MrAnony1:

You are lying. Please show where I made this claim.

You calling me a liar is arguably worse than joagbaje calling me a bridge salesman

My claim:

me:

where you claim our friends, the taxi drivers, increase in brain size is due to spirits sending down special beams as opposed to, you know, their brain size increasing in that area as a result of their using that part of their brains more? similar to muscle mass increase from regular exercise?

here's the post: https://www.nairaland.com/1367214/hell-said-big-bang-evolution/14#17153528

(This current thread is basically part 2 of that one. Again one wonders if the op is amnesic. That thread is probably funnier tho'. One of my favorites)

MrAnony:

Consider this research for example about London taxi cab drivers whose brains increase in physical size as they learn the London road network. That is clear evidence of non-physical knowledge causing a physical effect. So my friend, I'm afraid you are wrong here. non-physical causes do accomplish physical effects.

Oya tell me what is responsible for the increase in brain size of those drivers. Bonus points: do it without resorting to a convulted jumble of words which amounts to 'spirit'. No merry-go-rounds please. Thanks. (Uyi in that thread seems to think telekinesis is somehow involved....)

Anyhow, I repeat

you earlier:
Yes and our point is and has always been that consciousness or intelligence of any sort cannot be created by random undesigned natural events. An intelligent mind must necessarily be involved.

is either a dishonest, ill thought attempt at subterfuge, ie cheap sophism, or a case of your not knowing the implications of your garbage, just as is the case with the above. I personally warrant the former option. It's quite silly and I do wonder how you expect to get away with it.

Wait first, you even make this statement just now

you just now:

Yes matter cannot explain consciousness

So wtf where you on about??



And, again, this isn't even the full story in any manner at all. Your case also clearly involves the postulation that this "Mind"-thingie, in DS' words, is capable of existing wholly on its own without any material base, and it being responsible for this universe. This has always been the case.

I dey lie??


There's more, but frankly can't be bothered...

MrAnony1:



AI can only exists if an intelligent mind creates it as shown by your link. It wasn't matter that explained it, it was purposeful minds capable of creating.


Have they created a spirit?


Strawman, I never said anything about magic


Since now, oh little man who can't express a coherent thought.

......

wiegraf:


You calling me a liar is arguably worse than joagbaje calling me a bridge salesman

My claim:



here's the post: https://www.nairaland.com/1367214/hell-said-big-bang-evolution/14#17153528

(This current thread is basically part 2 of that one. Again one wonders if the op is amnesic. That thread is probably funnier tho'. One of my favorites)



Oya tell me what is responsible for the increase in brain size of those drivers. Bonus points: do it without resorting to a convulted jumble of words which amounts to 'spirit'. No merry-go-rounds please. Thanks. (Uyi in that thread seems to think telekinesis is somehow involved....)

Anyhow, I repeat



is either a dishonest, ill thought attempt at subterfuge, ie cheap sophism, or a case of your not knowing the implications of your garbage, just as is the case with the above. I personally warrant the former option. It's quite silly and I do wonder how you expect to get away with it.

Wait first, you even make this statement just now



So wtf where you on about??



And, again, this isn't even the full story in any manner at all. Your case also clearly involves the postulation that this "Mind"-thingie, in DS' words, is capable of existing wholly on its own without any material base, and it being responsible for this universe. This has always been the case.

I dey lie??


There's more, but frankly can't be bothered...




......

Why do you still continue to lie?

You said that I claimed that taxi drivers, increase in brain size is due to spirits sending down special beams.

I'll ask you again. Please show where I made that claim?

KingEbukasBlog:


I looked at a and b and felt sorry for you

Many christians do not agree with intelligent design.

I feel sorry for you that belief in God has left you in ignorance rather than knowledge

MrAnony1:


Why do you still continue to lie?

You said that I claimed that taxi drivers, increase in brain size is due to spirits sending down special beams.

I'll ask you again. Please show where I made that claim?

When you claimed Santa was responsible for their increase in brain size

I hope that helps...

