The Laws of Physics support Intelligent Design

originally posted by: sarcasticcritic
a reply to: ErosA433

was saying how many died while trying to evolve a heart and circulation system
if they required it to live in the first place?

were they just born one day with a fully functioning heart?

if they were already alive, why need a heart?

how could you evolve a heart if you required one to live

does this clarify what i am trying to ask?

ErosA433 did a great job explaining that evolution doesn't occur in huge jumps like a complex organ suddenly appears, it's lots of little baby steps, which he explains for the eye but you're still asking almost the same questions implying big jumps, even after his explanation about lots of small steps. So it almost seems like you don't understand his answer about the eye at all.

Complex organs don't suddenly appear, there are lots of small steps in the process of evolution of hearts and other complex organs as Eros explained. This discusses heart evolution specifically:

The vertebrate heart: an evolutionary perspective

One major difference that is apparent in the bilaterian and absent in the cnidarians is the presence of a third germ layer called mesoderm, of which the heart and circulatory system is one of its greatest achievements (Gilbert, 2000). Yet, as a jellyfish enters its reproductive stage, nerve cells, sensory cells, as well as specialised non-myoepithelial cells including striated cells can be found in a layer (Bishopric, 2005) called entocodon that separates away from the ectoderm. Entocodon of the cnidarians is comparable to the mesodermal germ layer found in bilaterian animals. Specific genes have been isolated in the jellyfish species Podocoryne carnea including Brachyury, Mef2, and Snail which have been shown to play a role in myogenesis (Spring et al. 2002), leading to the conclusion that these different genes may be the primordial beginnings of the heart and circulatory system that we see in later bilaterian species.

So 600 million years ago or so, jellyfish didn't need a circulatory system, so they didn't need a heart to live, but they did have a system called the entocodon. What the paper above is suggesting is that it appears there's a genetic link between the Jellyfish's entocodon, and the appearance of a mesoderm leading to a heart. So the heart didn't just suddenly appear, it would probably be something like gradual changes to the entocodon, leading to the mesoderm and heart.

originally posted by: sarcasticcritic
a reply to: ErosA433

was saying how many died while trying to evolve a heart and circulation system
if they required it to live in the first place?

For this to be at all a relevant question, it has to have some resemblance of reality or based in reality. As it is not, lets give you a number, and a reason i come to this number... which is a damn sight more thought than any of you seem to be putting into this thread from the 'god did it all, the end' party.

How many animals died trying to evolve a heart and circulation system
ZERO
Why?
Because an animal doesn't try to evolve, it evolves due to genetic mutation that requires many generations. The animals (most likely jelly fish as pointed out by Arbitrageur, lived out their lives, produced offspring many times. They didnt DIE trying.

were they just born one day with a fully functioning heart?

No, see above. Was you just born one day believing god created all things or did someone indoctrinate you?

if they were already alive, why need a heart?

how could you evolve a heart if you required one to live

does this clarify what i am trying to ask?

Nope not at all, because you are clearly not understanding what i said at all, or want to at all consider that your first question is an utter farse that exposes your extreme lack of understanding of the science you are attempting to say doesn't work.

See the funny part about the sky daddy crowd is that they love to quote scripture, while ignoring all of the stuff that makes utterly no sense at all. Ask questions about it and you all just hand wave it away by saying "its symbolic its more like a showing a moral theory than the truth" Where as when its something you want to play connect the dots with, you think its reality itself.

This is science and tech... its an interesting discussion only when its done by people who actually want a discussion rather than trying to bring the general intelligence down with sky daddy stories.

a reply to: neoholographic

No one can “prove you wrong” because you engage in absurd sophistry, circular reasoning and fluid definitions. Presumably they just bow out because it is meaningless to discuss with someone engaging in bad faith argument to achieve the end of “GOD DID IT”

a reply to: Ohanka

Basically this... lack of engagement is not because one is right, but because we have too often been expending excessive energy to talk some reality into people only to get back absolute non-logic, nonsense responses.

originally posted by: Ohanka
Presumably they just bow out because it is meaningless to discuss with someone engaging in bad faith argument to achieve the end of “GOD DID IT”

It is equally futile to argue with the people who say "evolution did it", despite no examples of populations of organisms ever evolving into something new. You would expect by now E. Coli (a prokaryote) to have become any other kind of prokaryote in a laboratory setting, especially after 75,000 generations, but E. Coli remains E. Coli.

