Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   INTELLIGENT DESIGN: An Engineer’s Approach
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 226 of 302 (372479)
12-27-2006 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by limbosis
12-27-2006 2:40 PM


Re: Genetic Algorithms As A Substitute For Design
Yes, but what would trigger that ping???
One could only speculate. Perhaps the Designer merely wants to see what happens over a given period of time (say, billions of years) which is trivial to him. It will go "ping" when he comes back from his equivalent of lunch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by limbosis, posted 12-27-2006 2:40 PM limbosis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by limbosis, posted 12-28-2006 1:35 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 227 of 302 (372480)
12-27-2006 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by nator
12-27-2006 4:45 PM


Re: Sex organs and ID
After birth the umbilibal cord pulsates valuable nutrients that creationists believe were designed by the creator to jumpstart the child at birth. In fact these nutrients are so valuable doctors are clamping the umbilical cord thus preventing these nutrients from pulsating to the child.
-----------------------------------
Mothers are signing a form to discard the umbilical cord but would they be so willing to sign if they understood by signing this form are depriving their child of his right to these powerful nutrients.
Forbidden

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by nator, posted 12-27-2006 4:45 PM nator has not replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 228 of 302 (372483)
12-27-2006 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by limbosis
12-27-2006 2:35 PM


Re: the intelligently designed toothache
Now, do you have any authentic evidence that this god is NOT driving the corruption you allude to?
I could find no evidence that the God of the bible is driving the corruption. Its likely the god of this world that is driving the corruption to weaken the health of the world.
One reason why is that flouride affects the mind and this was why Hitler used flouride is said to manipulate the minds of the peoples.
Conspiracy theories is a bit off topic, so nuff said, etc...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by limbosis, posted 12-27-2006 2:35 PM limbosis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by limbosis, posted 12-28-2006 1:19 PM johnfolton has replied
 Message 240 by Archer Opteryx, posted 12-28-2006 1:38 PM johnfolton has not replied

platypus
Member (Idle past 5753 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 11-12-2006


Message 229 of 302 (372498)
12-28-2006 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by Hyroglyphx
12-27-2006 2:52 PM


Re: Sex organs and ID
One additional comment to the pile that all ready exists.
To note how important one male component is to a female component, or a female component is to a male's is quite amazing to me. So much so that it speaks design to me.
To discuss this from an engineer's approach, you need to do more than simply name a feature, and proclaim that it speaks design to you. You need to point out features of its design, and how those features are similar to objects designed by engineers, and from this analogy make some sort of argument. This is how limbosis proceded in the OP, and seems the best way to construct such an argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-27-2006 2:52 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

platypus
Member (Idle past 5753 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 11-12-2006


Message 230 of 302 (372500)
12-28-2006 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by limbosis
12-27-2006 4:07 AM


Re: Genetic Algorithms As A Substitute For Design
Limbosis,
The optimal body size literature is actually something I am quite familiar with. The optimal body size for mammals is considered to be about 100 grams for two reasons. First, that is the size that mammals seem to be converging towards on islands. Second and more importantly, that size is the mode of the body size distribution of mammal species.
Since the optimal size has been defined in light of a distribution, it is not predicting that all species are converging on the optimum. Rather it suggests that there are many species at the optimum because it is beneficial for some physiological reason (the reason is under debate, most likely metabolics). But once the optimum size is filled with many species, then there is a negative selective pressure due to high competition. Organisms become more fit at a slightly lower or higher than optimum size, but one with less competition.
This is of course the "macro" view of the matter. The other reason why all organisms are not the same size has been alluded to in another post- local ecology. Different sizes are most fit to different local environments. In either explanation, it seems to be an organisms relationship with other species and its environment that governs the best-fit size for that animal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by limbosis, posted 12-27-2006 4:07 AM limbosis has not replied

platypus
Member (Idle past 5753 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 11-12-2006


Message 231 of 302 (372502)
12-28-2006 2:31 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by johnfolton
12-27-2006 11:44 AM


