There's not enough time in the world for mutations to create new proteins

a reply to: cooperton

Every biological organism on this planet of proof, as evident in the evolutionary timeline within DNA.

Where's your proof?

originally posted by: TerraLiga
a reply to: cooperton

Every biological organism on this planet of proof, as evident in the evolutionary timeline within DNA.

What a strange way to refer to the type of genetic 'evidence' Dawkins is misrepresenting below (key response after 3:00 concerning "gene tree discordance"):

Zooming in on Dawkins' claim* responded to after 3:00 above (*: that you get the same evolutionary tree if you analyze different genes, so that you do not get "gene tree discordance"):

originally posted by: TerraLiga
a reply to: cooperton

Every biological organism on this planet of proof, as evident in the evolutionary timeline within DNA.

Where's your proof?

Just another generic answer with no empirical proof to support what you're saying.

On the other hand, intelligent design is reinforced by the concept of biomimicry. We mimic biological designs to enhance human designs. Take for example the swimsuit that replicates the design of shark skin... When human design replicates God's design, it optimizes functionality

a reply to: cooperton

Take for example the swimsuit that replicates the design of shark skin... When human design replicates God's design, it optimizes functionality

Who knew the guy in the sky was a fashion designer too!

originally posted by: Phantom423

Who knew the guy in the sky was a fashion designer too!

Oh look you edited some early 2000's clip art in microsoft paint. Impressive! But for those actually interested in science here's what shark skin looks like under a scanning electron microscope (SEM):



The biomimicry involves making a swimsuit that is capable of replicating these microscopic grooves found as shark skin. "Fastskin", a bathing suit meant to replicate shark skin, was worn by Michael Phelps when he broke the record for number of gold medals in an olympic games. Human design that replicates God's biological design is able to amplify engineering.

a reply to: cooperton

Now whether or not evolutionary processes designed the shark skin to what it has become today or the design was from another intelligent source which has remained unchanged throughout history could be argued.

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: cooperton

Now whether or not evolutionary processes designed the shark skin to what it has become today or the design was from another intelligent source which has remained unchanged throughout history could be argued.

So engineering firms should just rely on random chance from here on forward to make archetypal designs?
Go in a junk yard and find an iphone from the future?
Let your dog do your homework to have it accidentally discover the resolution of quantum physics and relativity theory?
Have an ape write the next Harry Potter book?
Use a Ouiji board to update the US constitution?
Punch someone in the face to give them X-ray vision?

Guys get real, biology has the best designs because it is designed.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TerraLiga
a reply to: cooperton

Every biological organism on this planet of proof, as evident in the evolutionary timeline within DNA.

Where's your proof?

Just another generic answer with no empirical proof to support what you're saying.

What's good for the goose...
Show me your empirical evidence for your god.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: cooperton

Now whether or not evolutionary processes designed the shark skin to what it has become today or the design was from another intelligent source which has remained unchanged throughout history could be argued.

So engineering firms should just rely on random chance from here on forward to make archetypal designs?
Go in a junk yard and find an iphone from the future?
Let your dog do your homework to have it accidentally discover the resolution of quantum physics and relativity theory?
Have an ape write the next Harry Potter book?
Use a Ouiji board to update the US constitution?
Punch someone in the face to give them X-ray vision?

Guys get real, biology has the best designs because it is designed.

But the question is what designed it? Design by nature (is God's hand nature?), evolutionary design (natural processes not God-related?), environmental design (man-made design?)?

originally posted by: TerraLiga

Show me your empirical evidence for your god.

Show me a working model for abiogenesis. If intelligent scientists are incapable of doing it, then certainly there it requires a greater intelligence, rather than a total lack of it

originally posted by: quintessentone

But the question is what designed it? Design by nature (is God's hand nature?), evolutionary design (natural processes not God-related?), environmental design (man-made design?)?

God always existed, so therefore never had to come into existence. A truly eternal being would not be bound by time, beginnings and ends. Such is the case

a reply to: cooperton
You sure use the word "god" a lot for someone who tried to claim they are not saying "god did it"

God literally warned us this was the case....

No child of God can be taken out of God's hands.

