INTELLIGENT DESIGN: An Engineer’s Approach

Well, here's an idea. Plenty of designers are intelligent enough to know that they're not intelligent enough to perfect a given design. So they turn the task over to a genetic algorithm.There is much evidence to support the theory that we were produced by such a process.The question then arises as to whether we are the result of such an algorithm (which fits the facts), or if we are, perhaps, merely the data that it is processing.

Thanks, platypus.Let me restate my case, and then I'll get back to some of the other posts on this thread...While it remains difficult to show how life began here, science itself suggests that it could not have happened by chance. Indeed, scientific studies on entropy tend to support this claim. Biologists have also documented the structural order in all living things quite nicely. This order wouldn’t be natural by any means, since, to any practical extent, the next closest things to indicate natural order in the known universe are crystals and circular motion.So, for our purposes, we can go straight back to the origin(s) of life on earth, and start there. We don’t need to concern ourselves with rocks or rainbows for this, because they would seem to be immaterial anyhow. But, if we’re clever, willing to acknowledge the value of common sense, and eager to accept what we directly observe, we would rightly consider the INTENT behind certain conditions, and whatever form that intent may take. Science cannot rule out the presence of an unseen being. That simply would not be what science truly is. Translation: science must at least allow for the presence of a builder.Even if speciation did occur, even if evolution was an actual process, nothing would have properly explained the initiation of life itself. This is where science has no choice but to embrace any alternative. When science puts a stranglehold on evolution, as if for dear life, science fails. What is strange is, it only seems to happen with idea of evolution. Science admits to this day that it has no clue what causes magnetism, or what the intrinsic nature of electricity is. Though, science has done very well to predict the EFFECTS of magnetism and electricity, to the point that it is useful. But, the opposite seems to be the case with evolution. Why? It is almost as if the theory of evolution itself is bound by an agenda. At least that’s what the evidence implies.Take the JFK assassination as an example. The official line is a lone gunman. Yet, most people suspect anything other than that simple explanation. That’s because it doesn’t fit the evidence. So, whatever competing explanations come out, they are likely to be welcomed by those who remain skeptic. Even if separate alternatives do not concur with each other, each is taken as being more likely than the lone gunman idea. And, although we know that any two competing alternatives cannot both be right, we are left among them by default, to sort them out indefinitely if necessary. Many would call that science.Now, suppose someone announced that the person who REALLY killed JFK was his wife, Jackie. And, nothwithstanding your initial disbelief and indignation, your attention was brought to the original Zapruder film. In that film, you were shown again and again how Jackie appeared to prop something in her right hand under his left jaw across from his exit wound, how she appeared to hold his left arm down with her left hand as the bullet left his skull, and how she did not even flinch at the blow as she appeared to drop something out of view behind his body before reaching in the direction opposite to the visible path of the bullet. You can’t believe what you’re watching, yet you’re seeing it with your own two eyes.Your first, second, and third impressions would be “IMPOSSIBLE”. You might clench onto your existing beliefs even more securely. Yet, you yourself would admit that if someone could gently ease you away from ANY misconceptions you have, and take you closer to the truth, you would be willing to go. You realize that you must agree to at least have a look. And, at that point, it becomes more and more reasonable. You see for yourself that it is actually possible, even if you don’t have all the pieces to the puzzle yet. It’s the same film you’ve seen images of many times. Never once did you even consider the possibility. And, common sense tells you it’s so, while fear tells you that knowing this would not be for your own good.You find for yourself that the reason you hadn’t ever considered it was because there was already too much on your plate. The idea itself would be too tough to swallow on your own, and you have the tendency to go with the flow and believe what you’re told. Yet, the more you think for yourself, the more questions you have. Why did she marry Onassis afterward? Why did Marilyn Monroe die, as well? What else was going on in the news at the time? You begin to see a totally new picture unfold, different from anything that was supposed to explain the original inconsistenties to begin with. That, my friends, is just an example.It is analogous to the idea of a malevolent designer, intelligent in the ways of construction, and ungodly stupid in the ways of concealment and diplomacy. The lone gunman theory would equate to the idea of a benevolent god. And, the commonly recited alternatives would lay their claim to science. But, the truth may lie somewhere else. Look around you. Are there any world events that you know of, which indicate the presence of a benevolent god? Remember, as amazing as life may seem to us, it wouldn’t mean we aren’t slaves, put here to provide an unjust service.For centuries, Western Civilization has been doing “god’s work” one murder at a time, religious massacre after religious massacre, genocide after genocide after genocide. I’m insulted by the religious community. It would have you believe that there’s a big reward when the work is done, a light at the end of the tunnel, a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.Look at it this way, would anyone walk up to your counter with some merchandise, and promise you that he’s good for the money? No, because you wouldn’t be that gullible. What if he said he’ll be good for the money after your shop closes down, as long as you take his word for it? Would you fall for it? No? Yes? No? What if he told you he’d pay you ten times the amount? Would you still be a sucker? I hope not, for my own good.Edited by limbosis, : clarity