AllNaijaBlogger:


Many christians do not agree with intelligent design.

I feel sorry for you that belief in God has left you in ignorance rather than knowledge

you are a theistic evolutionist then

KingEbukasBlog:


you are a theistic evolutionist then

Something like that.

MrAnony1:


Ok so...

1. You admit that there is complexity in the universe.
2. You admit that it seems designed and so suggests a designer
3. You deny that this apparent design suggests intelligence in a literal sense but may may be true in any other sense.

Have I accurately represented what you said?

Yeah

MrAnony1:


Ok so...

1. You admit that there is complexity in the universe.
2. You admit that it seems designed and so suggests a designer
3. You deny that this apparent design suggests intelligence in a literal sense but may may be true in any other sense.

Have I accurately represented what you said?

Kay17:


Yeah

Good. (do you recall my first post on this thread?)

A. Since you admit that the universe apparently shows design and hence suggests the existence of a designer but isn't really designed. Then essentially you are saying that design is the obvious observation about the universe though this observation is not accurate.
The burden of proof therefore lies on you as you will now have to give us actual reasons to reject what is so apparent to us.

So what reasons do you have that convinced you that the universe is not designed despite the fact that it appears designed to you?

B. You hold that this apparent design suggests intelligence in any other sense than in the literal sense. What other senses specifically do you mean? Can you give examples to help us understand?

MrAnony1:

While I may not know what your purpose is, I know that the purpose of your eye is sight, the purpose of your brain is to think, the purpose of your legs are for walking e.t.c....all of them are complex and specifically arranged in order to perform those functions. Do you deny this?

No I don't since they've been shaped by millions of years of evolution and have helped my ancestors survive so it isn't surprising. How exactly does this lead to your God?

MrAnony1:

Question is do they create information?

Yes they do.

MrAnony1:

I see, so according to you, the GPS actually creates information yet you don't think it has a mind. Why do you think this? What would a GPS that has a mind look like?

It would have more computing power and more independent than a GPS device. You didn't answer my question. Is the output from a GPS device information?

MrAnony1:

Yes it is true, your inability to prove me wrong does not prove right however it gives us no reason to believe your position but leaves mine probable.

You're wrong on that too. There can be more fundamental philosophical reasons to go with my patterns of thought than yours. Yours doesn't become more probable simply because you've made an empty assertion.

MrAnony1:

I see. How do you know that they arise from a physical brain as opposed to functioning through a physical brain?

Because minds arise and develop as the brain develops. What do you mean when you say minds function through a physical brain?

MrAnony1:

It seems your amnesia has set in again. My claim was that the DNA carries information that instructs the cells on how to function, your reply was that the information I was referring to was only a human abstraction of the molecule. Hence the question. If anything is wrong with anyone here, it is you. The question is justified. I am happy that you now realize that the information exists and functions apart from the human abstraction used in describing it.

If you weren't confused, you won't have even formed such a ridiculous notion.

MrAnony1:

Well since the physical laws are a constant and apply to every other physical thing in the universe, latching them onto your answer doesn't help you at all. I'd say it is really the specific arrangement of the molecule that is effective in the form and functioning of all living organisms, wouldn't you agree?

Why aren't the physical laws an acceptable answer? After all, the arrangement of the molecule is determined by those laws and they explain the structures at the molecular level.

MrAnony1:

It is not confusion at all. It is a strawman fallacy because while I was talking about "information that defines you", you rephrased it as "information about you" and argued against that instead. Secondly, you will need to explain this "confusion" you keep throwing about. How exactly am I confused?

Wow. Looks like your problem currently lies with the use of language. A definition of an object is about that object. e.g the definition of a ball is about a ball. That is how you're confused.

MrAnony1:

Lol, you are only being disingenuous here. I think davidylan's calling you out on this should suffice.

davidylan? Suffice? You must be joking. Your problem is with the language and the word "literally". Please look it up. Here's one source. Please tell me if you think your usage makes sense.

