Well you can tell by the way I use my walk I'm a woman's man,... Ha Ha Ha Ha Stayin' Alive.
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
" So where's all the 'random chance' people at? "
I know who youre talking about ;)
I've gone through this argument many times. It lead to nowhere.
"Random chance" is like a super power. There's nothing it can't explain, no matter how unlikely, you can always fall back on it. "given enough time..."
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob (Site Administrator)
Yeah, but the guy demolishes it in the closing minutes of his video. Unlike the human brain, with frontal cortex and neo cortex being mapped on to the previous structures (reptile brain if you will) in humans, proving their value and being selected for in subsequent generations how could a single part of this motor appearing in the ontological record possibly be advantageous AND be selected for so that subsequent 'parts' of the motor also appear and the selection process repeat itself. The thing had to be introduced in one shot...
Of course..
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft (Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
" The thing had to be introduced in one shot... "
Yes, but you are understating the super power of random chance :)
I'd go at it by asking an evolutionary biologist what kind of biological systems / mechanism would they need to find to start to consider intelligent design? Is there even such a thing?
IMO the universe already function quite intelligently. Systems upon systems from sub-atomic particles to all the way to galaxy cluster and everything in between. So far science allows us one free magic trick and that's the big bang. Thats the thing we don't have to explain but it set all this in motion (including evolution).
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
Oooooooh "evolutionary biologist" is to creationists like holy water to dracula, lol.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob (Site Administrator)
That's willful ignorance on your part. You know full well that there are religious biologists, evolutionary biologists etc. Still, you're choosing to strawman; conflagrating anyone who is religious with biblical litterists,.. again. <yawn>
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
Are you really that easily triggered that you missed the word "creationist"?
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob (Site Administrator)
Not triggered at all. Maybe this is you projecting your own feelings. It's just that creationist is a pretty big bucket and you're applying it wrong in this particular argument. Here is the definition in Britannica.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
Haven't watched the video yet, so please clarify:
What do you mean by "'random chance' people"? Do you mean the show stopping "argument" used by creationists "YOU explain to me how the eye was created by random chance!" (it wasn't of course) or are you actually one of them?
EDIT: Watched it now but I don't get why there is such a "potential for discussion". Faith and science are 2 separate things. They only come in contact when people insist to use them to prove a point.
Science doesn't disprove "god(s)"!
However it hasn't found proof for it neither.
As spectacular as the findings in the video are, I don't see how this couldn't have evolved like any other function in nature.
Your argument that "The thing had to be introduced in one shot." is flawed because there is no evidence for it, if there was he would hve mentioned it. Further research needs to be carried out on this before any such claim can be made (or the possibility disregarded for tha matter)!
The question I find way more interesting is: Are we witnessing a lifeform that has reached (at least in part) the end of its evolutionary path? If so when was this stadium achieved? Or is there still room for improvement? And much more....
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob (Site Administrator)
Thanks daftcunt for the well thought out reply.
First, in parentheses since you insist on always starting with a crack at faith, I don't know how you keep a straight face when you try to divorce science from religion (maybe you don't). Some of the foremost institutions of learning were started and funded by the church. Moving on.
The human eye example doesn't really apply here. I mean, starting with a simple chloroplast (... chromophore ? I forget), that lets a euglena separate light from dark (religious pun unintentional but nevertheless funny) and moving on to a compound eye in aquatic vertebrates then on to the eyes of eagles, humans.. all apes really, what we see is a step-wise improvement in function (and resolution) which would certainly be advantageous and selected for over successive generations. But the motor powering the tail of flagellates...well, you're talking a complex array of molecules and proteins that allowed advantageous movement to start, and eventually..shiz mofu, the thing even has a gear stick so you can back her into reverse! The question for you, then: Since one part of the motor alone would not be functional/advantageous/selected for, then how did this darn 'assembly' (minimum number of protein structures necessary for movement) simultaneously come into being?
