1221 replies to this topic

[shadowhawk]

It is much more complicated than just saying it is so.  Evidence.  http://www.evolution...like092161.html

 

[brianjakub]

 

Sorry I didn't mean to offend you addx. I am stating the fact that, a male version of a species and a female version of a species, both had to slowly develope complex reproductive organs over generations of evolution, with neither sex knowing it was evolving while it was reproducing asexually

Sex was "optional" in the beginning - it does not mean it was not performed. It just wasn't very adaptive for species to abandon asexual reproduction completely. Sex was used to increase fitness of the species - which is optional in essence. So sexual reproduction evolved as optional until it evolved enough and became adaptive enough for asexual to be abandoned.

 

, to finally reach a final evolutionary leap one day in the future when they both stop reproducing asexually and copulate with some opposite sex version of the same species and reproduce heterosexually. How did they know how to use reproductive organs that up until they finally evolved to an operational level were completely useless and unusable.

They were operational the entire time.

Sexual intercourse exists in single cell life forms. They have no sexual organs - only a single cell. So, sex existed and was performed throughout the evolution of sexual organs. Animals did not evolve the entire reproductive tract and then suddenly realised they had it as you're trying to present it.

Also, while single cell sexual reproduction existed, behavior that leads towards it was lacking. Cells would "accidentaly" find themselves in the vincinity of other same species cells and, if resources allow it, would sexually reproduce. But since cells pretty much lack the ability to actively seek out other cells to have sex with - it would be "unwise" for them to abandon asexual reproduction - the specied would go extinct.
Only after evolving behavior of finding others to copulate, it became feasible to abandon asexual reproduction. The behavior to find others would evolve slowly because sexual reproduction does improve fitness - and so the better you are able at finding others - the better you are able to improve fitness of the species - until the ability to find others became reliable enough to abandon asexual reproduction.
The behavior of finding others could not evolve properly in single cell life forms, but required multicellularity - limbs to move - senses to detect. Multicellularity however causes cells of the body to differentiate into special tissues which causes them to lose ability to "have sex" - so a "germ" cell line had to be preserved in some part of the body (in humans testes and ovaries). This part of the body is the root of genitalia evolution.

 

I am just asking for a logical explanation. Leaving omnipotence and prayer aside, I think it requires a high level of intelligence and planning to pull that off even if that intelligence is working inside the bounds of evolution. I am saying we, because I want to offer up an actual theory that we can discuss. I can guarantee you haven't heard this one before. If you are not willing to even discuss it, I guess I can't force you, but maybe someone else would like to.

I stated that that early forms of life were optionally sexual, were often hermaphrodite or could change sex with circumstances, some fish change sex as a part of their life course, first they're female, then male. You don't seem interested at all in this but seem to just want to repeat ad nauseam that you find evolution of sexual organs improbable and you can't offer anything towards that claim except misconceptions about how evolution proceeds.

 

  

So you propose that while a single celled asexual reproducing animal evolved to a multi-cellular multi-organ heterosexually reproducing animals, they practiced having sex just to stay in shape till their sexual organs developed enough to actually reproduce heterosexually.  Then they stopped reproducing asexually and started having heterosexual sex to reproduce.  My question is, "when did sex evolve into something more than staying fit and when did it become fun?":)  I think you have a very well educated, and intelligent proposal, but you are making a lot of unsubstantiated suppositions.  Your only evidence that we can see today is the vast variety of life forms and forms of reproduction and your educated proposal that the transitions happened the way you say, but little physical or laboratory evidence to substantiate it.  I will grant you that lack of evidence does not make it any less intelligent of a proposal, just harder to prove it to be a fact.  I find your proposal improbable because statistical analysis does that,  But I'm not saying it's impossible, just improbable enough to develop parallel theories.  So for now, I'm ready to drop it.  

 

I would like to make a parallel intellectual proposal, with physical evidence, that I think can solve some of statistical problems with ID.  But, for this to work logically the proposed designer needs to think logically.  With all due respect, I ask you to at least accept that as a possibility and we can proceed to discuss it. 

[addx]

So you propose that while a single celled asexual reproducing animal evolved to a multi-cellular multi-organ heterosexually reproducing animals, they practiced having sex just to stay in shape till their sexual organs developed enough to actually reproduce heterosexually.  Then they stopped reproducing asexually and started having heterosexual sex to reproduce.  My question is, "when did sex evolve into something more than staying fit and when did it become fun?":)

No, increasing fitness means increasing fitness of the species (through improved progeny). Since you're trying to discuss evolution you should at least learn the most basic terminology.

http://en.wikipedia....tness_(biology)

This means that they practiced having sex for fitness of the species - meaning that sex always produced progeny during the entire evolution of it. It was not to "stay in shape" individually(as in excercise) but to produce better progeny (fusing/joining better genes from both partners). This means that sex increased the fitness of the species which means that behavior that leads towards sex was selected for (species that evolved to do it better outperformed other species which compete for same resources) - meaning there was a steady evolutionary drive(payoff) to evolve sexual approach behavior.

You have to understand that sexual organs initially were just sort-of-limbs that were used to hold germline cells and position/spray/release haploid cells towards the opposite sex haploid cells. Do you know how fish procreate for example?

Since sexual reproduction is in the interest of progeny, not the individuals themselves - it is the most basic form of observed altruism from which all observed altruism evolved. This also means that from the inception of sexual reproduction, each individual has an inbuilt drive to perform it(chemical payoff) even though it is of no use to him individually, otherwise the species would suffer an extinction risk. This inbuilt drive to perform it evolved into the human "sexual drive" and also "sexual pleasure". But it was there in some form since its inception in single cell life forms.

Edited by addx, 05 March 2015 - 08:51 AM.

[addx]

It is much more complicated than just saying it is so.  Evidence.  http://www.evolution...like092161.html

When will you stop reading "science for kids"?

Evolution as a theory has overwhelming evidence, I'm just trying to fix your misconceptions. I do not need to provide evidence for evolution, it has been done by scientists better than you or me.


I.D. as a theory depends solely on people AGREEING life LOOKS designed. I.D. is also unfalsifiable making it ridiculous in the eyes of science.

This is in no way a scientific proposal. Scientists do not AGREE on stuff, they have to empirically prove them. Evolution is repeatedly observed in many experiments. Design is not.

Just asking people to agree and providing countless (and absurd) analogies is in no way a scientific method. It has no place in science. Simple as that.