Dictionarydotcom:
actually; without exaggeration or inaccuracy:

MrAnony1:

What exactly does God having a body or not have to do with whether you were mindfully created or not?

It has everything to do with it given the topic at hand. e.g where did this God come from and what is the direct actual evidence for this God itself since it has a physical body?

MrAnony1:

And I have also told you that you are wrong. Now can we go back to actual logical arguments or would you rather we just call each other wrong and call it a day?

You've not made a logical argument and I've shown you that you were wrong and explained that you have assertion the wrong way around. You've not shown how the human conception come before the actual physical objects.

MrAnony1:

So you have started lying again. Please show me where I said that God has a body.

Where you said we should assume he has a body.

MrAnony1:
Maybe God is a mind with a body or without a body. That's besides the point. The point remains that since information defines you, you are mindfully created. Whether God has a body or not is a red herring that has nothing to do with whether you are mindfully created or not. However, if you keep stumbling over this and you believe that a mind cannot exist without a body, then feel free to assume that God has a body. It doesn't change the fact that your creator has a mind.

Since you say God has a body, then he too is bound by physical laws and would need an explanation of how he came to exist. Secondly, did your God create me specifically?

MrAnony1:

Are you saying then that there are no good reasons to believe that persons who did not grow up with you, you never spoke to, and never touched exist? Is revelation (in the sense that you described) the basis for existence?

No. Again what is wrong with you? Do you really have such a poor understanding of simple statements? I asked for your God to reveal himself to me the way my friends have if he wants me to believe he exists. This has no bearing on other human beings since I already know that other human beings exist but not your God. Especially given your acceptance of him having a physical body. Sheesh.

MrAnony1:

But it was you who defined hunger as the perception of the desire to feed. How then do you define appetite?

Appetite is a desire to eat. What exactly is your point besides definitions of words?

MrAnony1:

But it was you who claimed that you can feel hunger without the hunger pangs. So please tell us what other physical properties of hunger inform you that it is hunger you are feeling apart from hunger pangs?

Why exclude hunger pangs? That is an acceptable physical property and should be enough for you to make your point if you have one. So, what exactly is the point you're trying to make?

MrAnony1:

It was you who claimed that hunger pangs are a physical property of hunger and length is in-turn a physical property of hunger pangs. Please kindly explain how a physical property can also have a physical property or are you just christening "physical property" on anything you like in order to help your argument along?

And here you reveal the fact that you're unable to actually think things through and it looks like I'll have to make you think things through. Hunger pangs are physical contractions. Contractions have the physical property of changes in length. Unless you're saying hunger pangs aren't a physical property or that length isn't a physical property, then you're simply demonstrating that inability of working through clearly stated propositions.

MrAnony1:

And I said; Not in the physical sense, it can't. Physical properties and physical effects are two very different things.

Please explain with some examples.

MrAnony1:

Because it doesn't describe matter

Oh your God. Hunger pangs describe the contractions the stomach undergoes under certain conditions. Unless you don't think the stomach is matter, then you're very confused. Please tell me, is the stomach matter? Do hunger pangs describe the stomach under those conditions?

MrAnony1:

I know I am hungry the same way you know your mind even though your mind is not physical (according to you). And yes, hunger pangs are an effect of hunger just like how your non-physical mind can propel your physical body to act.

What exactly do you mean by you know you're hungry the same way I know my mind? Can you rephrase that? Also, what is the point of putting (according to me)? Don't you agree that the mind is non-physical? Do you mean that hunger pangs are an effect of the mind not the physical body?

MrAnony1:

But truth be told, you ran from davidylan. Are you afraid of him because he has superior knowledge in the field you are discussing?

I ran from davidylan? Please sing his praises. Sure he has superior knowledge. If you have the time, you can ask him about our previous encounters of just scroll through our history together. You can resurrect those topics if you like or ask him to resurrect just the ones where he revealed my fear and his superior knowledge.


You've literally made me laugh out loud in my house.

KingEbukasBlog:


You as a person are evident enough that the human body is a design .

The theory of evolution explains that.

