too intelligent to actually be intelligent?

I was simply taking your reasoning to the logical conclusion. There's no known designer with the intelligence to design the human body. Therefore we need to look for a source of design that is non-intelligent.That's mutation and selection, acting together. And already proven to have the capacity to design. The vast fossil record is further evidence.IC, what's the point in debating you? You've admitted you can't be convinced by any data. You're not interested in learning. I've already routed all your self-congradulatory emails to my spam trap. What are you here to do, exactly? You don't respond to rebuttals or answer questions. What does it take to get through to you?

You might want to reread those forum rules you agreed to abide by again, IC.And you appear to be calling some of the leading biologists in the world "morons" here, besides some pretty-damn-bright members of our little community.

That's what natural selection is: the filter that removes all the wrong answers. Any "design" that doesn't work gets eaten before it can reproduce.A fish that spends its life swimming flat on the bottom has a better chance of survival if both eyes are on the top "side". The freakish "bad design" survives and the symmetrical "good design" dies.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

My face is not perfectly symmetrical - I have a jaw asymmetry. It used to hurt a lot, especially if I talked for long periods or ate hard things, so I got braces and that fixed it up a bit. Now it doesn't hurt, and you can hardly notice it.So, the reason the face is symmetrical is because the ones who didn't have symmetry had problems in function, and this reduced their reproductive success. Symmetry = beautiful for a reason you know!Edited by Doddy, : can't spell. It's contagious!

---

"And, lo, a great beast did stand before me, having seven heads, and on each head were there seven mouths, and in each mouth were there seventy times seven teeth. For truly there were seven times seven times seven times seventy teeth, meaning there were. . . okay, carry the three, adding twenty. . . plus that extra tooth on the third mouth of the sixth head. . . Well, there were indeed a great many teeth" - The Revelation of St. Bryce the Long-WindedHelp inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!

But in that case, in order to know whether a "design" shows "intelligence", you have to know how the "goal" was achieved. (Thanks to snowcrystals.com.)You can "measure" the intelligence shown by this "design" as zero --- but only because you happen to know that snowflakes are produced by natural forces and not by an Intelligent Snow Fairy.To put it another way, before you can "measure" the "intelligence" of a "design", you first need to know whether it was in fact designed.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Listen carefully.If we simulate the action of gravity on a computer, this does not mean that gravity takes place on a 'natural' computer.If we simulate the weather on a computer, this does not mean that the weather takes place on a 'natural' computer.If we simulate evolution on a computer, this does not mean that evolution takes place on a 'natural' computer.The models are based on a mapping between:(a) the data on the computer and world-states;
(b) the processing of the data and the laws of nature.The computer doesn't map to anything in nature any more than the desk it sits on does, or the fact that it's electrically powered (unlike gravity, evolution, and the weather).Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Fallacy #1

The mistake you are making falls into the category of a logical fallacy of the following type:All {A} is {B}
{B} exists
therefore {A} existsThe problem is that {B} also includes not{A} so the existence of {B} does not prove {A}.You have been given several example of apparent design accomplished by natural means: apparent design does not imply a designer.Think of a kaleidoscope: look in one end and see a pretty pattern; look at the other end and see a random jumble of bits and pieces, a fogged glass and the ends of mirrors. The real world includes the smoked glass and mirrors, not just the view from one end. Science uncovers how apparent design occurs. True science looks at the smoked glass and mirrors to see how things work, versus looking at the pretty pattern and going "oooh".

Fallacy #2

Let's compare gods:(A) yours (standard YEC Creationist?) - includes several mistakes where god had to go in and re-design things to cover for his mistakes: (1) angels (oops rebelled ended up with nemesis satan - big mistake), (2) eden (oops forgot mate for adam, have to make new addition), (3) eden revisited (oops planted attractive nuisance and told kids not to play there), (4) noah (oops whole thing went to hell and have to start all over - reboot), (5) christ (can't these people do anything right?? have to send in repairman) .... pretty bad design work imh(ysa)o.(B) mine (deist) - god got it right from the get-go, creating the universe 13.7+ billion years ago in such a way that 4.5+ billion years ago it involved the formation of the solar system and 3.5+ billion years ago it involved the formation of life on this planet, life that has since evolved to it's current level and is not done yet.Now based on your argument, because the deist version is more intelligent, it must be the right one.Or your assumption of the conclusion is wrong and totally unsupported by the evidence.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : or

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

You're confusing.Read this: Affirming the Consequent

---

"And, lo, a great beast did stand before me, having seven heads, and on each head were there seven mouths, and in each mouth were there seventy times seven teeth. For truly there were seven times seven times seven times seventy teeth, meaning there were. . . okay, carry the three, adding twenty. . . plus that extra tooth on the third mouth of the sixth head. . . Well, there were indeed a great many teeth" - The Revelation of St. Bryce the Long-WindedHelp inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!

It's the same - {B} includes not{A}

quote:

---

Usually 'B' can be true for other reasons, not just 'A'.

---

see also http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/affirm.htm

quote:

---

In general, show that B might be a consequence of something other than A.

---

Showing not{A} exists within {B} disproves the conclusion that {A} must exist if {B} exists.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Dr. Jones, your new avatar is hilarious.

It appears that the vast majority of world scientists accept that evolutionary theory is essentially correct. A large number of these scientists are also Christian.I agree with you in that I think that by far the most logical conclusion to come to about our existence is that we are the result of an intelligent design that requires an external designer. Evolution is like all science agnostic. It is just an explanation for what is occurring. Science does not explain why things occur. When evangelical Atheists like Dawkins start trying to explain why evolution occurs then he has stepped outside of science just as much as has the person who says that God did it.I suggest you google Francis Collins and better still read his book "The Language of God".

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

quote:

---

I agree with you in that I think that by far the most logical conclusion to come to about our existence is that we are the result of an intelligent design that requires an external designer.

---

Why would an "intelligent" designer put a sharp ridge of bone on the inside of our skulls so that it rips into the brain easily?Why would an intelligent designer give us crossover air and food pipes which makes us so prone to choking and aspirating food and water into our lungs?Why would an "intelligent" designer make giving birth so difficult and dangerous?

Ha ha ha! What a fucking stupid thing to say!Your position is that of a wilfully ignorant child.Try reading what you just said; notice anything?Try looking up 'arguements from incredularity'.

Why does a non-directed evolution that is based on survival of the fittest produce any of those things you mentioned.The answer to either of our questions is that there is no answer. We don't know.I would however point out that in spite of those things life flourishes on this planet. So, as much as you like to find perceived flaws in the design it would appear to me that the overall result is more than just a little impressive.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

I don't know about the first one but I do know that we understand the other two. I suspect that someone more knowledgable about anatomy would be able to answer the first one as well.