A formal statement of Intelligent Deisgn

You don’t think I can understand and still disagree?

From what I've seen I don't think you see anything beyond your point of view. So when you see it, you don't understand it.

Typical.

Thank you for your time, but I see no reason to continue to engage with you.

I am not going anywhere but I’m done with you.

I'm warning you, lay off the personal stuff.

Natural selection does it have creative potential, if you think so how?

Some of my thoughts on Natural Selection, Natural Selection is a truism it isn't a theory that was discovered, when resources are thin the stronger and faster will get them, but as resources increase even the weaker ones can acquire them so it becomes simply a matter of opportunity. In all of that, there is nothing that directs a mutation to build upon an earlier one so that after time a new function or form arises.

There is a genetic code that writes out what is going to be formed, and due to the design of what functions take place, this is a matter of information placed in life, that does not arise out of chaos and chance but with forethought and design. People even acknowledge as they see it, but call it an illusion, and I submit to you the illusion is in the denial not what we see.

If you're going to propose that all living things were designed then you have a duty to explain things like this....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurrent_laryngeal_nerve#:~:text=The%20extreme%20detour%20of%20the,as%20opposed%20to%20intelligent%20design.

"The extreme detour of the recurrent laryngeal nerves, about 4.6 metres (15 ft) in the case of giraffes,[32]: 74–75  is cited as evidence of evolution, as opposed to intelligent design. The nerve's route would have been direct in the fish-like ancestors of modern tetrapods, traveling from the brain, past the heart, to the gills (as it does in modern fish). Over the course of evolution, as the neck extended and the heart became lower in the body, the laryngeal nerve was caught on the wrong side of the heart. Natural selection gradually lengthened the nerve by tiny increments to accommodate, resulting in the circuitous route now observed"

Can that be explained in terms of design? It's similar to the designer of a family car deciding to route the cabling between the switch on the dashboard and the headlights all the way around the rear seats. Utterly inefficient.

What human designer would ever do that?

Concerning fossils, we see creatures show up and disappear in what we can see in the fossil record over time, and the search goes on the transitional life from one creature turning into another, and many "just so stories" show up when someone thinks they found one.

A question I have concerning fossils isn't about transitional ones, it is why we see the sudden appearances of static life in the fossil record at all. People are always looking for the transitional ones that have life moving from one to the next, but why the static lifeforms in the first place? If evolution is small changes over time why would there ever be a static lifeform that hangs around for millions of years?

If true then all life would always be in a state of change continually; therefore, the question shouldn't be limited to missing fossils in transition, nor should the question be only about millions of years ago either. Today, why don't we see a string of similar lifeforms in different forms, instead of the static unique forms we see today and in the past? Doesn't matter how you date things if the premise itself isn't evident.

If it works why are you concerned about the design of it, simply because we don't think there is a good reason does not at all mean there isn't one.

"If it works why are you concerned about the design of it, simply because we don't think there is a good reason does not at all mean there isn't one."

Can you suggest a single reason? In what way would arranging the routing of that nerve in a more direct and efficient way be disadvantageous?

If designed that way, it makes no sense.

Never studied it and like many higher level engineering feats they could seem counter intuitive to the untrained mind.

Not sure anyone needs to be trained to spot something that's manifestly less safe and efficient than an alternative but can you illustrate what you mean here with an example? ....

"like many higher level engineering feats they could seem counter intuitive to the untrained mind"

Natural selection selects that which is already there, it has no creative powers or abilities, suggesting it can take unconnected chemicals and combine them into life is not possible. At the point that there is no life then life it would require specialized work forming all of the necessary things that make up the chemical properties of life, the forming of proteins, and such, and that is just the chemical part of it, what takes chemicals and turns them into something living we can not even define, what do we lose when a living cell dies?

I owe you more in this answer, I'll give you some examples. In the meantime if you don't know what to do how can you build anything complex with systems within systems relying on very precise precision exactly why do you think something unguided, caring, blind, is a better choice than an all-knowing mind?

You seem to be avoiding saying that you have absolutely no idea why any creator would 'design' a creature (the Giraffe) in that way. I'm not a Biologist so I'd have to do an immense amount of reading to answer questions on the fine detail of cell-biology.

Might be quicker if you did that from some of the excellent sites (Harvard has a fine one) available online?

I think His engineering abilities are far above my skill levels, do you find fault in a working system because it isn't set up the way you think it should have been done? In your reading about cell biology, you grasp all of the inner workings of the cell, and how information directs specific tasks.

At first thought when I mentioned counterintuitive engineering I thought about a ship that was made a long time ago with several different features to drive it in the water that turned out to be counterproductive. So I looked up another since I don't remember the name of the ship and only briefly tried to look it up unsuccessfully. I submit we can miss something due to our lack of understanding that may be dealing with issues we simply don't grasp yet.

Off the web:

An example of counterintuitive engineering is the design of vibration damping systems. A little knowledge can confuse our understanding of complex problems. For example, adding mass to a vibrating system can sometimes reduce the vibration, but in other cases, it can increase the vibration. This is because the added mass changes the natural frequency of the system, which can either increase or decrease the vibration 

This isn't about two equally good arrangements of organs or nerves, it's about an outcome that's manifestly less efficient and safe for the animal and therefore, makes no sense!