exactly… the other day, i have proposed the following:
Scientists and engineers should find a consensus. If science can’t prove designed things empirically, lets refer to the 2.6 millions years old KNOWLEDGE of engineers around the World.
So, again, lets find a consensus that these things are designed, till some scientist will show how the first cell or the first virus emerged with no help from engineer …
Till that day, lets find a consensus these things are designed.
I’m an MD doing procedures at work and don’t have time to discuss now, but I suggest you look into the topic of telomeres and centromeres. There is something remarkable there. I used to be OEC until I saw the numerous genomic evidences for common ancestry. This convinced me decisively, beyond reasonable doubt. I am grateful for training in genetics in college and med school. This helped me immensely to come to terms with the data.
Sorry but we are still not communicating. You said
Which means you provided a list you think are designs found in nature. That is what I understand you to mean.
The geyser is an example of what you consider to be a design, a pump, that is in fact not designed at all but is a naturally occurring feature. There are lots of examples of these “designs” that can be found in nature. Design is in the eye of the beholder and not necessarily in the object itself.
i did not ignore it, i just overlooked it… i apologize Bill… i am being bombarded…
In regards to your chunk-of-wood question … ask some archaeologists… they will answer your question how to distinguish between a plain rock and a handaxe-head made of the rock … i don’t know how these guys know, they know somehow… they never seen a stone age guy to make a handaxe… but they still know somehow the stone age guy did it… and then they dig up a sophisticated dinosaur skeleton, with joints, vertebrae etc, made of hi-tech material difficult to mimic in 21st century, but in this case, they can’t recognize someone did it …i was wondering, which of these two things is more sophisticated…
and even if the DNA sequence differs, so what? The same design made in different ways … i could provide like tons of examples from 21st century engineering…
but how could YOU explain that C4 photosythesis evolved 60 times independently by random mutations?
or myrmecochory - seed dispersal by ants - 147 independent origins … and so on…
Who or what found the similar solution? Natural selection ?.. i heard it was meant like a metaphor some 150 years ago… now it is your solution to the biggest engineering challenges imaginable…
Have you heard of THIRD WAY project? Secular scientists…
This is what they think of ‘Natural selection’
“Moreover, some Neo-Darwinists have elevated Natural Selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems without a real empirical basis.”
These guys say a lot of very interesting things about evolution you may not like e.g.
" The DNA record does not support the assertion that small random mutations are the main source of new and useful variations. We now know that the many different processes of variation involve well regulated cell action on DNA molecules"
you think you have… you have like millions of species and cladograms, but you have never seen A SINGLE common ancestor … never… genetic evidence points to an common ancestor, i agree, i can see it too, but there is definitely some issue, and sooner or later you guys will find out… i can assure you …
Comment on what? Your assurance that sooner or later we’ll find out that there’s an issue? Since you seem to be unable to say what the issue is, why it’s an issue, or why you are assured that it exists. . . no, I can’t think of any comment to make. You’ve essentially said nothing at all here.
Do we inherit proteins? No. We inherit DNA sequence. You can have a different DNA sequence for the same amino acid sequence or residue. Notice that I mentioned DNA sequence, not protein sequence.
Through independent mutations in separate lineages.
Added in edit:
To further support the difference between protein sequence and DNA convergence we see that DNA and protein sequences produce different trees for the oft cited Prestin gene:
you have a theory of common ancestor, but you have never seen a common ancestor… not once… you draw pictures…
moreover, there are lots of viruses which seem to evolved independently … no common ancestor…
“Sacrebleu!” say French scientists in a recent issue of Trends in Microbiology. Considering viruses to be a fourth domain would unnecessarily complicate evolutionary biology. For instance, the authors indicate that using RNA polymerase to redraw the tree of life presents a gigantic challenge. Large viruses do not all cluster into a single new domain. Instead, classifying life based on RNA polymerase would likely demand the creation of several new domains."
so try to comment on that … where are all these common ancestors ???
independent loss of wings, independent loss of photosynthesis, even independent loss of eyes!!!
Molecular phylogenetic evidence for the independent
evolutionary origin of an arthropod compound eye
… These results illustrate exactly
why arthropod compound eye evolution has remained controversial,
because one of two seemingly very unlikely evolutionary
histories must be true. Either compound eyes with detailed similarities
evolved multiple times in different arthropod groups or
compound eyes have been lost in a seemingly inordinate number
of arthropod lineages
perhaps there is something very wrong with your theory?
I spent more than ten years studying meson decay, and I never saw a meson either. What does seeing things have to do with studying them, or with anything else for that matter? What’s to comment on?
I don’t know what viruses you mean. Evolved independently of what? Oh, I see from the passage you plagiarized. . . Independently of each other. Yeah, they probably did. Again, what’s to comment on?
If you’re going to quote chunks of someone else’s writing, please indicate that you’re doing so. Yeah, viruses don’t form a single tree.
My comment: you still haven’t stated what you think the issue is or why you’re sure it’s important. Could you try writing a couple of simple declarative sentences in which you state what you think the issue is? Because being asked to comment on seemingly random bits of biology isn’t getting anyone anywhere.
Which common ancestors? What are you actually talking about? The common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees lived in Africa about 7 million years ago. The common ancestor of that animal and gorillas lived a couple of million years earlier, also in Africa. The common ancestor of Hawaiian honeycreepers lived, what was it, 6 million years ago? in Hawaii. The common ancestor of diverse viruses probably never existed as a virus.
let me quote that French scientist again “Large viruses do not all cluster into a single new domain. Instead, classifying life based on RNA polymerase would likely demand the creation of several new domains.”
“… likely demand the creation of several new domains.”
Viruses are “the most numerous type of biological entity on Earth”, and you have no idea where it comes from, they don’t fit your evolutionary theory… they don’t fit your common ancestry model … they don’t fit the tree of life… they just don’t fit … you still don’t see the problem ?
i just can’t comprehend where your self-confidence comes from…