Just Accidental?

[Guy Threepwood]

I hope you don't mind that I call and consider such answer Guy's snowstorms. You drop a phrase or two and behave as if it is an argument, as when you attempted to call nested hierarchies in information systems a barrier between smaller degrees of evolution and larger ones over longer durations. Why not just say irreversible entropies in self-selecting systems? Those could be barriers just as well.

Or semi-syntheitc proxies of irresolvable algorithms.

Maybe it's self-contradictory dualisms of hemi-anarchic proclivities preventing macroevolution.

Or self-selecting archetypes of demigods in dishabille. Who can prove it isn't? Maybe they're all in play acting as barriers preventing the evolution of new "kinds."

hmm, you make some good points

Well I am sorry, even compunctuous to have caused you such contrafibularity, and will attempt to reclavicate my point interfrastically:

capacity for adaptation in a system, most definitely ≠ a design method for that, or any other system

or

ya can't turn a radio into a CD player by fiddlin the knobs, even given billions of years. Force them too far, beyond the limited adaptation they were designed for, and they just break. Just as we see in bacteria, fruit flies and dogs, mathematical algorithms and the fossil record

 

[SkepticThinker]

Why you keep trying to compare inanimate objects to biological organisms is beyond me. It's really not helping your arguments at all.

 

[Jose Fly]

Why you keep trying to compare inanimate objects to biological organisms is beyond me. It's really not helping your arguments at all.

It's all they have. If they could point to a biological system or structure and say "We've determined that this is the result of intelligent design" and then explain how they reached that conclusion, they would. But obviously they can't, so they go with whatever they can muster, e.g., fundamentally flawed analogies.

But overall it's of little consequence. ID creationism is dead.....has been for quite some time now.

 

[Deeje]

Lets examine.......

The Human Body’s Ability to Repair Wounds


"AMONG the numerous mechanisms that make human life possible is the body’s ability to heal wounds and regenerate damaged tissue. The process begins as soon as an injury occurs.

Consider: The healing process is made possible by a cascade of complex cellular functions:

• Platelets adhere to tissues around a wound, forming a blood clot and sealing damaged blood vessels.
  
• Inflammation protects against infection and removes any “debris” caused by the injury.
  
• Within days, the body begins to replace injured tissue, make the wound contract, and repair damaged blood vessels.
  
• Finally, scar tissue remodels and strengthens the damaged area.
  

Inspired by blood clotting, researchers are developing plastics that can “heal” damage to themselves. Such regenerating materials are equipped with tiny parallel tubes containing two chemicals that “bleed” when any damage occurs. As the two chemicals mix, they form a gel that spreads across the damaged areas, closing cracks and holes. As the gel solidifies, it forms a tough substance that restores the material’s original strength. One researcher admits that this synthetic healing process currently under development is “reminiscent” of what already exists in nature."

The Human Body—Healing Wounds | Was It Designed?

Another evolutionary 'accident'....or a brilliant design trying to be copied by intelligent minds wanting to mimic the ingenuity of another intelligent mind?

 

[Olinda]

Lets examine.......

...why @Deeje wants to change the subject from shells.

Seriously, @Deeje, didn't the responses to the last article cause you any doubts about their accuracy?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Lets examine.......

The Human Body’s Ability to Repair Wounds


"AMONG the numerous mechanisms that make human life possible is the body’s ability to heal wounds and regenerate damaged tissue. The process begins as soon as an injury occurs.

Consider: The healing process is made possible by a cascade of complex cellular functions:

• Platelets adhere to tissues around a wound, forming a blood clot and sealing damaged blood vessels.
• Inflammation protects against infection and removes any “debris” caused by the injury.
• Within days, the body begins to replace injured tissue, make the wound contract, and repair damaged blood vessels.
• Finally, scar tissue remodels and strengthens the damaged area.

Inspired by blood clotting, researchers are developing plastics that can “heal” damage to themselves. Such regenerating materials are equipped with tiny parallel tubes containing two chemicals that “bleed” when any damage occurs. As the two chemicals mix, they form a gel that spreads across the damaged areas, closing cracks and holes. As the gel solidifies, it forms a tough substance that restores the material’s original strength. One researcher admits that this synthetic healing process currently under development is “reminiscent” of what already exists in nature."

The Human Body—Healing Wounds | Was It Designed?

Another evolutionary 'accident'....or a brilliant design trying to be copied by intelligent minds wanting to mimic the ingenuity of another intelligent mind?

