Not all designed objects are made from non-naturally occurring materials. Nor do they all have an inscription, or brand markings
It was your choice to use computer component.
If there are no unnatural materials used, there still is the signs of manufacturing.
Like Mt Rushmore. No non-natural materials there. But clear signs of carving.
Not sure what you are talking about here.
I know. It's part of the problem.
What I mean is, that the parts are put together with things like
glue and
soldering
These are things we expect from an artificial production process, as opposed to a natural development.
I would suggest that perhaps we are both assuming, but I am using evidence in the same way you claim to be.
Not at all. YOU are assuming that there is planning, intent, purpose. I'm not making any such assumptions. Neither am I assuming that there isn't. I just go by the evidence. Thing like pre-planning, intent, purpose need to be
demonstrated, not merely assumed / asserted.
You have yet to give a shred of evidence for this assumption.
So far, all you have is "it's complicated". That is only evidence of you not understanding it. Not that it was made by the super being that you happen to believe in.
There is a goal that involves functionality of the connected parts... without which, the entire system breaks down.
What "goal"?
What system are you proposing, that has that goal - natural selection? How so?
Natural selection is not goal oriented.
I'm not claiming any goals at all. I have no clue why you think that I am.
The requirements are evidently according to plan. They have a specific purpose.
You keep claiming that. Are you going to support it, or are you just going to keep claiming it?
This gives evidence of design...
Bare claims aren't evidence of anything. Except perhaps gullibility.
You have yet to explain natural design.
I already told you: patterns and processes that emerge from the laws of nature working on matter.
We are talking about the brain, not color, or size. or antics.
Yes. The brain is a pattern of matter and this pattern triggers chemical processes.
I have no problem with adaptation, being an observable fact.
Adapation = evolution.
However, if you are saying the brain is a natural design, you need to explain what that means, and how it happened. As far as I know, you are making unconfirmed assumptions.
Reproduce, mutate, survive, repeat.
I already told you how we know that brain building is regulated by genetics, how brains size is regulated by genetics, how variation of brain size is regulated by genetic mutation, how we have plenty of examples of extant species that have extremely simple rudimentary brains all the way upto species with large complex brains, how we know from the fossil record that brains of the human lineage have gradually grown bigger over the past couple million years.
The OP asked for evidence for God. This is just one evidences, as we know that design requires a designer, and we also know there is cause and effect.
We also know that natural processes can and do result in natural design all the time.
You being ignorant (or too stubborn to learn) about that, doesn't change that fact.
Natural selection is not goal oriented.
Never said it was.
The design of the connections in the brain are all intended toward a specific goal.
Bare claim again.
Yes, they / you assume that.
Not an assumption.
Another assumption. We have what? Nothing/
Not an assumption.
Factually, throughout the animal kingdom, we have examples of very small and simple rudimentary brains all the way up to the large complex human brain and plenty of examples in between.
Kind of strange that you would call that an "assumption".
The alternative to this factoid would be to claim that all animals have a brain of the same size and complexity. Clearly that is not the case.
Brain building? Sound like something unscientific
If you wish to call embryology "unscientific".
. I wonder where you got that idea from, other than your head.
High school biology.
Evolution of the brain - Wikipedia
The principles that govern the evolution of brain structure are not well understood....
One approach to understanding overall brain evolution is to use a paleoarchaeological timeline to trace the necessity for ever increasing complexity in structures that allow for chemical and electrical signaling. Because brains and other soft tissues do not fossilize as readily as mineralized tissues, scientists often look to other structures as evidence in the fossil record to get an understanding of brain evolution. This, however, leads to a dilemma as the emergence of organisms with more complex nervous systems with protective bone or other protective tissues that can then readily fossilize occur in the fossil record before evidence for chemical and electrical signaling. Recent evidence has shown that the ability to transmit electrical and chemical signals existed even before more complex multicellular lifeforms.
Fossilization of brain, or other soft tissue, is possible however, and scientists can infer that the first brain structure appeared at least 521 million years ago, with fossil brain tissue present in sites of exceptional preservation.
Another approach to understanding brain evolution is to look at extant organisms that do not possess complex nervous systems, comparing anatomical features that allow for chemical or electrical messaging.
I wasn't talking about brain
evolution. I was talking about the buildup / growth of the brain during embryonic development. In the beginning of pregnancy, the "child" doesn't have a brain or braincells. And then a couple months later, it does. Are you not aware of this?
The fact that mutations can make brain sizes vary, is what matters.
Not all mutations are going to have the same ripple effects. What it proves, is that brain size not only can be, but IS, regulated/determined by genetics.
Picking on those mutations that also have harmful side-effects, doesn't change that fact.
Also not that
most mutations, even
beneficial ones, oftenly come with a cost. It's usually a tradeoff if the benefit outweighs the cost.
For example....
Consider a mutation that increases bone density by loading it up with more calcium.
Suppose this happens in a species that benefits from it.
That calcium needs to come from somewhere...
So, either it needs to alter its diet so that it takes up more calcium. Or the calcium is to be taken from elsewhere in the body, meaning that there is less calcium available now for
other stuff.
In case of the latter, the benefit of stronger bones must outweigh the loss of calcium in those other systems.
Having said that... ever wondered why wisdom teeth hurt like hell and why most people need to have them pulled out? I'll tell you: because our mouth is too small for all our teeth. We used to have bigger mouth, with enough room for all those teeth.
But our brain exploded in size. Today, our cranium takes up more room. And analogous to the calcium in the above example, that room needs to be taken from somewhere: our mouth. A bigger head isn't an option as that would give problems for childbirth.
So today, due to a brain that trippled in size in only a couple million years, we have a mouth that is too small to house all our teeth.
See, how all that stuff neatly comes together to form a bigger picture? That's what they call "explanatory power".
Now you can try and explain how an "intelligent designer" apparently was so dumb that he gave us a set of teeth with a mouth to small to fit all of them.
Or you can let go of this iron age superstition and read up on modern 21st century biology.
It's your choice off course.
Based on assumptions yes. Science, no.
Evolution of neuronal types and families
Major questions in the evolution of neurons and nervous systems remain unsolved, such as the origin of the first neuron, the possible convergent evolution of neuronal phenotypes, and the transition from a relatively simple decentralized nerve net to the complex, centralized nervous systems found in modern bilaterian animals.
Don't confuse the "how" with the "if".
Determining that a structure evolved is not the same as finding out the exact evolutionary path that was taken to end up with said structure.
As an analogy... let's go to Lenski's E.Coli experiment.
12 populations, non of which are able to metabolize citrate. Physically impossible to do so.
After x generations, 1 population has a population explosion. Turns out, they are feeding on citrate and that novel food source means an abundance of food, leading to a larger population size that can be sustained.
Nobody went into that population to fiddle around with the genes to create this metabolic pathway.
So, they KNEW the feature evolved. But they didn't know HOW yet.
They then went back to previous generations (they kept samples in a freezer so that they could trace it back if such things happened). And by doing so, they were able to identify exactly which mutations were responsible for it.
So there you go.....
Determining that a structure evolved without knowing how it evolved - perfectly possible.
Ah! Glue.