Does complexity require intelligent design?

xevolutionist, you say "the platypus has at least one very important purpose, to confound the believers of ToE"xevolutionist, please can you explain why the platypus confounds the theory of evolution? I have always thought that it confirms the theory of evolution.[edited by mick to add quotation marks to the playpus comment - I just can't get the quotation thing to work!]This message has been edited by mick, 03-17-2005 02:11 PM

quote:

---

I just can't get the quotation thing to work!

---

Hey mick - hit the 'peek' button at the bottom right of this message for the answer.

But 42 is the answer to some problems. Perhaps it's a matter of posing the right questions.

Schraf,
Originally I was asking why, if form determins function, [or was it the opposite, no matter the question remains the same]are so many eyes formed differently, since all perform basically the same function. This does bring up the fact that the eye would have had to seperately evolve for each species with different eyes.Your quote from Darwin: Thanks for translating that for me as the last sentence seemed to have the opposite meaning.I have somewhat of a problem with an imperfect and simple eye. It seems that without perfectly functioning eyes, those animals that depend on vision to escape predators, find food, and so on would have a marked disadvantage, survival wise, and therefore only the animals that didn't need vision would triump. Logically then, all surviving species should be blind, from purely evolutionary theory.This message has been edited by xevolutionist, 03-17-2005 06:51 PM

Hey xevolutionist-You seem to have many misconceptions about the variety of eye forms and how they relate to evolution. It doesn't have to be "perfect"; in fact, human eyes are not "perfect". An 'eye' only has to be as good as or better than the eyes of competitors for it to stick around.Why don't you start a new topic on eyes and evolution since this seems to be off-topic here; but definitely worthwile discussing.

pink sasquatch... I hit the peek button, and internet explorer refreshes itself, but it all looks the same!- sorry everybody for this way-offtopic comment

look behind the browser. The peek window is there.

Deleted: Drat Brad beat me to it This message has been edited by Ooook!, 18-03-2005 12:32 AM

especially to the ultimate questions of life, the universe, and, oh, everything ...

yes [peek] always opens in a new window behind the current one. you can also look at your file buttons at the bottom and see the new one.this is so you can refer to it while working on your own post.you can also click on the HTML (help) and dBCodes (help) and they also open in a new window.the qs codes are dBCodes. the keys are: brackets (< > for HTML, [ ] for dBcodes), closing commands (with /command) and no spaces.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Which is of course what has happened, and fairly obviously.I agree with Pink on a new topic for this though. Then we can talk about why some eyes are backwards and some are not.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Hello yourself, thanks for having me..."...yes the complexity of the universe does require intelligent design...the existence of the universe alone requires a creator, or first cause..."Several people have already asked the obvious question here, but if a universe requires a creator, why wouldn't a sentient, all powerful being require one? Unless you are applying Christian or some other religious values to God, how does his/her/it's eternal nature follow from observation?It seems to me what we have is another argument between believers and non-believers. Only in this case, it seems like the believers are hesitant to simply admit that ID follows from their beliefs, as opposed to following naturally from the evidence. For example:"...Everything does have a reason for existing or God would not have created it..."Why? Even if the complexity and wonder of natural design were proof that there had to be a designer, why would she/he/it have to assign a reason for everything? Couldn't the creator have made fjords because they are cool? Or the (now much maligned) platypus for a joke?"...There is evidence of a big bang type of event, [first described in the bible] which indicates that at that one exact moment the universe as we know it began. That was the effect, God is the cause..."Actually, there are other religious texts, like the Hindu Upanishads that pre-date the bible. So do the religions of ancient Egypt, and I believe Greece and Rome, among others. They all have creation stories. Your claims that the Christian Bible first described the creation of the universe. or that the Christian God had to be the cause display a particular religious bent.And that really is the point. Can you honestly say that, without the bible, you could look at the complexity of the universe and create Christianity?Citizzzen

---

The message is ended, go in peace.

Hi Mick, the platypus as you probably know is one of the two mammals that lay eggs, not resembling the other monotremes in any other significant way.The interesting evolutionary conundrum is that the oldest monotreme fossils are almost identical to the living monotremes. There is nothing even close to them in the fossil record, so that evolutionists cannot claim that they evolved from some other animal. Any similarities in physical structure are usually grounds for evolutionists to see common ancestry, even going so far as to claim that whales are evolved from a wolf, based on the shape of a tiny bone in the wolf's ear.Also the platypus exhibits features not found in combination on on any other animal. The bill that senses prey by detecting small electical currents. Spurs on hind legs that can inject venom into a predator. Underwater it stores food in cheek pouches until it surfaces, then sorts it out. The young live on milk provided by the mother, but she does not have nipples.The other monotremes, are two species of echidna, also known as the spiny anteater.Another interesting species that I believe demonstrates the fallacy of evolutionary theory is the arctic flounder, but I don't have time to go into that right now.

Thanks for the tip Bob. Actually I mentioned it only in passing, as Scharf didn't realize that the we had been discussing form and function, not evolution of the eye, and I meant it as an example of perceived complexity.Even though I do get material from the AIG website occasionally, I sometimes think for myself. Dangerous, but a lot more fun.

Given the infinitesmal number of beneficial mutations that have been observed in relation to the great number of harmful ones that have been observed, nothing. And accquired or inherited immunity or resistance is not a beneficial mutation. It's a normal function designed into our bodies. The original, genetically undamaged, prototype humans were immune to all disease. It's a credit to our designer that our built in genetic redundancy allows most mutations to have no clinical effect.Again, if it could be shown to have actually happened and a pervasive process like that should leave evidence, and positively affected at least a few humans in the how many generations in the last seven thousand years I believe we've been here, and surely in the millions of years that evolutionists claim that we have existed, there should be some documented improvement in some individuals.