Saying 'I dunno' without an acknowledgment this poses certain logical problems (for you) simply won't cut it.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
Well, little buddy, I don't know the answer to your question. What kind of "acknowledgment" are you after?
Assuming that the whole is useless without all its parts is flawed though.
Remember when the narrator was wiggling his hands imitating a mechanism that steers a submarine or the like. The "motor" could have started out like this, two proteins interacting in a way that they give the bacteria the ability to move, this then evolves little by little into the rotating "motor".
These being bacteria evolution would be rather quick in comparison to other life forms and given enough time a rather complex mechanism could be the result, it would also be an argument that there may be an "end" to evolution if the environment is sufficiently simple. Lastly as I don't think we can trace bacteria backwards in sufficient detail, there is practically no chance of finding ancestors, is there? so simulating that process may be a bit of a challenge.
This is just based on assumptions, I have no proof for that, nobody has, people with way more knowledge than you or me will have to look into this and it may very well be that we end up with another "big bang" situation where we can only make assumptions (I doubt that though).
Using this as a "proof of concept" for devine intervention I would (at the current state of research) class as outright ridiculous.
But this is how "church science" works, isn't it: Find something sufficiently complex and then try to stop further research:
The earth was created in a few days by god, oops proven wrong
The universe revolves around the earth, so god did it. oops, proven wrong
etc. etc.
The big bang "can't be explained", so god did it, no supporting evidence but good enough "proof" for some the believers.
The inexplicable bacterial motor "can't be explained", so god did it, no supporting evidence but good enough "proof" for some the believers.
The most hilarious part of it is that we are talking bacteria here, a lot of devine effort would have gone into shit that can actually kill people rather than the people themselves, but hey, gods ways are mysterious, aren't they..
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob (Site Administrator)
Nice. Really nice. Chalk full of goodness this is. We're headed out to see Deadpool3 ce soir but I'm promising I'll get back to you here. Thanks...for making it easy.
(Edit 20240704) Thanks for your patience in coming back to you here. It's in the nature of all life to share the following 5 traits: it breathes, reproduces, eats, excretes and responds to cues in its environment. That last trait is what we're examining here. Even we humans when thrown into new situations (stress) will have genes express for new proteins. So in the case of our unicellular organism you're postulating that it developed a 'rutter' first with no way of propelling itself. That it could steer itself with no way of actually propelling itself. We'll smack my knee and call me Susan, isn't that putting the multi-cellular organism before the prokaryote.
You got a bunch of paragraphs there where you claim the wrong thing on behalf of religious people and then discount it. You end by saying bacteria kill people. Seriously, you Germans need to eat more yoghurt, preferably Greek. I told you before that churches funded scientific pursuits in order to better understand the complexity of God's creation. Looking at systems from microcellular to cosmic in scale as Backdraft mentions above (remember Jupiter with its immense gravity taking the planet-killer hit for us when Schumacher -Levy rolled through the neighborhood) I understand how it leaves you dumbfounded that some would have their faith reaffirmed by this. But, this is your problem. Sorry not sorry.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
lol, you needed 2 days to come up with this bullshit, literally saying "impossible, so god or aliens (which actually may seem like gods to us) did it". And then you wonder why I class you as creationist.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob (Site Administrator)
I spent two days doing other things. If you think I spent that time working a reply makes you quite the egotist don't you know. Reminds me of someone... Anyway, rest assured I put as much time into the response as you did the post before (where you try to convince yourself mostly).