Edited by addx, 05 March 2015 - 09:05 AM.

[platypus]

Cre(a)ti(o)nists have experienced 150 years of failures. Apparently they are dense enough not to realize that their premise in false? 

[brianjakub]

 

So you propose that while a single celled asexual reproducing animal evolved to a multi-cellular multi-organ heterosexually reproducing animals, they practiced having sex just to stay in shape till their sexual organs developed enough to actually reproduce heterosexually.  Then they stopped reproducing asexually and started having heterosexual sex to reproduce.  My question is, "when did sex evolve into something more than staying fit and when did it become fun?":)

No, increasing fitness means increasing fitness of the species (through improved progeny). Since you're trying to discuss evolution you should at least learn the most basic terminology.

http://en.wikipedia....tness_(biology)

This means that they practiced having sex for fitness of the species - meaning that sex always produced progeny during the entire evolution of it. It was not to "stay in shape" individually(as in excercise) but to produce better progeny (fusing/joining better genes from both partners). This means that sex increased the fitness of the species which means that behavior that leads towards sex was selected for (species that evolved to do it better outperformed other species which compete for same resources) - meaning there was a steady evolutionary drive(payoff) to evolve sexual approach behavior.

You have to understand that sexual organs initially were just sort-of-limbs that were used to hold germline cells and position/spray/release haploid cells towards the opposite sex haploid cells. Do you know how fish procreate for example?

Since sexual reproduction is in the interest of progeny, not the individuals themselves - it is the most basic form of observed altruism from which all observed altruism evolved. This also means that from the inception of sexual reproduction, each individual has an inbuilt drive to perform it(chemical payoff) even though it is of no use to him individually, otherwise the species would suffer an extinction risk. This inbuilt drive to perform it evolved into the human "sexual drive" and also "sexual pleasure". But it was there in some form since its inception in single cell life forms.

 

I knew you were talking about evolutionary fitness.  I was using humor to make a point, I'm sorry if it detracted from the discussion.  Improved evolutionary fitness through natural selection implies, that nature is storing genetic information in the dna code and in the physical structure of an animal, that to an intelligent observer at that moment of evolution, does not add any evolutionary fitness which by definition should improve the ability of the species to survive, rather than the original version of the species, being the surviving version of that particular species.  For nature to select for multiple generations, a genetic version that does not add to the species ability to survive until some future date when the sexual organs are done evolving, empirically implies nature is planning for the future.  Planning for the future by definition requires intelligence.  If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it might be a duck.  I think it is.  There can be things that walk like a and quack like a duck that aren't ducks i suppose, and you have the right to believe in them.

 

Can we quit talking about each others beliefs, and talk about an alternative theory that attempts to explain the origin of the diverse forms of life we observe today from a different perspective.  The purpose of this will not be to disprove Darwinian evolutionary theory but to provide and discuss an alternative theory.

 

You proposed a theory that suggested no intelligent design and we discussed it at great length.  Can I propose, and we discuss an ID proposal now?  

[addx]

So you propose that while a single celled asexual reproducing animal evolved to a multi-cellular multi-organ heterosexually reproducing animals, they practiced having sex just to stay in shape till their sexual organs developed enough to actually reproduce heterosexually.  Then they stopped reproducing asexually and started having heterosexual sex to reproduce.  My question is, "when did sex evolve into something more than staying fit and when did it become fun?":)

No, increasing fitness means increasing fitness of the species (through improved progeny). Since you're trying to discuss evolution you should at least learn the most basic terminology.

http://en.wikipedia....tness_(biology)

This means that they practiced having sex for fitness of the species - meaning that sex always produced progeny during the entire evolution of it. It was not to "stay in shape" individually(as in excercise) but to produce better progeny (fusing/joining better genes from both partners). This means that sex increased the fitness of the species which means that behavior that leads towards sex was selected for (species that evolved to do it better outperformed other species which compete for same resources) - meaning there was a steady evolutionary drive(payoff) to evolve sexual approach behavior.

You have to understand that sexual organs initially were just sort-of-limbs that were used to hold germline cells and position/spray/release haploid cells towards the opposite sex haploid cells. Do you know how fish procreate for example?

Since sexual reproduction is in the interest of progeny, not the individuals themselves - it is the most basic form of observed altruism from which all observed altruism evolved. This also means that from the inception of sexual reproduction, each individual has an inbuilt drive to perform it(chemical payoff) even though it is of no use to him individually, otherwise the species would suffer an extinction risk. This inbuilt drive to perform it evolved into the human "sexual drive" and also "sexual pleasure". But it was there in some form since its inception in single cell life forms.

I knew you were talking about evolutionary fitness.  I was using humor to make a point, I'm sorry if it detracted from the discussion.  Improved evolutionary fitness through natural selection implies, that nature is storing genetic information in the dna code and in the physical structure of an animal, that to an intelligent observer at that moment of evolution, does not add any evolutionary fitness which by definition should improve the ability of the species to survive, rather than the original version of the species, being the surviving version of that particular species.  For nature to select for multiple generations, a genetic version that does not add to the species ability to survive until some future date when the sexual organs are done evolving, empirically implies nature is planning for the future.  Planning for the future by definition requires intelligence.  If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it might be a duck.  I think it is.  There can be things that walk like a and quack like a duck that aren't ducks i suppose, and you have the right to believe in them.
 
Can we quit talking about each others beliefs, and talk about an alternative theory that attempts to explain the origin of the diverse forms of life we observe today from a different perspective.  The purpose of this will not be to disprove Darwinian evolutionary theory but to provide and discuss an alternative theory.
 
You proposed a theory that suggested no intelligent design and we discussed it at great length.  Can I propose, and we discuss an ID proposal now?

We are discussing I.D. and you keep proposing "planning of genitalia" - this is what we are discussing, don't get smart with me. Rather go learn evolutionary terminology.

You pretend to accept the input but in fact completely ignore it and go on again and again to propose your misconceived 'planning of genitalia' as if nothing has been said.

And we are discussing your misconceptions and not "each others beleifs". Calling explanations of evolution a beleif and ranking it the same as your I.D. ideas is quite frankly offending - because I.D. has literally no empirical proof while evolution has loads. I can't tolerate these subtle lies, twists and brainwashing ad nauseam repeats of ignorance.

