Just to put the last nail in the 'argument from complexity' coffin...

reply to post by AdamsMurmur


Random? Nobody is saying random, it's 'consequence of the laws of physics'....and don't quote Newton where you quoted him. That's in his resignation on the problem of working out gravity calculations between more than two bodies. He could figure out two, it was quite easy, but figuring out how the sun, moon, and Earth together interacted became too much for him for some odd reason.

Anyway, I'd like to point out that the forest you provided is a hell of a lot more complex than the garden. The complexity of it is in its entire disorder, whilst the relatively simple order and geometric reduction is why we realize it's been ordered by human minds. Just try sketching the two, which one is easier?

In fact, the engine you provided isn't made from a single lump of metal so that one was a false comparison. You'd have to take a big ol' piece of various ores, oil, probably some sand and maybe some clays to get that engine.

reply to post by Serafine

I very much agree with this viewpoint.

Natural selection may be totally valid in its place, but it can't get at ultimate cause.

Natural selection is nothing but a human-made concept. To me that itself argues for an intelligence factor in creation.

And the perception of something like "beauty" in creation argues for a factor even beyond intelligence.

Look at all that we KNOW we have created! Why isn't it logical to assume that ALL creation works in a similar way? And if it were a workable truth, it wouldn't even matter if it were "logical." And there is a lot of research pointing in the direction of "reality" being a caused perception.

reply to post by Praetorius

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

...except that specified complexity has never been proven so there's really no point in arguing against it.

That's just a silly thing to say.

No, it's the damn consensus amongst the entire scientific community, it's not at all a silly thing to say.

Specified complexity isn't a theory or something abstract, it's an observation.

An unfounded observation...the sort of observation that has to be proved. Just like we have to prove the observation that species appear to alter over successive generations. Furthermore, specified complexity simply isn't there. No indicator of 'specificity' has ever been provided. You can have an indicator for any other observation you'd make...like heat, color, texture, weight, size, shape....but not for 'specificity'. Hell, complexity in and of itself was never really defined.

Something is highly specific (for example a repeating pattern ABCABC)

How is that 'highly specific'? 1 in 729 chance if it's a set containing only A, B, and C...that's not 'highly specific'. In fact, a massively high improbability still wouldn't make it highly specific, because then poker games would be inherently designed.

and highly complex (a pile of spaghetti with meatballs, with some microchips thrown in for flavor).

Um...what? I'm sorry, but you've not defined specified complexity. How do you determine if something is specific and how do you determine if it is complex? I can determine if something is red by the band of wavelengths on the EM spectrum that it reflects, I can determine the mass of something by weighing it, I can give you the hardness of it on the Mohs scale...but where's the criteria for specified complexity?

Saying it's never been proven is like saying the sky hasn't been proven (hey, it's right up there!).

Except...it's not. That's either a very ignorant or very dishonest comparison.

Language is a good example of specified complexity.

How? Languages have grown organically....you can actually compare languages which were built from the ground up to ones that have emerged organically.

Ken Miller knocked it out of the park by taking one of Behe's examples and flipping it on its head: The mouse trap. If you take a piece out of it, it won't work as a mouse trap...but it'll still make a great tie clip or even a binder clip.

This would actually be irreducible complexity, which is a different matter addressing systems that become effectively purposeless with removal of one part - every part being required for the unit to serve a purpose.

...no, it's both. Behe argued that it was both irreducible and specific...Miller (being someone who actually gets science) decided to point out that things can have multiple uses.

Miller's refutation is debatable, regardless, especially since the mousetrap is not the only alleged irreducibly complex system out there.

...Miller didn't just go with the mouse trap, he also took out the flagellum. And it's not debatable, it's really concrete.

The idea of specified complexity is an attempt at a parlor trick. The parlor trick being that of secretly pushing back the goal posts in a discussion by saying that biological systems, particularly on the microbiological level, can only be thought of as beneficial if they serve the exact same function throughout their evolutionary development.

Again, you're confusing concepts here. Specified complexity doesn't have anything to do with darwinian evolution or beneficiality specifically, it's just a description of things containing certain non-random characteristics.

Except that it's a concept that arose within the "intelligent design" (read: Biblical creationist) movement and the only place it's used outside of the intelligent design movement is in a different way. When non-IDers use the term they mean complexity that they are specifying prior (at least in my quick perusal of academic works).

