Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8783 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-23-2017 7:23 PM
368 online now:
Coyote, DrJones*, Faith, jar, Meddle, Modulous (AdminModulous), NoNukes, Tangle (8 members, 360 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: evilsorcerer1
Post Volume:
Total: 816,870 Year: 21,476/21,208 Month: 1,909/2,326 Week: 364/881 Day: 82/107 Hour: 0/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
910
11
12131415Next
Author Topic:   Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy...
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 405 days)
Posts: 3180
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 151 of 219 (531036)
10-15-2009 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Perdition
10-15-2009 11:37 AM


The human skull is silly
I'm not a professional, so pardon my lack of technical jargon.

The human skull ssems to be pretty sill, if you ask me. How easy is it to get whiplash? A concussion?

Shouldn't our neck be able to better support or enormous (proportionally) head? Think of the dog neck/skull combo. Especially a buff ass pit bull or rottweiller. Virtually solid muscle. Is there even a way to give a dog whiplah? (I am NOT advocating that experiment). Sure, tehy dont have the neck range/movement we do. But wouldn't a good designer find a way incorporate the two?

Shouldn't we have some soft padding like barrier between our brain and skull cavity? I can't think of an alternate example in nature, but the human brain is pretty much what sets us apart from all other creatures, right? Shouldn't it be a little more protected? Also think of an infants soft spot that exists for almost 2 years after birth.

Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Perdition, posted 10-15-2009 11:37 AM Perdition has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Perdition, posted 10-16-2009 12:44 PM hooah212002 has responded
 Message 153 by Buzsaw, posted 10-16-2009 8:57 PM hooah212002 has responded

    
Perdition
Member (Idle past 739 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 152 of 219 (531189)
10-16-2009 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by hooah212002
10-15-2009 8:40 PM


Re: The human skull is silly
Shouldn't it be a little more protected? Also think of an infants soft spot that exists for almost 2 years after birth.

This one could be filed under either, I suppose. The soft spot allows the baby's head to deform enough to fit out the birth canal. The only other options are a smaller head (and thus smaller brain), accelerated head growth during infancy, or a larger birth canal. I suppose there could be arguments for and against each solution...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by hooah212002, posted 10-15-2009 8:40 PM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by hooah212002, posted 10-16-2009 9:13 PM Perdition has acknowledged this reply
 Message 157 by RAZD, posted 10-16-2009 9:32 PM Perdition has responded

    
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 153 of 219 (531290)
10-16-2009 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by hooah212002
10-15-2009 8:40 PM


The Human Skull Not Silly.
The first man, according to the Genesis record was designed for a far less violent planet than it became after the fall, so no, the human skull doesn't fit the description of silly design for the environment which it was designed.

Edited by Buzsaw, : rewording


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by hooah212002, posted 10-15-2009 8:40 PM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by hooah212002, posted 10-16-2009 9:11 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 156 by Coyote, posted 10-16-2009 9:17 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 405 days)
Posts: 3180
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 154 of 219 (531291)
10-16-2009 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Buzsaw
10-16-2009 8:57 PM


Re: The Human Skull Not Silly.
What does the genesis account and the fall have to do with ID? I thought ID was a strictly scientific movement?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Buzsaw, posted 10-16-2009 8:57 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 405 days)
Posts: 3180
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 155 of 219 (531292)
10-16-2009 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Perdition
10-16-2009 12:44 PM


Re: The human skull is silly
I suppose I didn't think about that. Thanks.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Perdition, posted 10-16-2009 12:44 PM Perdition has acknowledged this reply

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5945
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 156 of 219 (531293)
10-16-2009 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Buzsaw
10-16-2009 8:57 PM


Re: The Human Skull Not Silly.
The first man, according to the Genesis record was designed for a far less violent planet than it became after the fall, so no, the human skull doesn't fit the description of silly design for the environment which it was designed.

Actually the human skull is beautiful. I've examined thousands over the years.

And it shows our history.

During my first human osteology course in grad school, we learned all of the bones of the skull right down to identifying them from just small fragments. We had to identify the name of the bone and the side (for those bones that were bilateral).

After we had finished with the human skull the professor brought out a number of other primate skulls, all the way back to some of the small monkeys. It was amazing--we knew all of those bones too! They had somewhat different shapes and sizes, but there was never a question of which bone matched those of the human skull.

No, sorry. The human skull's shape is not silly. It is opportunistic, and it shows our history.

And it doesn't matter what genesis says; we can read the history of our species in the bones. (Genetics confirms that history independently, as well.)

Buzz, you believe what you want, but when it comes to natural events supported by empirical evidence, don't try to tell us what is real.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Buzsaw, posted 10-16-2009 8:57 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18868
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 157 of 219 (531295)
10-16-2009 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Perdition
10-16-2009 12:44 PM


opportunity for a silly limerick
Hi Perdition,

This one could be filed under either, I suppose. The soft spot allows the baby's head to deform enough to fit out the birth canal. The only other options are a smaller head (and thus smaller brain), accelerated head growth during infancy, or a larger birth canal. I suppose there could be arguments for and against each solution...

