Viruses intentionally choose how they infect


#161

I’m not a professional scientist but this is just how the scientific method works. The evidence would stand as provisional pending further efforts to disprove it.

More importantly to your argument, however, is that even identifying other intelligent life does not prove the case for design. Don’t misunderstand, I believe in intelligent design as a rational belief based on evidence but I reject ID theory as a fundamentally flawed approach to science. The theory undermines the very cause it aims to uphold.


#162

@martin_r Have you ever seen a geyser, such as the ones at Yellowstone National Park? A totally natural pump that wasn’t designed and wasn’t built by anything other than natural processes. Highly efficient and regular. Has been running for hundreds of years at least. No maintenance required. I could also mention the many pumps present in your body besides the heart.


#163

Just want to point out that this is a metaphysical claim based on faith. To say something wasn’t designed is a claim that is neither empirically nor scientifically testable. Science by definition cannot prove or disprove these sorts of claims. I mean this as no offense to you. Everyone’s worldview (even Dawkins) holds some metaphysical beliefs that cannot be scientifically validated.


#164

How about if I just say a geyser is a pump that was built by natural processes with the undetectable guidance of God? Kind of like evolution is a natural process that functions with the undetectable guidance of God (in my worldview).


(Martin R) #165

alright, a snow flake and now we also have a geyser … i also heard, that you guys use stalactite caves as a design example. Feel free to continue with this type of arguments, i don’t mind, i have seen a lot of self-deception in my life, the problem is, you can’t talk like that to engineers.

You also forgot to mention a volcano… another pump. Great.

By the way, which of these two ‘pumps’ are controlled by electric signal?

I have noticed one thing… you guys are perfect in looking for these types of examples. You see a design in a geyser, but you can’t see the design of DNA proofreading and repair. I was wondering, which one of these two is more sophisticated.

Again, you can NOT talk like that to engineers in 21st century. Or, you can, but it looks very bad. Especially in 21st century.

p.s.

Do you really think that i have not noticed ‘the other pumps’ across the nature? Yesterday, I have provided a list with some very clear and UNDENIABLE design examples across the nature. I will post it here once again:

joints, goose neck, pumps, valves, rotors, jet propulsion, buoyancy compensators, color display, gears, sonic gun, autofocusing cameras, RGB image processors, image stabilizators, sound processors, signal converters, echolocators, wings, navigation systems, thermal sensors, pressure sensors, position / orientation sensors, computers, clocks, hi-tech materials, camouflage, proofreading systems, repair systems, deffence systems, traps, explosives

Now, you can make your homework and find some ‘natural’ twins for the list above. Can’t wait.

Bill, it gets worse… there is another problem … I just opened another topic during my debate with T_aquaticus.

Perhaps you heard of it. It is called convergent evolution. It looks like you guys believe in miracles. You believe that e.g. echolocation evolved 10 times independently. When i first time heard about convergent evolution, i thought, that i have misunderstood something and that you guys must be joking. But then i have realized, that you guys seriously believe, that wings have multiple independent origins, or, that the various types of eyes have multiple independent origins too. E.g. the camera eyes of octopus which is basically indistinguishable from human eyes

I know, octopuses’s eye wiring is not same, but this is a technical detail, any skilled engineer will understand that. There might be several engineering reasons why the wiring is not the same … lets not forget, an octopus lives in deep ocean and humans on a dry land. Moreover, if the wiring would be the same, would it matter? You guys will call it a convergent evolution anyways…

To sum up, octopus’s eye and human eyes evolved independently. By random mutations. The same eyes. This is not easy to believe, especially when you are a 21st century engineer.

Meanwhile, i was able to collect like 100 PEER-REVIEWED articles on convergent evolution. So, either you guys believe in miracles, or, there is something very wrong with your theory. I would say, that convergent evolution and evolutionary stasis are two biggest problems for evolutionary theory.

Recently, i have found out one more, perhaps even bigger problem - so called DNA barcoding. This is a killer, this is so serious, that i will open a new forum thread on this, to hear from you guys some comment on this, perhaps i misunderstood something.


(Martin R) #166

i agree, that some things can’t be tested by common scientific approach.

