|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why only one Designer | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
SavageD Member (Idle past 3752 days) Posts: 59 From: Trinbago Joined:
|
jar writes:
Again, that is not what you said. DNA is not the same, just as two peoples signature is not the same. The fact that their is a mechanism "DNA" does not offer any support that there is some designer, and in fact would support there being a different designer for each unique signature using your argument as presented above. Intelligent design is simply a really stupid idea and all the evidence shows that if there was some designer he is nothing but an on the job training apprentice who has not yet reached journeyman status. What isn't what I said??? I've already mentioned that dna is not the same for any two individuals, and as said before, it is the mechanisms for which dna is used that provides the signature & not the mere presence of dna itself. I'm not even gonna try to explain this simple concept to you any more. There is no evidence which supports dna appearing in nature through natural processes. The mere intricacy of dna speaks volumes of there probably being a designer. Your telling me that "Intelligent design is simply a really stupid idea"? are you saying that there's no such thing as a designer? That design is simply a figment of our imagination? The computer your using is a product of a designer. Edited by SavageD, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
as to why the signature is different on every critter, my point is not the dna molecule on a whole but the mechanism for which it is used. So the fact if you look at your Genome and your mothers and fathers genome and you find that at around 4 gens are completely different then either of your parents is because magic man dun it? or could it just be a "bad" copy ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
But what if you were the only person who had ever learned, or ever would learn. how to make clothes? Is there really still a need for you to "brand" your products? I mean, just the fact that they're clothes would be proof that you made them, because you're the only tailor who has ever existed and will ever exist. Well, it doesn't have to be a signature for the sake of brand recognition; it could be a signature that all the products share by virtue of having been designed by that one designer. If we took all of the products and compared them, if such a signature existed, it would show itself as being a commonality present in every product designed.
Well, not every living thing requires DNA. There are RNA viruses, for instance, that have no DNA at all. Perhaps we can come up with a counter argument involving something that is more clearly 'living' than an RNA virus. The signature definitely has to be present in any product that is clearly clothing, while it may or may not (by accident) be in anything that was not designed by the designerthis could include things whose status as clothing is difficult to determine: a pocket watch, for example. The question then is: Can a commonality in all life be seen as the mark of a single designer, and if so, do we see such a commonality? I think that if we accept the rest of the design argument just for the sake of playing along, then sweeping commonalities in living things certainly would seem to indicate a single designer (at least for life). The next part of the question, though, is whether such commonalities exist and whether or not they are strong enough to point to a single designer; for example, 'covers the body' is a pretty weak commonality for arguing that all clothing is designed by a single designer. So the commonality should be something too great to have arisen by chance and should certainly not involve traits that are defining characteristics of the product (e.g., 'covers the body' for clothing, 'living' for life). Just watching the wildlife outside my window, though, has me rather convinced that such required commonalities do not exist. Analysis of life forms at a deeper level, however, might show me to be mistaken. Jon Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
What isn't what I said??? I've already mentioned that dna is not the same for any two individuals, and as said before, it is the mechanisms for which dna is used that provides the signature & not the mere presence of dna itself. Is DNA and the 'mechanisms for which DNA is used' a defining characteristic of life? Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
If we took all of the products and compared them, if such a signature existed, it would show itself as being a commonality present in every product designed. Dean Kamen invented a kind of kidney dialysis machine, the Segway motor scooter, and a thought-controlled prosthetic arm. Could you identify Dean Kamen's signature in these three products? Please be specific.
I think that if we accept the rest of the design argument just for the sake of playing along, then sweeping commonalities in living things certainly would seem to indicate a single designer (at least for life). I would say that the sweeping differences indicate multiple designers - clearly the guy who did "plants" wasn't on the "mammals" team.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
SavageD writes: jar writes:
Again, that is not what you said. DNA is not the same, just as two peoples signature is not the same. The fact that their is a mechanism "DNA" does not offer any support that there is some designer, and in fact would support there being a different designer for each unique signature using your argument as presented above. Intelligent design is simply a really stupid idea and all the evidence shows that if there was some designer he is nothing but an on the job training apprentice who has not yet reached journeyman status. What isn't what I said??? I've already mentioned that dna is not the same for any two individuals, and as said before, it is the mechanisms for which dna is used that provides the signature & not the mere presence of dna itself. I'm not even gonna try to explain this simple concept to you any more. There is no evidence which supports dna appearing in nature through natural processes. The mere intricacy of dna speaks volumes of there probably being a designer. Your telling me that "Intelligent design is simply a really stupid idea"? are you saying that there's no such thing as a designer? That design is simply a figment of our imagination? The computer your using is a product of a designer.
Utter bullcrap. You claimed that DNA was the signature of the designer. If so then there have been a near infinite number 0of designers. Of course there is evidence of DNA being of natural origin, in fact there is NO evidence of anything that is NOT of natural origin. I'm saying that when it comes to biology and living things, the Intelligent Design concept is nothing but a cheap carny con designed to get around the SCOTUS, and even if it were true is of absolutely no worth or value beyond being a historical footnote or in the case of a product liability suit. The Intelligent Design movement is simply dishonest, irrelevant, worthless and stupid. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Could you identify Dean Kamen's signature in these three products? Please be specific. I don't even know if there is one; but Dean and his products are irrelevant to the discussion.