Yep, it's pretty silly to limit further development of human intelligence that way. Of course the work around that we have is Caesarian sections, but then you have to think that if the "pleasure dome" were located above the pubic bone, not only would it be isolated from the waste treatement outlets, but you wouldn't need to pass through the pelvis. Of course this limerick would still apply:

A young couple from New Delhi
got stuck together belly to belly
for in their haste
they used library paste
instead of petroleum jelly

Another solution would be to divide up the mental tasks into multiple centers that then use software like World Grid uses. Damage to one center could be anticipated with backups in other centers.

Then there's the whole silly design of the spinal column, channeling nerves inside a flexible multi-jointed support structure is just asking for trouble anytime a little injury happens to that column.

Why aren't nerves dispersed like blood vessels?

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : splng


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Perdition, posted 10-16-2009 12:44 PM Perdition has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Perdition, posted 10-17-2009 10:37 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 739 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 158 of 219 (531366)
10-17-2009 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by RAZD
10-16-2009 9:32 PM


Re: opportunity for a silly limerick
A young couple from New Delhi
got stuck together belly to belly
for in their haste
they used library paste
instead of petroleum jelly

LOL. Take every opportunity you can to sneak in limericks, they're one of my guilty pleasures.

Yep, it's pretty silly to limit further development of human intelligence that way.

If intelligence truly equates to surface area of the brain, there may be some room yet if we wrinkle up even more, though I'm not sure where the limit would be...

If course the work around that we have is Caesarian sections, but then you have to think that if the "pleasure dome" were located above the pubic bone, not only would it be isolated from the waste treatement outlets, but you wouldn't need to pass through the pelvis.

A need for C-sections would be silly...unless it were designed to be so easy to do that one wouldn't need a team fo doctors and an anesthesiologist on hand...perhaps like on the new Oreo packs where you can lift the flap and seal it down again?

The "pleasure dome" is certainly in a funny spot, and if you go further and consider modesty regarding sexual organs funny as well, it would make much for sense for them to be near the hands or feet...extendable for many opportunites for creativity...

As for the pelvic bone...I actually think it's silly the other way. SHouldn't our bodies (or female bodies at least) be designed in such a way that the fetus is protected better? The possibility of killing the fetus, or causing complications merely from tripping and falling on your stomach seems a bit silly. Perhaps there should be a shell of bone around the womb with a trap door right under the Oreo flap? Joints are essentially hinges, so it shouldn't have been too hard to extrapolate from one to the other.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by RAZD, posted 10-16-2009 9:32 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2302
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 159 of 219 (531369)
10-17-2009 11:07 AM


Silly Ammonites
Hi all. The evidence for silly design continues to flood in. If you thought the platypus was weird, check this monstrosity out; Nipponites mirabilus, probably the silliest-looking ammonite ever to disgrace the seas.

In life the unfortunate creature would have looked something like this;

Awful. Just awful. It's a wonder it had the gall to show itself in public. Clearly no intelligent designer would come up with something so patently impractical and ridiculous. A silly designer on the other hand...

Mutate and Survive


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Perdition, posted 10-17-2009 11:31 AM Granny Magda has not yet responded
 Message 163 by cavediver, posted 10-18-2009 8:08 AM Granny Magda has acknowledged this reply

    
Perdition
Member (Idle past 739 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 160 of 219 (531371)
10-17-2009 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by Granny Magda
10-17-2009 11:07 AM


Re: Silly Ammonites
Awful. Just awful. It's a wonder it had the gall to show itself in public. Clearly no intelligent designer would come up with something so patently impractical and ridiculous.

Very strange. One wonders why it is the way it is. Does the folding give it some balance benefit, or is it simply one of those things that fell through the cracks of "good enough?"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Granny Magda, posted 10-17-2009 11:07 AM Granny Magda has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Dr Jack, posted 10-17-2009 1:38 PM Perdition has acknowledged this reply

    
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3506
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 161 of 219 (531383)
10-17-2009 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Perdition
10-17-2009 11:31 AM


Re: Silly Ammonites
Very strange. One wonders why it is the way it is. Does the folding give it some balance benefit, or is it simply one of those things that fell through the cracks of "good enough?"

Another possibility is that it's simple a deformed example. Unless it's known from multiple fossils? Granny?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Perdition, posted 10-17-2009 11:31 AM Perdition has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Granny Magda, posted 10-18-2009 7:03 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2302
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 162 of 219 (531475)
10-18-2009 7:03 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by Dr Jack
10-17-2009 1:38 PM


Re: Silly Ammonites
Hi Mr J,

You are not alone in suspecting that some kind of pathology is responsible for the bizarre appearance of this ammonite. That's what people thought when they were first recorded. However, since then, many more have been found, both in Japan and in America. They appear to be a species and are regarded as such.

