Do you think/believe that your body was designed/created?

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

one single cell can't produce human/animal body by time

You realize you DO start off as a single cell when the egg and sperm join to make one cell, right? If we can establish that one cell can become a human being waaaay down the line of its development, I don't see the problem with evolution doing it on a slower time scale.

It's like if you try to convinced me that car created by it-self.

If you see a rainbow form in a storm or something, do you see gods doing it or humans doing it, or are you seeing something form WITHOUT a sentient former?

Anyway, polytheistic religions seem to have gods and/or goddesses for every blade of grass or something, LOL. They felt everything needed a designer, so they had a designer for one object or class of objects. In what way is this wrong? There isn't ONE designer for a car, but lots of them, so ...

 

[Kirran]

I mean this

The Cambrian Explosion Mystery

The Cambrian explosion has generated extensive scientific debate. The seemingly rapid appearance of fossils in the “Primordial Strata” was noted as early as the 1840s,[14] and in 1859 Charles Darwin discussed it as one of the main objections that could be made against the theory of evolution by natural selection

I know what it is you're referring to. I'm talking about more recent research in the subject. You obviously don't know enough about the subject to realise what I'm talking about. But basically, there's a lot of evidence that the Cambrian Explosion is an artefact of what we happened to have found at a particular time. As we find more remains from earlier and later periods, we see it was far less dramatic than we thought previously.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

People !When I spoke to atheists what I expect ?

"Give it a name" is strategy of espace to clear answser.

Neither of these sentences make any sense to me. I think there's more of a language barrier than you think, especially talking about sciences you only have a rudimentary understanding of.

 

[Valjean]

Guy Threepwood said:
But we have no clear evidence of nature being capable of doing likewise, certainly not on the scale of transforming a single cell into a human being.

???????
Yes we do. There's all kinds of evidence.

creating a significantly superior design, purely through a random corruption of the information, is problematic

Not random! -- and "corruption of information" is misleading.
Do you know anything about evolution?

one single cell can't produce human/animal body by time.

Why not?
Over 400 posts -- you should have learned something about the mechanisms and evidence by now.

yes, and this is borne out in the fossil record evidence also, no smooth steady transitions as once predicted by evolutionists, but sudden appearances, 'explosions' of fully formed life in distinct stages

Of course there's evidence of steady change. Do you think all the evidence for gradualism just evaporated after Punctuated Equilibria were introduced in '72?

 

[Milton Platt]

I mean this

The Cambrian Explosion Mystery

The Cambrian explosion has generated extensive scientific debate. The seemingly rapid appearance of fossils in the “Primordial Strata” was noted as early as the 1840s,[14] and in 1859 Charles Darwin discussed it as one of the main objections that could be made against the theory of evolution by natural selection

Interesting link. I watched it through to the end. Unfortunately, the company which produced it bills itelf as "creator of the world's premiere Intelligent Design movies" which means it has a specific goal in mind which conflicts with the scientific method. They are not seeking objective science, but hand picking the information they feel supports their view and ignoring the rest.

 

[Valjean]

Was my body designed / created? Well I have never seen an automobile or computer or other complex machine that was not designed / created. My body is much more complex than any machine, so to think it just formed without some designer or creator is unthinkable.

1. Evolution only applies to things that reproduce and produce variable offspring.
2, Complexity isn't evidence of a designer. Simple algorithms can produce great complexity, as can long spans of time + natural selection.

No ,diversity of species suddenly record at Cambrian explosion.
don't have any record fossils previous era.

From your own link in post #428:

"The Cambrian Explosion does present a number of interesting and important research questions. It does not, however, challenge the fundamental correctness of the central thesis of evolution."

"The sudden change of the Cambrian Era was, in relative terms, not too sudden for the process of evolution. The changes during the Cambrian Era did not occur over decades, centuries, or even thousands of years; they occurred over millions of years—plenty of time for evolutionary change."

And there are plenty of pre Cambrian fossils.

Complexity does not equal design. Crystals like diamonds are far more ordered and complex than a car or computer, and they can arise through disordered explosions with enough force. Processes like the crystallization of water droplets represent an astounding level of complexity out of disorder which happens through natural process billions and billions of times a day.

But crystals aren't complex, they're dog-simple. The same pattern of the same atom or molecule, repeated millions of times.[/quote]

 

[Valjean]

I bet complexity of human body or even fly (insect) is more complex than car or computer.

Complexity doesn't need a designer. Simple algorithms can produce great complexity. Time can produce great complexity.