When human design replicates God's design, it optimizes functionality

Human design that replicates God's biological design is able to amplify engineering

God always existed, so therefore never had to come into existence. A truly eternal being would not be bound by time, beginnings and ends. Such is the case

Seems to me like you are saying "god did it", such is the case. Is it though?

originally posted by: daskakik
You sure use the word "god" a lot for someone who tried to claim they are not saying "god did it"

No that is exactly what I am claiming. God did it. I know this is the case because biology and cosmology are clearly designed constructs that allow the perpetuity of life.

a reply to: cooperton

No that is exactly what I am claiming. God did it.

Seems to contradict:

Nowhere did I claim it must have been God because God did it.

Basically you are saying, since at this point man can't explain to me how/why, that is called a gap in our understanding, I can only assume it was god.

That is why it is called the "god of the gaps" fallacy.

originally posted by: daskakik

Seems to contradict when you said "Nowhere did I claim it must have been God because God did it."

Only because you deleted the part where I explain why I think God did it. I don't believe God did it because God must have done it, I believe God did it because this world is clearly an intelligent contrivance. Big difference. It's not blind faith, it is empirical assessment of reality.

Basically you are saying, since at this point man can't explain to me how/why, that is called a gap in our understanding, I can only assume it was god.

That is why it is called the "god of the gaps" fallacy.

No I have evidence for God doing it, because the world indicates design from the micro to the macro scale. "Evolution did it" is the true blind god of the gaps theory, since it is both empirically untestable, and against the clear logical nature of biological organisms.

originally posted by: cooperton
Only because you deleted the part where I explain why I think God did it. I don't believe God did it because God must have done it, I believe God did it because this world is clearly an intelligent contrivance. Big difference. It's not blind faith, it is empirical assessment of reality.

Sorry, that is where the "I don't believe in chance" part I stated earlier comes into play. Why "you" think god did it is because "we" don't have an answer, we have a gap.

No I have evidence for God doing it, because the world indicates design from the micro to the macro scale. "Evolution did it" is the true blind god of the gaps theory, since it is both empirically untestable, and against the clear logical nature of biological organisms.

No, you have an assumption based on a lack of understanding. An argument from ignorance.

You want to claim "evolution did it" is in he same boat? Fine, but that doesn't prove your claim either, so you don't really have anything backing your claim up except your "blind faith" that it couldn't have happened by chance.

So, no, you don't have evidence of god doing it.

a reply to: cooperton

Nobody here has the answers.

originally posted by: quintessentone

Nobody here has the answers.

Many people here who believe in evolutionary have touted at one point that it is verified fact.

Regardless, we may not have absolute verifiable answers, but we have verifiable clues. When our bodies contain technology that is beyond our design capabilities then yeah its a very reasonable hypothesis to suppose it was in fact designed.

Look at the improbability presented in the OP regarding one protein active site being formed. that is peer-reviewed probability, not a probability I made up

"the estimated prevalence of plausible hydropathic patterns (for any fold) and of relevant folds for particular functions, this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10e77, adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences."
source

a reply to: cooperton

When our bodies contain technology that is beyond our design capabilities then yeah its a very reasonable hypothesis to suppose it was in fact designed.

When stone age people experienced thunder and lightning they thought it was the gods too. And that's exactly your mindset - you don't understand it, you can't reproduce it, so it's a "designer" (don't forget the swim trunks!)

All that says is that you're ignorant and lazy. Humans have come a long way, baby - no magic wand required.

originally posted by: Phantom423

When stone age people experienced thunder and lightning they thought it was the gods too.

They believed that earthly elements have an intelligence to them, which they referred to as gods. I don't blame them for this idea, everything is so precisely fine-tuned, such as the ability for water to literally hover over the earth in the form of clouds to give sustenance to plants. Yes I know you think this is due to dumb luck, but there are some people who aren't that dumb.

And that's exactly your mindset - you don't understand it, you can't reproduce it, so it's a "designer"

You dont understand it, nor can you reproduce it, so for some reason you assume it was an unintelligent accident. By it's own definition, that is the most unintelligent possible solution on the origin of intelligible things..

All that says is that you're ignorant and lazy. Humans have come a long way, baby

And yet you're still poorly using microsoft paint and clipart

originally posted by: daskakik

you don't really have anything backing your claim up except your "blind faith"

No that's not true. A hypothesis starts by analyzing observable data. I base my hypothesis of an intelligent designer on the fact that cellular machinery in biological organisms replicates the functions of human-designed machines.