And also, I wouldn't be talking of how genitalia evolved if you didn't post your misconception of it. Your "subtle" twisting of what's going on reminds so much of shadowhawk that I think I'm done here.

You talk to your clone about I.D., have fun!

Edited by addx, 05 March 2015 - 03:10 PM.

[shadowhawk]

At least this is consistent with what has gone on before.  After misrepresenting ID, call people names and then run.

[platypus]

As far as I can tell ID has achieved nothing and the number of technologies based on ID-principles is zero. 

[shadowhawk]

And you have said nothing except to call names.  How about some evidence? 

[shadowhawk]

Is Evolution True? Laying Out the Logic

Ann Gauger December 5, 2014 3:32 AM | Permalink

Monday we published a paper in the journal BIO-Complexity demonstrating that enzymes can't evolve genuinely new functions by unguided means. We argue that design by a very sophisticated intelligent agent is the best explanation for their origin. I want to take some time to lay out our argument against Darwinian evolution and for intelligent design. It's important, because it reveals the logical fallacy in most evolutionary thinking.

Just to give an example of the thinking of ID critics, here is a passage from one of the references in our paper (Kherhonsky et al. (2006) Enzyme promiscuity: Evolutionary and mechanistic aspects. Current Opinion in Chemical Biology 10:498-508):

An oft-forgotten essence of Darwinian processes is that they occur gradually, while maintaining organism fitness throughout. Consequently, a reasonable assumption is that, ever since the emergence of the primordial living forms, very little novelty has evolved at the molecular level. Rather, existing genes were modified, or tinkered with', to generate new protein structures and functions that are related to those of their ancestors. Unlike 'out of the blue' scenarios advocated by the 'intelligent design' school, 'tinkering' scenarios depend on the availability of evolutionary starting points. The hypothesis that the broad specificity, or promiscuous functions, of existing enzymes provide these starting points was first formalized by Jensen in a review that has inspired many. Jensen proposed that, in contrast to modern enzymes, primitive enzymes possessed very broad specificities. This catalytic versatility enabled fewer enzymes to perform the multitude of functions that was necessary to maintain ancestral organisms. Duplication of genes and divergence led to specialized genes and increased metabolic efficiency. Since Jensen, the structures of >30,000 proteins, and the sequences of hundreds of thousands, have taught us that these processes led to the creation of enzyme families and superfamilies. The vestiges of these divergence processes are the scaffold and active site architecture shared by all family members [6].

To summarize, the key points of that evolutionary argument are:

1. Evolution is true. That is, enzymes have evolved new functions by a process of random mutation and natural selection.
2. Modern enzymes can't evolve genuinely new functions by random mutation and natural selection but can only tinker with existing functions.
3. Therefore, ancient enzymes must have been different, capable of carrying out a broad range of enzyme activities.
4. Those enzymes underwent duplication and diverged from one another, becoming specialized.
5. How do we know this happened? Because we now see a broad array of specialized enzymes. Evolution is the explanation.

This begs the question of whether evolution is true. It is a circular argument unsubstantiated by the evidence and unfalsifiable. No one can know what ancient enzymes actually looked like, and whether they really had such broad catalytic specificities.

In contrast, our argument is as follows:

1. Is evolution true? Test case: Do enzymes evolve by a process of natural selection and random mutation?
2. Modern enzymes are the only thing we can test.
3. No one knows if ancient enzymes were different. They are lost in the deep past, so claims with regard to their promiscuity or ability to evolve are hypothetical and unfalsifiable.
4. Modern enzymes can't evolve new functions, based on our own experiments. 
5. We haven't tested the universe of modern enzymes, so our result is qualified, but the nine most similar enzymes did not change function.
6. Our estimate for the likely waiting time for an enzyme to evolve a new function is at least 10¹⁵ years.
7. Therefore evolution of enzymes is likely to be impossible.
8. Given the sophistication of enzymes and the way they work together, intelligent design is the best explanation for the origin and current diversity of modern enzymes.

You can read the argument in more detail in our paper.

Notice both arguments agree that modern enzymes can't evolve genuinely new functions. The difference is in the conclusion reached. The evolutionary argument assumes what it concludes -- it's a snake swallowing its tail, and goes nowhere.

In contrast, our argument relies on the uniformitarian principle that underlies all science. What is true for modern enzymes was true for ancient ones as well.

From Wikipedia:

Uniformitarianism is the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe. It has included the gradualistic concept that "the present is the key to the past" and is functioning at the same rates. Uniformitarianism has been a key principle of geology and virtually all fields of science.

Gradualism has since been discarded in geology and paleontology, and it is not part of our argument. But the part about processes having always operated in the same way does apply: the evolutionary mechanism has always functioned in the same way, with the same limits, and enzymes have always functioned in the same way, with specific, not promiscuous, catalytic activities.

Now here's the point: anyone who wants to make a special case for the non-uniformitarian origin of enzymes (or animal groups) has created a special category to protect the idea that evolution is true. That idea is apparently untouchable. Any hypothesis about the deep past is accepted if it allows an evolutionary explanation for current diversity, and avoids problems with difficult facts. As a consequence, papers on the origin of life, protein evolution, the origin of animal form, and human origins are full of speculation masked as supporting argument, or even as statements of fact.

But the problem remains. If you start with the assumption that evolution is true, and view all evidence through those glasses, you won't even notice that your argument chases its tail.

[brianjakub]

 

 

 

So you propose that while a single celled asexual reproducing animal evolved to a multi-cellular multi-organ heterosexually reproducing animals, they practiced having sex just to stay in shape till their sexual organs developed enough to actually reproduce heterosexually.  Then they stopped reproducing asexually and started having heterosexual sex to reproduce.  My question is, "when did sex evolve into something more than staying fit and when did it become fun?":)

No, increasing fitness means increasing fitness of the species (through improved progeny). Since you're trying to discuss evolution you should at least learn the most basic terminology.

http://en.wikipedia....tness_(biology)

This means that they practiced having sex for fitness of the species - meaning that sex always produced progeny during the entire evolution of it. It was not to "stay in shape" individually(as in excercise) but to produce better progeny (fusing/joining better genes from both partners). This means that sex increased the fitness of the species which means that behavior that leads towards sex was selected for (species that evolved to do it better outperformed other species which compete for same resources) - meaning there was a steady evolutionary drive(payoff) to evolve sexual approach behavior.