I'm arguing against the general complexity idea...mainly because it's a vague and philosophical. Specified complexity as an idea tried to venture into science...and then promptly fell flat on its face.

I guess we'll agree to disagree on that latter bit, and good luck with the rest.

No, you're just demonstrably wrong.

Specified complexity is a simple fact, though, and most examples of it we see either come directly from an intelligent source, or are the biological results of disputed processes.

"Disputed processes"? I'm sorry, but just because a few hundred people in the scientific community and a few million people who are highly ignorant of science don't agree with it doesn't mean it's disputed. There are more scientists with the name Steve (or some variaton thereof) who accept these processes than there are total scientists who reject them. If you crunch the numbers on just how many more people in the scientific community aren't on the list...oh, and the "Project Steve" list I just linked only contains scientists with PhDs, while the 'Dissent from Darwin' list has at least 6 philosophers on it.

You're familiar with SETI? Yeah, they're looking for specified complexity. They're looking for language. And in our experience, all language comes from the creative, willful input of humanity.

Except that they're not looking for something 'specified' they're looking for something different....and not all that complex. Compared to the background radiation they pick up it would actually be quite simple. And language doesn't come from creative, willful input...at least not according to the linguistic theory that I'm aware of. Compare a created language (Esperanto, Klingon, Elvish, etc) to any organically grown language and you can see the differences right off the bat.

reply to post by Serafine


Except that it does explain how the woman got there...successive mutations over generations.

reply to post by dusty1


You do realize that the Earth is not a near-perfect sphere and is made of far more than one material....so your comparison (like most other creationist arguments) is really bad.

I disagree.
I think to say things in nature is not simple is also a matter of perspective.
The closer we look at these complex 'designs' nature the more we see they are comprised of a simple systems - does this then mean this is proving an intelligent design?
If you looked from one distance Atoms of a tree would just look like circles, wood looked at on the end close up would look like circles too, planets from the right distance look like - wait for it. circles. Simple or complex is just a matter of perspective.

And from the oposite view - you look at a fence which is made by intelligent design close enough and you will see the complex patterns the rings form, the inequaily in any paint, and if you looked at a man made sword for example you could still see the complexity of the atoms/molecules if you looked close enough.

Bombed city: Manmade?


upload.wikimedia.org...
" target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

reply to post by byteshertz


...the whole point is that the indication of intentional design by an agent is evidence not specifically from complexity, not that all simple systems are necessarily designed. It's my fault for not making that clear. Neither complexity nor simplicity in and of itself indicates anything, they're merely ascribed relative properties.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

No, it's the damn consensus amongst the entire scientific community, it's not at all a silly thing to say.

There are dissenting opinions even inside the scientific community, but regardless, this isn't the first time I've broken with majority consensus. Scientific paradigms change, and there have been lots of consensuses in the past that differ with what we now think we know.

Don't worry, I tend to also disagree with the majority of christians, politicians, and society on many topics as well.

An unfounded observation...the sort of observation that has to be proved. Just like we have to prove the observation that species appear to alter over successive generations. Furthermore, specified complexity simply isn't there. No indicator of 'specificity' has ever been provided. You can have an indicator for any other observation you'd make...like heat, color, texture, weight, size, shape....but not for 'specificity'. Hell, complexity in and of itself was never really defined.

Fair enough, we're apparently caught up here mainly on a matter of semantics or definition here. I'm not boxing my usage of specificity or complexity into any narrow or specificially scientific understandings, I'm working within the framework of typical english usage of both terms. For lack of better definition - apologies - I'm using specified complexity in the sense of something composed of multiple parts arranged in non-random/chaotic ways (specific to accomplish an ends). Perhaps this breaks me from the creationist consensus as well. Oh well.

How is that 'highly specific'? 1 in 729 chance if it's a set containing only A, B, and C...that's not 'highly specific'. In fact, a massively high improbability still wouldn't make it highly specific, because then poker games would be inherently designed.

This doesn't have anything to do with probability - in this example, the pattern is specific: Explicitly set forth; definite.

Um...what? I'm sorry, but you've not defined specified complexity. How do you determine if something is specific and how do you determine if it is complex? I can determine if something is red by the band of wavelengths on the EM spectrum that it reflects, I can determine the mass of something by weighing it, I can give you the hardness of it on the Mohs scale...but where's the criteria for specified complexity?

