Fine tuning/ programming

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.

Think breeding.

Well what are you basing it on then? Because it sure sounds like complexity and incredulity to me?What is your point if not that aspects of nature are complex and you cannot see how nature alone can be responsible for such complexity? If you have an argument that amounts to more than that I must have missed it. Excellent. Then what criteria are you using?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

OK. But in the context of incredulity in which we find ourselves I took Dr Singh's comment to mean "I cannot see how mutations can ever result in a beneficial or positive outcome. Why would anyone conclude that they can?". In this context the answer "Think breeding" may admittedly be a little terse but is perfectly valid. I am assuming that we all know what breeding is. I am also assuming that we all consider the effects of breeding to result in "positive", in the sense of "desirable" results. I am also assuming that Dr Singh can see the comparisons between artificial selection and natural selection in this context, or will at least have the wit to ask if she cannot.However I could be wrong. It could have been a genuine question where a more thorough and technical answer was genuinely being sought. In which case I can give it a bash with my popular science level of knowledge. Or one of our more learned colleagues can step in. Or Dr Singh can do some research herself. But I remain unconvinced given the context that this is what was actually being asked for. Well if you are not prepared to think I am not sure why you are here? Isn't that kind of the entire point? Personally I find that whole "thinking thing" invaluable to understanding. What? As people who think?

Well actually..... Newton could arguably have gone a lot further if he had not been quite so willing to invoke Goddidit as an answer. Instead it was left to Lagrange to take celestail mechanics further who when asked about the role of God famously said "I had no need of that hypothesis."Anyway off topic so my apologies and I will leave it at that.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

The thing is you haven't demonstrated anything. You have simply argued that aspects of nature are too complex to have arisen naturally. But this still amounts to little more than argument from incredulity and still has all of the problems detailed in Message 20. All you have done here is cite a very speciific example rather than the generic case.But it still amounts to: "I don't see how this could have occurred naturally therefore it must be designed".

Which still amounts to: "I don't see how this could have occurred naturally therefore it must be designed"The answer to your question regarding hearts is - By means of evolution. Gradual and cumulative changes selected for over large periods of time by means of natural selection. Cumulative changes that ultimately result in the appearance of highly complex "design".Which is the same answer you will get to every single example of incredulity you might cite no matter how detailed. Even arch Intelligent Designists such as Behe accept the evolution of the heart. Or the eye. Or whatever other organ you care to mention. They instead restrict themselves to the molecular level (with little more success even if the argumets against are more scientifically sophisticated I might add).No matter how you phrase it or how much you deny it simply citing examples of complexity that you feel must be designed on the basis of complexity falls foul of all of the arguments I accused you of in Message 20. Until you address those issues or change your line of attack your argument will remain one of incredulity and subjective notions of complexity. No matter how detailed the examples you may cite.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.