Virgin birth of Jesus

[LordKiran]

In the absence of any real facts for the origin of space-time and matter, I shall depend on my faith in God.[1]

Do you know the real facts, as to how the universe came to be?[2]

while creating something from nothing breaches the First Law of Thermodynamics, and is therefore sufficiently difficult to qualify as 'impossible'.

Agreed, so how do you explain the origin of space-time and matter, without God?[3]

1. Why? In the absence of facts you'll just make something up?

2. Doesn't matter. My inability to explain something does not make your imaginings correct.

3. Well given that the current running theory doesn't suppose that something came from nothing...I fail to see how the question is pertinent.

 

[Learner]

We already have plenty of human DNA in all our food. We share 40% of our genes with broccoli. All life on Earth is extremely closely related. On a geological time scale, once it got going our branch of life took over completely. We've been able to identify 22 organisms that are not related to humans. 21 are microscopic and only live on magma vents at the bottom of the ocean. The other one is fungus. Which is why it so often makes us sick when eating it. The rest of all live are basically are brothers and sisters. All of it. Even bacteria.

Sure we have biological similarities and share many elements to other life forms ,but having plenty of human DNA on our dinner tables is something else. What I mean't of human DNA in our food is taken from human flesh or organs in the context of cannibalism.

So I really don't see your problem with it? Why is any of these scientific experimentation abominations. I just don't get it. What rule are the violating? You seem to have strong opinions on it, so I'm guessing there's a very clear prohibition against this in the Bible?

Yes like the days of Noah

That's not an argument. I have no idea what you think that proves? It just means we're slightly better than the second best... whatever that occupies the same niche us us. They're all dead now. Who knows how even stupider their design was?

Wasn't sure what you mean't previously. I was suggesting billions of us on the planet was "efficiency" therefore reproduction works.

You're clearly not a woman. Periods? Explain that stupid shit. Dumbest solution ever to that problem. Or that human brains are too big for female birth canals. Before modern medicine it would lead to a staggering 25% of all women at some point dying in labour. We know why this is. It's just evolution. If we'd been a four legged animal our intelligence wouldn't cause a problem. But we're not. This is the compromise. "God" gambles with women's lives in order for us to have smart children. No intelligence designed that. If it was intelligence it was pure maliciousness in that case.

I have a bunch of cousins from one family that could have made a football team. The first child my aunt mentioned was difficult but then the rest just easily popped out. Ok not a good example will have to look into this one.

The human body has thousands upon thousands of stupid design choices. Our bodies look like a bunch of one off fixes. Stuff done in the meantime until a proper solution can be found. And then just left. And these have accumulated.

Just look at all the stuff that can kill us for stupid reasons.

Doesn't that make you think how ever continuously lucky for thousands of years that we are always escaping such hazards being so fragile and delicate and yet still exist? Therefore God did it. (imho)

 

[DrZoidberg]

Sure we have biological similarities and share many elements to other life forms ,but having plenty of human DNA on our dinner tables is something else. What I mean't of human DNA in our food is taken from human flesh or organs in the context of cannibalism.

You don't seem to get it. Fundamentally, we're just bags of chemicals. If I'd take a tiny tweezer and pick your apart molecule by molecule and drop you into a pile, you'd be indistinguishable from the ground of any dirt road. We're just configurations of chemicals.

Who cares where the DNA coding comes from?!? What possible difference could it make. There's no magic involved. It's just your everyday mundane chemistry. Like it or not, life isn't special.

So I really don't see your problem with it? Why is any of these scientific experimentation abominations. I just don't get it. What rule are the violating? You seem to have strong opinions on it, so I'm guessing there's a very clear prohibition against this in the Bible?

Yes like the days of Noah

Care to find Bible quotes? I looked. I didn't find any.

That's not an argument. I have no idea what you think that proves? It just means we're slightly better than the second best... whatever that occupies the same niche us us. They're all dead now. Who knows how even stupider their design was?

Wasn't sure what you mean't previously. I was suggesting billions of us on the planet was "efficiency" therefore reproduction works.

If you'd race a bunch of cars in a demolition derby. When one car comes out on top, you don't conclude that that is the best possible car. It just hobbled over the finish line better than the others. It's still a shitty car. Nobody competes in a demolition derby with a car that isn't a wreck.