My view was given above, whether or not it breaks from how the majority of those who accept the concept. Perhaps a fair example (in my view) would be a random jumbled pile of building materials (complexity). Once organized to make a building, it is now specifically complex. Or, jumble the alphabet together randomly (complexity). Organize it to the usual order and it's specifically complex.

Except...it's not. That's either a very ignorant or very dishonest comparison.

We'll agree to disagree again, as I noted. I believe language and plenty of other things clearly show specificity as well as complexity.

How? Languages have grown organically....you can actually compare languages which were built from the ground up to ones that have emerged organically.

And all show specified complexity, in my opinion.

...no, it's both. Behe argued that it was both irreducible and specific...Miller (being someone who actually gets science) decided to point out that things can have multiple uses.

Fair enough, although I'll argue that not all things will have multiple uses. And on a side note, as he is a biochemist and university professor, I believe Behe likely also "gets" science even if he doesn't agree with all aspects of majority opinion

...Miller didn't just go with the mouse trap, he also took out the flagellum. And it's not debatable, it's really concrete.

I consider this an opinion as there is much banter and refutation back-and-forth, but won't argue it as I believe Behe's usual examples are not the sum total of allegedly irreducibly complex systems anyway. My whole point with response to your OP was that arguing against complexity falls flat, especially when looking at supposed specified complexity.

Except that it's a concept that arose within the "intelligent design" (read: Biblical creationist) movement and the only place it's used outside of the intelligent design movement is in a different way. When non-IDers use the term they mean complexity that they are specifying prior (at least in my quick perusal of academic works).

Fair enough. Like I said, I'm likely breaking from how ID uses the term as well, so I don't mind disagreeing with how your non-IDers use it as well. To me, it's a general concept that should be intuitive.

No, you're just demonstrably wrong.

Your opinion, which I'm glad to leave you. I think we're mainly arguing semantic differences of scientific definition here.

"Disputed processes"? I'm sorry, but just because a few hundred people in the scientific community and a few million people who are highly ignorant of science don't agree with it doesn't mean it's disputed. There are more scientists with the name Steve (or some variaton thereof) who accept these processes than there are total scientists who reject them. If you crunch the numbers on just how many more people in the scientific community aren't on the list...oh, and the "Project Steve" list I just linked only contains scientists with PhDs, while the 'Dissent from Darwin' list has at least 6 philosophers on it.

OK. Some points are still disputed, regardless.

Except that they're not looking for something 'specified' they're looking for something different....and not all that complex. Compared to the background radiation they pick up it would actually be quite simple. And language doesn't come from creative, willful input...at least not according to the linguistic theory that I'm aware of. Compare a created language (Esperanto, Klingon, Elvish, etc) to any organically grown language and you can see the differences right off the bat.

They're looking for something non-random (specific) and complex (containing information) not just a pulsar repeating signals) that they can differentiate from background/junk information. And perhaps I shouldn't have said "creative, willful input", apologies - was distracted yesterday. I probably should have left it at language, at least as far as communication as commonly accepted, stems from biological intelligence with the purpose of relaying information.

Thanks for the responses, and be well.

reply to post by uva3021

Originally posted by uva3021
reply to post by Serafine

 

Not understanding the "No father, No mother" position, that is actually what Creation suggests. Evolution can only work with what is already there, and what proceeds is a continuum of change, there is no discontinuity, or mechanism to step in a place organisms in their rightful place.

Humans (and all organisms) are explained rather sufficiently without the invocation of a supernatural being.

pro·cre·ate
v. pro·cre·at·ed, pro·cre·at·ing, pro·cre·ates
v.tr.
1. To beget and conceive (offspring).
2. To produce or create; originate.
v.intr.
To beget and conceive offspring; reproduce.
[Latin prcrere, prcret- : pr-, forward; see pro-1 + crere, to create; see ker-2 in Indo-European roots.]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thesaurus Legend: Synonyms - Related Words - Antonyms

Verb 1. procreate - have offspring or produce more individuals of a given animal or plant; "The Bible tells people to procreate"

reproduce, multiply

biological science, biology - the science that studies living organisms

propagate - multiply sexually or asexually

fructify, set - bear fruit; "the apple trees fructify"

multiply, breed - have young (animals) or reproduce (organisms); "pandas rarely breed in captivity"; "These bacteria reproduce"

incubate, hatch, brood, cover - sit on (eggs); "Birds brood"; "The female covers the eggs"

create, make - make or cause to be or to become; "make a mess in one's office"; "create a furor"

Based on WordNet 3.0, Farlex clipart collection. © 2003-2008 Princeton University, Farlex Inc.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

procreate

verb (Formal) ~ reproduce, mother, produce, father, breed, generate, sire, engender, propagate, beget, bring into being Most people feel a biological need to procreate.

