Evolution or not?

The whole "design" thing is just weird. When someone designs something, it's because he has a purpose in mind with the thing.

Makes no sense to me to say that say a lobster is "designed" for something, some purpose you only can get with lobsters but not if you dont have lobsters.

Or say Io, a moon of Jupiter. What is it that the designer is trying to achieve with Io?

So i think it's even bad to say "designed by natural proceses", because it sounds like the natural processes want to do something.

Here's 700+ pages, written in 1/2 math and 1/2 English, by two physicists.

It's all about DESIGN.

End of Story ?  Please.

http://www.amazon.com/Anthropic-Cosmological-Principle-Oxford-Paperbacks/dp/0192821474/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1431123392&sr=1-1&keywords=anthropic+cosmological+principle

of course! But trying to teach a believer(if that's even possible to teach them anything, which we are seeing first hand here with einstein99) that something isn't designed is the wrong way to go, IMHO.

They are using "design" the same way they are using "created". To a believer, those words are interchangeable.

I think its much easier to show that "even if" something was designed, it was designed by natural processes, not supernatural processes. We have lots of natural processes, but no supernatural processes.

For someone that hasn't do anything to change the constitution into his favor shows that either you have hatred for the black man or that you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. Which is it?

For someone who probably shouts "freedom" from the top of their lungs each and every day, suddenly you don't want people to have the freedom to decide what happens to their own body.

Yep, there are all kinds of misinformed and those same people would rather play stupid. Well, I don't think they are playing at all. 

And even if I grant you this "design", we still must consider what designed it. And since we have evidence of natural processes and none for supernatural ones...........its quite obvious as to what "designed" it.

Suppose there is an event in the past(not prehistoric).This event well recorded in history.Then in the modern day,scientist found this event remnant.They dating back this event  into ancient prehistoric years.It seems there have been a mismatch between history and scientific method.May be this case could give a scientific benefit?.

@E99:

Call me Areez.

Awwww, don't run away. Who else is going to entertain us by proving they don't have the ability to learn??? LOL

Mr. @Holder.  You've been on this site for 5 years, yet played only one chess game.

What have YOU learned to do ?  Besides LOL ??

Laugh at people being stupid.

You've clearly come to the right place.

The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity.

So, where is the edge of evolution. Well, the Lenski experiment says not very far. A couple of broken genes there, and the bacteria stopped metabolizing ribose. That's a lot of generations, what now over a hundred thousand generations, and not really anything to speak of.

So we broke some genes, but didn't increase any genomic information. This doesn't seem very hopeful for

common descent if we can't add any genomic information after a hundred thousand generations. In human terms that's a couple of million years or more. Surely we should have expected something more, a new protein, or a new function, anything hopeful for common descent. 😕

One mutation events happen quite often in the DNA world. Two mutation events are quite rare, but a coordinated three mutation event is pretty near an impossible occurrence.

The one mutation event generally happens from something breaking. For instance warfarin resistance in rats is a one mutation event. A gene breaks and warfarin can't attack it's intended site and it can do no harm to the rat. The rat survives and passes its warfarin resistant gene along. The same thing has happened in pesticide resistance in insects. One mutation in a gene and the insects become resistant to the pesticide. It then passes this broken resistant gene along to other insects of its kind.

These one mutation events are like an army burning a bridge behind itself so the enemy can't cross over. Its not really an arms race as it is trench warfare. Things get destroyed not created so as to stop the enemy.

That's crucial for a species survival but hardly a designed and sophisticated weapons program.

Another post proving that you are very scared! LOL  Why have so much fear in your life?  What are you afraid of? LOL

• "But we did not evolve directly from any primates living today."
• "The last common ancestor...between 8 and 6 million years ago."
• "We do not yet have it's remains."

That's about all you need (direct quotes from the post above) to conceptualize the core issue of this thread.  

It's been the consensus view for the past 40 years, (among the anthro, paleo, and geneticist guys).  Yawn.

“What is Man? Man is a noisome bacillus whom Our Heavenly Father created because he was disappointed in the monkey.” 
― Mark Twain

Families are nice, but once you get past that I don't even think that non random evolution can help you. There's just way too much physiological differences to overcome. Not only are the morphological differences too great but the cellular differences are too great. For instance SINE (short interspersed nucleotide elements ) are completely different and rearranged once one gets into different orders of creatures. Also GDRN's ( gene developement regulatory networks ) are completely redesigned once past families.

GDRN's are extremely complex and intricately designed networks of genes, long non coding RNA's, micro RNA'S,

etc that regulate and control embryogenesis, transposons,

epigenomic gene expressions like cryptic genes, phenotypic plasticity, etc.

Once GDRN's are in place with their routines and subroutines it's extremely difficult for them to be changed. We just don't see it happening in animals.

It would be akin to randomly changing a circuit board in a computer. Total chaos would ensue.

We can see that on a cellular level even non random evolution cannot procede past families on the taxonomic chart.

Wow, you are very scared! LOL

I know, I'm scared of my own shadow! 😘

I know! LMAO