The watchmaker theory assumes a finished creation ex nihilo. Life is a different kettle of fish. Life reproduces divergent copies of itself, weeds out the less functional designs and repeats the process with the successful design changes. Changes -- "improvements" -- accumulate.If was to go for a walk in the woods and I came across a well maintained house with a sign on the door that said "come in, all welcome" and I entered to find a tastefully decorated home with carpeting, lighting, air conditioning, plumbing, a fully stocked pantry and a note to say "make yourself at home." Would I automatically assume that this house just evolved over millions of years with no designer or construction engineer to oversee the project? If I went back into suburbia and told people that I found this amazing place in the woods, would they believe that it had no designer or builder? What would I look like to them if I stuck to my story?....and what would the provider of that house think of me if I continued to spread that assumption, based on the fact that I had never met him and assumed that he did not exist? The philanthropic builder just wanted his visitors to treat the house he provided with respect. He asked nothing in return except that I be mindful that others too would want to enjoy what he had provided.
If in my walk in the woods I also come across a gold Rolex watch.....I assume too that it had no maker, so I marvel at the evolutionary process that created it and take it home.
Houses and watches don't reproduce.
Google "watchmaker theory debunked" and watch some videos.
The burden of proof is on he who posits a magical 'explanation' with no empirical support. The scientific explanation is reasonable and based on actual observation and evidence.The burden of proof is on those who deny the existence of the builder, when the genius of his construction is everywhere. The evidence for his existence is in the complex workings of every living thing on this planet, as well as the planet itself.
You don't understand what 'logic' is, apparently.It's just logic to me.
And a boy can catch a baseball without a course on the calculus. Natural selection incorporated these basic survival capabilities into our operating systems.Using a brain the size of the tip of a ballpoint pen, the monarch butterfly migrates up to 1,800 miles from Canada to a small patch of forest in Mexico. This butterfly relies on the sun to help it navigate, and it has the ability to compensate for the movement of the sun across the sky.
You're projecting your own, limited experience of this world onto Reality. Why must there be a source?The laws that are seen in the universe have a source.....what is the source of those laws?
Why is any feature what it is? Why is there a liquid water sea under Enceladus' (moon of Saturn) surface? Is there life there? With trillions of probable planets, the chance of some of them being earthlike is pretty good.Why is Earth the only planet to host life in our solar system? Why is earth the only planet to have an abundance of water? An abundance of vegetation to feed the life that exists here? How does it have just the right mixture of gases and the right temperatures for life to exist in all zones?
You're putting the cart before the horse. You're marvelling at the intricate design of a ditch, conforming in every minute aspect, with the water it contains.
This is just absurd. Endless small changes can never accumulate into big changes? How does evolution know where to stop this microevolution, so as to avoid becoming macroevolution?Adaptation is seen in species that inhabit different regions, but no species ever evolved into a completely different species.
I do.If we had to choose a “next-door neighbor” for the earth, we could not improve on the moon. Its diameter measures just over a quarter of the earth’s. Thus, when compared with other moons in our solar system, our moon is unusually large in relation to its host planet. This, however, is no coincidence.
For one thing, the moon is the principal cause of ocean tides, which play a vital role in the planet’s ecology. The moon also contributes to earth’s stable spin axis. Without its tailor-made moon, our planet would wobble like a spinning top, perhaps even tipping right over and turning on its side, as it were! The resulting climatic, tidal, and other changes would be catastrophic.
Just an accident you say.....?
Had the moon never been formed life would have evolved differently, but it still would have evolved. We might have has people pointing to Earth's unique lack of a moon as evidence for pro-life design.[/quote]