Re: the intelligently designed toothache
Your argument about wings is silly.
Dragon fly wings, totally perfect in design but totally different from the butterfly wing, totally different from the bird wings, which are totally different from the bats wing in design and genetics with no transitional evidence going back to when there was only bacteria in the fossil layers.
Are you looking for a transitional form to get from butterflies to birds? Guess what, we don't have one. And we aren't expecting to find one. Birds and butterflies are not linked by a direct common ancestor. They are not sister groups. There is no reason to find transitional forms between birds and butterflies.
The reason that their wings are so different is that they arise from different ancestors. From an evolutionary view, we would not expect their wings to be similar unless they arose from the same ancestors. Funny you did not say that sparrows and hawks had different wings. Why? Because they don't, their wing design is similar. And guess what, they are evolutionarily related. Why do we see similar wing design in organisms that are evolutionarily related? Only because evolution must be true.
What I am saying is that flight independantly evolved several times. You want transitional forms? We have transitional forms documenting these independant evolutions. Birds are the most well-documented, in Archaeopteryx (All About Archaeopteryx). A transition from reptiles to birds. Or what is Archaeopteryx, a reptile with feathers? Maybe you will claim that Archaeopteryx is still a reptile, and that we have yet to document the transition from reptile to bird? If you insist on putting every fossil find into either bird or reptile, how can we ever find a transitional form? You closed your minds to accepting a transitional form when it is clearly documented.
Bats have webbed wings and fur, much like the closely related groups of flying lemurs and lemurs. A living transitional form. See if you can handle that.
Insects have wings, in fact two sets of wings. Something only found in Insecta. In case you are curious, insects are currently thought to have evolved from silverfish (We're Sorry That Page is Not Available | Virginia Cooperative Extension | Virginia Tech)
Of transitional forms, we are lacking, though recent research on gliding ants hints at the mechanism (Forbidden)
Dragon fly wings, totally perfect in design...
Define perfect, so I know that you know what you are talking about. Because I do. Are dragonfly wings perfect with respect to maximum lift/drag, maximum lift, stall angle, optimal angle of attack, or some other aerodynamic quantity? At what value is perfection reached? Are all flying organisms "perfect" for the Reynolds number that their flight occupies? Keep in mind that human aircraft have the highest L/D of any biological flyer by at least an order of magnitude. By this measure, human aircraft are the most "perfect." But I cringe at the use of the word perfect in an field where good is only measured relative to other designs.
Mutations and such if wings evolved in respect to origin would leave evidence (all the wings today should be drastically different from the fossil record) its this lack of evidence that Darwinians are willfully ignorant.
This statement is non-sensical and demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the evolutionary process.
1)You assume that all flight has evolved only once (discussed above)
2)You assume that transitional forms of flight should be well-documented in the fossil record. If flight evolution happens rapidly, this would not be true.
3)You assume that wings should differ in respect to their most common ancestor. Which I assume means that the wings should be different from each other. Which is something you have already made a point of. What are you getting at here? I would actually argue the opposite, that flight it a highly constrained activity, and that after it evolves, we would expect to see little alteration to its basic aspects. This is arguing from the perpective of aerodynamics. Achieving flight isn't trivial, once nature has found a solution to it I would expect this solution to stick. And this is what we see. There are major differences in the wing design of our current flyers. In short, we have feathers (birds) and membranes. In the membraneous wings, we have thick membranes of skin supported by bone (bats) and thin membranes supported by vanes that come in pairs (insects). In other words, the major differences we see group along the three independant evolutions of flight. This indicates that the basic design of wings have not changed all that much after their origination. The differences we see only indicate different origins, not a diversification from a single origin. Given the tight constaints on flight, I would expect not to find much change in the wing design ater its origination. Statements like
the wings of all the fowl from the insects to the bats are all found in the fossil record no different kinds of wings found today
come as no suprise to me. The basic wing design should not change in the fossil record from then to now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by johnfolton, posted 12-27-2006 11:44 AM johnfolton has not replied

Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 232 of 302 (372504)
12-28-2006 4:51 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by Hyroglyphx
12-27-2006 2:52 PM


Re: Sex organs and ID
The penis and the vagina are perfectly suited for one another.
Anecdotal evidence exists to suggest that assertions of perfection on this point are rather naive. I leave it to you to conduct the inquiries.
I'd like to get all of your thoughts on the intricacies of both female and male sex organs, inside the body and out, and to discuss how sexual intercourse employs each function.
You're not going to stump the panel by challenging it to consider ways the human reproduction system could have been better designed.
But I grant you: this topic is likely to prove much more popular than the toothache.
___
Edited by Archer Opterix, : fertile imagination spawning new literary ideas.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-27-2006 2:52 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 233 of 302 (372521)
12-28-2006 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by Dr Adequate
12-26-2006 11:42 AM


