Why only one Designer

Well If you take it from the view of similar design, it would probably make sense.

Example: if were to start my own line of designer clothes, for each garment I make I would probably leave my signature on it to symbolize that the garment was fashioned by me. It would then be natural to think that there was probably one designer or one mind behind the design upon seeing my signature left on my product.

Similarly every living thing contains some sort of signature (eg. dna). Why does every living thing require dna, why not some other mechanism for information? Probably evidence for common design.

The biological system also exhibits an intricate system (ecosystem).

plants depend on insects & animals
animals depend on insects & plants
insects depend on animals & plants

Every-things intertwined, if you remove one of these, the entire ecosystem falls apart. This would then be evidence for a common designer since there was probably common thought used in designing the system.

It may be possible that there were more than one designers, but that would be undermining the principle at hand, "life as we know it was possibly designed". The amount of designers won't really matter.

jar writes: How is the existence of DNA evidence of design at all? Why is the signature different on every critter?

I'm not here to argue about dna being evidence of design, however if you can prove to me how something as complex & intricate as dna could appear in nature purely through natural processes, I'll be happy to have a conversation with you on this matter.

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.

For example: every individual has a certain dna structure however no two person may have the same exact dna; But the dna sequence may be used to determine skin color, eye color hair length, etc etc

It is mainly the 'mechanism' for which it is used that represents the signature, not the mere presence of it in an organism.

Why not use another way for determining phenotypes & genotypes? It would then be clear that there were more than one designers since no two people think the same.

Edited by SavageD, : No reason given.

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.

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 writes: 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?

I'll quote you...-->

Dr Adequate writes: 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.

Naturally I asked you to give me some of this evidence, which you've conveniently ignored.

It's called DNA polymerase.

Oh I see, dna polymerase is single handedly responsible for building & coding & utilizing dna, lol...I'm not even gonna explain to you why this is a rather silly response.

Your turn. How does DNA appear in nature through supernatural processes, and are there any observations of this actually happening?

Contrary to the evolution theory, I am not claiming that dna conveniently appeared in nature, I'm saying that it is a product of design. There are no observations of anyone making dna, however there is evidence which suggests that it was designed.

If I've never observed anyone creating a car and later came across one in some other country, does that mean the car was not created by some designer, that it simply arose through super natural means? No.

Just like a car exhibits a level of functionality, intricacy / complexity & structural integrity as evidence it was designed, so does dna. This is my evidence.

By what exact means it was created, that I do not know.

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).

Seems you branched off into an entirely different area. I never asked you how dna is inherited...I asked you to:

Explain to me how dna appears in nature through natural processes & how organisms today learnt to code & utilize dna.

Thus far, you have failed to do so.

I also asked you to enlighten me with your \\reasoning// as to why dna is, as you put it..."simple"...and you give me this???

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.

Jon writes: Contrary to the evolution theory, I am not claiming that dna conveniently appeared in nature, I'm saying that it is a product of design. There are no observations of anyone making dna, however there is evidence which suggests that it was designed. If I've never observed anyone creating a car and later came across one in some other country, does that mean the car was not created by some designer, that it simply arose through super natural means? No. Just like a car exhibits a level of functionality, intricacy / complexity & structural integrity as evidence it was designed, so does dna. This is my evidence. Is DNA and the 'mechanisms for which DNA is used' a defining characteristic of life? Jon

I would say the mechanisms and roles for which dna & or 'rna' are used are the defining characteristics of life. I would probably go deeper into this but for now I have to go, I'm quite busy.

crashfrog writes: Explain to me how dna appears in nature through natural processes & how organisms today learnt to code & utilize dna. Thus far, you have failed to do so. Could that maybe be because your question is retarded and makes no sense? Tell me, Savage, when did you "learn" to grow hair?

Fact of the matter is no one can learn to grow hair. Such mechanisms are impossible to learn.

Which is my point any way, if you can't consciously make decisions to learn or do such things, how then are we able to do it?

You can't learn to build dna nor can you learn to develop the mechanisms to utilize it. You can't learn to one day grow a heart or a brain, why that would be a logical fallacy.

You can't say that these things came about by chance either, that'd be preposterous. Having eliminated those other possibilities you are then left with only one alternative, they were possibly created.

To be more specific, mechanisms were possibly designed / created to cause such things to happen (things such as dna utilization & energy consumption, hair growth etc) cause we know such complex mechanisms cannot arise in nature by chance.