Collins Thesaurus of the English Language – Complete and Unabridged 2nd Edition. 2002 © HarperCollins Publishers 1995, 2002

As I stated ... Evolution Theory has NEVER explained the Origin of the said "Beautiful Woman". How you don't understand the "No Father and NO Mother "position" as you call it; I wish you would have explained. You also "Invoke" a "Supernatural Being" into this Thread. Nice move... Thank You.

First... What is Natural, is up for grabs.. lol Let alone what is Supernatural! Are you referring to a Creator? A Designer? A Father? ... I wonder maybe you might mean a "Cause"? As in Cause and Effect? The NO Father and No Mother points to a First Cause ( something Evolution Theory does not explain ). Of course the chicken or egg trick comes to mind eh? lol

Natural can be Man? Woman? What about both? Which came first the Man or the Woman? ( forget the chicken or the egg ) Is a MAN natural? How about a Hermaphrodite, being BOTH Man and Woman? Is that Natural... or Unnatural? Which came first? Hermaphrodites?... or Man? or Woman?

Again... Evolution has NEVER explained the origin of the said "Beautiful Woman". The very "laws" or as you stated "Mechanism" of any process PARTIALLY comprehended in Evolution Theories doesn't explain the Cause.. the Origin... of the Beautiful Woman... From Nothing.

reply to post by Fiberx

Originally posted by Fiberx
reply to post by Serafine

 

You are substituting something familiar to fill a gap in understanding. Not understanding each and every detail does not imply a super natural answer.

You feel more comfortable having an easy answer... That's all.

In addition, the processes that we observe DO design. They do so through what we refer to as "survival of the fittest". The state of being aliverequires certain elements. The process of obtaining those elements so as to remain alive provides the competition which rewards or punishes a creatures "design". Science can already do a good job at describing the events that drive this process.

A simple single cell in the sea.. Can it survive changes in temperature or salinity?

A many celled deer.. Can it out run the cheeta or digest new food if it's prefered plants die out?

Originally posted by Fiberx

You feel more comfortable having an easy answer... That's all.

Evolution Theories has no answer, but hey!, I'm comfortable with that. There's no "substitution" filling any Gaps in the Theories and each and every "detail" is not the same as a PREMISE which too many people "Beg The Question" to answer.. A Premise claiming the Conclusion is true and valid, DOESN'T make it so. Is that why Evolution Theories has NO ANSWER as to the Origin of the "Beautiful Woman"?

It's nice that processes that "WE" observe DESIGN... Are they creative? Again.... what is the Origin of the process that designs? Was a designing process "itself" designed?

Survival Of The Fittest means what? The "Science can already do a good job at describing the events that drive this process." doesn't explain YOUR description. You seem to have left out many "details" in your explanation. Fittest at WHAT? Intelligence? lol

Does the process of ( to use Genesis 101 ) "Subdue The Earth" somehow, even as YOU mentioned "DO design"? Overcome? Turn Stumbling Blocks into Stepping Stones? ALL of which requires "Creativity and WILL"? Maybe Will and Creativity is too "Supernatural" for some people.. lol.. ok.. Want to call it Natural?

Rewards and Punishments? Competition? obtaining "elements"? Do you mean obtaining intelligence? Knowledge? Wisdom? For without such "elements" you will die off.... as you WILL do ANYWAY!.. lol Great process eh? Man's process requires "Design"... MANS design... Intelligent Design... as in this is how you do it... This is how it's done.

Some might imagine ( another ability of man ), that NATURE is or does the process... Yet this is NOT TRUE... MAN does it. Without mans Intelligent Design, Man would NEVER be in the "survival of the fittest" game. Mankind can twist, bend and even Break nature.... What is Natural or even Supernatural is a matter of what? Is a fish and a tomato in ONE.. a Fishomato.... Natural? Having fish and tomato genteics combined is "natural"? OR Intelligent Designed?