I really like the sound of that. It seems almost obvious, after it's presented. I would think we are the result. That might explain how things like nominal body size and tendencies toward cannibalism are taken into account, things that aren't well accomodated by the theory of evolution.Cannibalism is actually supported by the theory of evolution, in that it rewards the fittest and reinforces the idea of natural selection.Nominal body size gets dumped all over by the theory of evolution, which maintains that average body size sometimes gets reduced when food is scarce (on islands and such). The problem with that is that it would necessarily apply to all animals, regardless of where they are, or how much food there is. Reduced body size would supposedly tend to stabilize a particular species most effectively. Of course, that would have led to diminutive dinosaurs, and elephants the size of grapes. Well, maybe not that small.I lean away from an externally automated process, though, unless the automator sticks around to watch the chaos and destruction. Otherwise, what would be the point in just leaving?No, really. I'm asking, what would be the point in leaving?Excellent post, BTW.

It's no problem for evolutionary theory at all. Selective pressures exist toward larger as well as smaller sizes. Context is all. Size will tend toward whatever norm confers the best reproductive and survival advantage on the creature in the environment.Reduced size is indeed an advantage in some environments: reduced food supply, thick forestation, etc. But larger size is an advantage in others: oceans, open plains, etc. A smaller size enables better ability to hide from predators, but a large size confers a survival advantage against predators in environments where hiding places are few.Push the slider toward either end of the size scale and something is gained, something is lost. It's always a tradeoff. The deciding factor is context: what works best in the environment?___Edited by Archer Opterix, : HTML.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

This like saying (1) that the theory of plate tectonics can't explain why you have a toothache, then saying (2) that because plate tectonics can't explain your toothache 'nothing' in science can, then saying (3) that science (including the science of dentistry) must therefore abandon its acceptance of plate tectonic theory and conclude that your toothache was designed on purpose by an intelligent being. Let the exorcisms begin.Your assumptions are:
1. that evolution is supposed to explain the origin of life
2. that if evolution can't, nothing in science can
3. that if science faces unanswered questions in some area, the only solution is ID.False premises all.___Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

I agree that evolution fails to answer origin however ID creationism has continually answered this question. That design even the tooth is intelligently designed. Sciences attempts to deal intelligently with the tooth is only causing dental decay, its not the false belief in the tectonic plate sciences but toothache is more caused by the flouride intelligently applied in the form of toothpaste, drinking water that is a root cause of dental decay.Science in respect to the intelligently designed tooth would do better to go to a genesis diet where the phosphates in the foods would help regenerate the tooth by the intelligent designers genesis diet.We should all realize by now the whole reason for flouride toothpaste is to increase tooth decay (profit for the dentists) and this is a reason science going contrary to root chemistry needs of the tooth.Evolutionists comparing plate tectonics to tooth decay is actually how they view the sciences in regards to evolution. They pretend it has nothing to with the origin of the species. Perhaps they are moving away from Darwins origin of the species because they realize evolution has failed to answer origin.The tooths nutritional needs is an example of an intelligence behind the tooths ability to regenerate (recrystalize) if given phosphates foods that are within the genesis diet. Evolution is mans intelligent alternatives like flouride that causes decay, gingervitis, but The Intelligent Design is like the phosphates in the diet in that it helps in the regeneration of the tooths enamel.The earth was intelligently designed even to the foundations of the earth. The fundementalists that are supporting the ID movement because of the bibles inference that the earth is round by the Lord sitting on the circle in the heavens. Science would like to take credit but well the bible said it first that placement of the stars is due to the intelligent designer. The size of the sun moon due to the designer placing their in the sky and that it was good. Thermodynamics agree that it was good if the sun was any closer or farther life itself could not of survived. The bible has answers in respect to the origin of the species and not the evolutionists willful misinterpretation of the bible.The bible itself is evidence of intelligent design, but science true sciences that is only agree with the written word.The evolution theory is baseless in respect to origin. Thus I can only but agree with you that it does not answer origin.Micro-evolution does however answer origin just one little example is in that the wings of all the fowl from the insects to the bats are all found in the fossil record no different kinds of wings found today. No evidence of macro-evolution of a different kind of design change of the basic wing designs.All the evidence of the fossil record shows is that no transitional wings between the multitude of wings expressed in the fossil record.The evidence of structure is that the genetics that form the mechanical design support ID in respect to origin.Mutations and such if wings evolved in respect to origin would leave evidence (all the wings today should be drastically different from the fossil record) its this lack of evidence that Darwinians are willfully ignorant. Dragon fly wings, totally perfect in design but totally different from the butterfly wing, totally different from the bird wings, which are totally different from the bats wing in design and genetics with no transitional evidence going back to when there was only bacteria in the fossil layers.Truely the structural genetic information only support the fossil record came suddenly completely perfectly designed from its beginning and that no evidence they macro-evolved to the present but only natural selection of the forces of micro-evoltion as put forward by the creationists.All these different kinds of wings might support evolution if there was only the missing key of massive transitional evidences.

