So There is no word for the development of complexity and functional 'non designs'? Makes discussion of this subject kinda difficult.
The word doesn’t exist because complex design is always purposive.
So you've defined it But if everything's designed, there would be no natural process at all; no chemistry, physics, or anything. Water freezing or a rock rolling downhill would be direct interventions by God.
We see it as the norm. In that sense we call it "natural". But natural doesn’t mean or equal non-purposive.
Again, if the outcome of an automated process is design, then the process itself is design.
No. Order, complexity and functional interactions are everywhere, but there is no evidence of purposive or intentional design.
It’s an oxymoron. Order, complexity and functional interactions are evidence of purposive/intentional design.
Design and automatic function are everywhere.
Yes, design and automatic function are everywhere. Both are evidence of purposive/intentional design. Being automatic is by no means evidence for the absence of purpose.
The "design" can be explained by ordinary, unguided chemistry or physics. T
What are the reasons to claim that chemistry or physics are unguided processes.
This is just the old irreducible complexity argument. It's wrong.
Irreducible complexity is very true regardless of any claims otherwise.
Functional elements may become more complex or modify their functions, but functional order exists from the beginning.
Yes, as you said, already
Functional entities have a chance to survive and adapt but non-functional entities cannot survive to get a chance of being functional.
Yes, functional order must exist from the very beginning. The non-functional has no chance of being functional on its own.
Chemistry creates self-replicating, lifelike structures even before they develop into what most people would consider organisms. Life and it's complexity are a progression of increasing functional complexity.
Not true, Chemistry never creates self-replicating entities in nature. A virus, which is the closest structure to a living system can never self-replicate without a living system (the host cell). Virus structures in nature neither get increased functional complexity to become alive nor to have the ability of self-replication without the host cell; there is no evidence for that. The imagined gradual increase of functional complexity doesn’t happen in nature. Only adaptations as a function of directed mutation happen and adaptations don’t transform one species into another.
Selection selects from amongst random mutations, making the process non-random.
The alleged creative mechanism is always random (mutation), selection doesn’t play any role with respect to what type of random mutation may or may not emerge. The process is supposedly mindless, whatever change emerges is essentially random trial and error.
Functional patterns don't emerge from non functional patterns. The non-functional is eliminated before it becomes a pattern. Functional patterns evolve from previously functional patterns.
Logically,
first functional patterns must emerge from preceding non-functional patterns. If the non-functional is eliminated before it becomes a pattern, then there is no route through which the functional pattern would emerge.
I agree that functional patterns only come from previously functional patterns. Never from non-functional patterns.
Random misplacements and 'errors' are variations for evolution to select from. Sometimes they prove useful.
It's not about being useful or not. The point is that such random errors in nature (
misplaced arms or eyes) do not exist.
The vital systems have been in place from day one. Functional variations are retained, dysfunctional ones are eliminated. Easy-peasy.
What? Do you really mean it? If you do, we’re in agreement.
If you acknowledge that vital systems have been in place from day one, then you necessarily acknowledge that there was no gradual change to give rise to these vital systems in the first place!! I.e., no evolution!
Neutral variation is the rule. Dysfunctional variation isn't usually frequent or virulent enough to cause extinction.
In a random mindless process, why wouldn’t the random dysfunctional variations (errors) be the overwhelming rule? In such process, accidental functional variations should be the exception. The rule should be numerous random errors with some accidental advantageous changes that get filtered out by selection.
The fact is that alleged random dysfunctional variations (that allegedly get eliminated by selection) are non-existent.
For example, is there any evidence that random variations of black or brown bears emerging randomly among polar bears, then gets eliminated by selection?
