Think before you type Southwind. Of COURSE I don't think you believe the machine gun was randomly engineered! THATS THE POINT. You're talking in hypotheticals unconnected with the majority of the real world and still acting as if those hypotheticals made a convincing point.
The fact that a hypothetical might be 'unconnected' from the 'majority of the real world' doesn't necessarily make it invalid or unconvincing. How many people, afterall, are convinced by the hypothetical notion of Intelligent Design Theory (notwithstanding its invalidity)?!?
If I were to be debating the inherent risks of base jumping, for example, and said: "OK, suppose, hypothetically, I were to climb a tall building and jump off it with a parachute and it failed to open fully before I reached the ground and I died as a result." Now, that's a hypothetical that's 'unconnected' from the 'majority of the real world'. Is there something fundamentally wrong in using it? If I use a hypothetical which demonstrates that how we got from a point A to a point B was by means somewhat different from what people perceive, what's wrong with that?
I'm not 'acting' as though the hypotheticals that I use make a convincing point. They DO make a convincing point. It's just that you're not convinced because of the uncritical, subjective way that you analyse, consider and comprehend.
The machine gun was designed, not the result randomness and selection just like most every other invention was designed, not the result randomness and selection; which is why when you use the idea of technological innovation to describe evolution, the obvious inference is that evolution is designed not the result randomness and selection.
As I've explained many times before in this thread, the problem with resisting the IDers by continuously
contrasting natural evolution with technological development is that, until you can
prove the differences it offers them something to hang their hats on. They're dangling the proverbial carrot right in front of your nose and you're constantly lurching for it! If, however, you can demonstrate, as I have, that the 'I' part of 'ID' is a complete red herring because that very same 'I' can be removed from technological development (design) with
absolutely no effect on the result, then the entire notion of Intelligent Design immediately collapses. You need to realise that the term 'ID' derives from the human perception of what 'I' and 'D' represent in the 'real world', in other words they're human notions, nothing more. It's surely easier to dispel a human notion with demonstrable logic and reasoning than trying to prove the absence of ID from evolution! It does require open-mindedness, though, as a pre-requisite, which is a high hurdle for the IDers, and even non-IDers with similarly closed-minds, like certain posters on this thread, to jump.
That fact that you can construct unusual scenarios in which randomness and selection can, would have, or do produce a similar or equivalent result to design does not change any of the above, but you aren't actually reading my posts to understand what I'm saying.
All hypotheticals (scenarios), by definition, are 'unusual', because they derive from supposition, just like analogies, by definition, don't match exactly what they serve to represent. How much of science that we know today, though, started off as a powerful hypotheses? I'm certainly reading your posts, and I think I understand exactly what you're saying, but if you honestly believe I don't perhaps you could summarize your point(s), for the avoidance of doubt.
You're simply continuously repeating and rephrasing your own arguments.
That's rich! At least I'm rephrasing, hypothesising and analogizing to try to make the point in a slightly different way in the hope that you guys might relate to one and the penny will drop. To what extent have the likes of ID, mijo, jimbob and you, for example, developed your 'arguments'?