Edited by SavageD, : No reason given.

Edited by SavageD, : No reason given.

jar writes: But of course we can and did learn how to make DNA and we make it using only natural processes, no magic involved.

Things cannot \\learn// how to make dna. There are mechanisms involved that create dna.

ringo writes: Even designers select the features that work best and discard the others. All a designer can do is work with natural processes that are already in place.

Well it's like this, things would only seem super natural if you can't explain it through natural processes or from your current knowledge.

For example: imagine some one having being been secluded on an island for years having not known about modern technology & inventions such as cars. He's never known about metal or the chemical processes used to create them. If someone was to introduce him to the new world with cars, airplanes, mircrowaves etc, he could then assume that they came there through supernatural means because the processes by which these things are made, would far exceed his current knowledge. He has never seen the processes by which moderns machineries are made nor has he ever seen metal. But today we know such things are possible, not supernatural.

Besides, metals like steel aren't exactly made through natural processes, it's synthetic, should we then call it supernatural? The lines between natural and supernatural processes are blurred.

Because I observe all other lifeless planets, I personally have reason to believe that life forms are in some way, synthetic.

But you can say that they came about by a cycle of chance and selection.

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.

jar writes: Sorry but the idea of some designer is simply stupid, and I will ask you yet again, how do you know a car is designed?

I would say 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 products of design, since we know such objects are near impossible to come about through chance. for example, a watch

Catholic Scientist writes: The selective process did not come from something, its simply inherent to imperfect replication in a competitive environment. Does that make sense?

I already know what natural selection is and no, your not making sense. 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. It is simply passed on, so no it did not result from chance...This is a logical fallacy. Your not even attempting to say how the system for this selection could have arose.

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. 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.

jar writes: Nonsense. Utter nonsense. Natural Selection is nothing more than the universe we live in. Sorry Charlie, you don't get the worm.

Natural selection - The process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. This adaptability is driven by several organic mechanisms.

Hardly anything as simple as being "the universe we live in".

Edited by SavageD, : No reason given.

jar writes: SavageD writes: jar writes: Nonsense. Utter nonsense. Natural Selection is nothing more than the universe we live in. Sorry Charlie, you don't get the worm. Natural selection - The process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. This adaptability is driven by several organic mechanisms. Hardly anything as simple as being "the universe we live in". Again, get your definitions correct. Natural Selection is just the filter, it is the world and environment we live in. It really is that simple.

"get your definitions correct"....what is wrong with my definition?

Jon writes: "get your definitions correct"....what is wrong with my definition? It's not the definition of 'natural selection'. And, jar already defined 'natural selection', so a comparison of your definition and his should give you some indication as to where you went wrong. Jon

Wait I'm confused, where did I go wrong with my definition?

Natural selection - The process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. This adaptability is driven by several organic mechanisms.

Enlighten me o_o...

Interesting, just as one would ask, if there is a god who created this god?

One could also ask: If there was a big bang where did the material come from? These materials couldn't simply have always been there....there had to be a process whereby these materials came about; also, What caused this 'bang' / explosion?

If one was to argue that the materials always existed, one could also argue that a god always existed / they both had no first cause.

Personally I look at the ecosystem as a sign of common thought, which is a typical sign of a common designer.

water -> plants -> insects & animals
Remove anyone of these (on a whole) and the entire system falls.

subbie writes: If one was to argue that the materials always existed, one could also argue that a god always existed / they both had no first cause. Quite true. Now, here's the $64 dollar question: What's the difference between religion and science? Answer: Religion takes the unanswered question and uses it as evidence of a god. Science takes the unanswered question and looks for the answer. We don't know what, if anything, preceded the Big Bang. Science doesn't assume there must have been something before that. Science doesn't assume there couldn't have been anything before that. Science doesn't assume anything, and the only conclusion science comes to from the lack of knowledge is that it's something that needs to be investigated. It's possible there was something before the Big Bang. One idea is called the Big Bounce. As I understand it, the evidence doesn't tend to support that idea, but it's not completely ruled out, either. But the lack of a definite answer certainly doesn't make god more or less likely either way.

lol, the first rational response I've received from this forum .
I completely agree with you.

Though, I would like to make it clear that, I'm not religious. I don't believe in any specific god or hold close to things written in a book. I simply believe that life is here as a result of a designer(s).

None the less I agree with you 100%.