The evidence for design and a designer - AS OF 10/27, SUMMARY MESSAGES ONLY

You know...I hear this all the time from people in these debates. So you tell me......just exactly why was Miller shooting electrical arcs through his special sauce anyway?

quote:

---

snowflakes are very complex

---

Thats debatable, since snowflakes are nothing more than water molecules aligning themselves to maximize attractive, and minimize repulsive forces, and the shape of a snowflake is based on nothing more than temperature, humidity, and air currents. They do not perform any intelligent function, and only appear ordered because they have six sides, and the human brain interprets that as ordered. Dust moving in the wind appears ordered, since the particles generally travel in one common direction.

quote:

---

Since nobody says humans came out of a pool of goo, I wonder why you think this is waht happened?

---

Complete rubbish and total hearsay. You are saying that no one believes in the hot pool theory. So you speak for the world now too?

Your preaching to the choir here Dennis. But I think you are confusing two distinctly separate issues, and that was all I was trying to point out. You are confusing functionality with order. There is no doubt that a crystal has a lot of order. But you are correct in that they have zero function (specificity). And that is exactly what I was saying. You have to be wise as a serpent and yet harmless as a dove around these wolves. They will trip you up on your own innocent confusion of the terms.

To create amino acids, the building blocks of life. You think he wanted to create a human?Edited by Huntard, : No reason given.

Yes, I don;t think you'll be able to produce anyone who believes in evolution, who thinks humans came from pools of goo.

Since I did not in fact say that biological information was spaghetti, your cry of "Gotcha" may be somewhat premature.Since it is highly unlikely that I would say that biological information was speghetti, perhaps even you could have figured out that this was not what I was trying to communicate. Given enough time. That was ... more odd. No. I do however see you saying that you don't know why water exists. What with words having meanings, and so forth. Yes, apparently he meant to write a book called The Origin of Life but he was such a poor speller that he spelled the word "life" as "s-p-e-c-i-e-s" through all six editions of his book, which even today, due to his terribly bad spelling, is called The Origin Of SPECIES.If only he hadn't had such awful spelling it would have been clear to everyone that his book, which is called The Origin Of SPECIES, was in fact about the origin of life, a topic that he barely mentions because he's too busy banging on about The Origin Of SPECIES. Which is what his book, which is called The Origin Of SPECIES, is actually called, as I may have mentioned once or twice. You'd think that the man who is widely admitted to be the greatest biologist ever would have known that the word "life" began with the letter L and not the letter S ... but I guess we all have our flaws.You yourself, for example, may have occasionally made a mistake.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

So, let me get this straight:We can't actually measure complexity.Then complexity is useless for a guide as to whether something is designed or not.You do know you have torpedoed I.D. right there, with your own words, don't you?

If you truly aspire to be as "wise" as a reptile with a brain the size of a peanut, then it is quite possible that you may achieve this dubious goal.

A google search on the phrase "humans came out of a pool of goo" gets precisely zero hits. So on the basis of this admittedly limited survey it appears that no-one has in fact ever said this.You may be the first person ever to say that. Are you proud of yourself?

quote:

---

There is already a natural feedback loop between mutable genomes and the environment that allows information about the environment to be transferred to the genome via natural selection (Frank, 2009)

---

Your source:

quote:

---

Although I show a formal match between Fisher information, the fundamental theorem of natural selection, and other key aspects of evolutionary analysis, I do not resolve several issues of interpretation. In particular, it remains unclear whether the link between Fisher information and the evolutionary dynamics of natural selection is just an interesting analogy or represents a deeper insight into the structure of measurement, information, and dynamics.

---

quote:

---

Fisher information suggests something deeper, but the problem remains an open challenge.

---

I agree with Mister Fisher, in that the problem remains.

quote:

---

How can we do this when you don't define apc in any measurable way?

---

What is apc?

quote:

---

Organic life and DNA do not look like products of human design

---

And since IDists do not claim man built it, the ID theory lives on.

quote:

---

so you seem to be looking for hallmarks of a type of design with which we have no experience and of which we have no knowledge.

---

Don't you find that a little odd? That with the brightest minds over thousands of years having developed amazing technological and scientific advances that compared to diverse life today equal a tonka truck. Human directed design cannot match random mistakes...strangely amusing.

quote:

---

If you truly aspire to be as "wise" as a reptile with a brain the size of a peanut, then it is quite possible that you may achieve this dubious goal.

---

Are you always this literal? You need to smoke a joint or something.

quote:

---

You may be the first person ever to say that. Are you proud of yourself?

---

No, because I wasn't the first person to say it. read back on the thread.

Now that you point it out, I realize that only a fool would take the Bible literally. Anyone with a brain knows that it needs to be interpreted in a metaphorical sense.Certainly if anyone was to take literally what the Bible has to say about snakes he'd need his head examining. They're not really wise, and they can't actually talk either. Especially not about eating forbidden fruit.I'm glad we've sorted that out. What shall we do now?

You are technically correct, insofar as Huntard wrote: "nobody says humans came out of a pool of goo". However, if one was on oath, it would not be honest to state that Huntard wrote "humans came out of a pool of goo" without some sort of qualification such as pointing out that he prefixed it with the words "nobody says".Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.