To register a body information in zygote weight closer to nothing,that reach to miracle, its required sincer imagination to reach my idea.

No, it requires knowledge of how DNA works.

scientitis called it "explosion", because the species appears suddenly , without previous records .

There were previous life forms, and the "explosion" took millions of years. It's called an explosion because the rate of change "suddenly" increased.
Read about it in your link from post #428.

Every form need former.

But the "former" need not be a conscious, intentional God. It can be a natural, unintentional process.
There is evidence for natural. There is no evidence for God -- except your incredulity.

It's like if you try to convinced me that car created by it-self.

3rd repitition: False analogy. Evolution cannot happen in mechanical objects unless they can reproduce, and produce varying offspring.

Seems you don't undersand my point about Cambrian explosion.
There is no fossils before that era about the species, the species appears suddenly at Cambrian era
Why the scientists call it "explosion" ?

Godobeyer, with all respect, you clearly know nothing about Natural History. Do they not teach biology or geology in Algeria?

There was lots of life before the explosion, and the "explosion" took millions of years. It was an increase in the speed that new species occurred.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

???????
Yes we do. There's all kinds of evidence.

feel free to enlighten me with one!

Not random! -- and "corruption of information" is misleading.

DNA and Mutations : Mutations are random. Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs." Factors in the environment may influence the rate of mutation but are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation.
Mutations are random - Understanding Evolution
evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/mutations_07

You'd have to argue that with evolutionists

Do you know anything about evolution?

I know it claims that Mutations are random, how about you?

Why not?
Over 400 posts -- you should have learned something about the mechanisms and evidence by now.

like mutations being random, but it's hard to get past the basic with some folk!

Of course there's evidence of steady change. Do you think all the evidence for gradualism just evaporated after Punctuated Equilibria were introduced in '72?

the evaporation was gradual. The more fossils we discovered, the more clearly defined the gaps became, not filled in with intermediates as originally predicted by, and core to the theory

• “. We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time.”
  David Raup, U of Chicago paleantologist and curator of Field museum.

 

[Godobeyer]

You realize you DO start off as a single cell when the egg and sperm join to make one cell, right? If we can establish that one cell can become a human being waaaay down the line of its development, I don't see the problem with evolution doing it on a slower time scale.

No,that's two cells combined to become zygote,which contain all your information of your body.


I meant one cell seperated.

Let's suppose all life get extinction , there is one single proteint cell in world alive, what will do that cell alone ?

If you see a rainbow form in a storm or something, do you see gods doing it or humans doing it, or are you seeing something form WITHOUT a sentient former?

Do you speak about rainbow formed by sun and rain ?

That's support my view.

 

[Godobeyer]

Interesting link. I watched it through to the end. Unfortunately, the company which produced it bills itelf as "creator of the world's premiere Intelligent Design movies" which means it has a specific goal in mind which conflicts with the scientific method. They are not seeking objective science, but hand picking the information they feel supports their view and ignoring the rest.

Where is the wrong with that?

So you value the information depend/according religion of his publishor ?

 

[Valjean]

feel free to enlighten me with one!

K:
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html

I know it claims that Mutations are random, how about you?
like mutations being random, but it's hard to get past the basic with some folk!

Of course mutations are random, but natural selection is not. Things like mutation and reproductive variation give evolution material to work with. It then weeds out the less fit and multiplies the fit.

The more fossils we discovered, the more clearly defined the gaps became, not filled in with intermediates as originally predicted by, and core to the theory

Both the gaps and the gradualist spectra become clearer as more evidence accumulates. This is to be expected. Evolution occurs quickly in some situations and, in others, little change occurrs for millions of years.

We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time.
David M Raup. U of Chicago paleontologist.

http://commondescent.net/articles/Raup_quote.htm

 

[Godobeyer]

Complexity doesn't need a designer. Simple algorithms can produce great complexity. Time can produce great complexity.

No, it requires knowledge of how DNA works.

False,time can't be factor to creat a life.
DNA don't order to cells to orginase the cells to build body.

There were previous life forms, and the "explosion" took millions of years. It's called an explosion because the rate of change "suddenly" increased.
Read about it in your link from post #428.

Before exposion the species were not exist at that form,there is no record fossils of it.

But the "former" need not be a conscious, intentional God. It can be a natural, unintentional process.
There is evidence for natural. There is no evidence for God -- except your incredulity.

We live in/by it His evidence.

3rd repitition: False analogy. Evolution cannot happen in mechanical objects unless they can reproduce, and produce varying offspring.
Godobeyer, with all respect, you clearly know nothing about Natural History. Do they not teach biology or geology in Algeria?