So i have another proposal:

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.

I read about consensus in science all the time.


#167

Martin, if a consensus could be reached on design, could it “prove” anything more than a Designer exists? I think you said you were a Christian. Would it help anyone believe in the gospel of Christ?


(Martin R) #168

jason bourne, i only defend a fellow engineer. That is it. I adore God’s creation. God’s engineering skills are beyond our comprehension, however, i don’t think there is something supernatural involved ( i can’t be 100% sure anyways).

As i have demonstrated in my other post, most people don’t realize, there are at least 3 layers of design:

  1. the design of the species itself: e.g. a hummingbird (shape of the body, wings, internal organs)
  2. the design of the species’s development: the step-by-step process of self-assembly, because a hummingbird self-assembles… there are no assembly workers, nor parts / materials suppliers…
  3. the materials (you need to design all the materials used, to mix chemicals under right conditions. And we see a lot of sophisticated materials in the nature, e.g. feathers, bones, eye’s cornea or lens, muscles, skin, hair, teeth, like thousands of hi-tech materials which are almost impossible to replicate even in 21st century …)

Jason bourne, I was wondering, when will human engineers develop a product that self-replicate? ( No assembly workers, no materials/parts suppliers needed )

I don’t mind theistic evolutionists. To believe in a designer who used evolution - this at least makes sense. In a some sense, that would point to even more sophisticated design. However, i don’t think that this is what happened - i will tell you why:

Our Creator demonstrates his engineering skills… that is why we see so many very different species… and each of it is an engineering masterpiece. When evolution would be true, i think we would see perhaps several very similar species - which adapt basically to the same environment. Oceans, air, dry land… but this is not what we see… we see incredible variety of species…

As i told you, i just defend a fellow engineer. Because there are very very bad people out there, who keep confusing simple uneducated people who lost their faith because of a very very flawed THEORY.


(Steve Schaffner) #169

Yeah, but that’s consensus based on evidence, not consensus based on the gut feelings of engineers – especially since no such consensus exists.


(Martin R) #170

no…, again, all wrong… we engineers have 2.6 million of years old KNOWLEDGE.

Lets close all technical universities in the World, and send engineers to study the theory of evolution in order to design airplanes. Or autofocus cameras. Our autonomous self-navigating flying drones.


(Martin R) #171

this is also wrong… that is why they call it a consensus…


(Steve Schaffner) #172

You don’t have 2.6 million years of knowledge about biological systems. Therefore your opinions about biological systems are indeed gut feelings.


#173

Is being controlled by an electrical signal a requirement for being a pump in your eyes? It isn’t in mine. There are many pumps designed and built by humans that are not controlled by an electrical signal. I think I am missing the point you are trying to make.

I know my engineering knowledge is old, but what is 2.6 million years old?


(Martin R) #174

sure you missed the point… how many ‘natural’ pumps controlled by electrical signal have you found?


(Martin R) #175

stone age tool makers … the first engineers…


#176

So a natural pump not controlled by an electrical signal but controlled by fluid flow wouldn’t count? Why not? You are artificially restricting the definition of a pump.


(Martin R) #177

if you don’t have that knowledge yet, so why scientists teach everybody that biological systems are not designed, that only appear designed ? how could they know?

Also, could you comment on the following?

Lets close all technical universities in the World, and send engineers to study the theory of evolution in order to design airplanes. Or autofocus cameras. Or autonomous self-navigating flying drones.


(Martin R) #178

i already commented on this, but to make sure you will receive my message, i would be glad to repeat it again:

how many ‘natural’ pumps controlled by electric signal have you seen ?


#179

And as I have said, why are you restricting the definition of pump to only those controlled by electrical signals?

That would be 3.4 million years. And I wouldn’t call them engineers. More like artists. Although now that I think about it they did tend to hack their designs so maybe you could call them bad engineers.


(Martin R) #180

Early Stone Age Tools. The earliest stone toolmaking developed by at least 2.6 million years ago. The Early Stone Age began with the most basic stone implements made by early humans. These Oldowan toolkits include hammerstones, stone cores, and sharp stone flakes.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/behavior/stone-tools