Now where is the "Mutation" in all this? Oh! But it's mutation that "creates" the origin and process of the Beautiful Woman? A Fishomato is a MUTATION alright lol.... of INTELLIGENT DESIGN ( some would call it an extreme LACK OF INTELLIGENT design? ) and MUTATION has Nothing to do with the origin of the Beautiful Woman from NOTHING.

From the beginning of my post I stated Evolution has no explanation of the origin of the Beautiful Woman. As in Origin and Woman! Remember? Evolution 101... Darwin's "Origin of Species" has no.... what did you say Fiberx ?

Originally posted by Fiberx
"You are substituting something familiar to fill a gap in understanding. Not understanding each and every detail does not imply a super natural answer.

What has Evolution Theories "substituted for the lack of UNDERSTANDING the GAP in the Theories? The theories lack of Understanding EVERY detail might not imply a super natural answer... let alone a NATURAL answer to the lack of these theories even asking the correct QUESTIONS.

You may think "Science" understands how the evolutionary process works... Yet.... propagation... sustenance... preservation and aggrandizement is NOTHING to the survival of the "fittest"... There's a few missing links there lol... Such as not only subduing the earth but overcoming the SELF.

As I stated earlier... The process and MAN's involvement in this "Evolution Theory Processes" requires INTELLIGENT DESIGN and WILL, for no man survives without THAT. What do people know of Natural eh? Let alone Supernatural? Man co-creates when mankind propagates... has children... and though some may claim no "intelligence" is required!, The whole "process" of raising children involves INTELLIGENT DESIGN and WILL... Choice and CREATIVE processes. One might consider that process Natural, but how children are raised is an intelligent designed process with very absolute results.

So as Evolution can't explain the origin of the Beautiful Woman... it also CAN'T explain the Intelligent Design of the Beautiful Woman's CHILDREN.

reply to post by Praetorius

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

No, it's the damn consensus amongst the entire scientific community, it's not at all a silly thing to say.

There are dissenting opinions even inside the scientific community, but regardless, this isn't the first time I've broken with majority consensus.

...yes, and those opinions dissent for religious or philosophical reasons rather than scientific ones.

Scientific paradigms change, and there have been lots of consensuses in the past that differ with what we now think we know.

Yes, like how evolution supersceded the paradigm that you're somehow stuck on.

Fair enough, we're apparently caught up here mainly on a matter of semantics or definition here. I'm not boxing my usage of specificity or complexity into any narrow or specificially scientific understandings, I'm working within the framework of typical english usage of both terms. For lack of better definition - apologies - I'm using specified complexity in the sense of something composed of multiple parts arranged in non-random/chaotic ways (specific to accomplish an ends). Perhaps this breaks me from the creationist consensus as well. Oh well.

That's still an outrightly vague term. You cannot necessarily determine intention. You can't get the 'specific to accomplish an ends' part out of something without a massive baggage.

How is that 'highly specific'? 1 in 729 chance if it's a set containing only A, B, and C...that's not 'highly specific'. In fact, a massively high improbability still wouldn't make it highly specific, because then poker games would be inherently designed.

This doesn't have anything to do with probability - in this example, the pattern is specific: Explicitly set forth; definite.

How is it specific? It's 3 letters and they're ABCABC....how is that specific, how is it explicitly set forth, how is it definite? You're only saying that because we have a previously established system known as our alphabet that contains those letters as the first three members of its set...and it's only in that context. Of course, you can't apply this to the natural world.

Um...what? I'm sorry, but you've not defined specified complexity. How do you determine if something is specific and how do you determine if it is complex? I can determine if something is red by the band of wavelengths on the EM spectrum that it reflects, I can determine the mass of something by weighing it, I can give you the hardness of it on the Mohs scale...but where's the criteria for specified complexity?

My view was given above, whether or not it breaks from how the majority of those who accept the concept. Perhaps a fair example (in my view) would be a random jumbled pile of building materials (complexity). Once organized to make a building, it is now specifically complex. Or, jumble the alphabet together randomly (complexity). Organize it to the usual order and it's specifically complex.

Yes...but again, a false analogy. It's common amongst creationists. We're talking about the natural world. Where is there a specifically complex item in the natural world?

Except...it's not. That's either a very ignorant or very dishonest comparison.

We'll agree to disagree again, as I noted. I believe language and plenty of other things clearly show specificity as well as complexity.