I would say that the sweeping differences indicate multiple designers - clearly the guy who did "plants" wasn't on the "mammals" team. Seems that way for now, until Savage can offer up some evidence to the contrary. Jon Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
ringo writes: SavageD writes:
Because of common descent. You have ears because your parents had ears. Why does every living thing require dna, why not some other mechanism for information? Whales, humans and bats have the same hand structure because of common descent, not because it makes any sense to "design" them that way. Human designers don't build submarines, cars and aircraft on the same frame. The fact that there are different eye structures in squid and humans, for example, suggests that if they were designed, it was probably by different departments with poor communication between them. As a builder and/or designer would design and/or build storage sheds with less complexity and appearance, etc than mansions, so the mansion would not descend from the shed, or vise versa but both could be designed and/or built by the same common designer and/or builder, using common materials, such as nails, roofing and lumber. Both the mansion and the shed would have roofs, siding, floors, doors, and perhaps, windows etc, albeit, a common designer but not a common descent, just as whales, bats and humans might have similar . Designed things like submarines, automobiles and aircraft do all require power plants, steering mechanisms and electronic components just as whales, bats and humans might require similar appendages for survival.
Pectoral flippers have all the skeletal elements of the forelimbs of terrestrial mammals... quote: BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I don't even know if there is one; but Dean and his products are irrelevant to the discussion. Not at all. As an immediate and more approachable example of common design of disparate functions, it's entirely relevant and probative. You wouldn't just be trying to do your standard dodge and run, would you, Jon? I mean, why do you even bother replying to my posts if you're going to immediately turn tail and run from the discussion? I mean, really. What was your intent when you replied to my post? It wasn't directed at you. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you can't reply, but surely it wasn't your intention to beg out of the discussion after two posts, was it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
Designed things like submarines, automobiles and aircraft do all require power plants, steering mechanisms and electronic components just as whales, bats and humans might require similar appendages for survival. They sure do. But why then do whales have pelvises, but sharks don't? A pelvis on a whale is like finding a differential on a submarine - utterly without purpose, indicative that we're looking at a "carryover" from a terrestrial predecessor. Common function explains some physical commonalities between organisms. But common descent explains all physical commonalities between organisms, including the ones that don't make any sense, like pelvises on whales.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Buzsaw writes:
Yes, that's exactly my point: It doesn't make sense to design them like that. Fish, which live in the same environment as whales, have entirely different swimming structures. Pectoral flippers have all the skeletal elements of the forelimbs of terrestrial mammals... The variety of marine life suggests that there was one designer or group of designers who made fish and different group who made whales and dolphins. If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
As an immediate and more approachable example of common design of disparate functions, it's entirely relevant and probative. But we're only talking about one type of design: life. Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
There is no evidence which supports dna appearing in nature through natural processes. That actually happens all the time. How do you think it's produced --- DNA fairies? There is abundant evidence of it being produced by natural processes (which are well understood) and zero evidence of it being produced by magical processes.
The mere intricacy of dna speaks volumes of there probably being a designer. Back in the real world, the extraordinary simplicity of DNA at first had most scientists doubting that it could be the genetic material they were looking for. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
SavageD Member (Idle past 3752 days) Posts: 59 From: Trinbago Joined: |
Dr Adequate writes: There is no evidence which supports dna appearing in nature through natural processes. That actually happens all the time. How do you think it's produced --- DNA fairies? There is abundant evidence of it being produced by natural processes (which are well understood) and zero evidence of it being produced by magical processes.
The mere intricacy of dna speaks volumes of there probably being a designer. Back in the real world, the extraordinary simplicity of DNA at first had most scientists doubting that it could be the genetic material they were looking for. It seems you have empirical evidence that shows how dna became the building blocks for life as we know it, through step by step procedures. Explain to me how dna appears in nature through these natural processes & how organisms today learnt to code & utilize dna. After all, dna couldn't just happen to be conveniently placed in the organism in the right area with all coding mechanisms in place, why that would be chance, it would be preposterous. There must be some logical process whereby organisms learnt to code & utilize dna. Also, are you implying that the dna molecule is "simple" o_O, please enlighten me with your reasoning as to why it is, "simple"... Edited by SavageD, : No reason given. Edited by SavageD, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
It seems you have empirical evidence that shows how dna became the building blocks for life as we know it, through step by step procedures. What in the world gave you that impression?
Explain to me how dna appears in nature through these natural processes ... It's called DNA polymerase. Your turn. How does DNA appear in nature through supernatural processes, and are there any observations of this actually happening?
& how organisms today learnt to code & utilize dna. Overlooking the anthropomorphism implicit in your question, organisms today inherited this facility from earlier organisms by purely natural processes which are well-understood (and which, by the way, include the action of DNA polymerase).
Also, are you implying that the dna molecule is "simple" o_O, please enlighten me with your reasoning as to why it is, "simple"... In the sense that it's simple. I don't see how I can make the word "simple" clearer than it already is. This is why even after the discovery that DNA was in some way connected to inheritance many scientists were looking for the genetic material in the histones associated with DNA. They just couldn't believe that something as simple as DNA could be what they were looking for.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024