You have to understand that sexual organs initially were just sort-of-limbs that were used to hold germline cells and position/spray/release haploid cells towards the opposite sex haploid cells. Do you know how fish procreate for example?

Since sexual reproduction is in the interest of progeny, not the individuals themselves - it is the most basic form of observed altruism from which all observed altruism evolved. This also means that from the inception of sexual reproduction, each individual has an inbuilt drive to perform it(chemical payoff) even though it is of no use to him individually, otherwise the species would suffer an extinction risk. This inbuilt drive to perform it evolved into the human "sexual drive" and also "sexual pleasure". But it was there in some form since its inception in single cell life forms.

 

I knew you were talking about evolutionary fitness.  I was using humor to make a point, I'm sorry if it detracted from the discussion.  Improved evolutionary fitness through natural selection implies, that nature is storing genetic information in the dna code and in the physical structure of an animal, that to an intelligent observer at that moment of evolution, does not add any evolutionary fitness which by definition should improve the ability of the species to survive, rather than the original version of the species, being the surviving version of that particular species.  For nature to select for multiple generations, a genetic version that does not add to the species ability to survive until some future date when the sexual organs are done evolving, empirically implies nature is planning for the future.  Planning for the future by definition requires intelligence.  If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it might be a duck.  I think it is.  There can be things that walk like a and quack like a duck that aren't ducks i suppose, and you have the right to believe in them.
 
Can we quit talking about each others beliefs, and talk about an alternative theory that attempts to explain the origin of the diverse forms of life we observe today from a different perspective.  The purpose of this will not be to disprove Darwinian evolutionary theory but to provide and discuss an alternative theory.
 
You proposed a theory that suggested no intelligent design and we discussed it at great length.  Can I propose, and we discuss an ID proposal now?

 

We are discussing I.D. and you keep proposing "planning of genitalia" - this is what we are discussing, don't get smart with me. Rather go learn evolutionary terminology.

You pretend to accept the input but in fact completely ignore it and go on again and again to propose your misconceived 'planning of genitalia' as if nothing has been said.

And we are discussing your misconceptions and not "each others beleifs". Calling explanations of evolution a beleif and ranking it the same as your I.D. ideas is quite frankly offending - because I.D. has literally no empirical proof while evolution has loads. I can't tolerate these subtle lies, twists and brainwashing ad nauseam repeats of ignorance.

And also, I wouldn't be talking of how genitalia evolved if you didn't post your misconception of it. Your "subtle" twisting of what's going on reminds so much of shadowhawk that I think I'm done here.

You talk to your clone about I.D., have fun!

 

I said in the empirical evidence suggests the evolution of heterosexual reproduction looks like planning was involved, and provided a logical argument that it appears planned.  You offered good explanations from computer aided simulations that provide a possible explanation to how it could look like planning, but really isn't.  But, even those explanations are theoretical.  Evolution is a theory, which leaves it open to opinion and discussion.  That's what this forum is for, friendly discussion.  You have educated me on terminology and how it explains evolution, and I thank you for donating your expertise to the discussion.  Why are you taking this personally?  I haven't called you names, just disagreed with some of your conclusions.  

 

We haven't discussed ID yet.  All we've discussed is Darwinian evolution.  I would like to actually propose an ID theory rather than just talk about evolution.  I haven't seen any comprehensive ID theories yet and I would like to propose one.  I never ranked the ID theory as higher or lower than Darwinian evolution, because we haven't discussed it yet.  Maybe, you will tear it apart and I'll humbly admit my errors.  Maybe, I will continue to disagree with you.   Maybe the discussion will provide further support to Darwinian Evolution.  I know talking to a clone dose not provide as rigorous of a look at the pros and cons of the theory, as discussing it with an educated person with opposing views.  (that is assuming you will oppose them, I don't know I haven't presented them yet)  I know that no matter what happens, I and anybody else reading this forum will learn from the experience.

 

So with that in mind, I hope you will join in.  

[addx]

At least this is consistent with what has gone on before.  After misrepresenting ID, call people names and then run.

Yes, I'm sure it happens a lot to you.

[platypus]

ID is not a theory. It has achieved nothing in 150 years. There are no predictions, no explanations and no applications based on it. Stop peddling superstitious pseudoscience please. 

[serp777]

 

 

 

 

 

What does evidence of an intelligent designer look like, Serp777?  I would accept evolution as a fact if the gaps in the fossil record were smaller , and maybe some day they will be.  Till then, it's just a plausible theory that most scientists have faith in becoming a law.  They have faith in the gaps being filled, or some yet unknown natural mechanism being discovered to help evolution leap across the gaps.  Scientists are real good at speculating some characteristics of that mechanism, but speculation is just a hypothesis.  Anyway that is what I think the scientific evidence that would change the theory of evolution to the Law of Evolution would look like.  If there is an intelligent designer, what would the evidence look like, Serp777?    

 

Yeah i would like to know about the gaps too. I mean you propose there are gaps, but you do realize there will always be an increasing number of gaps right? Each time you find a species, you now have two gaps. but its a fallacy to suggest that this diminishes the theory whatsoever. Its more than just a probable theory. All of genetics and inheritance confirms evolution.

 

We have modern day examples like anti botics resistant bacteria that emerged in the last 30 years as an adaptive evolutionary response. There is no explanation that works other than evolution. Evolutionary theory predicted that bacteria would adapt to . This is MASSIVE evidence for evolution alone. You have a theory that makes predictions which come true, and a concept which isn't even a theory and certainly cant make a prediction.

 

I'd like to see any theory of intelligent design which proposes some experiment to test it. Until that happens its not even worth putting effort towards it.

 

Here's what an actual scientific analysis of intelligent design would look like--theory of what, who, and how the intelligence did whatever to assist the progress or emergence of life. A prediction about some genetic component that would show a pattern designed by an intelligence--like a tag encoded into the DNA or some kind of stamp/marker. For example "human version 2.167". Then you would have something. But there's no evidence of anything like that.

 

" Scientists are real good at speculating some characteristics of that mechanism, but speculation is just a hypothesis."

When you have a theory that has made huge and unexpected predictions, and it makes other predictions.

 

Also I have simple logic to prove life could emerge. There is a chemical formula which can self replicate. Organic chemicals spontaneously become more complex. Therefore it is possible for that chemical formula to come into existence through pure chance. No designer is needed. Its a low probability but the universe is massive. Therefore there is a biochemical explanation.