Your faith in unintelligent design is no different than our faith in intelligent design. One refuses the possibility of the involvement of intelligence in the origin of intelligent beings, whereas the other fully accepts that intelligence begets intelligence.

originally posted by: ErosA433

Because an animal doesn't try to evolve, it evolves due to genetic mutation that requires many generations. The animals (most likely jelly fish as pointed out by Arbitrageur, lived out their lives, produced offspring many times. They didnt DIE trying.

In theory sure, but in reality this has never been observed. You simply believe it can happen, that is, an organism developing a primordial heart due to genetic mutations.

a reply to: cooperton

It is equally futile to argue with the people who say "evolution did it", despite no examples of populations of organisms ever evolving into something new. You would expect by now E. Coli (a prokaryote) to have become any other kind of prokaryote in a laboratory setting, especially after 75,000 generations, but E. Coli remains E. Coli.

Your faith in unintelligent design is no different than our faith in intelligent design. One refuses the possibility of the involvement of intelligence in the origin of intelligent beings, whereas the other fully accepts that intelligence begets intelligence.

You have had why this particular line of reasoning is incorrect explained many times in numerous threads. I lack both the desire & the ability to repeat others who were more capable & knowledgeable than myself.

Plus there is no "faith in unintelligent design". Nor is there "unintelligent design" (excluding the designers of modern corporate logos. Minimalism is a curse upon mankind) You just made that up.

a reply to: cooperton

Except we totally have seen it in action... anti-biotic resistance is a perfect example of evolution.

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: cooperton

Except we totally have seen it in action... anti-biotic resistance is a perfect example of evolution.

Ahh yes this is the most specious "proof" yet. Specious means superficially plausible, but actually wrong. This is because this phenomenon is now known to be allowed by increasing the expression of detox pumps through epigenetic alteration in the microbes genome, thereby allowing it to gradually handle a higher toxic load. This is a mechanism that is already present in the organism. This was made obvious by the fact that this developing antibiotic resistance is quickly reversible when the antibiotic is removed, which is a hallmark of epigenetic inheritance, rather than evolution.

link

originally posted by: Ohanka

You have had why this particular line of reasoning is incorrect explained many times in numerous threads. I lack both the desire & the ability to repeat others who were more capable & knowledgeable than myself.

No there's merely a refusal to accept that there is no empirical evidence for evolution actually being able to happen. You guys keep doubling down pretending it's science but it is mere faith

Plus there is no "faith in unintelligent design". Nor is there "unintelligent design" (excluding the designers of modern corporate logos. Minimalism is a curse upon mankind) You just made that up.

It was a quip. You believe there was no intelligence involved in the culmination of Intelligent beings.

a reply to: cooperton

Evolution is in everything, everywhere. Like the evolution of computers, from huge punch card calculators to our smartphones where the machine parts are so tiny they fit in your pocket.
Or society and culture, politics, industrty, economy, science... you can see things develop and change over time everywhere.
If you accept this as universal concept it is much more convincing than the physics laws pointing to a designed universe. Because Evolution as a concept is observable, the Design is not.

Even the Laws you like to see as proof of Design are in reality constantly in Evolution.

a reply to: cooperton

Specious... is exactly your whole involvement in this thread, none of your arguments are actually correct... you have not at all proven anything, none of your arguments at all prove that there is any intelligence in creation of anything... you still ignored my comment about the recurrent laryngeal nerve...

please keep ignoring it... while constantly demanding our attention.

so explain the recurrent laryngeal nerve, seen across species, seen to be utterly stupid in length and direction... explain that one in 'gods infinite wisdom' who can apparently create nanomachines to do act as a hydrogen fuel cell, but apparently can't in that same wisdom... crate a nerve to take the shortest path...

amazing how it comes full circle.

a reply to: cooperton

There is ample evidence, you just dismiss it out of hand because it contradicts your "Hebrew scholars" as you put it.