You're clearly not a woman. Periods? Explain that stupid shit. Dumbest solution ever to that problem. Or that human brains are too big for female birth canals. Before modern medicine it would lead to a staggering 25% of all women at some point dying in labour. We know why this is. It's just evolution. If we'd been a four legged animal our intelligence wouldn't cause a problem. But we're not. This is the compromise. "God" gambles with women's lives in order for us to have smart children. No intelligence designed that. If it was intelligence it was pure maliciousness in that case.

I have a bunch of cousins from one family that could have made a football team. The first child my aunt mentioned was difficult but then the rest just easily popped out. Ok not a good example will have to look into this one.

Compare us to any four legged mammal? Births are simple. Or lizards, or whatever else. God really fucked up on humans.

The human body has thousands upon thousands of stupid design choices. Our bodies look like a bunch of one off fixes. Stuff done in the meantime until a proper solution can be found. And then just left. And these have accumulated.

Just look at all the stuff that can kill us for stupid reasons.

Doesn't that make you think how ever continuously lucky for thousands of years that we are always escaping such hazards being so fragile and delicate and yet still exist? Therefore God did it. (imho)

he he... I would draw the exact opposite conclusion of your example. Yes, we have been continuously lucky for millions of years. The rest of them weren't lucky, so they're not around to ask. You're asking all the wrong questions.

But we're not all that fragile. We're just not. Humanity as a whole is a robust compromise. We're the cockroaches of the primate world. We are pretty half-arsed at most things. But there's few things we're absolutely useless at.

 

[bilby]

In the absence of any real facts for the origin of space-time and matter, I shall depend on my faith in God.

Do you know the real facts, as to how the universe came to be?

while creating something from nothing breaches the First Law of Thermodynamics, and is therefore sufficiently difficult to qualify as 'impossible'.

Agreed, so how do you explain the origin of space-time and matter, without God?

I don't explain the origin of space-time and matter at all. I don't know how it came about.

But simple logic indicates that postulating a god doesn't help in any way - any god we imagine to be involved just pushes back the question and leaves us no closer to knowing why their is something rather than nothing. Gods are not only not THE answer; they cannot even be AN answer.

And it's not much of a stretch to presume that if modern scientific studies, which have answered all of the questions for which we have reliable answers, cannot give us an answer to the question, then a bunch of Bronze Age priests assuredly didn't know the answers either - no matter how confidently they asserted that they did.

The god hypothesis is of no explanatory value, and belief in the absence of evidence is the exact opposite of laudable behaviour.

 

[Eric H]

In the absence of any real facts for the origin of space-time and matter, I shall depend on my faith in God.
.

I don't explain the origin of space-time and matter at all. I don't know how it came about.

So we both don't have that answer, then just for the sake of argument, we skip this, and face another question.

Even if you could write an explanation that said, hydrogen, helium, and small amounts of lithium always existed. And all of the matter in the universe, and all of the matter that will ever be in the universe, is derived from that initial pool of three elements.

Now all that needs to happen is for these three elements hydrogen, helium and lithium to evolve into the universe and life that we see today. No big deal, they have the power and knowledge of God, they can create life as we know it. But How?

And it's not much of a stretch to presume that if modern scientific studies, which have answered all of the questions for which we have reliable answers, cannot give us an answer to the question, then a bunch of Bronze Age priests assuredly didn't know the answers either - no matter how confidently they asserted that they did.

It was enough for bronze age priests to say God exists and to give spiritual direction, they were not expected to give science lessons.

 

[Eric H]

You don't seem to get it. Fundamentally, we're just bags of chemicals. If I'd take a tiny tweezer and pick your apart molecule by molecule and drop you into a pile, you'd be indistinguishable from the ground of any dirt road. We're just configurations of chemicals.

So all you need to do is take the same tweezers and put all the molecules back together, when you have done that, you might understand how complex these configurations of chemicals are.

If you'd race a bunch of cars in a demolition derby. When one car comes out on top, you don't conclude that that is the best possible car. It just hobbled over the finish line better than the others. It's still a shitty car. Nobody competes in a demolition derby with a car that isn't a wreck.

You have to make the car in the first place, and cars are low tech, we have been making them for decades.

Yet we can't make a convincing robotic version of a dog, or of any one of the primate family. We have the blueprint of how all the bones, ligaments, tendons and muscles work together to create movement, so clever old mankind with all their engineering knowledge should be able to replicate these with man made materials. Even with all our knowledge, replicating the simple mechanics of our movements, seems beyond our present engineering capabilities. And we think we are clever.

