Discussion on Creation article...

I can certainly see why this guy wouldn't want to hear his opinions debated.I guess when one's opinions are this feeble and foolish, stating one's position and then running away is the closest one can ever come to winning an argument. Or breaking even.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

He announced his attention to run away from the debate. You're arguing with a puff of dust and a pair of heels disappearing into the distance.

But you do not "observe intellegent design in nature", do you? What we observe in nature is mutation and selection, not miraculous fiat creation of species. Have it your way: the total malfunction of a system is not bad design, because God meant it to go wrong. So please tell us what sort of thing you would consider evidence of bad design, given that total failure doesn't fall into this category. Okay then, the tail of a human embryo. What function does it serve? It should be pointed out that studies of the foramina of dinosaurs strongly suggest that they had a similar arrangement. But this is not true. The merest glance at the respiratory system of birds would show you that if the air sacs inflate and deflate simulataneously, you have a two-way lung; if they inflate and deflate completely out of sync, you have a one-way lung, and in intermediate cases, the lung functions as a two-way lung when the sacs are doing the same thing and as a one-way lung when they're doing the opposite thing.It is interesting, though irrelevant, to note that humans are capable of "circular breathing": the technique is used in playing the didgeridoo, and, IIRC, in Tibetan Buddhist plainsong.

But what is your point? You say that we see intelligent design. Are you merely committing petitio principii? Yes, many times. Unlike intelligent design, evolution is something we observe in nature. So you get to count every example of fatally bad design as good design. A guy has an immune system which kills him if he so much as inhales near a packet of peanuts. No, that's not a design flaw, it's God being intentionally mean, right? A fatal design flaw is good design. "The white knight is sliding down the poker; he balances very badly." You misunderstand me. I asked you what you would consider bad design. Because an embryo has no need for a tail. You do not explain your reasoning. Specifically, the spinal cord finishes its development by losing the caudal appendage. I would call that a tail, but let's not quarrel over words.What is the function of this caudal appendage?Denying that it's a tail does not give it a function.How about the coat of hair grown and then lost by a human embryo? What function does that serve? Feel free to deny that it is hair, if you like. But what is its function? They evolved from the lungs of dinosaurs. You have not said what you consider to be a "normal" lung. If you consider a dinosaur's lung to be normal, then you have your answer.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Perhaps in the future you could clearly mark in your posts which of your arguments are straw men that are not deserving of a reply, and which you consider to be genuine arguments which you wish us to debate.Let's see if I've got this right as of now: your claim that there is no bad design in nature is a straw man, and we shouldn't reply to it; your argument about avian lungs isn't and we should.By the way, how can a claim which you've actually made be considered a straw man? Except by the magical power of wishful thinking?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

In the case of small reef fish, the ideal way for them to avoid being eaten is not to stay still and hope to avoid notice, but to dart as quickly as possible into the interstices of the reef.This changes the selective pressures --- bright colors are useful for mating, and are no longer a handicap. (You might like to look at Endler's experiments on and observations of guppies to see what happens when you change the balance between protective camouflage and attracting a mate.)As far as sedentary fish go, all the examples I can think of are beautifully camouflaged --- some flatfish can even change color the better to camouflage themselves.

I don't think you followed me. I was answering two distinct and different questions, one about reef fish, one about "ground-huggers", as you put it.Reef fish (as you, also, point out) rely on evasion. Fish that sit on the bottom and try not to be noticed rely on camouflage. These are two different kinds of fish. The brightest and most distinctive, as it happens.There have been numerous experiments on this subject --- I'll see if I can find more references, but in the meantime, you might follow up about the guppies --- just google for Endler and guppies.