Scientists (which I am not) debate this less and less as your typical biologist has better things to do than argue matters of theology and philosophy (which they are not experts in) to defend a scientific fact whose rejection is limited to the evangelical movement in the United States.

The only times it needs to be debated is when religious groups push their intellectual vandalism at getting scientific fact removed from schools and replaced by religious dogma.

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: cooperton

Specious... is exactly your whole involvement in this thread, none of your arguments are actually correct...

But you concede that your video you posted is epigenetic Inheritance and not evolution right?

so explain the recurrent laryngeal nerve, seen across species, seen to be utterly stupid in length and direction... explain that one in 'gods infinite wisdom' who can apparently create nanomachines to do act as a hydrogen fuel cell, but apparently can't in that same wisdom... crate a nerve to take the shortest path...

amazing how it comes full circle.

The superior laryngeal nerve offers quick access to regions of the brain, whereas the recurrent laryngeal nerve is innervating the trachea and esophagus, which likely helps establish some sort of feedback loop in coordination with the larynx. It may even have yet to be discovered innervations that detect if the lungs are oxygen deprived, or other relevant physiological mechanisms.

originally posted by: Peeple

Even the Laws you like to see as proof of Design are in reality constantly in Evolution.

Just because progress occurs doesn't mean humans evolved from smaller organisms. Growth is inevitable, but the evidence shows me we didn't come evolve from primordial species

a reply to: cooperton

evolved from smaller organisms

please sit down for this, because:

you are ca. 37.2 trillion 'smaller organisms', we call them cells and they 'grew' mostly by starting cooperations to form bigger & more complex entities such as you.

originally posted by: Peeple

please sit down for this, because:

you are ca. 37.2 trillion 'smaller organisms', we call them cells and they 'grew' mostly by starting cooperations to form bigger & more complex entities such as you.

According to the genetic code that shows them how to assemble properly to form a large biological being... It's absolutely absurd, just from a surface level, no real data needed for this one, just common sense, that random chance could ever generate mutations that would allow what is essentially a colony of trillions of cells forming together to make a bi-pedal self-aware biological supercomputer.

We don't even know how most of these cues work, such as cell differentiation, or how they know where to go and which specific cell they should turn into from the stem cell as the over-arching organism develops. In the brain for example these developing neural cells will literally climb neural scaffolding to allocate to their specific locations... wtf is telling it to do this??? How do they know where to go???

Over 800,000 MILES **MILES** of interconnected neural circuitry compacted into your brain to allow the human experience and you think this could have happened by accident, without Intelligence?!

a reply to: cooperton

which is why the theory of evolution so elegant: it didn't pop into existence as super complex entity, it evolved over time. Building and growing as you acknowledged earlier is how things work.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: cooperton

which is why the theory of evolution so elegant: it didn't pop into existence as super complex entity, it evolved over time. Building and growing as you acknowledged earlier is how things work.

From the makers of "God did it", bring you "time did it". You all are welcome to believe 800,000 miles of neural circuitry can wire itself through random mutation over a billion years. Let's agree to disagree, at least we both believe in miracles.

a reply to: cooperton

Did I say 'time did it'? I don't think so.
I am pretty sure I said cells are doing it.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: cooperton

Did I say 'time did it'? I don't think so.
I am pretty sure I said cells are doing it.

You said "over time".

But also, "Cells did it", without an actual mechanism as to how they can mutate and create new functional neuronal mass that is able to facilitate new information and sensory processing centers, is just as faith-based as "God did it".

a reply to: cooperton

horizontal gene transfer for one. Colony formation is also something we can observe. some microorganisms can incorporate others like algae f.e. changing how they function and aquire food. specialisation in colonies...
it's all there if you ask me, for details please contact the microbiologist you trust.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: cooperton

horizontal gene transfer for one. Colony formation is also something we can observe. some microorganisms can incorporate others like algae f.e. changing how they function and aquire food. specialisation in colonies...
it's all there if you ask me, for details please contact the microbiologist you trust.

Pigs can jump, but that doesn't mean they can fly.