 

[DrZoidberg]

You have to make the car in the first place, and cars are low tech, we have been making them for decades.

Yet we can't make a convincing robotic version of a dog, or of any one of the primate family. We have the blueprint of how all the bones, ligaments, tendons and muscles work together to create movement, so clever old mankind with all their engineering knowledge should be able to replicate these with man made materials. Even with all our knowledge, replicating the simple mechanics of our movements, seems beyond our present engineering capabilities. And we think we are clever.

The reason is of course that these are done with completely different methods. Cars are made by intelligent design. While humans and dogs are made through evolution. The beauty of evolution is that you don't need intelligent or skill to make the most advanced creations. All you need is patience.

We've used evolution to design all kinds of software. The problem with it is that while they always solve the problem they tend to do so in a very roundabout and inefficient manner. Which is what we see in the human body. Evolution never follows a straight line towards the target.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_computation

If we'd have used the evolutionary process to design something like space rockets or even computers themselves, we'd never made it to space, nor would computers be as efficient as today.

There's another important thing to keep in mind. Evolution just happens. If we would re-run the creation of life on Earth it would end up completely different than today. We'd most likely have a lot of frogs still. Frogs are a popular destiny for evolution. But for the rest of it, it could have evolved in any manner of weird ways. God didn't "design" dogs. God just stuck some random shit together over and over and over and over, and eventually we got a dog. But we could just as well have gotten something else.

Exobiologists study likely routes of biological evolution. Exobiology can get really weird.

 

[iolo]

Some sort of philosophy occurred under poganism, and the beginnings of science, but how many sensible people ever seriously believed a word of all that animist bilge? Obviously, when it suited the doddering Roman Empire to compromise with Christianity it was bye-bye Christianity, hello God!

Ehe... what? Pagans fully grasped the concept of metaphor. Don't forget that a Pagan could be an atheist. A few notable Greek philosophers for instance. They didn't stop being Pagan. Pagans had a philosophical rational around all their feasts. If you study all the feasts they had lots of aspects that are great. I forget which one, but the Roman's had a yearly "being honest day". Where you were allowed to be perfectly honest with whoever and they had to accept it and if necessary forgive you. And anything said on that day you just had to let go of and move on from. Imagine how great it would be to have some of that in today's world? There's no magic required to see the wisdom of that.

Or the Baccanalias. One day a year when it was ok to make a complete drunken fool of yourself. Not just ok, but encouraged. This should be put in contrast with the very stoic ideals of the Roman empire. A real man was in control of his emotions. It's not hard to see the upshots of Paganism.

Like I said, what we mostly hear about Paganism is stuff that's filtered through Christian anti-pagan propaganda. And there was a lot of that.

I think you're reading history completely wrongly. Constantine didn't dodder. He did what was politically necessary to keep the empire together. And by the look of it he picked the right moment. And once he shifted there was no hesitation. We know from archeological evidence that Constantine just added Christ as another god and went on with his Pagan ways as usual. But that was pretty common back then.

I think you need to let go of seeing Paganism as a archaic religion or unsophisticated religion. It's on par with Hinduism. Christian theology is dumb as bricks in comparison.

Every year my Latin group keeps Saturnalia as a normal Roman family kept it. Jesus, it's boring! Who said Constantine was doddering? - he was a very smart dictator indeed - what I was saying was that the Empire was on its last legs unless it could contrive some sort of popular support. I think you inherit the Eighteenth Century fantasy that paganism was other than a lot of silly superstitions, an alternative to an organised belief. It was nothing to encourage any sensible person, which is why it was ditched. Read 'Julian' to see off that notion, and its asuthor tends to believe that too.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Ehe... what? Pagans fully grasped the concept of metaphor. Don't forget that a Pagan could be an atheist. A few notable Greek philosophers for instance. They didn't stop being Pagan. Pagans had a philosophical rational around all their feasts. If you study all the feasts they had lots of aspects that are great. I forget which one, but the Roman's had a yearly "being honest day". Where you were allowed to be perfectly honest with whoever and they had to accept it and if necessary forgive you. And anything said on that day you just had to let go of and move on from. Imagine how great it would be to have some of that in today's world? There's no magic required to see the wisdom of that.

Or the Baccanalias. One day a year when it was ok to make a complete drunken fool of yourself. Not just ok, but encouraged. This should be put in contrast with the very stoic ideals of the Roman empire. A real man was in control of his emotions. It's not hard to see the upshots of Paganism.