It's does not simple as you think,
"give it name" is not answser to something over your imagination.

I am very convinced that there is lack of imagination between believers in God,and believers in nature,concerning the point of intellegent design.

 

[Godobeyer]

No, it requires knowledge of how DNA works.
.

"Give it name" again ?

source : http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/how-much-we-were-weigh-sperm-and-egg.189581/#post-4840713


How/Who register the organs of human body in seperated cells ,sperm and egg,BUT only when they combine they encode human body in zygote,between 0.00177 mg and 0.0042 mg to become 70kg (for exemple) , which mean 230 billion times different size ?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

K:
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html


speculation of the theory, not an empirical example. Again we know for sure ID can create truly novel functional designs, but for nature this is still philosophical speculation-


Of course mutations are random, but natural selection is not. Things like mutation and reproductive variation give evolution material to work with. It then weeds out the less fit and multiplies the fit.

Right, so there's your trouble, the chances of a random mutation producing a significant design advantage in the first place - that's the problematic part.

Obviously once you HAVE a significant design advantage, it will be selected for- that goes entirely without saying, it's why we still have Ford Mustangs and not Ford Pintos. selection of superior design does nothing whatsoever to suggest the design improvement was a fluke.

Both the gaps and the gradualist spectra become clearer as more evidence accumulates. This is to be expected. Evolution occurs quickly in some situations and, in others, little change occurrs for millions of years.

little change- or none at all- stasis, that only defines the gaps even more clearly. species suddenly appearing- in a geological blink of an eye, all over the world. and then remaining practically unaltered for 100's of millions of years- looks a lot more like working from a blueprint than gradual selection of random changes

• 
  

• [*]
  David Raup, U of Chicago paleantologist and curator of Field museum.

• http://commondescent.net/articles/Raup_quote.htm

he was clear that he 'believed in evolution' if defined simply as change over time, that if you traveled to different times, some life would look different, and some would not. Genesis does not contradict this definition, nor does the evolution of the automobile.

So change, likewise, says nothing in itself to suggest the changes are accidental- nor do similar design features suggest common descent- as tempting an assumption as it may be- especially in the context of other unsupported assumptions.

 

[Kirran]

Mutations are random, but they're only the fuel. It's the processes that work with them which are of importance in generation of diversity and adaptation. Primarily natural selection, but to some degree other processes.

 

[Valjean]

Let's suppose all life get extinction , there is one single proteint cell in world alive, what will do that cell alone ?

Watch a lot of TV?

Do you speak about rainbow formed by sun and rain ?
That's support my view.

That a rainbow is supernatural, not formed by Optics?

Where is the wrong with that?
So you value the information depend/according religion of his publishor ?

He's saying that the site is biased. It's a clever religious propaganda site, not a dispassionate scientific report.

False,time can't be factor to creat a life.

Why not? Billions of single celled organisms, billions of interactions each day for a couple of billion years... You don't think this is enough time for occasional colony cells to form, and for these to form colonial organisms, and for these to form more complex organisms, &c?

DNA don't order to cells to orginase the cells to build body.

What does it do, then? It's the plan, the blueprint for an organism.

Before exposion the species were not exist at that form,there is no record fossils of it.

Ah, I think I see where you're coming from.
Yes. New species develop from older species, that's what evolution is. But what's your point?
Science has evidence of the ways this happens, and observations of those ways. Creationists have only their own ignorance of these processes, and the incredulity born of this, as 'evidence'.

It's does not simple as you think,
"give it name" is not answser to something over your imagination.

I am very convinced that there is lack of imagination between believers in God,and believers in nature,concerning the point of intellegent design.

I don't understand what you're saying here, Godobeyer: "Give it name?"
What do you mean by "imagination" here?

 

[Valjean]

"Give it name" again ?
source : http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/how-much-we-were-weigh-sperm-and-egg.189581/#post-4840713

How/Who register the organs of human body in seperated cells ,sperm and egg,BUT only when they combine they encode human body in zygote,between 0.00177 mg and 0.0042 mg to become 70kg (for exemple) , which mean 230 billion times different size ?

What are you trying to say? Don't we all agree that humans begin as very small things?

Right, so there's your trouble, the chances of a random mutation producing a significant design advantage in the first place - that's the problematic part.

Yet we see it happen, as well as significant defects. Mutations happen all the time, millions of them -- makes up for low percentage.
There is also reproductive variation. A litter of puppies won't all be the same, and not because of mutations. One might have an advantageous feature for the environment it finds itself in. It will likely have more offspring and the feature will spread.

selection of superior design does nothing whatsoever to suggest the design improvement was a fluke.

