The design argument

Originally posted by C Hess
No, I'll call it mutated DNA, if you don't mind.

Okay, if you wish to be wrong, it is no skin off my nose. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
Okay, if you wish to be wrong, it is no skin off my nose. 😏

🙄

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Never a truer word has been spoken.

Originally posted by C Hess
I know you think I'm a stubborn "believer" of whatever I want to believe...

This above statement by C Hess is more true.

Originally posted by RJHinds

Originally posted by C Hess
I know you think I'm a stubborn "believer" of whatever I want to believe...

[b]This above statement by C Hess is more true. [/b]

Indeed, KellyJay thinks I'm a stubborn "believer" in what I want to believe. Oh, the irony. 😵

Originally posted by C Hess
Indeed, KellyJay thinks I'm a stubborn "believer" in what I want to believe. Oh, the irony. 😵

I do too. Ha Ha 😀

Originally posted by C Hess
Indeed, KellyJay thinks I'm a stubborn "believer" in what I want to believe. Oh, the irony. 😵

In this we agree in both what I think of you, and what I am. 🙂

Originally posted by C Hess
It's obvious from your replies that I'm more learned on the topic of evolution, and it seems to me that in order to confidently reject a theory as established as this one (with over 150 years of peer-review scrutiny and tons of refinements made to it), you'd have to first understand it. Well, you apparently don't think so, but I do.

I can only repeat what ...[text shortened]... to believe.

At this point I honestly don't know wether to laugh or feel embarrassed for you.

Hardly, I think if I just spouted off what I know in agreement with you, you'd
think I knew more than I do now, but since I disagree I know less than.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Hardly, I think if I just spouted off what I know in agreement with you, you'd
think I knew more than I do now, but since I disagree I know less than.

No, it's not because you disagree with me that you appear less knowledgable on the subject. It's when you ask questions like "how does the heart know how to beat" and things like that, that you betray your ignorance. You may as well ask how does water know how to flow downhill, and how do planets know how to circle the sun, and then claim that gravity can't explain these "mysteries".

Originally posted by C Hess
No, it's not because you disagree with me that you appear less knowledgable on the subject. It's when you ask questions like "how does the heart know how to beat" and things like that, that you betray your ignorance. You may as well ask how does water know how to flow downhill, and how do planets know how to circle the sun, and then claim that gravity can't explain these "mysteries".

Is the same thing true for asking "How does natural selection know how to select" ?

Originally posted by sonship
Is the same thing true for asking "How does natural selection know how to select" ?

Yes, natural selection doesn't "know" anything.

Originally posted by C Hess
Yes, natural selection doesn't "know" anything.

Now we are getting somewhere. Now if you could also realize that "natural selection" is only a description of what happens in the natural God provided reproduction process under certain environmental factors, we would have advanced trememdously toward the truth instead of just saying evolution did it. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
Now we are getting somewhere. Now if you could also realize that "natural selection" is only a description of what happens in the natural God provided reproduction process under certain environmental factors, we would have advanced trememdously toward the truth instead of just saying evolution did it. 😏

Natual selection is simply the process whereby organisms with "bad" mutations are weeded out (they can't survive long enough to reproduce), leaving only those mutations that are either neutral or beneficial. The end result will appear designed (for obvious reasons), but it really is not. How is this still a problem for you to understand?

Originally posted by C Hess
No, it's not because you disagree with me that you appear less knowledgable on the subject. It's when you ask questions like "how does the heart know how to beat" and things like that, that you betray your ignorance. You may as well ask how does water know how to flow downhill, and how do planets know how to circle the sun, and then claim that gravity can't explain these "mysteries".

You have an answer for that?

It is after all a hardware software question, I don't care what part of any
living system you are talking about, if it is functioning that is something
that does not just occur. The mysteries throughout the universe all beg
the same question why, is the universe designed to get life to function?
It does seem to all come back to the same thing when looking at the whole.

You called DNA a simple code that is was no big deal to have it come
together unlike what we write, in that simple code are commands that not
only design a four legged creatures, but those with wings, with fins, and
all the tiny body parts all doing their jobs to keep each one alive. The parts
of a living system have jobs they do, you have not answered my why/how
question.

How are these abilities put into the DNA they don't just happen due to the
shape and size of every form? There are people with eyes that do not see
so why, people have legs that do not walk, having a form and having it
useful are not the same thing.

Exactly how would a good form and function both spring from a random
mutation? The DNA has to code the function just was it codes the form!
Seriously think about it, it isn't enough to have four legs is quite another to
walk and run on them.

Gravity plays its part in supporting life here as do all the other forces in the
universe. It really isn't just the living systems and their abilities we see
that present these questions, but all the things around life that make it
work, including gravity.

Originally posted by C Hess
Natual selection is simply the process whereby organisms with "bad" mutations are weeded out (they can't survive long enough to reproduce), leaving only those mutations that are either neutral or beneficial. The end result will appear designed (for obvious reasons), but it really is not. How is this still a problem for you to understand?

Except you reject the idea that it would or could weed out life completely.
You only look at it is as something that allows the good and beneficial to
move forward, and isn't allowed to stop it all if the bad out do the good.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Except you reject the idea that it would or could weed out life completely.
You only look at it is as something that allows the good and beneficial to
move forward, and isn't allowed to stop it all if the bad out do the good.

Let's say that life comprises all of ten organisms. If one of them carries a mutation that prevents it from reproducing, that doesn't mean that all ten of them dies. You do realise that, right?