Replies

A system without any means of deciding cannot self adjust, let alone self-engineer.

Consider a stream. Water does an excellent job of finding an efficient path downhill, dealing with obstacles and changes to the surrounding landscape as it goes. And yet there is no engineer making the decisions--heck, a stream's not even alive! Think about how much more a living system can do. Look at how different areas of the brain can take over the functions of areas damaged by a stroke or injury. And yet there's no engineer in there making decisions about where to reroute the signals--the system makes those decisions itself.

[[heck, a stream’s not even alive!]]

ASnd this is the key point- it’s not alive- it simply follows natural laws- however, Macroevolution HAD to violate natural laws at trillions of steps of ever increasingly complex self-organizing steps- a biological, natural law violating process.

The stream is NOT intelligently engineering anything- infact just hte opposite- it is producing more rapid entropy.

[[Think about how much more a living system can do. Look at how different areas of the brain can take over the functions of areas damaged by a stroke or injury.]

Which are results that respond to intelligently designed instructions

[[And yet there’s no engineer in there making decisions about where to reroute the signals—the system makes those decisions itself.]]

Based on the already engineered system which incidently is STILL bound to entropy- while a system can repair itself, it creates a strain on the system as a whole and contributes to a speeded up innevitability of the system succombing to entropy.

[[not without “certain” vulnerabilities, just without vulnerabilities, period.]]

I took it to mean without hte same vulnerabilities as the weaker ones had.

"Consider a stream. Water does an excellent job of finding an efficient path downhill, dealing with obstacles and changes to the surrounding landscape as it goes. And yet there is no engineer making the decisions--heck, a stream's not even alive! Think about how much more a living system can do. Look at how different areas of the brain can take over the functions of areas damaged by a stroke or injury. And yet there's no engineer in there making decisions about where to reroute the signals--the system makes those decisions itself."

Water does not make decisions, it does not find anything, it simply responds to outside forces.

The difference between water and living things is that living things have DNA, water does not.

To say that because water does something[that in fact it does not], is proof that living cells containing DNA do something similar for the same reason, is a logical fallacy.

The brains ability to re-route signals from damaged paths to unused, already present paths, is information that was preprogrammed into the cells DNA from conception.

The information is inherited, not spontaneously generated.

There is no net gain of information.

Consider a stream. Water does an excellent job of finding an efficient path downhill, dealing with obstacles and changes to the surrounding landscape as it goes.

I don't think that's a sensical statement. I don't know what you define efficient by, but if we take the normal meaning of "Performing a job with the least wasted energy" then a stream does not find the most efficient path downhill. It will go the long way around something, even when a much shorter path could have been attained were it 1 inch higher and could wash over a bank.

A stream takes whatever path is easiest at the moment which is not always the most efficient.

-Jesse