out, is a logical fallacy.If your argument for "programming" rests almost entirely on the concept of complexity then it would be best served by trying to determine an objective means of defining and measuring physical complexity and then going onto show that a certain level of complexity is unobtainable by natural processes alone. This sort of approach has been tried before by IDists. It hasn't met with much success to date. But, even as flawed as this argument is, it remains a step up from the argument from subjective incredulity that your current position amounts to.Good luck with that and welcome again to EvC.

One of my many reasons for not considering this mechanism to be programmed by someone is implied in this thread:
Message 1 Distinguishing DesignsOthers have given similar reasons as:
We have a well understood mechanisms for producing the appearance of design in biological (or any imperfectly replicating things) organisms.When we examine potential designs we see them falling into very, very different and easily distinguishable categories (the point of the above referenced thread). The heart like other biological components falls very clearly into the not designed category.

Yes, that was the statement I was referring to. I'm trying to understand the idea of 'mutations collectively bringing about a postive effect over long periods of time'. So, is natural selction what is causing those mutations that an animal undergoes in order to survive?"They just happen"...As in there is no outside element governing their happening? Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

Think breeding.

Thank you. I appreciate your response. Complexity is a subjective criterion. Agreed. and no, I am not basing my argument entirely on complexity since (at the very beginning of the dicsussion), we've already seen that people define/measure complexity in different ways. Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

It evolved. Because the evidence shows that it evolved.

Wow, that's so confused.No, natural selection does not cause mutations. Nor, unless we're talking of single-celled organisms, is it meaningful to talk of an animal undergoing mutation. Nor do mutations happen in order to further the survival of anything.

Think about two different mutations regarding only the heart of a rabbit. One mutation allows the heart to function at a greatly increased rate for twice as long as the previous generation, and one results in a halving of the duration it can function at that rate.A wolf attacks each of these hypothetical bunnies, and all else being equal which one is more likely to escape? Obviously it is the one with the "superior" heart mutation, and there is no intelligent observer required to acknowledge which one lives. Living bunnies tend to produce many more offspring than dead bunnies, so over time you would expect the bunnies with strong hearts to vastly outnumber those with weak hearts, if any of the weak survive at all.Obviously it isn't quite so simple in practice, it is more likely that the bunnies were never subjected to such clear natural selection. Instead the weak and strong heart mutations would spread out into the bunny population and there would be a slightly better chance that the strong-hearted bunnies would reproduce. Over a long, long time the mutations that are beneficial to the reproductive success of the bunnies would become more pronounced in the population.This is generally what people are referring to when they refer to "natural selection"; the survival of the "fittest" organism when subjected to the rigors of nature.

That hardly seems like a very helpful "explanation".

Exactly, perhaps Straggler can provide an explanation that does not include the instruction to "think".

Exactly, perhaps Straggler can provide an explanation that does not include the instruction to "think".Wow,, thank you... for "contributing" to my first impression of evolutionists.