KingEbukasBlog:

Lol .... Wait till science tells you how life originated billions of years ago . It hasn't dealt with present problems facing life and its gona tell you what happened far back . As far as you are not there its a belief , as simple as it is .

Not all beliefs are created equal. Some beliefs are more veridical than others.

UyiIredia:


So they couldn't have made living things which use a given type of chirality. That's an example of how abiotic natural factors lack the ability to effect biochemicals.

Both types are available in nature.

UyiIredia:

Sure, but they don't exist as they do in the body, which makes them irrelevant to the problem.

And there are things that are out on the earth that don't exist that way in the body. Does this mean that the earth was specially created?

UyiIredia:

Brains and computers apply the same principles, processing inputs to get output. Hearts and pumping machines apply the same principle of using differential pressure to transport fluids. Furthermore nanotech and genetic engineering feats are as close to life as it gets.

Let me get this straight. You're saying brains are designed because computers are designed? And that hearts are designed because pumping machines are designed?

Two things.

1.The theory of evolution explains why brains and hearts look designed to us in the way man-made objects are.
2. You're making a weak analogy because like I said, hearts and brains function very differently from pumps and computers. If you abstract things enough and stop wherever you want, you can arrive at whatever conclusion you want. e.g the intestines are designed because pipes are designed and they both transport fluids through hollow containers open at both ends.

UyiIredia:

That said, the inference stands as long as one recognizes that intelligence is absolutely crucial to designing functional systems and life is such a system.

The theory of evolution explains why intelligence isn't absolutely crucial to designing functional systems.

UyiIredia:

The lack of evidence of natural processes effecting life and the observation that they typically degrade living things and corpses supports that assertion.

Actually the degradation of living thing things and corpses is done by other living things. A dead body in space won't decay if it were sterilized and would take a very long time to get decomposed. Just like other natural processes. On the creation of life, the fact that we don't see it happening now is not an argument against it having happened in the past since the environment today is very different from what it used to be.

UyiIredia:

It falls apart if you have no evidence showing me how naturally began. If you don't want to accept that then it's not surprising you insist life wasn't created.

There are philosophical reasons for not accepting your creator and for favouring natural processes. Secondly, you've not actually shown how your God did what you claim he did. That means you have no evidence showing me how life supernaturally began. If you don't want to accept that, then it isn't surprising that you insist life was created.

davidylan:


Its funny how atheists laugh at cars popping out of the ground but have no problem believing (by blind faith of course) that the more complex human who designed that car simply popped out of the ground.

So your assumed more complex GOD who designed the complex human just popped out of the ground: this is the implication of your statement.

davien:
Yes it is..

don't be foolish davien.

de·sign
dəˈzīn/
noun
noun: design; plural noun: designs

1.
a plan or drawing produced to show the look and function or workings of a building, garment, or other object before it is built or made.
"he has just unveiled his design for the new museum"
synonyms: plan, blueprint, drawing, sketch, outline, map, plot, diagram, draft, representation, scheme, model
"a design for the offices"
the art or action of conceiving of and producing a plan or drawing.
"good design can help the reader understand complicated information"
an arrangement of lines or shapes created to form a pattern or decoration.
"pottery with a lovely blue and white design"
synonyms: pattern, motif, device; More
style, composition, makeup, layout, construction, shape, form
"tableware with a gold design"
2.
purpose, planning, or intention that exists or is thought to exist behind an action, fact, or material object.
"the appearance of design in the universe"
synonyms: intention, aim, purpose, plan, intent, objective, object, goal, end, target; More
hope, desire, wish, dream, aspiration, ambition
"his design of reaching the top"

note the bolded. contrast is secondary in design recognition. you don't need to contrast an unmade bed with a made one before,ypu realize the made one is in order. Stop using useless 'secondaries' to justify your denial of truth.

thehomer:


The theory of evolution explains that.

KingEbukasBlog:
Please, bringing random body parts of apes and then using computer graphics to project the "fact " for evolution is not science , that should be the BTS of "King Kong" - one of my favorite movies

Not all beliefs are created equal. Some beliefs are more veridical than others.

