Fine tuning/ programming

Greetings Dr.Sing and welcome to EVC. I'm disappointed to join the thread this early as I am definitely not as knowledgeable as most of the regulars that will hopefully join in this discussion soon, but I can give generalised answers to your questions. That will have to suffice for now, but I think your post is extremely well formulated and deserving of serious replies.I'll make my reply brief, as I can't speak to the specifics of this in the way that others will undoubtedly do in due course.You said: I was relishing every word up to this point, but this was a dramatic leap. It is at this point that you are essentially restating Paley's argument (or argument from design), that design implies a designer.Darwin's greatest contribution to science is that he completed the Copernican Revolution by drawing out for biology the notion of nature as a system of matter in motion governed by natural laws. - Francisco J. Ayala
Source: Just a moment...To feebly attempt to answer your two succint questions I would say as follows, but I eagerly anticipate the replies of others with more specific knowledge: As the result (and not the end result) of an unimaginably long period of gradual changes throughout the history of life on Earth during which time primitive hearts either failed (thus vanishing from the evolutionary line, or at least stagnating at a lower level of complexity) or succeeded (leading to the successful reproduction in offspring) and eventually leading to what might be interpreted as "intelligently designed". "Purposefully evolved" makes more sense to me, that purpose being to survive. Quite simply because there is an alternate explanation (the ToE) that elegantly eliminates the need for supernatural intervention.Sorry that I'm not really getting to the "meat" of your question. I hope others will do so. Thanks again for a concise and well-worded post.Edited by Briterican, : Preview fail.

I am hoping that this thread stays going a bit longer, as we are getting some specific answers to how such complexity could arise without the need for a designer.PLEASE however, I beg of you Dr. Sing, avoid this:Dr. Sing said: You've just said (a) proving God's existence using scientific experiments is impossible (Says who? What's your source? The statement doesn't really even make sense), but more importantly you called those of us who interpret this unsupported axiom (a) as evidence for the absence of God "foolish men" I'd be more inclined to apply the word "foolish" to those who swear a lifelong oath to things for which there is no evidence, than I would to those who admit "I can't know for certain, but I see no evidence".For a good read on "What Design Looks Like", click here What Design Looks Like | National Center for Science EducationThis article is definitely on topic as it addresses the criteria by which people attempt to assess design or a lack thereof, and it comes to the not-so-surprising conclusion that life doesn't actually look very "designed" when you get right down to it.

Thank you for Message 74 Izanaqi. (attempted to link it here and I'm still too much of a noob, sorry)This very substantive post was a satisfying read.With regard to your comment: I'd like to see this addressed - it seems a very relevant question.You also said: Snowflakes look like an engineering marvel. How can one not look at a snowflake and see the majesty of its structure and symmetry?

"...the burgeoning commercial interest in the self-assembly of nano-scale devices has reinvigorated our desire to understand just how solidification produces ordered, and sometimes complex, structures from disordered precursors."

- http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/publist/rpp5_4_R03.pdf
(a study on the physics of snow crystals)Edited by Briterican, : Removed irrelevant portion of final quote.Edited by Briterican, : Bad link.Edited by Briterican, : HTML fail.