To say that these complex mechanism's came about through a cycle of chance & selection would be irrational.
If the cycle is guided by chance then whats selecting? If you are then asking whats selecting, you are then going to ask, where did this mechanism to select come from? You would have to conclude that it came about by chance, thus making the process start all over again. This is illogical, its called circular reasoning.
The selections happened through chance and chance occurrences happens through selection.
If you were to say that the mechanism to select did not come about by chance, then that would leave the only other alternative, the mechanism is a probably a product of design.
This shows a misunderstanding of how natural selection works. Would you like explanations of those misunderstandings or are you just going to push back harder against them?
If you are then asking whats selecting, you are then going to ask, where did this mechanism to select come from?
The selective process did not come from something, its simply inherent to imperfect replication in a competitive environment. Does that make sense?
Just about everything designed that we see is designed by lots of designers and the more complex it is the more designers we have. So why do you assume that only one designer designed a universe as complex as ours your own logic points to there being tones of designers some designers designed stars, some rocks, some planets, some plants, some bacteria, some animals .......
Simply following the ID logic, one is not lead to a single designer.
To get to the single designer, they use the uncaused first cause argument.
All of it, though, is simply post-hoc rationalizations of pre-conceived monothesim.
Your claiming that, \\the selective process did not come from something//...in effect what YOU are saying is:
Natural selection is simply there because it is there, there are no means through which this mechanism originated.
No, I just meant that it didn't "come from something", that doesn't mean there are no means through which it originated. For that explanation, you cut off the most important part:
quote:its simply inherent to imperfect replication in a competitive environment
The environment is already competitive because of variety and variability, right?
Once you have imperfect replication in there, then you're inevitably going to have natural selection.
Do you get what I mean in that it didn't "come from something" but instead is a consequence of other things existing?
From the evolutionist stand point natural selection arose through chance processes and thus depends on accumulative chance occurrences. Thus making natural selection a mechanism of chance on a whole.
Not really. The competitive nature of the enivornment offers the non-random component.
This kind of thinking is both irrational and illogical.
My point: Natural selection is a mechanism resulting from design, as it is the only other alternative to explaining how such a complex & intricate mechanism can arise.
That's false, but we have to get past the above parts first. I need to know why you think this kind of thinking is irrational and illogical, and I want to make sure you not interested in only pushing back before I invest too much time into you.
anything which a exhibits some level(s) of functionality(ies), intricacy / complexity & structural integrity both on the physically observable level(s) & sub-system level(s) are all products of design since we can observe that such objects are near impossible to come about through chance. for example, a watch.
What do you mean by "come about through chance"? The Theory of Evolution does *NOT* say that any species came about through chance.
Thats many a reason to take the concept of design seriously, we see it happening all around us, the houses, the cars etc. How then should we distinguish design from non-design; are we just gonna say my car is here because it evolved o_O?
Only living things can evolve. The Theory of Evolution can explain every living thing we've ever seen.
We don't have any examples of living things that have been designed.
Anything which a exhibits some level(s) of functionality(ies), intricacy / complexity & structural integrity both on the physically observable level(s) & sub-system level(s) are all products of design since we can observe that such objects are near impossible to arise through chance.
"Come about through"... "Arrise through"... It doesn't matter, the Theory of Evolution doesn't say it happened by chance. Natural Selection is the non-random component necessary to yield these complexities.
"The Theory of Evolution does not say that any species came about through chance"....Nor does it attempt to describe how the mechanism used to create these new species arose (e.g dna utilization).
It simply states that these mechanisms are there, so things evolve, or things evolve because these mechanisms are there.
There's been a lot of scientific advancement in the realm of "dna utilization", but that stuff is outside the scope of the Theory of Evolution. Still, using an evolutionary paradigm doesn't mean there's not an attempt to describe how dna utilization arrose. Why don't you start a new thread on that topic? I'm sure a lot of people will show you.
To be more precise: Things evolve because of natural selection, natural selection is there so things evolve...Everything else in the theory is due to chance. This is a tautology
No, that's not even close.
The evolution theory never attempts to describe how the mechanisms that natural selection utilizes arose, it simply ignores that factor.
And cooking thoery doesn't describe farming...
Wait, Why don't you complain about the design theory not describing how life was designed?
From this perspective natural selection is simply a product created by chance that happens by chance.
You're grossly misunderstanding what Natural Selection is. Do you even care to learn about it?
No we don't, but we have observations / evidence which suggests that living things are possibly a product of design.
I suppose, but the design explanation is so inferior to the evolutionary explanation that its not even on the radar. Evolution actually has explanatory power. Design does not.
There's tons of observations in species that would make you think the designer would have had to have been crazy to design it that way, but from an evolutionary perspective, it makes perfect sense.
water -> plants -> insects & animals If you remove anyone of these from the planets entire ecological system, the system will fall apart.
The Earth could exist with just water and no plants or animals. The Earth could exist with just water and plants, but no animals.