Its another good example of something that used to seem simple, because it was simply 'natural'. We only begin to appreciate the necessary sophistication of design involved when we attempt to replicate the process, which we can usually barely do on a very limited basis, on purpose, far less accidentally for no particular reason

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Why you keep trying to compare inanimate objects to biological organisms is beyond me. It's really not helping your arguments at all.

neither can transcend the logic and mathematics of information systems, that's why they demonstrate the same characteristics, leave the same historical record, and why you can't tell which I'm describing in the analogies

 

[Deeje]

Seriously, @Deeje, didn't the responses to the last article cause you any doubts about their accuracy?

No, but I do question the nit-picking mentality of some responders.....

If there was nothing to pick, they would just think up a negative for something to do.

Whatever floats your boat.

No one said you had to agree....did they?

 

[Deeje]

How about this then.....

The Storage Capacity of DNA

"COMPUTER users generate enormous amounts of digital data that has to be stored for access as needed. Scientists are hoping to revolutionize current methods for digital storage by imitating a far superior data-storage system found in nature—DNA.

Consider: DNA, found in living cells, holds billions of pieces of biological information. “We can extract it from bones of woolly mammoths . . . and make sense of it,” says Nick Goldman of the European Bioinformatics Institute. “It’s also incredibly small, dense and does not need any power for storage, so shipping and keeping it is easy.” Could DNA store man-made data? Researchers say yes.

Scientists have synthesized DNA with encoded text, images, and audio files, much as digital media stores data. The researchers were later able to decode the stored information with 100 percent accuracy. Scientists believe that in time, using this method, 0.04 ounce (1 g) of artificial DNA could store the data of some 3,000,000 CDs and that all this information could be preserved for hundreds if not thousands of years. Potentially, this system could store the whole world’s digital archive. DNA has thus been dubbed “the ultimate hard drive.”

What do you think? Could the storage capacity of DNA have come about by evolution? Or was it designed?"

The Storage Capacity of DNA — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

 

[Sapiens]

You really need to learn to do two things: 1) come up with new material rather than mouldy bait. 2) Check for extensive debunking of your material before you post.

Every example you have tried is tried and false horse pucky that has been extensively debunked in the scientific literature and/or a court of law. So stop wasting everyone's time and do your homework before you shoot off your mouth.

 

[Deeje]

You really need to learn to do two things: 1) come up with new material rather than mouldy bait. 2) Check for extensive debunking of your material before you post.

1) I'd have to know if the bait was indeed mouldy or simply being declared such by an argumentative old legend in his own lunchbox.

2) Who was doing the debunking. The "don't you know who I am" approach doesn't work for me...sorry. You are just an anonymous person an an internet forum.
The Creator is not impressed by credentials or an elevated opinion of one's education....

Every example you have tried is tried and false horse pucky that has been extensively debunked in the scientific literature and/or a court of law. So stop wasting everyone's time and do your homework before you shoot off your mouth.

That is your learned opinion and it is duly noted.

......in case anyone was impressed.

If you find my posts a waste of your precious time....then don't read them. Is that a complicated solution to the problem?

 

[SkepticThinker]

neither can transcend the logic and mathematics of information systems, that's why they demonstrate the same characteristics, leave the same historical record, and why you can't tell which I'm describing in the analogies

It's obvious which one you are describing which is the reason I pointed out that your comparisons don't work.

 

[SkepticThinker]

How about this then.....

The Storage Capacity of DNA

"COMPUTER users generate enormous amounts of digital data that has to be stored for access as needed. Scientists are hoping to revolutionize current methods for digital storage by imitating a far superior data-storage system found in nature—DNA.

Consider: DNA, found in living cells, holds billions of pieces of biological information. “We can extract it from bones of woolly mammoths . . . and make sense of it,” says Nick Goldman of the European Bioinformatics Institute. “It’s also incredibly small, dense and does not need any power for storage, so shipping and keeping it is easy.” Could DNA store man-made data? Researchers say yes.

Scientists have synthesized DNA with encoded text, images, and audio files, much as digital media stores data. The researchers were later able to decode the stored information with 100 percent accuracy. Scientists believe that in time, using this method, 0.04 ounce (1 g) of artificial DNA could store the data of some 3,000,000 CDs and that all this information could be preserved for hundreds if not thousands of years. Potentially, this system could store the whole world’s digital archive. DNA has thus been dubbed “the ultimate hard drive.”