I thought this was your contention: that the design improvements were random, ie: flukes.

... species suddenly appearing- in a geological blink of an eye, all over the world. and then remaining practically unaltered for 100's of millions of years- looks a lot more like working from a blueprint than gradual selection of random changes

Species like the Nylon eating bacteria or London tube mosquitos? Yes, they appeared suddenly, but why posit magic? If something conferring a significant reproductive advantage occurrs, especially in a rapidly reproducing species and in a novel environment, it can spread through the population quickly. How long the feature persists depends a lot on how long the environment it's adapted to persists.
I don't understand why you think there's some kind of magical manipulation involved. Normal evolutionary mechanisms can account for all of this. No appeal to magic is needed.

he was clear that he 'believed in evolution' if defined simply as change over time, that if you traveled to different times, some life would look different, and some would not. Genesis does not contradict this definition, nor does the evolution of the automobile.

Lots of alternative explanations are possible, but they aren't likely. Positing an unsupported alternative over the usual, well known, observable mechanism is not reasonable. Occam's razor, and all....

 

[Etritonakin]

It should be noted that we are still learning how this stuff works.....

Isn't our genetic legacy hardwired?
From Mendel and Darwin in the 19th century to Watson and Crick in the 20th, scientists have shown that chromosomes passed from parent to child form a genetic blueprint for development. But in a quiet scientific revolution, researchers have in recent years come to realize that genes aren't a fixed, predetermined program simply passed from one generation to the next. Instead, genes can be turned on and off by experiences and environment. What we eat, how much stress we undergo, and what toxins we're exposed to can all alter the genetic legacy we pass on to our children and even grandchildren. In this new science of "epigenetics," researchers are exploring how nature and nurture combine to cause behavior, traits, and illnesses that genes alone can't explain, ranging from sexual orientation to autism to cancer. "We were all brought up to think the genome was it," said Rockefeller University molecular biologist C. David Allis. "It's really been a watershed in understanding that there is something beyond the genome."

(http://theweek.com/articles/468627/epigenetics-how-experiences-affect-offspring)

Could Living in a Mentally Enriching Environment Change Your Genes?
When mice are exposed to enriched environments, their offspring can overcome genetic defects that impair long-term memory.

(https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/enriched-environments-memory/)

Although genes are mostly hardwired at the moment an egg is fertilized by a sperm, epigenetics suggests that DNA may be more susceptible to change than was previously thought.

"Most of the program is determined; however, the program is not 100 percent accurate or efficient," Issa said. "There's a little bit of wobbliness, and that's where the environment can play a role."

Long-lasting effects

Furthermore, epigenetic traits can be passed down from generation to generation, said Randy Jirtle, a visiting professor at McArdle Laboratory for Cancer Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

(http://www.livescience.com/37135-dna-epigenetics-disease-research.html)

 

[Godobeyer]

Watch a lot of TV?

That's was a point I was to sent.
but it's seems you are hasty.

That a rainbow is supernatural, not formed by Optics?

No It's not.

He's saying that the site is biased. It's a clever religious propaganda site, not a dispassionate scientific report.
Why not? Billions of single celled organisms, billions of interactions each day for a couple of billion years... You don't think this is enough time for occasional colony cells to form, and for these to form colonial organisms, and for these to form more complex organisms, &c?

If that true.I think there is websites made by atheists biased and had propaganda of atheism.

What does it do, then? It's the plan, the blueprint for an organism.

Just simple like that ?!

This is different between believers and non-believer,we see what you can't see.

Ah, I think I see where you're coming from.
Yes. New species develop from older species, that's what evolution is. But what's your point?
Science has evidence of the ways this happens, and observations of those ways. Creationists have only their own ignorance of these processes, and the incredulity born of this, as 'evidence'.

That's "explosion"
No I think it's destory the idea of evolution.

I don't understand what you're saying here, Godobeyer: "Give it name?"
What do you mean by "imagination" here?

Give it name : is method used by atheists/evolutionists as justification , so they gave names instead of facts.

Imagination:is help to reach my ideas,I do believe we theist had that kind of thinking,atheists don't have.

 

[Kirran]

Imagination:is help to reach my ideas,I do believe we theist had that kind of thinking,atheists don't have.

Please stop including me in your anti-scientific worldview - just because I'm a theist doesn't mean I reject science in favour of imagination, which is what you admit to here.