Designer Genes

stiggy wiggy

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
Why is it that people who can look at a pair of Levi's and infer a designer are too shallow to infer one when looking at the complex DNA within a penguin that contains a code enabling it to handle frigid temperatures and the brutal DESIGN of its spectacular environment?
 
Temujin

Temujin

Well-known member
stiggy wiggy said:
Why is it that people who can look at a pair of Levi's and infer a designer are too shallow to infer one when looking at the complex DNA within a penguin that contains a code enabling it to handle frigid temperatures and the brutal DESIGN of its spectacular environment?
Click to expand...
A pair of trousers is similar to a biological organism in what way? Apart from being homophones, genes and jeans have nothing in common. You are just dressing up the failed watchmaker analogy in designer clothes, but it still fails.
 
T

Torin

Active member
We know things are designed because we have seen (or know of) similar things being designed in the past. We know jeans are designed because we've seen human beings making clothes before, and jeans are adequately similar to the other clothes we've seen being made to warrant the inference to (human) design. There's nothing like that for DNA. Even if there was, we could only infer a human or human-like designer anyway.
 
Temujin

Temujin

Well-known member
stiggy wiggy said:
Kinda like how when you see a pair of designer jeans, you assume your conclusion that they have a designer? Thanks for bolstering the point in my OP.
Click to expand...
I know they have a designer because they put their logo on the label. Nature has no label, let alone a logo.
 
Temujin

Temujin

Well-known member
stiggy wiggy said:
I don't understand the question.
Click to expand...
I can think of a great many reasons for assuming that jeans are designed. Having a logo on a label being one. None of those reasons also apply to genes. I am asking if you have a reason to assume that jeans are designed that also applies to genes.
 
Ficciones

Ficciones

Active member
stiggy wiggy said:
Why is it that people who can look at a pair of Levi's and infer a designer are too shallow to infer one when looking at the complex DNA within a penguin that contains a code enabling it to handle frigid temperatures and the brutal DESIGN of its spectacular environment?
Click to expand...
One of the reasons biologists knew the novel coronavirus must have evolved and could not have been designed is that its attachment site is too elegant. They say an engineered virus would have had seams, so to speak. You know, like your Levis.
 
stiggy wiggy

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
Ficciones said:
One of the reasons biologists knew the novel coronavirus must have evolved and could not have been designed is that its attachment site is too elegant. They say an engineered virus would have had seams, so to speak. You know, like your Levis.
Click to expand...

So seams could not have evolved? And why not? Because they LOOK manufactured, but the Grand Tetons do not?
 
Temujin

Temujin

Well-known member
stiggy wiggy said:
So seams could not have evolved? And why not? Because they LOOK manufactured, but the Grand Tetons do not?
Click to expand...
Precisely. Evolution is constrained, much more so than design. There are many things that cannot possibly evolve from a given start point. Design has no such constraints. Literally anything "could" be designed. The reason for thinking that something is not designed isn't because design is impossible, but that design is unnecessary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top