oo close. take out the "pegged" and put back the "100" and then turn the needles so the black on is touching the peg?

Nothing butt silly about it eh?And speaking of BS ... why would an intelligent designer make the waste product so messy? You have a division process for liquid and solid, and many other animals make pellets ...... this has to be another example of Silly Design.

A Wing and A Walkingstick

Walkingstick Insects

See Figure 1 from Nature 421, 264 - 267 (16 January 2003); doi:10.1038/nature01313 (reproduced below)Walkingstick insects originally started out as winged insects (blue at start and top row). That diversified.And some lost wings (red). And diversified.And some regained wings (blue again). And diversified.And one lost wings again (Lapaphus parakensis, below, red again).

And this doesn't even address the ones where one sex (usually male) has wings and the other sex doesn't (the red includes these, so it is hard to determine from this graphic how many times the female sex gained and lost wings independent of the winged males).From a Design standpoint, this is not intelligent design, it is either "Make up your #*! mind" design, or it is classic "Now you see it now you don't" silliness.{edit}You decide.{add:}To pursue this point a little further, we need to look at the elements of good design, determine what the use of basic practices of good design would result in, and then see whether or not these results are incorporated or observable in overwhelming degree in known organisms.

Design, the Good, the Bad and the Ugly:

A good starting point for discussing what makes good design is to go to the professional designers.First there is Systems Design Engineering:

Systems design engineering refers to the definition, analysis, and modeling of complex interactions among many components that comprise a natural system (such as an ecosystem and human settlement) or artificial system (such as a spacecraft or intelligent robot), and the design and implementation of the system with proper and effective use of available resources. ... It is a unique blend of a systems philosophy and a creative problem- solving and design framework. ... The challenges ... require the ability to cross disciplines easily in order to use technology and research results

And we can look at the process of design (from Wikipedia):

Design as a process can take many forms depending on the object being designed and the individual or individuals participating.

​

In the context of the applied arts, engineering, architecture and other such creative endeavors, design is both a noun and a verb. Design in its verb context is the process of originating and developing a plan for an aesthetic and functional object, which usually requires considerable research, thought, modeling, iterative adjustment and re-design.

Or a codified design process:

• The Problem (define the goal of the design)
• The Design Brief (describe simply and clearly what is to be designed)
• Investigation (define the parameters of the design)
• Developing Alternative Solutions (brainstorming)
• Choosing a Solution (summarize the design requirements and solutions and evaluate the best solutions)
• Models and Prototypes (flesh out the design)
• Testing and Evaluating (does it work? does it meet the design need? can it be improved?)
• Manufacturing (put it into production)

Good design often involves a reiteration process at any stage before final production that goes back to earlier steps, redefines those steps and then proceeds to a new final design. This is often referred to by various terms, such as Design Feedback Cycle, Design Spiral, the Design Circle and the like.Likewise, design of a new product does not begin from scratch, but takes elements of previous designs, or combines elements from other designs together in new ways, and then adapts or refines them to new uses.The elements of good design then are:

1. Integrated systems approach to ensure that the final design does what it is supposed to do and is fully compatible with the environment where it will be used,
2. Optimized, efficient and user friendly with a minimum of extraneous features and waste products,
3. Combination of new features with refined features of previous designs that are applicable, freely taking from multiple sources to combine the best features of relevant previous designs.

More specifically, what we would see in biological systems, if there were intentional and intelligent design of organisms, would be:

• Organism completely in tune with it's environment, adapted to predictable variations with immediate changes at the individual level ,
• No broken, unworkable, useless or vestigial features,
• New organisms that combine features of several previous organisms, rather than just modification of old ones.