 

There is well designed tests for ID.  Obviously you have not read the topic, "ID, in or out." here.  This had been debated.  How about dealing with real issues?  Information that creates life is far mor complex than a simple chemical reaction that a child can pull off.

 

Serp 777, earlier you said that ID is not science and scientific theories for ID are not valid.  Are you saying you would accept one now?  It will take some effort and logical thinking to come up with a scientifically testable theory.  I could give it a try I guess.  Would you like to try?  You said you'd like to see a theory and theories require effort, and in the same sentence you say it isn't worth putting effort towards it.  But, I would hope that you are open minded enough to at least let me put forth the effort, and then at least consider looking at my theory. 

 

Like you said Serp 777, I would like to propose a theory of what who and how the intelligence did whatever to assist the progress or emergence of life.  The who might be dangerous though, what if I propose an existing designer or introduce a new designer?  You have pointed out that ideas about designers have caused wars.(and I agree but, there has been some good results too)  Maybe you might want me to leave that out even though you proposed it should be included in what a scientific theory would look like. 

 

 2.167 is a number, and numbers in tags contain information in a code.  The whole DNA is a code, and they are mapping it right now.  It's full of tags.  One tag says human version blue eyes blonde hair, another says human version dark skin brown eyes.  Maybe Brown hair and blue eyes is version 2.167.

 

Earlier you said the whole fossil record is evidence of evolution,  maybe every specie's DNA is evidence of ID.  Note that I said maybe, because theories aren't laws, they are a maybe, and macro evolution by random mutations is still a theory, not a law.  You did give a nice example of micro evolution with the bacteria above though.  Micro evolution by random mutations is just selective breeding by chance, and is much closer to being a law than macro evolution though.  We see selective breeding every day, but breeding a new species I haven't seen yet.  But, like I said earlier, that could be because I am living during one of Stephen Gould's proposed periods of Stable Equilibrium, but a Punctuation of Change could be around the corner.  I will not rule that out Serp 777.  Could you at least look at my proposal and not rule it out without consideration? 

 

I already stated I would accept an intelligent design theory that had even a minimum amount of evidence to establish a hypothesis. Currently there is no need for intelligent design, and all the evidence points towards evolution. It would be pointless to pursue unintelligent design. There are also logical problems like who designed the desinger? You get an infinite regression. At some point an intelligence had to emerge out of natural means.

 

"2.167 is a number, and numbers in tags contain information in a code.  The whole DNA is a code, and they are mapping it right now.  It's full of tags.  One tag says human version blue eyes blonde hair, another says human version dark skin brown eyes.  Maybe Brown hair and blue eyes is version 2.167."

Except this is consistent with evolutionary theory already. You're still left with the problem of how the alien race that IDed us developed in the first place. You could convert the molecular structure for a rock into a number and say that was an identification. Your argument is entirely unconvincing just because you can convert things to numbers. Now if you find a message in binary which is written into the genetic code then that would be real evidence. It could still be coincidence but that would be some evidence at least. And you're still left with who designed the designer, ad infinitum.

 

"Earlier you said the whole fossil record is evidence of evolution,  maybe every specie's DNA is evidence of ID.  Note that I said maybe, because theories aren't laws, they are a maybe, and macro evolution by random mutations is still a theory, not a law.  You did give a nice example of micro evolution with the bacteria above though.  Micro evolution by random mutations is just selective breeding by chance, and is much closer to being a law than macro evolution though."

 

This kind of argument is awful, sorry. Its like saying " well all you have is a lot of the decimal 0.0005, how are you going to get to one?" Its obvious--when that occurs 2000 times you'll have a one. Its like saying--i've only seen hundreds of dollars in transactions, so i only believe in microeconomics. Therefore macroeconomics doesn't exist and the large scale economy isn't real. its, no offense, naive and short sighted to say that micro evolution doesn't heavily imply macro.

 

" Could you at least look at my proposal and not rule it out without consideration?"

I am open to anything with the evidence. So far things like brown hair have already been well established under mechanisms of evolution. There are still logical chasms like who designed the designer. You guys postulate than an intelligence needs more complexity before it which leads to infinite regression. At least at some point an intelligence had to emerge out of simple laws.

 

Bacteria evolving into bacteria is not macro evolution, they are still bacteria.  American Indians were susceptible to small pox while Europeans were immune, that is micro-evolution  inside the human species.  Three 1 dollar bills does not prove the existence of a three dollar bill.  A pile of micro evolution does not equal complexity, it equals diversity.

 

 How does a self replicating, single celled organism evolve into a multi celled organism with a womb and a reproductive system that produces an egg while another single celled organism evolved into a multi celled organism with a penis and produced sperm cells. And, while all that evolving is going on simultaneously without any guidance, they become sexually attracted to each other and copulate.  Now, maybe that happened by chance, but please don't compare that to bacteria evolving into bacteria.  Over the tens of thousands of years that man has been breeding animals, we have yet to see one species evolve into another.  All we have is very intelligent men, like Stephen Gould, saying they can imagine a word that" names" a natural explanation that can explain how this evolution can happen and match the fossil record, but all they really do is invent words like "punctuated equilibrium" to try and explain the stable periods in the fossil record followed by sudden evolutionary jumps.

The fossil record[edit]

The fossil record of an evolutionary progression typically consists of species that suddenly appear, and ultimately disappear, in many cases close to a million years later, without any change in external appearance.

 But, this requires a rapid mode of evolution because of the periods of stasis' So other intelligent men imagine more words naming another natural mechanism to explain Gould's unexplained but named mechanism

Supplemental modes of rapid evolution[edit]

See also: Rapid modes of evolution

Recent work in developmental biology has identified dynamical and physical mechanisms of tissue morphogenesis that may underlie abrupt morphological transitions during evolution. Consequently, consideration of mechanisms of phylogenetic change that have been found in reality to be non-gradual is increasingly common in the field of evolutionary developmental biology, particularly in studies of the origin of morphological novelty. A description of such mechanisms can be found in the multi-authored volume Origination of Organismal Form (MIT Press; 2003).

 

Origination of Organismal Form

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

Origination of Organismal Form: Beyond the Gene in Developmental and Evolutionary Biology (ISBN 0-262-13419-5) is a book published in 2003 edited by Gerd B. Müller and Stuart A. Newman. It explores the multiple factors that may have been responsible for the origination of biological form in multicellular life. These biological forms include limbs, segmented structures, and different body symmetries.