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
lol, yeah, bacteria don't evolve.... they were created like this.
you should start a comedy channel.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob (Site Administrator)
Who said bacteria don't evolve? You're clearly fluent in English, so I'm thinking willful ignorance or subterfuge on your part. That Euglena I mentioned, the thing is ciliated. Think of little mini-flagella all over it's body creating a current that guides food particles into it's one mouth. How's that for adaptive significance. It only stands to reason that eventually, one specialized one comes into being, a main flagellum used for rapid propulsion. (This is me giving you the answer by the way). But here's your problem. How would this perfect motor mechanism come into being in microscopic organisms, haploid organisms like daftcunt-spermy that won the race all those years ago (congratulations by the way) and be replicated in our external world scale by mechanics and engineers who didn't have access to 21st century microscopy to 'copy' this design. What, this motor is a part of human 'race memory' or something? Or is it just the most 'intelligent design' and we both (God, nature, whatever) and (man) arrived at a nearly identical mechanical design?
You can't see me but I just dropped the mic.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
You are asking questions that are designed to confirm your bias and atm no one can answer.
I think focusing on the "perfection" of a system is wrong, so is not being able to imagine possible functions of parts of the system outside of it and because of that stop research there.
Because you are happier with "your" version you discard the possibility of nature (or whatever*) and scientists/engineers independently achieving an almost identical design, albeit for different reasons, and that "random chance" was part of the process. And it may very well be that the design is perfect for an electric motor and nature (or whatever) reached the end of the evolution of their system (for the size and components that are available to the system), and humans may also only be able to improve on the material side but not the general design of it.
* and before you start again: No, I am not disregarding the possibility of (a) god(s) or aliens interfering, I am just not happy with "seems inexplicable so god did it". Now go pick up your mike, hun, you failed.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob (Site Administrator)
If I can extract the mic which you're sitting on. Thanks dear.
Think about what you said here: 'And it may very well be that the design is perfect for an electric motor and nature (or whatever) reached the end of the evolution of their system (for the size and components that are available to the system), and humans may also only be able to improve on the material side but not the general design of it.'.
You're describing the parallel evolution of two systems to be virtually identical in form and function, right down to the gear allowing the thing to reverse. One in nature. One in the mind of man. Yet for you it's completely off the table that both were driven or inspired by the same guiding force.
Anyway, you said 'random chance' which as Backdraft pointed out above is the new-atheist's ace in the hole,...snuggled next to the mic of course.
It was fun playing though. We'll consider getting an 'I don't know' out of you, progress.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
"Yet for you it's completely off the table that both were driven or inspired by the same guiding force. "
I said no such thing, quite the contrary. The guiding forces are laws of nature. If there is a "superior (or devine) force" there is (currently) no evidence for it.
'random chance' is part of evolution and genetics, it is a simple fact and there is nothing even remotely "atheist" about it, most religious people understand this, except creationists of course. The random components are tiny changes, which may be advantageous, disadvantageous or neutral with respect to the survival of the organism, this does not mean things like the "motor" appeared out of the blue (which is the "impossible" or ·"intelligent (when it often actually isn't) design" argument of the creationist "can't have evolved so must have been put there like this by someone or something").
This process (tiny random changes that make the organism fitter or less fit to survive) has been interfered with in humans (medicine, vaccines, technology, social structure) is (ab)used for example in selective animal breeding by humans. The "playing god" system is used in GM crops for example.
Lastly: Of course I don't know, also you don't know.
Here's the difference between us: In contrary to you I don't desperately want it to be something in particular. I will be "happy" with whatever the conclusions will be, once we have found evidence for them. However I WILL NOT commit to foregone conclusions like "too complex so (a) god(s) or aliens did it".
Simple as that.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob (Site Administrator)
Your first paragraph is crap. You basically want it both ways but we've established here and in the video that 2 random proteins happening to have been arrived at by chance, still don't allow for propulsion let alone significant advantage that would be 'naturally' selected for in subsequent genera. Your 'random chance' postulate doesn't get elevated to 'fact' because you say so, not in this case.
You say here you 'don't know' and that unlike uncle Duckie 'will be happy' if evidence is found but it's a FACT that you're hardly impartial or objective..or passive as the most prolific poster of active... hatred of stamp collecting. We get it. Say it as many times as you need... to keep yourself convinced.
