Posted: Feb 26, 2014 1:03 am
by Shrunk
questioner121 wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
Why would the designer put a broken vitamin-C gene into individual organisms and then subsequently mutate it, particularly such that a phylogenetic inferences produces a hierarchical arrangement congruent with the one inferred from comparative anatomy?

Why is your designer trying to make it look like evolution happened, and since that is what it looks like, why do you even infer design at all?

How do you know it's broken? Have you tried fixing and seeing if it works?

You know it's broken the same way you would know this is a broken bicycle: Because you can compare it to the majority of bicycles which are intact and functional. You don't have to fix it to know it is broken.


Why do I infer design? If you look at each of the animals they have similar traits. Chimps have hands, feet, similar eyes, similar shape, etc. so for me it's not surprising the DNA is similar. The DNA is information which if you manipulate will result in predictable outcomes. The whole world is created in such a way where we can manipulate things and see pretty predictable results. If it weren't for that life would be a headache and it would difficult. Just because different animals have the same traits doesn't mean the design has to be exactly the same, it just has to fulfil it's purpose. For example if you look at all the car manufacturers who make cars. There a variety of models from different manufacturers but each component is not exactly the same design but it does fulful the same purpose to a degree.

So do car designers deliberately put broken carburetors that serve no function in their designs?