The book explores why the basic body plans of nearly all multicellular life arose in the relatively short time span of the Cambrian Explosion. The authors focus on physical factors other than changes in an organism's genome that may have caused multicellular life to form new structures. These physical factors include differential adhesion of cells and feedback oscillations between cells.

The book also presents recent experimental results that examine how the same embryonic tissues or tumor cells can be coaxed into forming dramatically different structures under different environmental conditions.

One of the goals of the book is to stimulate research that may lead to a more comprehensive theory of evolution.

 

As you can see a comprehensive theory of evolution with evidence of actual natural mechanisms doesn't exist, but we should keep looking.

 

I don't understand why a tag has to be written in base 2 to provide evidence of ID. 

If there is an intelligent designer, could we assume for developing a theory, that the designer might be a person? (Not necessarily human)  And could we assume it,( he or she} thinks like us.  This might help us to theorize how, he (she or it) designed and built it, to determine where to look for evidence, and to interpret the evidence.

 

 

"Bacteria evolving into bacteria is not macro evolution, they are still bacteria.  American Indians were susceptible to small pox while Europeans were immune, that is micro-evolution  inside the human species.  Three 1 dollar bills does not prove the existence of a three dollar bill.  A pile of micro evolution does not equal complexity, it equals diversity."

 

The argument was never that a 1 dollar bill proves the existence of a three dollar bill. The argument was that a billion one dollar bills starts to become quite substantial figure. And the argument also wasn't that bacteria to bacteria is necessarily macro evolution, although it could be. Also, if you deny that micro evolution can lead to macro evolution then you think, presumably, that an intelligent designer had to go through and change every species that ever existed to lead to all of the macro evolution? I mean, come on, you dont seriously believe that. We know evolution occurs through small changes, and those small changes can be observed. There are billions of years for life to change and develop. DNA strands can be added or subtracted. Viruses can add completely new strands of DNA into an organism. Even if you believe in intelligent design on faith, its preposterous to suggest that microevolution as well as viral infections cant lead to macroevolution. Its incredibly fallacious to say that small increments cannot lead to larger increments, which was the point of the money analogy. Here's evidence of viruses affecting hominid evolution by inserting gene expressions that altered genotypes and lead to more natural selection pressures through immunological resistance.

 

 

Viral selection for specific resistance polymorphisms is unlikely, but in conjunction with other parasites, viruses have probably contributed to selection pressure maintaining major histocompatibility complex (MHC) diversity and a strong immune response. They may also have played a role in the loss in our lineage of N-glycolylneuraminic acid (Neu5Gc), a cell-surface receptor for many infectious agents. Shared viruses could have affected hominid species diversity both by promoting divergence and by weeding out less resistant host populations, while viruses carried by humans and other animals migrating out of Africa may have contributed to declines in other populations. Endogenous retroviral insertions since the divergence between humans and chimpanzees were capable of directly affecting hominid evolution through changes in gene expression and development.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/14666532

 

" How does a self replicating, single celled organism evolve into a multi celled organism with a womb and a reproductive system that produces an egg while another single celled organism evolved into a multi celled organism with a penis and produced sperm cells. And, while all that evolving is going on simultaneously without any guidance, they become sexually attracted to each other and copulate.  Now, maybe that happened by chance, but please don't compare that to bacteria evolving into bacteria.  Over the tens of thousands of years that man has been breeding animals, we have yet to see one species evolve into another.  All we have is very intelligent men, like Stephen Gould, saying they can imagine a word that" names" a natural explanation that can explain how this evolution can happen and match the fossil record, but all they really do is invent words like "punctuated equilibrium" to try and explain the stable periods in the fossil record followed by sudden evolutionary jumps."

 

So you're asking me to explain the majority of evolution? I mean if you're asking how evolution works I suggest you read the literature instead of trying to get me to try and write a large book explaining the evolutionary history of life. I will cite evidence and reasoning, however, that we do indeed all have a common ancestor.

 

"All organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor or ancestral gene pool.^[188][256] Current species are a stage in the process of evolution, with their diversity the product of a long series of speciation and extinction events.^[257] The common descent of organisms was first deduced from four simple facts about organisms: First, they have geographic distributions that cannot be explained by local adaptation. Second, the diversity of life is not a set of completely unique organisms, but organisms that share morphological similarities. Third, vestigial traits with no clear purpose resemble functional ancestral traits and finally, that organisms can be classified using these similarities into a hierarchy of nested groups—similar to a family tree.^[258] However, modern research has suggested that, due to horizontal gene transfer, this "tree of life" may be more complicated than a simple branching tree since some genes have spread independently between distantly related species.^[259][260]"

More recently, evidence for common descent has come from the study of biochemical similarities between organisms. For example, all living cells use the same basic set of nucleotides and amino acids.^[262] The development of molecular genetics has revealed the record of evolution left in organisms' genomes: dating when species diverged through the molecular clock produced by mutations.^[263] For example, these DNA sequence comparisons have revealed that humans and chimpanzees share 98% of their genomes and analysing the few areas where they differ helps shed light on when the common ancestor of these species existed.^[264]

 

 

 

Biochemical similarities as well as a genetic family tree, not to mention vestigial traits and geographical distributions show common ancestry almost certainly.

 

"Over the tens of thousands of years that man has been breeding animals, we have yet to see one species evolve into another."

 

We're currently witnessing dogs turning into another species from wolves actually. Many dogs cannot breed with wolves anymore for instance, and they are becoming more genetically dissimilar all the time. Eventually they will be able to be classified. I mean the transitions from wolves to chiwawas definitely classifies as macro evolution of many substantial traits over tens of thousands of years. Unless your argument is that an intelligent designer conspiracy has been making the wolf to dog transition look evolved. The fallacy of your argument is also that you forget that the development of a new species takes hundreds of thousands of years or even millions. The first forms of life took a billion years to evolve. I mean denying evolution is like denying the theory of relativity in the sense that both have an incredible amount of evidence. I'd really recommend going through the evolutionary arguments for the questions regarding single celled organisms to mammals. But I will say that sexes probably emerged as a mechanism to share genes. Bacteria frequently share genes and this could evolve over time to form more complicated ways of sharing genes which eventually resulted in sexes. BActeria are also extremely related to us--our mitochondria is formed from bacteria remnants. Its easy to imagine that gene sharing also was adopted by higher level organisms in order to develop immunity to disease. The point is that there are evolutionary explanations for all the questions you ask, although because they emerged so long ago, empirical evidence besides genetics is difficult to find.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