PS. Where were you below. Will you not defend the honor of your lord and saviour uncle 'D'? Elon is laughing at him.
They're talking about Western New-Atheists great accomplishments.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
Again, you dismiss that there could have been ancestors with a "purpouse" we don't know about (although we can't be sure about that), this suits you because it is the "better eye" and thus you want scientists to stop investigating further. They won't.
You also contradict your own argument about a "guiding force" when assuming the "devine" motor just popped into existence (and AGAIN there is no proof for that).
Now here's a question for you: What "message" do you think a "creator" wanted to send by designing this "devine motor"?
What does it tell you?
I don't care what elon laughs about. He possibly won't have much to laugh about sooner rather than later.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Bobbob (Site Administrator)
I 'want scientists to stop investing further'... How early do you guys start day-drinking on weekends in your country, anyway? Atheists don't own science, Iove of science or the scientific method. Get over that.
Don't put 'devine' in quotes like I said it. I said it's very hard to disregard the fact that two virtually identical mechanisms one biological the other mechanical (derived by human intellect very recently, without sufficient microscopy to 'steal' the idea) are a problem for you.
That we haven't even begun to grasp the complexity and majesty of creation. Why,..what does it tell you?
Better get some more laughing in while he still can then. (Points at your prophet and snickers..'I do like me a good Christian hymn', lols, hnngh).
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
"I said it's very hard to disregard the fact that two virtually identical mechanisms one biological the other mechanical (derived by human intellect very recently, without sufficient microscopy to 'steal' the idea) are a problem for you."
No problem at all, hun. just nothing proven to be "devine" about the machine.
Here is my take on it:
That we haven't even begun to grasp the complexity and majesty of creation nature and the universe.
Comments
(Site Administrator)
Glorious.
So where's all the 'random chance' people at?
Well you can tell by the way I use my walk I'm a woman's man,... Ha Ha Ha Ha Stayin' Alive.
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
" So where's all the 'random chance' people at? "
I know who youre talking about ;)
I've gone through this argument many times. It lead to nowhere.
"Random chance" is like a super power. There's nothing it can't explain, no matter how unlikely, you can always fall back on it. "given enough time..."
(Site Administrator)
Yeah, but the guy demolishes it in the closing minutes of his video. Unlike the human brain, with frontal cortex and neo cortex being mapped on to the previous structures (reptile brain if you will) in humans, proving their value and being selected for in subsequent generations how could a single part of this motor appearing in the ontological record possibly be advantageous AND be selected for so that subsequent 'parts' of the motor also appear and the selection process repeat itself. The thing had to be introduced in one shot...
Of course..
(Dixie Normous: Image specialist)
" The thing had to be introduced in one shot... "
Yes, but you are understating the super power of random chance :)
I'd go at it by asking an evolutionary biologist what kind of biological systems / mechanism would they need to find to start to consider intelligent design? Is there even such a thing?
IMO the universe already function quite intelligently. Systems upon systems from sub-atomic particles to all the way to galaxy cluster and everything in between. So far science allows us one free magic trick and that's the big bang. Thats the thing we don't have to explain but it set all this in motion (including evolution).
(Old Spike)
Oooooooh "evolutionary biologist" is to creationists like holy water to dracula, lol.
(Site Administrator)
That's willful ignorance on your part. You know full well that there are religious biologists, evolutionary biologists etc. Still, you're choosing to strawman; conflagrating anyone who is religious with biblical litterists,.. again. <yawn>
(Old Spike)
Are you really that easily triggered that you missed the word "creationist"?
(Site Administrator)
Not triggered at all. Maybe this is you projecting your own feelings. It's just that creationist is a pretty big bucket and you're applying it wrong in this particular argument. Here is the definition in Britannica.
(Old Spike)
Haven't watched the video yet, so please clarify:
What do you mean by "'random chance' people"? Do you mean the show stopping "argument" used by creationists "YOU explain to me how the eye was created by random chance!" (it wasn't of course) or are you actually one of them?