Yes. Now note that evolution by mutation and selection is a genetic algorithm. Well, when you use a genetic algorithm, you don't have to sit around and watch it. You leave it alone until its evolved a satisfactory result. If this is going to take time, you go and have lunch, or leave it running overnight. Or get it to go "ping" when it's done.Maybe the Earth has yet to go "ping".

That's a remarkable monologue, Charley. Thank you for sharing.You haven't refuted my assertion. Here it is again.

quote:

---

Your assumptions [in these ID arguments] are:
1. that evolution is supposed to explain the origin of life
2. that if evolution can't, nothing in science can
3. that if science faces unanswered questions in some area, the only solution is ID.

​

False premises all.

---

You concur with me about item 1.Do you agree that items 2 and 3 are false premises as well?If so, say so. If not, why not?__Edited by Archer Opterix, : HTML.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

I believe there are far more detrimental effects of flourine to our systems, as well.Now, do you have any authentic evidence that this god is NOT driving the corruption you allude to?Help me out, here.

Yes, but what would trigger that ping???Let's play this out. And let's try not to be too hard on mankind.

The penis and the vagina are perfectly suited for one another. So much so that the assumption of their evolution to occur simultaneously seems highly improbable. If macroevolution were true, then all organisms proliferated via asexual reproduction in the distant past. On other threads we've already gone over the staggering implications of how and why nature would select two separate sexes before. This time I'd like to focus more on the anatomy of our design in order to elucidate Intelligent Design from an engineer's approach.I'm sure you all know most of this information about what contrivances comprise the sex organs, so that I don't need to go into great detail about the anatomy. I'd just like to point out the complimentary facets of the design of each of the sexes.The vagina is composed of elastic muscle that is tubular, capable of expanding and contracting to conform to its counterpart, the male penis. The penis is composed of soft spongy flesh that engorges with blood when sexually aroused making it rigid. The tip of the penis is shaped for maximum efficacy for penetration into the vagina during intercourse.The central purpose for both? Sexual reproduction. During orgasm, the male ejaculates seminal fluid deep into the vagina where the sperm can meet the egg for the fertilization process.On the inside of both males and females, the intricacy of the design is so complex that I think we tend to take it for granted. Whether it is a design by an Intelligent Designer or nature's process of revision, I think we all would at least find commonality in this. The whole process from start to finish in both bodies is incredible. To note how important one male component is to a female component, or a female component is to a male's is quite amazing to me. So much so that it speaks design to me.I'd like to get all of your thoughts on the intricacies of both female and male sex organs, inside the body and out, and to discuss how sexual intercourse employs each function.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

