Why designed?

[Man of Faith]

Evolution works the opposite direction of design for intent. When life came out in the beginning of the earth they didn't come out with designed legs. Over time legs came to be through evolution and then became useful after the animal gained the leverage. Now we use the legs for whatever suits us like jumping, walking and kicking, there isn't really a specific design for it we just use what we have however possible.

Evolution of the leg is pure speculation based on a philosophy of naturalism. And there are many arguments against naturalism.

 

[shawn001]

Well, that's a little off topic of the OP don't you think? But my technical answer would be God did it. But of course you can say the big bang did it if you like.

No its directly on topic.

The big bang is a done deal since we have pictures to prove it, before stars or galaxies existed at all in our universe.

The big bang is not about how it "started" either so you know.

"But my technical answer would be God did it"

What was the process "God" used then?

 

[idav]

Evolution of the leg is pure speculation based on a philosophy of naturalism. And there are many arguments against naturalism.

It isn't philosophy. The first organisms on the planet didn't have legs. You follow the timeline of organisms on the planet and you can follow the development of functionality of anything biological.

 

[shawn001]

Evolution of the leg is pure speculation based on a philosophy of naturalism. And there are many arguments against naturalism.

Evolution of the human leg is not built on philosophy or speculation or a hypothesis.

 

[Man of Faith]

It isn't philosophy. The first organisms on the planet didn't have legs. You follow the timeline of organisms on the planet and you can follow the development of functionality of anything biological.

Can you show me a leg in the process of being developed naturally?

 

[Man of Faith]

No its directly on topic.

The big bang is a done deal since we have pictures to prove it, before stars or galaxies existed at all in our universe.

The big bang is not about how it "started" either so you know.

"But my technical answer would be God did it"

What was the process "God" used then?

It is interesting that evolutionists that were so against the universe having a beginning because it validated the creation model, are now embracing it as being against the creation model. When in actuality the universe having a beginning validates there being a creator. Life is surely funny.

 

[idav]

Can you show me a leg in the process of being developed naturally?

Depends how you wanna define leg. Here is a basic timeline. I would say around the time amphibians came into the picture.

The basic timeline of a 4.5 billion year old Earth, with approximate dates:
3.8 billion years of simple cells (prokaryotes),
3 billion years of photosynthesis,
2 billion years of complex cells (eukaryotes),
1 billion years of multicellular life,
600 million years of simple animals,
570 million years of arthropods (ancestors of insects, arachnids and crustaceans),
550 million years of complex animals,
500 million years of fish and proto-amphibians,
475 million years of land plants,
400 million years of insects and seeds,
360 million years of amphibians,
300 million years of reptiles,
200 million years of mammals,
150 million years of birds,
130 million years of flowers,
65 million years since the non-avian dinosaurs died out,
2.5 million years since the appearance of the genus Homo,
200,000 years of anatomically modern humans,
25,000 years since the disappearance of Neanderthal traits from the fossil record.
13,000 years since the disappearance of Homo floresiensis from the fossil record.

Timeline of evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[painted wolf]

Can you show me a leg in the process of being developed naturally?

http://jmg.bmj.com/content/41/1/60/F4.large.jpg

wa:do

also this:

 

[idav]

It is interesting that evolutionists that were so against the universe having a beginning because it validated the creation model, are now embracing it as being against the creation model. When in actuality the universe having a beginning validates there being a creator. Life is surely funny.

The problem is insisting the big bang means the beginning. The other problem is insisting that beginning = created.

 

[Kerr]

The problem is insisting the big bang means the beginning. The other problem is insisting that beginning = created.

Or that "created" means "created by my deity", for that matter.

 

[Man of Faith]

Depends how you wanna define leg. Here is a basic timeline. I would say around the time amphibians came into the picture.



Timeline of evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can you show me a leg that is in the process of being developed naturally?

 

[Kerr]

Can you show me a leg that is in the process of being developed naturally?

Look at your own leg .

 

[Man of Faith]

http://jmg.bmj.com/content/41/1/60/F4.large.jpg

wa:do

also this:

What is that, in the womb? The second link didn't work.

 

[Man of Faith]

Look at your own leg .

It looks fully developed to me. Do you have information showing that the human leg is still developing.

 

[idav]

Can you show me a leg that is in the process of being developed naturally?

Look at the progress of a fetus.

 

[dawny0826]

I am wondering why some people seem to see design in thing which are very complicated.

Here is an example from my daily life:

I work as a software developer.
I help design software in a company which has been developing the same product for 10 years or so.
The software is continuously changed to try to keep up with customer demmands.

What usually happens is that the managment descides to implement some feature because some customer has requested it or because they feel some qustomers may want it in the near future.
Then the developers look at the code and try to change it to make it do more or less what was requested.
Maybe in doing so they will wrech some other functionality, but if no one is using it anymore then no one complains and the error goes unnoticed.

So after 10 years of this you end up with a big, complicated, messy code base that no one planned.
It mostly works, but there was no grand design plan.
It just happened to turn out this way.

So I am wondering why some people look at a human being and think, this big, complicated, messy bag of mostly water must have been designed to look exactly like this.

There was purpose to the human design. A method to the madness. That's my opinion.

 

[Kerr]

It looks fully developed to me. Do you have information showing that the human leg is still developing.

No. But we have in no way stopped evolving, meaning that the leg is still under "development". Evolution is a never ending process, there is no point where a species is done.

 

[camanintx]

I’m flabbergasted. Of all people, a programmer should know better than to try to admit that there is such a thing as a code or program, even a "messy" one in the universe that hasn't been designed. Even scientists admit that DNA is a genetic code, a program if you will. There are rules of communication in life forms using agreed upon symbols. The sequence of base pairs is encoded into messenger RNA and then decoded into proteins.

Computers are not capable of self-reproduction and descent with modification, so one would be foolish to suggest that they were not designed. Since life is not bound by this restriction, your argument that it was designed as well is fundamentally flawed.

 

[lunakilo]

No its directly on topic.

The big bang is a done deal since we have pictures to prove it, before stars or galaxies existed at all in our universe.

The big bang is not about how it "started" either so you know.

"But my technical answer would be God did it"

What was the process "God" used then?

It sounds off topic to me too.

The question in the OP was about why some people see design in complicated things like a human or a leg or ... when I don't

I don't understand the argument that it must be designed because it it good at something.

Yesterday I was fixing up my new house and a frind of mine came by with bread.
I didn't have a knife in the house since we don't live there so I used a saw to cut it.
I used a credit card to spread pate on the bread.
I used a spatula to cut a cucumber.

Neither a saw , a spatula or a credit card was to my knowledge designed to be used in this manner, but they worked fine. They may all be designed, but in this case they seem to be good at something they were not designed for.

So just because a leg is good for walking doesn't mean it was designed for that purpose.

I don't understand the argument that something complex must be designed since I can think of complex things that are not designed.
Man of faith did say something about complexity not being enough, that things had to work to, but I still don't understand it.
My messy desk would work fine as a place for a fire to start, but it was not designed for this.

I don't understand the argument that because something is beautiful it must be designed since any random things can be beautiful.

So basically I don't understand why some people see design evrywhere.

 

[painted wolf]

What is that, in the womb? The second link didn't work.

The link is a picture of Hox gene activity in a developing embryo limb. It opens fine on my end.

The second is a picture of fossil limbs through time showing the development of the "leg" from early lobe fin fish to more advanced critters that are hard to classify as either a "fish" or a "tetrapod".

wa:do