EDIT: Watched it now but I don't get why there is such a "potential for discussion". Faith and science are 2 separate things. They only come in contact when people insist to use them to prove a point.
Science doesn't disprove "god(s)"!
However it hasn't found proof for it neither.
As spectacular as the findings in the video are, I don't see how this couldn't have evolved like any other function in nature.
Your argument that "The thing had to be introduced in one shot." is flawed because there is no evidence for it, if there was he would hve mentioned it. Further research needs to be carried out on this before any such claim can be made (or the possibility disregarded for tha matter)!
The question I find way more interesting is: Are we witnessing a lifeform that has reached (at least in part) the end of its evolutionary path? If so when was this stadium achieved? Or is there still room for improvement? And much more....
(Site Administrator)
Thanks daftcunt for the well thought out reply.
First, in parentheses since you insist on always starting with a crack at faith, I don't know how you keep a straight face when you try to divorce science from religion (maybe you don't). Some of the foremost institutions of learning were started and funded by the church. Moving on.
The human eye example doesn't really apply here. I mean, starting with a simple chloroplast (... chromophore ? I forget), that lets a euglena separate light from dark (religious pun unintentional but nevertheless funny) and moving on to a compound eye in aquatic vertebrates then on to the eyes of eagles, humans.. all apes really, what we see is a step-wise improvement in function (and resolution) which would certainly be advantageous and selected for over successive generations. But the motor powering the tail of flagellates...well, you're talking a complex array of molecules and proteins that allowed advantageous movement to start, and eventually..shiz mofu, the thing even has a gear stick so you can back her into reverse! The question for you, then: Since one part of the motor alone would not be functional/advantageous/selected for, then how did this darn 'assembly' (minimum number of protein structures necessary for movement) simultaneously come into being?
Saying 'I dunno' without an acknowledgment this poses certain logical problems (for you) simply won't cut it.
(Old Spike)
Well, little buddy, I don't know the answer to your question. What kind of "acknowledgment" are you after?
Assuming that the whole is useless without all its parts is flawed though.
Remember when the narrator was wiggling his hands imitating a mechanism that steers a submarine or the like. The "motor" could have started out like this, two proteins interacting in a way that they give the bacteria the ability to move, this then evolves little by little into the rotating "motor".
These being bacteria evolution would be rather quick in comparison to other life forms and given enough time a rather complex mechanism could be the result, it would also be an argument that there may be an "end" to evolution if the environment is sufficiently simple. Lastly as I don't think we can trace bacteria backwards in sufficient detail, there is practically no chance of finding ancestors, is there? so simulating that process may be a bit of a challenge.
This is just based on assumptions, I have no proof for that, nobody has, people with way more knowledge than you or me will have to look into this and it may very well be that we end up with another "big bang" situation where we can only make assumptions (I doubt that though).
Using this as a "proof of concept" for devine intervention I would (at the current state of research) class as outright ridiculous.
But this is how "church science" works, isn't it: Find something sufficiently complex and then try to stop further research:
The earth was created in a few days by god, oops proven wrong
The universe revolves around the earth, so god did it. oops, proven wrong
etc. etc.
The big bang "can't be explained", so god did it, no supporting evidence but good enough "proof" for some the believers.
The inexplicable bacterial motor "can't be explained", so god did it, no supporting evidence but good enough "proof" for some the believers.
The most hilarious part of it is that we are talking bacteria here, a lot of devine effort would have gone into shit that can actually kill people rather than the people themselves, but hey, gods ways are mysterious, aren't they..
(Site Administrator)
Nice. Really nice. Chalk full of goodness this is. We're headed out to see Deadpool3 ce soir but I'm promising I'll get back to you here. Thanks...for making it easy.