What do you think? Could the storage capacity of DNA have come about by evolution? Or was it designed?"

The Storage Capacity of DNA — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

CF003: Information assembling itself

 

[metis]

Logically, in order to confirm "intelligent design", one would have to establish that there's an "intelligence" to begin with. Even if that were possible, how does one go about explaining things like miscarriages and birth defects?

A typical response to the latter is "original sin", namely that Adam's & Eve's eating of the "forbidden fruit" cause all these defects to occur. OK, if that's the case, then how does one explain miscarriages and defects that occur in animals? plants? If a kangaroo baby dies because of a severe birth defect, is that because Adam and Eve sinned? How does that make any sense? God kills other animals because a couple of humans sinned? even plants?

OTOH, the fact that we all have been brought through an evolutionary process makes a great deal of sense because sometimes things go wrong genetically. Does this mean there cannot be a god or gods that maybe started it all? Of course not, but I can't know which it may be since I'm not 13.7 billion years old. Getting closer though.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It's obvious which one you are describing which is the reason I pointed out that your comparisons don't work.

we look at the record and see shared traits, gaps, jumps, some redundant features and dead ends even, but a general progression towards more complexity and sophistication over time.

What does that suggest to you?

 

[SkepticThinker]

we look at the record and see shared traits, gaps, jumps, some redundant features and dead ends even, but a general progression towards more complexity and sophistication over time.

What does that suggest to you?

That biological organisms evolve.

 

[Sapiens]

1) I'd have to know if the bait was indeed mouldy or simply being declared such by an argumentative old legend in his own lunchbox.

In order to know that you'd have to have checked for effective debunking ... it's there, lots of it, google is your friend.

2) Who was doing the debunking. The "don't you know who I am" approach doesn't work for me...sorry. You are just an anonymous person an an internet forum.

I don't recall making any suggestion that I was doing the debunking, that's (once again) making the incorrect assumption of a level playing field. Try looking at Ken Miller's debunking of Behe's claptrap, for a start.

The Creator is not impressed by credentials or an elevated opinion of one's education....


That is your learned opinion and it is duly noted.

......in case anyone was impressed.

We have not explored my opinions on the clotting cascade or information theory so I find it difficult to understand what you are posting except on the basis of ad hominum attack.

If you find my posts a waste of your precious time....then don't read them. Is that a complicated solution to the problem?

I likely would do just that if you stuck to the facts rather than just tried to make your case on the basis of insulting others.

 

[gnostic]

2) Check for extensive debunking of your material before you post.

Every example you have tried is tried and false horse pucky that has been extensively debunked in the scientific literature and/or a court of law. So stop wasting everyone's time and do your homework before you shoot off your mouth.

2) Who was doing the debunking. The "don't you know who I am" approach doesn't work for me...sorry. You are just an anonymous person an an internet forum.
The Creator is not impressed by credentials or an elevated opinion of one's education....

Are you calling yourself - "The Creator" now?

And how do you know what the Creator think or do?

Are you the mouthpiece or spokeswoman for the Creator? Are you a prophetess or apostle, Deeje?

What credentials or authority that you have, to say what is or isn't science? Why should anyone believe a single word you have to say?

Your arrogance precedes you.

 

[gnostic]

...why @Deeje wants to change the subject from shells.

Seriously, @Deeje, didn't the responses to the last article cause you any doubts about their accuracy?

No, but I do question the nit-picking mentality of some responders.....

If there was nothing to pick, they would just think up a negative for something to do.

Whatever floats your boat.

No one said you had to agree....did they?

What a hypocrite you are, deeje!

You do realise that you accusing others of nitpicking, but have you ever reflected on many of your replies?

Almost most of your replies are nitpicking and cherry picking. That's what you do most of the times.

You are quick to find faults with others, but you don't even realise that you have your own faults that you accuse others of having.

Are you blind to your own hypocrisy?

 

[Olinda]

No, but I do question the nit-picking mentality of some responders.....

Well, it's certainly true that I tend to be more 'pedantic' or 'precise' than you. Something to be proud of, so thanks.
I don't understand your angry little emoticon, since I neither shouted nor swore.

My point, however, was nothing to do with pedantry, but to ask you to either defend the accuracy of your source, or to admit its error. Instead, you quoted two more mini-articles from the same source and said that you had no doubts of its accuracy.

And that's why we "nit-pick" the "information" you provide. It is not reliable and often does not provide its own sources.

Quantity of information and posting is no substitute for quality.