We don't see this.When we see change in response to variations in environment, the adaptation is piecemeal, fickle, and takes several generations to become effective, and then when the environment reverts, it takes generations again to return to previous form. The adaptation of Galapagos (Daphne Major Island) Finches to drought (heavier beak) and reversion (smaller beak) when the drought ended are a case in point, particularly when this same kind of variation in environment has been observed in the past ⁽¹⁾. An intelligent design would have allowed the individual finches to change beak size as needed for the conditions. For insects like the walkingsticks above, an intelligent design would allow the individual to molt to gain wings (as individual insects of other species do at certain stages of development) or drop wings when they are no longer necessary (as the king and queen ants and termites do), so that one superior design would occupy all the niches now occupied by 39.There are numerous examples of vestigial or useless feature in species. The tailbone in apes, which can be completely removed from humans with no loss of any functionality for the individual and no long term complications ⁽²⁾, and the appendix, that no longer serves any digestive purpose ⁽³⁾ and can get infected to the point of threatening death to a significant portion of the population if not treated (to cite but two examples), can hardly be called evidence of good design.Finally, there are no examples of features combined from different previous sources. Take the eye for example: in the article Investigator: Eye's Silly Design⁽⁴⁾, there are two different eyes with very similar outward features, the human eye and the octopus eye. Ignoring for now the issue of the human retina facing the wrong way, there is one aspect here that shows an absolute failure to improve the basic design: there are two different completely functional methods to focus the image in these eyes. One system (human) changes the focal length of the lens and the other system (octopus) moves the retina into the space where the image in question is focused. If good design practices were being used, these would be combined into one eye to allow the organism to have zoom vision by changing the focal length and relocating the retina to the new focal location. This would also make glasses totally unnecessary - by design.

Alternatives

One alternative is {evolution\darwinism} as espoused by the {evolutionist\darwinist} faction. Because this process relies on random processes and selection events it's result would show no design purpose or process.Another alternative, put forth by the Silly Design Institute ⁽⁵⁾, is that the purpose of these features is Silly Design for some cosmic entertainment value. First consider that at the beginning we discussed insects that look like sticks, and then fly. Then consider that humans joke about the coccyx, the appendix, and bad eyesight. Thus even people recognize that these features posses an innate, high Silliness Index.The only other conclusion would be that these features are the result of bumbling and incompetent Intelligent Designers in training (IDITs) that are barely able to stay in the program, but who have been given free reign on our corner of the universe. Now that would be a silly hypothesis eh?

Conclusion:

Using the actual tools of intentional, practical design procedures to evaluate the evidence of design in nature shows that the basic practices and effects of good design are not incorporated. Further, using these results to be able to discern whether the result is (a) a Natural Nothing (NaNo), (b) an Intelligent Designer (IDr) or (c) a Cosmic Imp (CImp), shows that the Neo-Paleyanism Intelligent Designer concept cannot be considered a valid concept regarding these features, or any like them.

---

1. Grant, Peter. Ecology and Evolution of Darwin's Finches. 1999 edition, Princeton University Press.
2. Miles, Jon. Summary of the results of seven studies of coccygectomy for the treatment of coccydynia. On-line article, Updated 1999-05-08
3. Open source. Vermiform appendix. Wikipedia On-line article, no date.
4. RAZD. Investigator: Eye's Silly Design. Silly Design Institute, (Message 4), no date.
5. RAZD. The Silly Design Institute (vision, mission and theory). Silly Design Institute, (Message 1), no date.

Edited by RAZD, : updated sigEdited by RAZD, : pictureEdited by RAZD, : corrected red/blueEdited by RAZD, : red/blue correctionEdited by RAZD, : updated nature link

---

updated, with material added.

Are you all crazy? Most of your suppossedly open-minded forum is filled with comments and articles from the host demeaning any oposition and denouncing them as lunatics. I'm dissappointed, I thought it would be an interesting forum. I now see all it is is a place to "speak to the choir." I want a real discussion. I'll check back some other time to see if the ludocrity of this forum has changed any.

Hi Jeremy,The "ludicrosity" can't change unless there's somebody to stand up and address specific points. Passing the buck isn't going to get anybody anywhere. I invite you to engate some users in an honest debate on the issues, and see where it goes, before leave.I agree with you that there is a lot of "speaking to the choir." But "real discussion" necessitates a debate partner. Only someone like yourself can provide that.And, welcome to EvC! Ben

What are you talking about? You posted this message only 20 minutes after your first and only other post. That post got a couple of responses, too. Why don't you try to engage people in a conversation before you start throwing a tantrum?

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

More problems for the Neo-Paleyists concepts of "Intelligent Design" that they are loath to confront.

