sure. but do you agree that there are much more nonsense shapes that can be used as a paper weight then say a specific shape?
There are many shapes that could serve as the beginning of pathways towards many other more complex adaptations with a cell phone being just one of them.
The picture of the arch did it for me. I could just visualize how the wrist of some giant beast would fit under it.
As long as the beast didn’t move perhaps a symbiotic relationship could form.
That is a tautology. You are going to define anything that can’t evolve “by nature alone” is too complex to evolve?
I know that definitions are all ultimately circular… but in your posting above you declared godless evolution can’t produce complex systems… so you can’t then define complex systems as those that can’t be produced through godless evolution.
You know, I have to wonder what your level of education is. Are you in your senior year of high school?
As for your question about what I meant… I don’t know what you mean with YOUR question.
If all you ever write about is Godless Evolution, you are abusing this List.
This is not what @jordan meant.
He wants to know how you can tell when God is guiding and when he isn’t.
It’s my position that God is guiding ALL the time, and there is no way to tell the difference.
true. but again: there are much more nonsense shapes then specific onces. agree?
why not? isnt it true? why we conclude design when we see a watch for instance? because we know that a watch is too complex to evolve by a natural process.
you said that its problematic to discuss here about special creation. right?
We know that a watch was designed. But it isn’t just the complexity. Nature can produce enormous amounts of complexity.
With a watch, the complexity that we see seems to have been produced in a very systematic way. I’m inclined to think that the apparent systematicity has more to do with why we see it as designed.
No, I did not say it is problematic to discuss here about special creation.
As far as I’m concerned, I would much rather you discuss the differences between miraculous and non-miraculous creation …
than to fixate like a primate on Godless-Evolution - - aka, Unguided Evolution!
Multiple nonsense shapes… some of them bringing some small benefits to the species.
And over time, as successive mutations occur (through God’s guidance), natural selection (as arranged by God) snips away at the nonsense shapes, making better and better shapes… even if only better for functions other than the final shape, which is not yet available to the species.
I don’t agree. How can you determine from the outset if a shape is nonsense?
He means “nonsense” in that most possible shapes are not immediately helpful as “wings” or whatever…
Over time, mutations (especially DESIGNED mutations) make the shape less and less nonsense.
Since @scd is determining if a shape is nonsense by what it can evolve into then I don’t see how he can determine which shapes are nonsense without seeing what they evolve into.
No doubt about what you are saying … but I thought if we approached the issue with the angle:
All shapes are nonsense until they produce a benefit…
Thus, the “end shape” of a wing would be NOT a nonsense shape…
But multiple nonsense shapes (in terms of a wing)… can suddenly turn out NOT to be nonsense if they provide other benefits, OTHER than the benefits provided by a wing.
Mileage may vary!
what do you mean by that?
what is non-miraculous creation?
lets try it this way: say that the first step is indeed a paper weight. what the next step will be? another paper weight?
Not so easy to explain. I thought it would be obvious.
Let’s use an analogy.
Back in the bad old days of the Soviet Union, they used to have a centrally planned economy. That was one of the things that were criticized in the USA and in western Europe, where we preferred a more dynamic economy that could more easily adapt to changes in the marketplace.
The watch looks centrally planned. Biological organisms appear to not be centrally planned, but to use an organization that emerges from the interaction of cooperating components.
If you claim that irreducibly complex systems can’t evolve, you need to show that there isn’t a next step and have the evidence to back it up.
so now we see that we stuck in the second step. now, we cant explain even a single complex system by small steps, so what make you think that about more then 1000 of them can evolve by small steps? it means that we cant explain even about 1/1000 of what natural evolution sould be able to explain.