You can believe it all you want...but it's not specific and anyone who has studied linguistics would disagree with the idea that it is. Now, of course it's complex, but complexity occurs all the time in natural ways.

How? Languages have grown organically....you can actually compare languages which were built from the ground up to ones that have emerged organically.

And all show specified complexity, in my opinion.

How is it specified? Who specified it?

...no, it's both. Behe argued that it was both irreducible and specific...Miller (being someone who actually gets science) decided to point out that things can have multiple uses.

Fair enough, although I'll argue that not all things will have multiple uses. And on a side note, as he is a biochemist and university professor, I believe Behe likely also "gets" science even if he doesn't agree with all aspects of majority opinion

And the university says

While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally and should not be regarded as scientific.

Source

And considering that his work has contributed really nothing as of his championing of the ID movement...well, he's got a lot wrong. Hell, he's been repeatedly shown over and over again to beyond science. His testimony at the Kitzmiller trial alone is testament to how much he just doesn't get science.

...Miller didn't just go with the mouse trap, he also took out the flagellum. And it's not debatable, it's really concrete.

I consider this an opinion as there is much banter and refutation back-and-forth, but won't argue it as I believe Behe's usual examples are not the sum total of allegedly irreducibly complex systems anyway.

Name one.

My whole point with response to your OP was that arguing against complexity falls flat, especially when looking at supposed specified complexity.

...and I'm saying that you cannot derive specificity from nature...unless you can provide a means that I'm unaware of. That's really where this all breaks down. How do you derive specificity in a natural system?

what a relief to read your posts
a haven of logical thinking.

your Opening post reminded me of Richard Dawkins demonstrating the evolution of what once was a collection of cells that started to react to light and grew into those marvelous things, the eye.

here's some information on the book and tv-show that cover the issue.

reply to post by l_e_cox

Originally posted by l_e_cox
reply to post by Serafine

 

I very much agree with this viewpoint.

Natural selection may be totally valid in its place, but it can't get at ultimate cause.

Natural selection is nothing but a human-made concept. To me that itself argues for an intelligence factor in creation.

And the perception of something like "beauty" in creation argues for a factor even beyond intelligence.

Look at all that we KNOW we have created! Why isn't it logical to assume that ALL creation works in a similar way? And if it were a workable truth, it wouldn't even matter if it were "logical." And there is a lot of research pointing in the direction of "reality" being a caused perception.

Many people can't tell the difference between what "Man" has co-created and what "Nature" has.... So many of us live in the man-made reality and identify with it as The Natural World. How many people endeavored to learn "science" to work with the philosophy and research and CALL themselves a "Scientist" or some other ist or ism eh?

Meanwhile... the table they sit at is man designed and made... the chair.. the pen or pencil... the paper and the artificial man-made lighting... on and on... The Real World to some, without EVER trying to comprehend where and how that reality they "accept", originated. So all the "Intelligent Design" in creating that world or "reality" is almost a mere subtle acceptance. While the the Very "matter & forces" and world, and reality that ALL of that man-made world is Manifested in, is filed by so many as "No Evidence of Intelligent Design" as to IT'S CREATION and ORIGIN.

It's the Mind and Spirit that I think bewilders the evolution theories of many a person. The idea that an Idea is a THING or that it CAN'T be perceived by the 5 senses but ONLY within the entity or entities. The Manifestation of an idea in the physical world is REALITY easy to accept.

Some claim it's all physical... firing neurons and hormones and "chemicals" on and on... Meanwhile as we grow... every cell in our body is less than 7 years old... our complete "physical" body is a mere 7 years old... something "Evolution Theories" seriously need to consider. and the origin of that BODY is affected by environment for sure AND will of the entity. As the wise understand... 'It's not what happens to us that matters so much as What We Do About It."

The origin of the Beautiful Woman has NEVER been explained by the philosophy nor the "science" involved with evolution theories. As well as a Beautiful Woman... The WILL of the Beautiful Woman has NEVER been explained. All the science and philosophy in the world can't touch the WILL within any of us. When such theories start investigating the mind and the soul...