 

"explain the stable periods in the fossil record followed by sudden evolutionary jumps"

 

This is another misunderstanding of how evolution works. As i've cited earlier, viruses can insert a significant amount of genetic code which could result in an evolutionary leap if it was a favorable trait. And what is the intelligent design explanation? An intelligent designer occasionally hops in to make some changes? That's not sensible. Just because evolution hasn't yet explained particular cases doesn't mean the theory isn't completely valid. Quantum physics doesn't explain everything about the subatomic world, and yet all the evidence is correct, but obviously we shouldn't assert, analogously, that God is in the gaps. Postulating that an intelligent designer sits in the gaps of evolution is illogical. Intelligent designer of the gaps is just as terrible an argument as God of the gaps. Check out the link below for evidence from Berkley indicating the fossil evolution for evolution. It is substantial and recognized by a variety of universities.

 

http://evolution.ber...rticle/lines_02

 

"As you can see a comprehensive theory of evolution with evidence of actual natural mechanisms doesn't exist, but we should keep looking."

its ridiculous that you demand a theory thats perfectly complete when ID is a "theory" with an infinite number of holes. We should keep looking for evolutionary explanations because it has already explained so much.

 

"I don't understand why a tag has to be written in base 2 to provide evidence of ID. "

It doesn't have to. I gave you a suggestion for what would prove ID or make it even worth investigating.When you have ID you're still left with answering who designed the designer. Proposing and intelligent designer doesn't help anything. You're making a significantly more complex  for something which has a reasonable theory with a mountain of evidence already. Hence why most of the scientific community is pursuing evolution--the theory with all the evidence, explanations, and predictions. You demand all of these explanations and evidence, so therefore I emand any evidence for ID or any explanations of the intelligent designer or any predictions you can make on the basis of intelligent design.

Edited by serp777, 06 March 2015 - 10:00 AM.

[shadowhawk]

ID is not a theory. It has achieved nothing in 150 years. There are no predictions, no explanations and no applications based on it. Stop peddling superstitious pseudoscience please. 

A theory is, a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. Therefore ID is a theory and one worthy of study in science the subject of our topic.  Theories go through different stages in development and mature.  Sometimes they can’t be tested because no test has yet been developed.  Science is a method not a position and as such may always be applied to theories no matter how surely believed or unrelieved.   It has not been around 150 years showing you are ignoranjt of its history.  It does predict things and name calling is not evidence against it.  All this is, is a repeat of old tired and disproved talking points.  See, “Evolution, News and Views.” where you can search out all these topics from a primary source.  Google it.

[platypus]

So what are the achievements or applications of ID? Where is the evidence for intelligent design or against origin of species via natural selection? 

[shadowhawk]

Big Subject.  We have been talking about this for some time now.  I suggest you start off by reading the topic.  However here is a example of something that looks designed with a purpose.  Applying the theory of ID intelligence seems to be necessary to design such a thing.  Which came first the need to transport materials to the cell or the machines to carry them.  Did the need design the machine or something else?  Where did the information and design come from?  Of course we just started with our questions.

 

 

 

 

 

[serp777]

Big Subject.  We have been talking about this for some time now.  I suggest you start off by reading the topic.  However here is a example of something that looks designed with a purpose.  Applying the theory of ID intelligence seems to be necessary to design such a thing.  Which came first the need to transport materials to the cell or the machines to carry them.  Did the need design the machine or something else?  Where did the information and design come from?  Of course we just started with our questions.

 

 

Your opinion that it looks designed is irrelevant. Plenty of things look like they might be designed but aren't.

 

'Which came first the need to transport materials to the cell or the machines to carry them"

 

False dilemma. They developed simultaneously

 

"Did the need design the machine or something else?"

It wasn't designed, that's a false premise.

 

"Where did the information and design come from?"

Mutations and evolution. I'd suggesting reading about evolution before asking people to justify questions that have already been explained.

 

"

Mutations are changes in the DNA sequence of a cell's genome. When mutations occur, they can either have no effect, alter the product of a gene, or prevent the gene from functioning. Based on studies in the fly Drosophila melanogaster, it has been suggested that if a mutation changes a protein produced by a gene, this will probably be harmful, with about 70% of these mutations having damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or weakly beneficial.^[75]

Mutations can involve large sections of a chromosome becoming duplicated (usually by genetic recombination), which can introduce extra copies of a gene into a genome.^[76] Extra copies of genes are a major source of the raw material needed for new genes to evolve.^[77] This is important because most new genes evolve within gene families from pre-existing genes that share common ancestors.^[78] For example, the human eye uses four genes to make structures that sense light: three for colour vision and one for night vision; all four are descended from a single ancestral gene.^[79]"

 

 

"In addition to being a major source of variation, mutation may also function as a mechanism of evolution when there are different probabilities at the molecular level for different mutations to occur, a process known as mutation bias.^[124] If two genotypes, for example one with the nucleotide G and another with the nucleotide A in the same position, have the same fitness, but mutation from G to A happens more often than mutation from A to G, then genotypes with A will tend to evolve.^[125] Different insertion vs. deletion mutation biases in different taxa can lead to the evolution of different genome sizes.^[126][127] Developmental or mutational biases have also been observed in morphological evolution.^[128][129] For example, according to the phenotype-first theory of evolution, mutations can eventually cause the genetic assimilation of traits that were previously induced by the environment.^[130][131]"

^{http://en.wikipedia....Biased_mutation}

[shadowhawk]

ID does not think random mutations has the creative power to create the information necessary to make machines like this.  You have to explain this by pure random chance, but of course we have discussed this all before.  Again Google "Evolution News and Views."  You can do searches on any subject.  We may disagree but the topic is whether ID is a scientific subject.  I say yes and you have given no reason to say otherwise.

Edited by shadowhawk, 06 March 2015 - 10:44 PM.

[serp777]

So what are the achievements or applications of ID? Where is the evidence for intelligent design or against origin of species via natural selection? 

 

There are no achievements lol. No one supporting ID is willing to answer that question because they have no explanation or predicctions and they would be faced with questions like who designed the designer? The better question would be how an intelligent designer emerged out of nothing to design us. They propose something infinitely more complicated to explain something with significantly less complexity. That's why its ultimately not worth pursuing.