Sex

This has to be one of the silliest features of life that can be observed. If one wants to see an organism in a fit of silly behavior, all one needs to do is observe the mating behavior.Look at Rocky Mountain Sheep that bang heads until one is left standing, thus demonstrating their ability to run directly into rock walls as a survival skill?Look at all the birds that puff up and preen like some Prima Donna Prom Queen, or frogs that try to double their size by inflating their throat, like some little kid comparing muscles with his dad ("see how big I am?").Sexual pre-mating behavior appears to be much closer to juvenile show-off displays of stupid behavior, particularly for the males.In fact I know of no single species that is in the habit of making a list of desirable traits in a mate and then going out and checking off the list against possible mates before choosing one.Humans are no exception, in spite of having a fairly well developed sense of reason and causality (some would say the "most developed" but that is open to debate). The most intelligent male can become a tongue-tied, inarticulate goofus in the presence of a desirable dame while some addle-brained lothario can sweep the subject off her feet, both failing (thereby) to make the intelligent choice.But that is not all. Let us assume (for now) that the purpose of such behavior is intelligent improvement of a species, a mechanism for designing increased fitness by the intelligent combination of beneficial genes from two different organisms. If this were the case there would be a couple of observable trends:

1. All beneficial mutations would be passed on,
2. All deleterious mutations would be blocked, pre-screened from being passed on,
3. Species would become visibly improved in each generation.

In contrast, what we see is that there is absolutely no discrimination in the process between beneficial and deleterious, and species are virtually indistinguishable from generation to generation.A further problem of sex as a design mechanism is that it is limited in its ability to transmit good design from one organism to another: there is no lateral transfer of good design material. This lateral transfer has been observed in several species of bacteria ⁽¹⁾⁽²⁾, so one should be able to assume that this efficient kind of transfer would be maintained in the design of more complex 'improved' model species. The idea of sex is to transfer genetic material, but it doesn't transfer material between the participants when this would be an obvious benefit to the species. This also rules out any less drawn out or intimate contact between individuals (a handshake, for instance) as a means to transfer beneficial material.For the Neo-Paleyists, the problem for them is that we have motive, we have opportunity, we have ability, we have ... absolute failure of a design mechanism to be intelligently applied.The obvious conclusion is that sex is not designed for the intelligent improvement of species over time. The corollary is that if this behavior is designed, and it is not for an intelligent purpose, then it must be designed for the silliness that is evident. Thus this behavior displays a high Silliness Index (SI).

Sickness

If sex is not a viable mechanism for spreading intelligent design within a species (or between species) then what are other possible mechanisms that we can observe in action that could be used?

Bacteria

Bacterial infection would be an obvious possibility, not only are such bacteria transmitted between individuals, but they are transmitted between species. As noted above, bacteria have displayed the ability to transfer genetic material between individual organisms, so this transfer mechanism should also be useable to select beneficial design elements from one individual of any species and transfer it via the bacteria to any other individual of any other species.There are also multiple ways and means to transfer bacteria between individuals of larger organisms. Not only do we have the 'scatter spores' approach of nasal discharges, and the mixing of bodily fluids involved with the acts of such as sex, kissing, licking and the like, but we have the natural syringe to transfer blood samples: the mosquito for example, an excellent vector to direct the specific transfer of design material from one organism to another.There is no evidence of any bacterial infection being beneficial to the genetic structure of the individuals infected, rather these individuals display various levels of rather silly behavior, from sneezing, to funny voices, to bizarre appearances, to itches in funny places.For the Neo-Paleyists, the problem for them is that we have motive, we have opportunity, we have ability, we have ... another failure of a design mechanism to be intelligently applied.The obvious conclusion is that bacterial infections are not designed for the intelligent improvement of species over time. The corollary is that if this is a mechanism of design, and it is not used for an intelligent purpose, then it must be used for the silliness that is evident. Thus this mechanism displays a high Silliness Index (SI).