Mine is more veridical then

Ebuka's beliefs

1. God - exists outside time thus has always existed
2. God, a highly intelligent being , is the creator of all things - gives life a purpose of existence

thehomer's beliefs

1. Something came out from nothing and for no reason begot life
2. No purpose of life , things happen naturally for no reason

Let me scrutinize the folly of your beliefs with these questions

a. Why does man have a complex brain and not other animals
b . Why does earth support life and not same for other planets
c. Why is there so much disparity in the qualities in man when compared to other animals as regards to these :
Social ,Moral , spiritual and habitual behaviour
d. How on earth can life spring up from inorganic matter
e. If man evolved from the ancestors of apes- homoerectus , hompsapien ; can you list the evidence of ancestry of monkeys (in the same family as man )

f. Why didnt other animals evolve to be highly intelligent as man , since man evolved from the lowest possible level of intelligence
e. Look at plants , trees - so nature felt there is a need to feed the animals or was it some mistake too ?

et cetera

Joshthefirst:
don't be foolish davien.


note the bolded. contrast is secondary in design recognition. you don't need to contrast an unmade bed with a made one before,ypu realize the made one is in order. Stop using useless 'secondaries' to justify your denial of truth.

I admit to have been fooling around with creationists here but lets get serious(who knows,your answers may make me a creationist )

With that definition would it be safe to say everything in the universe has a purpose?

thehomer:


Both types are available in nature.

And the body uses only one type. Neither is there any natural process that explains how that type was selected for.

thehomer:

And there are things that are out on the earth that don't exist that way in the body. Does this mean that the earth was specially created?

This doesn't address my point. The body synthesizes proteins, we know of no natural process that does such.

thehomer:

Let me get this straight. You're saying brains are designed because computers are designed? And that hearts are designed because pumping machines are designed?

Two things.

1.The theory of evolution explains why brains and hearts look designed to us in the way man-made objects are.
2. You're making a weak analogy because like I said, hearts and brains function very differently from pumps and computers. If you abstract things enough and stop wherever you want, you can arrive at whatever conclusion you want. e.g the intestines are designed because pipes are designed and they both transport fluids through hollow containers open at both ends.

The evolutionary explanation for how brains and hearts came to be is poor. Hearts and brains have similar functions to pumps and computers and work on the same principles I earlier stated. You also ignored my point on nanotech and genetic engineering feats which are more similar to living systems in their scale and manner of operating. Again, so far as it is a given that intelligence is crucial to designing the sort of systems see in life the inference to design is justified.

thehomer:

The theory of evolution explains why intelligence isn't absolutely crucial to designing functional systems.

It doesn't. The theory of evolution is highly flawed at best and total crap at worst.

thehomer:

Actually the degradation of living thing things and corpses is done by other living things. A dead body in space won't decay if it were sterilized and would take a very long time to get decomposed. Just like other natural processes. On the creation of life, the fact that we don't see it happening now is not an argument against it having happened in the past since the environment today is very different from what it used to be.

Heat, chemicals and radiation also degrade the body. Special pleading for a different environment doesn't help your case, such environments would still face the problems of synthesis and organization I stated. In fact, the absence of life in other planets and moons with different environments supports this point.

thehomer:

There are philosophical reasons for not accepting your creator and for favouring natural processes. Secondly, you've not actually shown how your God did what you claim he did. That means you have no evidence showing me how life supernaturally began. If you don't want to accept that, then it isn't surprising that you insist life was created.

This doesn't remove the fact that you hold a position totally devoid of evidence by your own admission. As for the evidence for design, that's what you failed to sispute earlier.

thehomer:


And you're demonstrating a problem with communicating in English. To say I am literally my DNA means that my DNA should be able to do what I do. Clearly my DNA cannot do everything I do therefore I am not literally my DNA. The fact that you cannot comprehend such a simple statement is evidence of your confusion.

davidylan said QUITE literally. You missed that part. While your DNA can't do everything you do, it is a fact that everything you can do is because of your DNA.

thehomer:
Compare that statement to saying General Buhari is literally the current president of Nigeria. Is there something the president of Nigeria can do but General Buhari cannot do?