 

The strategy of people who support intelligent design use the following strategy:

 

Look for gaps in evolutionary explanations. Use arguments from incredulity (saying that they could not see how it can arise naturally). Put an intelligent designer in the gaps of evolution. If evolutionary theory does explain it, then the gaps go away as well as the intelligent designer.

[serp777]

ID does not think random mutations has the creative power to create the information necessary to make machines like this.

 

You simply wont accept evidence.

 

It doesn't matter what ID thinks. I showed you material indicating how mutation can lead to genes being added or subtracted with some of them having minor benefits, which natural selection acts upon. I gave you evidence of evolutionary computing to show how a natural selection algorithm could lead to more sophistocated computer programs. Your demand for evidence is completely skewed and arbitrary.

 

Your own beliefs prevent you from accepting the evidence. Its indicative of confirmation bias.

 

You should really read about evolution and get an understanding of how it works before accepting an intelligent design assertion.

Edited by serp777, 06 March 2015 - 10:46 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Who designed the designer is not a question of ID.  Some ID proponents are Atheists.  The question of ID is whether things are designed or not.  Dawkins thinks it  is Aliens!  Perhaps this is your answer also.  The issue is design.  The theist believes God is a necessary being, uncaused.  The reason?  Everything that we know of that exists has a cause and is not self explanatory.  We discussed this at legnth in Evidence for Christianity Topic.

[shadowhawk]

where do you think this comes from and how did it come about?

 

 

[serp777]

Who designed the designer is not a question of ID.  Some ID proponents are Atheists.  The question of ID is whether things are designed or not.  Dawkins thinks it  is Aliens!  Perhaps this is your answer also.  The issue is design.  The theist believes God is a necessary being, uncaused.  The reason?  Everything that we know of that exists has a cause and is not self explanatory.  We discussed this at legnth in Evidence for Christianity Topic.

 

Who designed the designer is certainly a question of intelligent design, almost by default. If there is a vastly complicated intelligent designer at work then he/she/it needs an explanation to explain something vastly more complicated than evolution.

 

And who cares if some atheists support ID? Many theists accept evolution entirely as God's plan to create life from natural laws, and reject ID as foolish.

 

"The question of ID is whether things are designed or not."

Which automatically begs the questions of whether the intelligent designer was designed, ad infinitum.

 

"The theist believes God is a necessary being, uncaused."

A simple semantic convenience for you. God can arise  by itself but evolution and the universe can't.

[serp777]

where do you think this comes from and how did it come about?

 

 

 

Do I really have to say it? Evolution and natural selection.  How did the below come about? Maybe an intelligent designer created it since it has a pattern. It looks designed so it must be designed.

 

[shadowhawk]

This is an interesting question but we are talking about whether things show the marks of ID not who the designer is.  I don't have to ask who designed the designer when looking at a car.  It would be kind of foolish to deny a designer even if I didn't know who it was.  I have a huge collection of American Indian artifacts which only a fool would argue were not designed but simply evolved.  I don't know who did it!  LOOK AT MY LAST POST.  Who did it?  Random chance and mutations?  No, ID deserves scientific study.

[shadowhawk]

 

where do you think this comes from and how did it come about?

 

 

 

Do I really have to say it? Evolution and natural selection.  How did the below come about? Maybe an intelligent designer created it since it has a pattern. It looks designed so it must be designed.

 

 

 

Well I have discussed the difference between designs such as we find in crystals and information design such as we would find in an arrowhead.  They are not the same.  At the same time nature does have design but that does not mean it wasn't designed.  Laws of nature are not material.  When I see a gear, I know it is not a snowflake.
 

[serp777]

This is an interesting question but we are talking about whether things show the marks of ID not who the designer is.  I don't have to ask who designed the designer when looking at a car.  It would be kind of foolish to deny a designer even if I didn't know who it was.  I have a huge collection of American Indian artifacts which only a fool would argue were not designed but simply evolved.  I don't know who did it!  LOOK AT MY LAST POST.  Who did it?  Random chance and mutations?  No, ID deserves scientific study.

 

Yes and we are talking about whether the intelligent designer has marks of being designed, ad infinitum. It shows a logical problem that you have not resolved, thus indicating intelligent design is not so intelligent.

The car analogy is false and terrible. Its a fall back position for ID proponents because there is no evidence or reasoning to support it. Its terrible because organisms can survive and reproduce without a factory or other people constructing it. It is self sufficient in other words while a car is not. it would be foolish to say that a car and an organism are remotely similar at all. The arrow head example is another terrible analogy. Arrow heads are nothing like organisms. Just because one thing is designed does not make everything designed. I can use the pitiful analogy argument to. You would be a fool to say a snowflake is intelligently designed and I have seen hundreds of snowflakes. Proposing your analogies does bolster your argument in the slightest. I can propose just as many counter analogies.

 

"Who did it?  Random chance and mutations?"

 

Natural selection and mutations are not a "who". Natural selection is not entirely random chance. It leads organisms on a path which best suits survival and adaptability. Mutations certainly can cause it as well as viruses inserting strands of DNA.

 

So im curious, do you reject evolution entirely in spite of all of the evidence?

[serp777]

 

 

where do you think this comes from and how did it come about?

 

 

 

Do I really have to say it? Evolution and natural selection.  How did the below come about? Maybe an intelligent designer created it since it has a pattern. It looks designed so it must be designed.

 

 

 

Well I have discussed the difference between designs such as we find in crystals and information design such as we would find in an arrowhead.  They are not the same.  At the same time nature does have design but that does not mean it wasn't designed.  Laws of nature are not material.  When I see a gear, I know it is not a snowflake.
 

 

 

And an organism is not the same as an arrow head or a car. I have discussed the problems with your analogies in detail.

 

"At the same time nature does have design but that does not mean it wasn't designed."

oh good. However you KNOW that life had intelligent design because you know. Just because something might appear to be designed it does not mean it was designed. I have given you ample evidence of evolution. No need to insert intelligent design when the theory does not require it to work.

 

"When I see a gear, I know it is not a snowflake."

When i see a car, I know it is not an organism. A gear is just a pattern like a snowflake though. You've shown nothing. Its self repeating and simple enough to develop naturally through genetic.
 

Edited by serp777, 06 March 2015 - 11:49 PM.