Virus

Bacteria fail to transfer genetic material, so what about viruses: when they infect a cell they hi-jack the cell to manufacture more copies of the genetic material carried by the virus. Again, this is a mechanism that involves direct transfer between individuals and between species.We have the same mechanisms available to transfer viruses as we have for bacteria, and we have the same results: no change to to genetic structure of the individuals infected, rather these individuals display various levels of rather silly behavior, from sneezing, to funny voices, to bizarre appearances, to itches in funny places. In addition we can have some other silly results, like loss of memory or use of various limbs.Once again, for the Neo-Paleyists, the problem is that we have motive, we have opportunity, we have ability, we have ... another failure of a design mechanism to be intelligently applied.The obvious conclusion is that viruses are not designed for the intelligent improvement of species over time. The corollary is that if this is a mechanism of design, and it is not used for an intelligent purpose, then it must be used for the silliness that is evident. Thus this mechanism displays a high Silliness Index (SI).

Cancer

One other mechanism remains, cancerous growths, where genetic material in an individual is directly altered and results in new growth and the potential to form new features as needed.Consider the possibilities: a population living near water could grow gills to allow staying in the water for extended periods; a population living high in the mountains could grow a third or fourth lung to allow processing oxygen from the thinner air; people who have lost a limb or a sense organ (eyes, ears, etc) could grow new ones.One can argue about the relative silliness of bulging growths, displacing of normal features, inducing people to indulge in treatment that renders them infertile or removes all bodily hair in the process, but one cannot show any known benefit to such features.Once again, for the Neo-Paleyists, the problem is that we have motive, we have opportunity, we have ability, we have ... another failure of a design mechanism to be intelligently applied. The obvious conclusion is that cancers are not designed for the intelligent improvement of species over time. The corollary is that if this is a mechanism of design, and it is not used for an intelligent purpose, then it must be used for the silliness that is evident. Thus this mechanism displays at least a positive Silliness Index (SI).

Silliness

There is no known mechanism for intelligently transferring design information from one individual to another that does not show both a failure of intelligent use and a high Silliness Index (SI) except for one case: the direct transfer of genetic material from one bacteria to another. This particular mechanism is used to defeat the design by humans of means of suppressing these organisms. The obvious conclusion is that if this is a mechanism of "intelligent design" that then these bacteria are the focus of such design effort. The corollary is that all other organisms are subsidiary to these bacteria and are meant to provide support mechanism for them, however this means that the least intelligent species are the most intelligently designed. This mechanism displays an excessively high Silliness Index (SI).Enjoy.

---

References:

1. - Microbiology
   and Immunology On-line, University of S. Carolina School of Medicine,
   Chapter 8 - EXCHANGE OF GENETIC INFORMATION
2. - BioInteractive
   on-line animation of bacterial conjugation

Edited by RAZD, : updated sigEdited by RAZD, : No reason given.

---

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) • • •

Top stuff, RAZD, tho` I suspect you have way too much free time on your hands. Btw, can you direct me to the Post-of-the-Year forum?

You'll have to talk to Percy.I think I need to get into marketing ... some t-shirts, some mugs, bumper stickers, a book about pandas ....and then for excercise I could get into a little self flagellation.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Spoken like a true Christian. :-p

jar, admins,Please consider putting some version(s) of your BS Meter in the icon list available for replies. Maybe one each boots, lifevest, and lifeboat with the needle set appropriately.

---

Truth fears no question.bkelly

it is available: you just need to copy the peek coding used once any picture has been usedThis message has been edited by RAZD, 10*13*2005 10:08 PM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

thinking some more about this, I feel that this level of recognition should not go to one postthere should be a thread of the year award, where not only are there good quality posts, but that they come from both sides and really discuss the issues and arrive at some resolutionsa tough standard for a high award.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Hey, I don't know if you've read my other posts since this time but I have never been part of a forum. I got off to a bad start, I thought that you basically just stated things and moved on. I also made the mistake of commenting in too many threads(that's what you call them right?) So I got swamped. I am going to have to take awhile and pick the ones I feel I should reply to and then go from there. A lesson learned. At least this jumping in hard all over the place taught me a bit about moderation. Thanks, and I look forward to debating with you. It seems like, just from looking around, you're pretty much everywhere. Thanks for the help you gave me on the admin place(I don't know what it's called).