Actually, not to downplay their silly potential, but they are a lot less shocking when compared to other heteromorph ammonites like this;

and this, a loosely helically coiled form;

Nipponites is thought to have evolved from something along the lines of the latter type.

There is further discussion of these weird critters at The Octopus News Magazine Online, a great site for anyone crazy about cephalopods.

Clearly, any designer who could create this animal, which looks like nothing so much as a dog turd with tentacles, can only be regarded as very silly indeed.

Mutate and Survive


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Dr Jack, posted 10-17-2009 1:38 PM Dr Jack has not yet responded

    
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1144 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 163 of 219 (531494)
10-18-2009 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by Granny Magda
10-17-2009 11:07 AM


Re: Silly Ammonites
probably the silliest-looking ammonite ever to disgrace the seas...
...Awful. Just awful. It's a wonder it had the gall to show itself in public.

love it - needed a good laugh today, and those words just hit the spot - thanks!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Granny Magda, posted 10-17-2009 11:07 AM Granny Magda has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18868
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 164 of 219 (565444)
06-16-2010 8:54 PM


Bump for BobTHJ ... and anyone else ...
Hi BobTHC, continuing from Message 67 on the Convergent Evolution - Reasonable conclusion? or convenient excuse? thread:

On this thread I have proposed an alternate design hypothesis (see Give Equal time for Silly Design -- let the people decide which is better ... (Message 1)):

quote:
The Silly Design Theory (SDT, not to be confused with STD) is based on a very simple set of concepts:

  • the existence of design in natural systems is obvious, whether it is a human eye, a bird wing or the flagellum of a bacteria, there is a feature with a purpose;
  • the preponderance of these purposeful features in all forms of life, from simple to complex, shows that a design process is at work;
  • that the debate over whether the design is the result of natural forces or the intent of some cosmic designer cannot be resolved by investigation of the designs, because the natural forces could be designed by the cosmic designer as the means to achieve the end purpose of the designs;
  • that the ultimate purpose of the designs can be determined by investigation of multitudes of features to see if they more accurately reflect (a) random design, the result totally natural forces, (b) highly specific design, for some intelligent purpose, or (c) variations on a silly design, for some silly (entertainment, amusement, reality tv) purpose;
  • that the design purpose, as determined by rigorous scientific investigation, will then make clear whether the designer is (a) a Natural Nothing (NaNo), (b) an Intelligent Designer (IDr) or (c) a Cosmic Imp (CImp), and that this will then finally resolve whether there is or is not a designer as well as the nature of that designer: a metaphysical two-fer.

The Hypothesis to be tested, therefore, is that "life, the universe, and everything" show evidence of Silly Design (SD).


Curiously, I had a brief discussion here with another design proponent, and he was unable to show that Neo-Paleyism explained the diversity of life better than the Silly Design Theory (in fact he never got out of the starting blocks to show that anything was explained by Neo-Paleyism).

Also see the answer to the challenge he issued:

Message 96:
If you would like to show us what your made of and submit your better design proposal,(like two peckers or something) I would be gad to show you the reasons it is inferior to the current design.

Easy. Take just one example with the eye: if we combine elements of the octopus eye with the human eye we would have telescopic and microscopic vision, like the zoom lenses in cameras that we know are designed to cover a range of vision requirements and stay in focus. That would be intelligent design, yet such a design appears nowhere in the natural world. Is your designer less intelligent than human designers, that have done this, even though he already has all the parts necessary?

His answers are quite amusing.

Now, I happen to be a designer, so I know a fair bit about how design works, and how much "borrowing" goes on in the design field, and this is the kind of thing that I would expect to see if there is an active designer involved in the development and diversity of life on earth.

For active design to be a valid hypothesis there should be instances of cross-over between lineages outside of hereditary lines, where features are "borrowed" wholesale from other lineages.

Now if you rule out active design, then you are left with passive design, where life evolves according to evolution, perhaps even beginning with abiogenesis occurring, with a universe designed for life to happen.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : msg link


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Fiver, posted 06-18-2010 2:51 PM RAZD has responded

  
Fiver
Junior Member (Idle past 2465 days)
Posts: 26
From: Provo, UT
Joined: 04-17-2010


Message 165 of 219 (565639)
06-18-2010 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by RAZD
06-16-2010 8:54 PM


And don't forget, of course...
There are a large number of scientific groups who have published statements saying that they disapprove of Intelligent Design Theory.

Obviously this should be considered support for Silly Design Theory.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by RAZD, posted 06-16-2010 8:54 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by RAZD, posted 06-18-2010 10:28 PM Fiver has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
910
11
12131415Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017