(Edit 20240704) Thanks for your patience in coming back to you here. It's in the nature of all life to share the following 5 traits: it breathes, reproduces, eats, excretes and responds to cues in its environment. That last trait is what we're examining here. Even we humans when thrown into new situations (stress) will have genes express for new proteins. So in the case of our unicellular organism you're postulating that it developed a 'rutter' first with no way of propelling itself. That it could steer itself with no way of actually propelling itself. We'll smack my knee and call me Susan, isn't that putting the multi-cellular organism before the prokaryote.
You got a bunch of paragraphs there where you claim the wrong thing on behalf of religious people and then discount it. You end by saying bacteria kill people. Seriously, you Germans need to eat more yoghurt, preferably Greek. I told you before that churches funded scientific pursuits in order to better understand the complexity of God's creation. Looking at systems from microcellular to cosmic in scale as Backdraft mentions above (remember Jupiter with its immense gravity taking the planet-killer hit for us when Schumacher -Levy rolled through the neighborhood) I understand how it leaves you dumbfounded that some would have their faith reaffirmed by this. But, this is your problem. Sorry not sorry.
(Old Spike)
lol, you needed 2 days to come up with this bullshit, literally saying "impossible, so god or aliens (which actually may seem like gods to us) did it". And then you wonder why I class you as creationist.
(Site Administrator)
I spent two days doing other things. If you think I spent that time working a reply makes you quite the egotist don't you know. Reminds me of someone... Anyway, rest assured I put as much time into the response as you did the post before (where you try to convince yourself mostly).
(Old Spike)
lol, yeah, bacteria don't evolve.... they were created like this.
you should start a comedy channel.
(Site Administrator)
Who said bacteria don't evolve? You're clearly fluent in English, so I'm thinking willful ignorance or subterfuge on your part. That Euglena I mentioned, the thing is ciliated. Think of little mini-flagella all over it's body creating a current that guides food particles into it's one mouth. How's that for adaptive significance. It only stands to reason that eventually, one specialized one comes into being, a main flagellum used for rapid propulsion. (This is me giving you the answer by the way). But here's your problem. How would this perfect motor mechanism come into being in microscopic organisms, haploid organisms like daftcunt-spermy that won the race all those years ago (congratulations by the way) and be replicated in our external world scale by mechanics and engineers who didn't have access to 21st century microscopy to 'copy' this design. What, this motor is a part of human 'race memory' or something? Or is it just the most 'intelligent design' and we both (God, nature, whatever) and (man) arrived at a nearly identical mechanical design?
You can't see me but I just dropped the mic.
(Old Spike)
You are asking questions that are designed to confirm your bias and atm no one can answer.
I think focusing on the "perfection" of a system is wrong, so is not being able to imagine possible functions of parts of the system outside of it and because of that stop research there.
Because you are happier with "your" version you discard the possibility of nature (or whatever*) and scientists/engineers independently achieving an almost identical design, albeit for different reasons, and that "random chance" was part of the process. And it may very well be that the design is perfect for an electric motor and nature (or whatever) reached the end of the evolution of their system (for the size and components that are available to the system), and humans may also only be able to improve on the material side but not the general design of it.
We are still doing this today, trying random stuff that doesn't seem to have any connection to an experiment (like throwing coffee into a saltwater solution to improve the efficiency of hydrogen production), and sometimes it actually works.
* and before you start again: No, I am not disregarding the possibility of (a) god(s) or aliens interfering, I am just not happy with "seems inexplicable so god did it". Now go pick up your mike, hun, you failed.
(Site Administrator)
If I can extract the mic which you're sitting on. Thanks dear.
Think about what you said here: 'And it may very well be that the design is perfect for an electric motor and nature (or whatever) reached the end of the evolution of their system (for the size and components that are available to the system), and humans may also only be able to improve on the material side but not the general design of it.'.
You're describing the parallel evolution of two systems to be virtually identical in form and function, right down to the gear allowing the thing to reverse. One in nature. One in the mind of man. Yet for you it's completely off the table that both were driven or inspired by the same guiding force.