Like I said, what we mostly hear about Paganism is stuff that's filtered through Christian anti-pagan propaganda. And there was a lot of that.

I think you're reading history completely wrongly. Constantine didn't dodder. He did what was politically necessary to keep the empire together. And by the look of it he picked the right moment. And once he shifted there was no hesitation. We know from archeological evidence that Constantine just added Christ as another god and went on with his Pagan ways as usual. But that was pretty common back then.

I think you need to let go of seeing Paganism as a archaic religion or unsophisticated religion. It's on par with Hinduism. Christian theology is dumb as bricks in comparison.

Every year my Latin group keeps Saturnalia as a normal Roman family kept it. Jesus, it's boring! Who said Constantine was doddering? - he was a very smart dictator indeed - what I was saying was that the Empire was on its last legs unless it could contrive some sort of popular support. I think you inherit the Eighteenth Century fantasy that paganism was other than a lot of silly superstitions, an alternative to an organised belief. It was nothing to encourage any sensible person, which is why it was ditched. Read 'Julian' to see off that notion, and its asuthor tends to believe that too.

Mmmmm. The Roman empire was constantly re-inventing itself. It lasted a couple of hundred years after Constantine. It was on it's last legs throughout it's history. If history teaches us anything is that nothing is stable.

The whole point with the Saturnalia is that norms and taboos are broken. If you manage to make taboo-breaking boring, then you're not trying hard enough.

I'm not reading 18'th century anything. I'm reading very contemporary new interpretations of Paganism. I can't think of authors now. But I can find some if I look. Paganism has been re-interpreted many times to fill all manner of silly requirements and outlets. The modern anthropological attempts have as a goal to actually try to figure out how they actually worked. We also have a surviving analogy today. Hinduism. Also a highly sophisticated system of religions. There's no reason to think that Paganism is any less sophisticated than Hinduism. If you do, I'd say the onus is on you to present a plausible hypothesis.

What makes you think that Paganism wasn't organised religion?

 

[Eric H]

We've used evolution to design all kinds of software.

An intelligent input was needed to make these evolutionary designs. The evolved antenna comes to mind. First of all there is a goal to monitor radio waves, there are no end goals with the ToE. You then have to intelligently design a programme, on an intelligently designed computer to help your antenna evolve. Someone had to intelligently make the end product in a designed workshop, using designed tools and use intelligent manufacturing methods.

If you remove the end goal, and everything that was intelligently designed to make that process happen, then you would have no evolved antenna. Without an intelligent guidance, there would be no evolutionary software.

The problem with it is that while they always solve the problem they tend to do so in a very roundabout and inefficient manner. Which is what we see in the human body. Evolution never follows a straight line towards the target.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_computation

Take the 1800 steps for the supposed evolution of the eye. They had to set seven separate goals for the eye shape to evolve, that is not my idea of random mutation and natural selection. Once you set goals, then the ToE needs an intelligent God. Without guidance, random mutation and natural selection could not work.

If we'd have used the evolutionary process to design something like space rockets or even computers themselves, we'd never made it to space, nor would computers be as efficient as today.

I would say that both rockets and computers have evolved, the buyers operate natural selection, always looking for something better. Design and intelligence just help that evolutionary process.

 

[DrZoidberg]

An intelligent input was needed to make these evolutionary designs.

Nope. Not true. When these methods have been applied, most often the evolutionary process just runs into a dead-end. Then intelligence goes in and adjusts. But out in nature, with humans, that didn't happen. The "simulation" was just allowed to run into the ground, for ever. That's why we had about a billion years of almost eyes. Better than nothing, but still fucking sucked. If we had a billion years to wait around for these evolutionary design to sort themselves out... eventually. But we don't usually have time for that. There's science grants limitations to worry about.

The evolved antenna comes to mind. First of all there is a goal to monitor radio waves, there are no end goals with the ToE. You then have to intelligently design a programme, on an intelligently designed computer to help your antenna evolve. Someone had to intelligently make the end product in a designed workshop, using designed tools and use intelligent manufacturing methods.

If you remove the end goal, and everything that was intelligently designed to make that process happen, then you would have no evolved antenna. Without an intelligent guidance, there would be no evolutionary software.

So? I'm not sure what it is you don't understand? Evolution doesn't have an end goal. We do. But evolution doesn't. Humanity isn't some sort of pinnacle of evolution. We're a half-arsed compromised along the way to nowhere.