One of the best arguments against Intelligent Design has to sex organs. In just about every species they are classic examples of just barely good enough to get by implementation. This is particularly true in the evolved primate called man. There is lousy fit between the males penis and the females vagina, the males sperm are released way away from the females eggs, the womans body produces enzymes that tend to obstruct and kill off many of the sperm even inside her, the male's sperm are so heat sensitive that the producing organ has to he hung outside the body where it is vulnerable to damage, and the males penis is simple an organ that was co-opted to serve multiple functions, only one of which is related to procreation.One of the clearest evidences that critters simply evolved and that there is no Intelligent Designer is how absolutely sub-par the designs for sexual reproduction are. There are designs where the act of copulation kills the male, where copulation causes the male's member to break off and in almost every situation, the pieces parts used for reproduction are just reused and redirected bodily parts that have some other primary purpose.Further, as pointed out way back in Message 8, the few good ideas that show up do not then get incorporated across the various kinds as happens in designed things. Short comings do NOT get picked up early and corrected but as long as the current solution is just barely good enough to get by, no changes or improvements are made.The idea of Intelligent Design at the product level is simply stupid.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Co-evolution precisely explains the compatibility between penis and vagina. Any evolutionary pressures for incompatibility are always effectively countered by inability to copulate. In other words, characteristics that make copulation impossible are never passed on to progeny. Characteristics that make copulation more difficult are less likely to be passed on than those that don't. Such a discussion is unnecessary. We already understand the point you're trying to make. You're arguing that the design is so intricate and complex and amazing that evolution could not possibly have produced it. You're forgetting that we agree with you about how intricate and complex and amazing all facets of life are, including the anatomical elements involved in the reproductive act of mammals.When one looks at life from the standpoint of science one notices two outstanding characteristics. The first is particularly noticeable in the more complex lifeforms such as mammals, and that is that evolution often takes a "make do with what's available" approach, combined with a "that's good enough" attitude. (Don't read anything into the anthropomorphisms, it's just a style of presentation.)The second is that the designs also reflect considerable experimentation, zillions of trials over thousands and millions of years. The result is designs that in complexity are far beyond the abilities of human engineers and that contain the kind of surprises we often find in life: unexpected and unanticipatable solutions, ones that human designers would never have thought of. In fact, nature produces the same sort of unexpected surprises that genetic algorithms produce (genetic algorithms simulate the process of evolution in order to produce design).This is why the approach you're taking is so far off the mark. You draw an analog between the appearance of design in nature to human design in our own sphere. The reality is that there is no analog at all. The appearance of design in nature is a superficial one at best.--Percy

quote:

---

The penis and the vagina are perfectly suited for one another. So much so that the assumption of their evolution to occur simultaneously seems highly improbable.

---

Clearly, you have very little experience with vaginas. In case you didn't realise, Juggs, there is a rather large range of penis sizes among male humans. There is also a range of vagina sizes among females.Vaginas, being quite stretchy, can accomodate a wide range of penis sizes.Penises, being somewhat compressible even when fully engorged, can fit into a wide range of vaginas.However, a very large penis might not fit into a very small vagina.And we all know that penises fit into other orifices.I mean, why would your Intelligent Designer have designed the vaginas of female sheep to be so similar to the human vagina?Well, we do know that your God has a special place in his heart for shepherds. Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

You do not need to give a sex education primer to illustrate your flawed "argument from incredulity". However, of all the possible complex workings of life you could have selected, the sexual apparatus is perhaps the weakest case of design intelligence.As an mechanical engineer I can think of some improvements.First make the damn thing fully retractable to keep it out of harms way. Redundancy for the sperm batteries is a great idea but couldn't it be better packaged to prevent damage. True redundancy would have provided some spatial separation, one swift kick or club impact and its all over.Swinging in the breeze convection is a bit simplistic for thermal control and it depends to heavily on ambient conditions. I would have opted for some sort of active fluid cooling or conduction like is used new milspec designs. This would free up the packaging constraints which am sure would please marketing.The tip covering on the primary male component seems to be not fully functional. Recent field evidence shows that it makes the owners more susceptible to disease. I hear some user groups have long recognized the uselessness of this tip covering and have advocated the removal as part of a cultural tradition.Also, the prostate redirection valve appears to have reliability problems before the warranty period is over, and typically requires some cleaning out.Most the owners of the female model have difficultly identifying the intelligence in the monthly loss of blood and debilitating cramps. The scheduled flushing provides protection from disease but couldn't some other fluid be used beside blood.The female opening size is often inadequate to deliver the end product and often tears on delivery. Some times the end product gets stuck in this restricted area and dies. From my understanding this feature was purposefully flawed intelligently - evidently the chief engineer wanted to make some sick point.There are other design inadequacies with the female apparatus but I cannot comment in too great of detail since I have not personally been an owner.Now the most important critique....From a systems point of view perhaps the greatest design flaw is the designed-in ability of the male owner to take liberties of the female owner's apparatus without necessarily the female consent or approval.If I was developing a list of requirements at the top of the list would be mate choice control for both owners. Mate choice is very important feature and highly desirable and tends to make for better ordered societies. I could think of a number of failsafe designs that would prevent unwanted male intrusion. Maybe this was another one of those intelligently but intentionally flawed designs - again to make some sort of point, not sure.