Anyway, you said 'random chance' which as Backdraft pointed out above is the new-atheist's ace in the hole,...snuggled next to the mic of course.
It was fun playing though. We'll consider getting an 'I don't know' out of you, progress.
(Old Spike)
"Yet for you it's completely off the table that both were driven or inspired by the same guiding force. "
I said no such thing, quite the contrary. The guiding forces are laws of nature. If there is a "superior (or devine) force" there is (currently) no evidence for it.
'random chance' is part of evolution and genetics, it is a simple fact and there is nothing even remotely "atheist" about it, most religious people understand this, except creationists of course. The random components are tiny changes, which may be advantageous, disadvantageous or neutral with respect to the survival of the organism, this does not mean things like the "motor" appeared out of the blue (which is the "impossible" or ·"intelligent (when it often actually isn't) design" argument of the creationist "can't have evolved so must have been put there like this by someone or something").
This process (tiny random changes that make the organism fitter or less fit to survive) has been interfered with in humans (medicine, vaccines, technology, social structure) is (ab)used for example in selective animal breeding by humans. The "playing god" system is used in GM crops for example.
Lastly: Of course I don't know, also you don't know.
Here's the difference between us: In contrary to you I don't desperately want it to be something in particular. I will be "happy" with whatever the conclusions will be, once we have found evidence for them. However I WILL NOT commit to foregone conclusions like "too complex so (a) god(s) or aliens did it".
Simple as that.
(Site Administrator)
Your first paragraph is crap. You basically want it both ways but we've established here and in the video that 2 random proteins happening to have been arrived at by chance, still don't allow for propulsion let alone significant advantage that would be 'naturally' selected for in subsequent genera. Your 'random chance' postulate doesn't get elevated to 'fact' because you say so, not in this case.
You say here you 'don't know' and that unlike uncle Duckie 'will be happy' if evidence is found but it's a FACT that you're hardly impartial or objective..or passive as the most prolific poster of active... hatred of stamp collecting. We get it. Say it as many times as you need... to keep yourself convinced.
PS. Where were you below. Will you not defend the honor of your lord and saviour uncle 'D'? Elon is laughing at him.
https://www.spikednation.com/videos/when-elon-laughed-dawkins
They're talking about Western New-Atheists great accomplishments.
(Old Spike)
Again, you dismiss that there could have been ancestors with a "purpouse" we don't know about (although we can't be sure about that), this suits you because it is the "better eye" and thus you want scientists to stop investigating further. They won't.
You also contradict your own argument about a "guiding force" when assuming the "devine" motor just popped into existence (and AGAIN there is no proof for that).
Now here's a question for you: What "message" do you think a "creator" wanted to send by designing this "devine motor"?
What does it tell you?
I don't care what elon laughs about. He possibly won't have much to laugh about sooner rather than later.
(Site Administrator)
I 'want scientists to stop investing further'... How early do you guys start day-drinking on weekends in your country, anyway? Atheists don't own science, Iove of science or the scientific method. Get over that.
Don't put 'devine' in quotes like I said it. I said it's very hard to disregard the fact that two virtually identical mechanisms one biological the other mechanical (derived by human intellect very recently, without sufficient microscopy to 'steal' the idea) are a problem for you.
Message? The answer to everything: 42
That we haven't even begun to grasp the complexity and majesty of creation. Why,..what does it tell you?
Better get some more laughing in while he still can then. (Points at your prophet and snickers..'I do like me a good Christian hymn', lols, hnngh).
(Old Spike)
"I said it's very hard to disregard the fact that two virtually identical mechanisms one biological the other mechanical (derived by human intellect very recently, without sufficient microscopy to 'steal' the idea) are a problem for you."
No problem at all, hun. just nothing proven to be "devine" about the machine.
Here is my take on it:
That we haven't even begun to grasp the complexity and majesty of
creationnature and the universe.(Site Administrator)
Just imagine if we're both right..