Take the 1800 steps for the supposed evolution of the eye. They had to set seven separate goals for the eye shape to evolve, that is not my idea of random mutation and natural selection. Once you set goals, then the ToE needs an intelligent God. Without guidance, random mutation and natural selection could not work.

Yet, it did? I don't understand what you don't grasp here? I highly doubt there was only 1800 steps. But what you are essentially doing is taking a bush, measuring the highest point of the bush, cutting all other branches and leaves and then claiming that this branch and leaf was the only branch and leaf and was the end goal of evolution. No.

The eye is a great example of how nothing in evolution is guided. You just took the poster boy for ToE and are trying to pass it off as support for your claim... ehe... no. Fail.

If we'd have used the evolutionary process to design something like space rockets or even computers themselves, we'd never made it to space, nor would computers be as efficient as today.

I would say that both rockets and computers have evolved, the buyers operate natural selection, always looking for something better. Design and intelligence just help that evolutionary process.

Now you're equivocating. These are two different types of evolution.

 

[Sarpedon]

Yeah, words only have firm and non-negotiable meanings when it suits them. This is why I don't argue semantics. Eric would be correct to say the process is analagous to evolution, to an extent. However, that wouldn't help his argument, as an argument by analogy isn't effective unless the things being compared share more than a trivial similarity.

Eric, do you have any arguments that are not simply word games? Anything at all?

 

[Learner]

If you remove the end goal, and everything that was intelligently designed to make that process happen, then you would have no evolved antenna. Without an intelligent guidance, there would be no evolutionary software.

So? I'm not sure what it is you don't understand? Evolution doesn't have an end goal. We do. But evolution doesn't. Humanity isn't some sort of pinnacle of evolution. We're a half-arsed compromised along the way to nowhere.

What is interesting is; science uses the term "Natural selection" by what seems to be from an apparent logical observation to mean in my laymans terms " An advancing development through various stages" with living things. The laws of nature and its processes to behave and act this way doesn't seem to be going no where. ihmo

If we'd have used the evolutionary process to design something like space rockets or even computers themselves, we'd never made it to space, nor would computers be as efficient as today.

I would say that both rockets and computers have evolved, the buyers operate natural selection, always looking for something better. Design and intelligence just help that evolutionary process.

Now you're equivocating. These are two different types of evolution.

Isn't it incredible that for NO reason,the evolution concept on the whole is affecting the development of life in such a 'seemingly selective' manner? Evolution by the notion of no direction, is contradictorily doing 'predictable things'.

 

[DrZoidberg]

So? I'm not sure what it is you don't understand? Evolution doesn't have an end goal. We do. But evolution doesn't. Humanity isn't some sort of pinnacle of evolution. We're a half-arsed compromised along the way to nowhere.

What is interesting is; science uses the term "Natural selection" by what seems to be from an apparent logical observation to mean in my laymans terms " An advancing development through various stages" with living things. The laws of nature and its processes to behave and act this way doesn't seem to be going no where. ihmo

That's a complete misunderstanding of evolution. It's an arms race. Depending on your competition different traits are selected for. There's no benefit to having good functions that aren't used. So evolution is good at producing a bunch of one-trick-ponies. And then once in a blue moon a creature comes right from the left side with a new completely different thing and wipes all the competition out at once, and hey presto you have a new model that evolution works from. Not necessarily better. Just different. Trilobites is a good example. They were completely dominant in the seas. Then something came up and they just vanished. On top of that we have an ever changing environment that complicates matters.

A good example is humans and neandethals. The latest theory is that they were better than us in every way except in two very critical ways:
1) They were smarter than us so their brains used more energy. They were also stronger. That means they needed more food. When food is scarce that's an advantage to humans.
2) They were specialised for spear hunting. Their bodies were assymetrical, with the right hand much stronger. This meant that they were reluctant to use other weapons. Humans aren't specialised for anything. That's our special power. So we switched to atl-atls when fighting neanderthals.

That's the theory of how we out-competed them. So trying to argue that we were superior to neanderthals is dubious. In some ways yes. In most ways no. If food hadn't been scarce they would have won.

Survival of the fittest, doesn't mean strongest. It means fitting, as lego bricks fit.

There's no improvement. Only change. Constant change.

If we'd have used the evolutionary process to design something like space rockets or even computers themselves, we'd never made it to space, nor would computers be as efficient as today.