When those begging the question with such idiosyncrasies like... Love is a Chemical... with ZERO proof of that conclusion except their CLAIM and their WILL to choose that belief. The affect of LOVE on a body bewilders these considerations. I am amazed that so many can't explain what is the cause and what is the effect. I have seen and heard many a person deny anything beyond the "physical" and material just as an Atheist denies a GOD. The problem is they DON'T KNOW and their claim to know what they DON'T is ONLY a matter of their use of WILL.... which many deny they have anyway! lol

Hey... People can choose to believe they have NO WILL as in choice and freewill.... and others can be entertained by these very people using their WILL to believe it !! It is very very amusing! So Now, as I posted before..... I've come to the points...

Evolution Theories can't explain the Origin of the Beautiful Woman, nor the Beautiful Woman's WILL.

reply to post by Serafine
Google "Beautiful Woman"

Google "Love"

You are vastly undereducated on the issue, and extremely arrogant to appropriate NEVER with the qualities of the definitive by way of CAPS, regarding things you are scarcely able to comment on.

I'm not sure I even understand the question "Where does the Beautiful Woman come from." Certainly a woman with scars and abrasions on her skin, with an asymmetric face and insufficient size of birth canal will not spread her genes in the gene pool. Symmetry and cleanliness is a mark of parasite resistance.

If you find it hard to believe a beautiful woman can arise from a single celled ancestor, well that's the way it happened and it only took 40 weeks.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Serafine

 

Except that it does explain how the woman got there...successive mutations over generations.

As I stated... Evolution Theory has NO Explanation for the origin of the Beautiful Woman..... You have to do better then mutation and procreation lol... grrrrrr

Think about Physics 101.... Light... Gravity.. Magnetism... electricity etc... Not ONE physicist knows what any of it is..... THAT is science..... The same applies to the Origin of the Beautiful Woman. You can observe her all you want. ... But the origin of the beautiful woman is NOT known. Please do NOT pawn off mutation and procreation crap as anything but a waste of my time....

Again, what is the Origin of the Beautiful Woman? Now come on...... I gave you the answer... even evolution theories can't say... but they can say They Don't Know... There's a reason a missing link is missing... trying to insist it's KNOWN is fallacy and I don't like people who Stop Short at the Missing Link in the theories AND outright ignore it.... acting like it's NOT the essence of the evolution Theories on Origins.... grrrr basic 101 stuffs man!

reply to post by Serafine


How does evolution not explain beautiful women? The idea of 'beauty' in women refers to reproductive viability. Beautiful is a definitively relative term between individuals as I may think that a certain woman is beautiful but you would think she is average...because we have different cultural and genetic conceptions of beauty.

reply to post by NeverSleepingEyes


Well, I took the second example from a video I watched featuring a presentation by PZ Meyers, a colleague and friend of Dawkins. I had sort of come up with the same idea because I have a habit of listening to videos on YouTube while bouncing a rubber ball against a wall in my room...and I happened to watch a creationist video and paused to pick up the ball after failing to catch it and realized how simplicity made me realize that it was man made rather than complexity.

"Design in the Human Brain...The human brain is the most complicated structure in the known universe.18 It contains over 100 billion cells, each with over 50,000 neuron connections to other brain cells.19 This structure receives over 100 million separate signals from the total human body every second. If we learned something new every second of our lives, it would take three million years to exhaust the capacity of the human brain. 20 In addition to conscious thought, people can actually reason, anticipate consequences, and devise plans - all without knowing they are doing so."

www.tgm.org...

I will give thanks unto thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: Wonderful are thy works; And that my soul knoweth right well.
Psalm 139:14
Many, O LORD my God, are the wonders you have done. The things you planned for us no one can recount to you; were I to speak and tell of them, they would be too many to declare.
Psalm 40:5

Origins - Fearfully and Wonderfully Made

"The question is not when does life begin, but when does a person begin?" Dr. David Menton explains from anatomical science and biology the truth of Psalm 139:13--16, which says that God weaves us together in the womb. He also reveals the amazing and intricate design of the womb and the processes of fertilization, implantation, embryonic development, and birth itself. Dr. Menton shows that each of these is a series of miracles (irreducible complexities) that cannot be explained by chance and random processes."

Mod Edit: External Source Tags Instructions – Please Review This Link.

Please make sure external content is properly attributed and formatted. Also, share your own opinions instead of simply resorting to copy and pasting.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by byteshertz

 

...the whole point is that the indication of intentional design by an agent is evidence not specifically from complexity, not that all simple systems are necessarily designed. It's my fault for not making that clear. Neither complexity nor simplicity in and of itself indicates anything, they're merely ascribed relative properties.

Aight - im with ya now