The president can be a different person, Buhari can't.

thehomer:
Your environment also contributes because malnutrition can also affect how you look.


Exposure to certain hormones, chemicals and surgery can change that.



Certain diseases can affect that



This can also be affected by diseases or even accidents.

The DNA is the basis on which these factors affect a person. This is why different people respond differently to the same environment.

thehomer:
Actually, you can survive for a couple of hours at least without your DNA but you will eventually die.

What's the evidence for this ?

davien:
I'd rather try to find out than accept just any explanation...seems the intellectually honest way to go...

It's not intellectually honest if the only explanation you are 'finding out' is one that excludes God and is materialistic.

thehomer:


The L-isomers are the ones used in biological organisms. The specificity is due to the shape of proteins. But what exactly is your point? If both isomers were used, what would that imply?

This doesn't answer the question. We already know L-isomers are of a given shape. The problem is what is responsible for making such proteins in the body only L-isomers despite the presence of both isomers naturally.

@thehomer, kay17, kingebukasblog.. Una come here dey debate for oga davidylan back abi?

anicheibo:

Yes!. But ID postulates that all species on earth right now were ready made by a designer.

This just goes to show how ignorant you are of the intelligent design theory. What you've described is creationism NOT intelligent design. ID only infers an 'intelligent agent' nothing more. In fact, the theory as it is framed doesn't rule out the possibility that life evolved from a common ancestor (a proposition I find ridiculous), what's in dispute is the mechanism by which it could happen.

UyiIredia:


It's not intellectually honest if the only explanation you are 'finding out' is one that excludes God and is materialistic.

How can i exclude "god" when the very premise of it's existence is not upon me to prove?

thehomer:

[size=18pt]Actually, you can survive for a couple of hours at least without your DNA[/size] but you will eventually die.

huh? In what book did you read that?

jayriginal:


A "real scientist" who thinks its valid to ask why monkeys are still around if evolution is true?

Its a valid question... if i asked you why you think otherwise, you would not be able to say. You're basically relying on appealing to authority here...

The question really is this - if macro evolution is true, where are the transition species?

KingEbukasBlog:


Mine is more veridical then

Ebuka's beliefs

1. God - exists outside time thus has always existed

How do you know this? And what is your evidence for this claim?

KingEbukasBlog:

2. God, a highly intelligent being , is the creator of all things - gives life a purpose of existence

How do you know this?

KingEbukasBlog:

thehomer's beliefs

1. Something came out from nothing and for no reason begot life
2. No purpose of life , things happen naturally for no reason

Let me scrutinize the folly of your beliefs with these questions

a. Why does man have a complex brain and not other animals

The same reason why elephants have trunks and not other animals. Why would you say man has a more complex brain?

KingEbukasBlog:

b . Why does earth support life and not same for other planets

Because the conditions on earth are suitable for life. Why would you say the earth supports life?

KingEbukasBlog:

c. Why is there so much disparity in the qualities in man when compared to other animals as regards to these :
Social ,Moral , spiritual and habitual behaviour

The same reason why there are disparities in qualities in elephants when compared to other animals with regards to size, trunk and tusks. And what is your explanation for the disparity?

KingEbukasBlog:

d. How on earth can life spring up from inorganic matter

I don't know how it happened. How would you say it happened?

KingEbukasBlog:

e. If man evolved from the ancestors of apes- homoerectus , hompsapien ; can you list the evidence of ancestry of monkeys (in the same family as man )

Humans are apes. The evidence lies in multiple fields including biogeography, biochemistry, comparative anatomy and genetics. How would you say man evolved? And how would you explain fossils?

KingEbukasBlog:

f. Why didnt other animals evolve to be highly intelligent as man , since man evolved from the lowest possible level of intelligence

The same reason why other animals didn't evolve to use trunks as well as elephants can. Why didn't other animals evolve to use trunks as well as elephants can?