I would say that both rockets and computers have evolved, the buyers operate natural selection, always looking for something better. Design and intelligence just help that evolutionary process.

Now you're equivocating. These are two different types of evolution.

Isn't it incredible that for NO reason,the evolution concept on the whole is affecting the development of life in such a 'seemingly selective' manner? Evolution by the notion of no direction, is contradictorily doing 'predictable things'.

I don't understand what you're trying to get at. Evolution does have a direction. When humans were suffering under bubonic plague our direction of evolution was whatever we needed to be to not die of bubonic plague. Most people in Europe, Africa and Asia are immune to that disease now. The rests didn't get to reproduce.

 

[Eric H]

We've used evolution to design all kinds of software.

You have given the perfect example to show that evolution cannot happen without an intelligent designer. You have used evolution and design in the same sentence. Rephrase your comment by saying, 'Man has used their intelligence, to programme computers, to help them design software'

Remove man, intelligence and design from the equation, then tell me how this software evolved.

 

[DrZoidberg]

We've used evolution to design all kinds of software.

You have given the perfect example to show that evolution cannot happen without an intelligent designer. You have used evolution and design in the same sentence. Rephrase your comment by saying, 'Man has used their intelligence, to programme computers, to help them design software'

Remove man, intelligence and design from the equation, then tell me how this software evolved.

I'm still at a loss to what it is you don't grasp? How aren't you just trolling now?

 

[Eric H]

You have given the perfect example to show that evolution cannot happen without an intelligent designer. You have used evolution and design in the same sentence. Rephrase your comment by saying, 'Man has used their intelligence, to programme computers, to help them design software'

Remove man, intelligence and design from the equation, then tell me how this software evolved.

I'm still at a loss to what it is you don't grasp? How aren't you just trolling now?

You say that evolution has been used to design all kinds of software, that's fine, I have no problems with this. But why use this example to explain the ToE. You and I both know there are no invisible sky daddies banging away on keyboards, we have overwhelming proof that visible intelligent ground daddies control the evolution of software.

I am not sure why you would keep defending this argument, if you want to prove that evolution does not need an invisible sky daddy,

 

[DrZoidberg]

I'm still at a loss to what it is you don't grasp? How aren't you just trolling now?

You say that evolution has been used to design all kinds of software, that's fine, I have no problems with this. But why use this example to explain the ToE. You and I both know there are no invisible sky daddies banging away on keyboards, we have overwhelming proof that visible intelligent ground daddies control the evolution of software.

I am not sure why you would keep defending this argument, if you want to prove that evolution does not need an invisible sky daddy,

I think my main problem is that I grew up in a society where nobody question ToE. So I haven't had much practice. You seem to have failed to grasp something pretty fundamental about evolution. I'm just having trouble identifying what that is. You just keep affirming ToE over and over but think you've provided an argument against it.

Nature provides limitations. Evolution just happens within those limitations. It has no goal. Humanity is just a happy coincidence. The human species has no purpose and no use.

But software development does have a purpose. Without setting limitations the result of the evolutionary programming will just be a mess. Most evolutionary change is pointless. That is true for most changes when using evolution to program. So even though it's directed by intelligence, evolutionary program can still demonstrate the mechanic even if it hadn't been directed by intelligence.

 

[Sarpedon]

Behold the glorious work of infinite wisdom! A wasp who's butt looks like an ant's head.

http://gizmodo.com/um-this-wasp-species-has-an-ant-head-for-a-butt-1791281779

And just because one develops software using evolutionary tools in an artificial environment, doesn't mean that a natural environment can't have the conditions necessary for evolution. Just as the fact that one makes glass in an artificially hot environment, doesn't mean that glass cannot occur naturally (it does).

 

[Eric H]

And just because one develops software using evolutionary tools in an artificial environment, doesn't mean that a natural environment can't have the conditions necessary for evolution.

I can go along with that, but without intelligent direction, the peak of evolution might just be random shaped glass blobs.

Just as the fact that one makes glass in an artificially hot environment, doesn't mean that glass cannot occur naturally (it does).

I would not dispute that glass forms naturally, and a few random shape glass objects have little meaning. But you would not expect to find a finely sculptured glass chandeliers, with two thousand parts forming naturally.

Likewise the odd random shaped bone is no big deal. But there are many species with around 500 muscles, 200 bones, 500 ligaments and 1000 tendons. The complexity of linking over two thousand components to form movement, I believe needs some intelligent help.