KingEbukasBlog:

e. Look at plants , trees - so nature felt there is a need to feed the animals or was it some mistake too ?

et cetera

Look at the sun. I guess nature felt there was a need to feed plants. Why did God create plants before the sun?

UyiIredia:


And the body uses only one type. Neither is there any natural process that explains how that type was selected for.

So what?

UyiIredia:

This doesn't address my point. The body synthesizes proteins, we know of no natural process that does such.

The body does not fuse hydrogen and we know of natural processes that do this. What is your point?

UyiIredia:

The evolutionary explanation for how brains and hearts came to be is poor. Hearts and brains have similar functions to pumps and computers and work on the same principles I earlier stated. You also ignored my point on nanotech and genetic engineering feats which are more similar to living systems in their scale and manner of operating. Again, so far as it is a given that intelligence is crucial to designing the sort of systems see in life the inference to design is justified.

The evolutionary explanation makes the most sense. You say they work on the same principles. Well computers work by switching transistors. Is that how the brain works? The heart pumps blood by contraction of myocytes. Is that how pumps work? I ignored that talk about nanotech because it is no better than your talk about pumps and computers. Well the theory of evolution reveals that intelligence isn't needed so your inference is unjustified.

UyiIredia:

It doesn't. The theory of evolution is highly flawed at best and total crap at worst.

Well go ahead and present a better testable theory.

UyiIredia:

Heat, chemicals and radiation also degrade the body. Special pleading for a different environment doesn't help your case, such environments would still face the problems of synthesis and organization I stated. In fact, the absence of life in other planets and moons with different environments supports this point.

How did I commit the fallacy of special pleading? You spoke about degradation and I pointed out the problem with that. Absence of life on inhospitable planets supports what point?

UyiIredia:

This doesn't remove the fact that you hold a position totally devoid of evidence by your own admission. As for the evidence for design, that's what you failed to sispute earlier.

I already said there are philosophical reasons for not accepting your assertion. Actually your current position still lacks evidence. You've merely made the usual bad argument from analogy.

thehomer:

Humans are apes. The evidence lies in multiple fields including biogeography, biochemistry, comparative anatomy and genetics. How would you say man evolved? And how would you explain fossils?

I'm not sure how fossils explain evolution... infact they do disprove evolution considering you still cant find transitory forms.

I'm still waiting for your response on how you can survive without your dna for a few hours before death. Never heard of such in my life...

thehomer:

The evolutionary explanation makes the most sense. You say they work on the same principles. Well computers work by switching transistors. Is that how the brain works? The heart pumps blood by contraction of myocytes. Is that how pumps work? I ignored that talk about nanotech because it is no better than your talk about pumps and computers. Well the theory of evolution reveals that intelligence isn't needed so your inference is unjustified.

Not really... outside of evolution, there is no other serious speculation on the origin of species. So how does one thing make the most sense when its the only idea available?

Secondly, for all the noise about evolution, how does it explain the very origin of man?

UyiIredia:


davidylan said QUITE literally. You missed that part. While your DNA can't do everything you do, it is a fact that everything you can do is because of your DNA.

That is not how you use the word "literally". Look it up. A human being cannot literally be a DNA molecule.

UyiIredia:

The president can be a different person, Buhari can't.

What is it that the Nigerian president can do right now that General Buhari cannot do?

UyiIredia:

The DNA is the basis on which these factors affect a person. This is why different people respond differently to the same environment.

Well the environment is the basis on which the DNA acts that way.

UyiIredia:

What's the evidence for this ?

Severe exposure to radiation. Even with the burns, the victims don't die immediately.

UyiIredia:


This doesn't answer the question. We already know L-isomers are of a given shape. The problem is what is responsible for making such proteins in the body only L-isomers despite the presence of both isomers naturally.

The tertiary and quaternary structures of the amino-acid chains. What exactly is the point you're trying to make?