No, of course not. it is not necessary either to "convince myself" that "either [Behe's arguments] do not exist or are secretive religiously motivated" in order to see that they're wrong.
What is important is the evidence. The motivation is secondary. If Macro Evolution is right the atheistic or humanistic motivation of some scientists does not make it wrong. They could have a hidden motive and the theory still be correct.
Same goes with ID. Intelligent Design is not wrong simply because an exponent of it is a theist. The evidence is the primary thing in the science classroom.
Do you agree with me up to this point?
I say it is a shame on the teacher if his or her motivations are pushed before the evidence. But many teachers of ID are not doing this. To keep Darwinism as the prevailing dogma opposers to competing ideas have to whip up the public to believe that religious motivations are all that these teachers have to speak in the classroom.
But I am encouraged because I think slowly the public is catching on to this propoganda.
Now back to Behe. It is interesting to me that the idea of Irreducible Complexity comes really right out of Darwin's own admission to a weakness in his theory. In 1859 Darwin wrote:
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications,my theory would absolutely break down."
[ Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, NY - Penguin, 1958, pg. 171]
Michael Behe has just taken up Darwin's own "challenge". He took molecular machinary on the cell level to show the unlikelihood of gradual successive modifcations to arrive at such operations.
According to the Phd. Dawkins Behe is ignorant for even questioning Darwinism. And your dismissal of "rubbish" of his thesis rings with the same prejudice.
Are you going to write a book refuting this "rubbish" point by point? Or do we just take it on your wink and smile that its rubbish?
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-26-2006 11:42 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by platypus, posted 12-28-2006 12:05 PM jaywill has replied
 Message 248 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-28-2006 6:12 PM jaywill has replied

platypus
Member (Idle past 5753 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 11-12-2006


Message 234 of 302 (372551)
12-28-2006 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by jaywill
12-28-2006 9:29 AM


lieing
What is important is the evidence. The motivation is secondary.
I agree completely. But here's the problem. If scientists who work directly with the evidence concerning evolution are claiming its true, and its really not, this must be for one of two reasons. One, they are ignoring evidence. This is highly unlikely considering how intelligent and highly trained most scientists are. Two, they are decieving everyone else. Why are they decieving everyone? No one lies without reason, there must be an exterior motivation. For some scientists, namely Dawkins, there is quite clearly a motivation of atheism. For most scientists, they share few common threads. Their motivations are ranged and varied, at best. Many are strongly religious and strong supporters of evolution. Religion can't be a motivation. In fact, the best way to make a name for yourself in science is to successfully challenge long-held opinions. But no one even really attempts to challenge the main aspects of evolution in the science community. Mutually agreed upon deception? Why would scientists be distortion the evidence? What motivation would compel all of them to do this together despite their training?
Now let's look at ID. The movement is run by a group with obvious religious persuasion. Their argument was originally framed with religious connotations, which have been afterwards dropped due to legal issues hurting their objectives. These people have a common thread binding them, religion.
We have two groups looking at the same evidence and claiming two different conclusions. Assuming both groups are composed of intelligent individuals, that leaves one alternative- one group is lieing. Which group has the stronger motivation to lie?
BTW- most new scientific ideas are usually considered rubbish when first introduced. They have to go through a rigorous process of analysis before being accepted, part of the critical aspect of being a scientist. It is up to the proposers of the new idea to ardently defend their idea against the long-held scientific views, it is not up to the scientific community to prove them wrong point by point. If this was done with every new issue that came up, scientist would have no time to perform any work of their own. Though I believe a point by point analysis of Behe's argument has already been performed. Behe himself has admitted he is wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by jaywill, posted 12-28-2006 9:29 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by ramoss, posted 12-28-2006 1:13 PM platypus has not replied
 Message 243 by jaywill, posted 12-28-2006 2:44 PM platypus has replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 235 of 302 (372563)
12-28-2006 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by jar
12-27-2006 4:11 PM


Re: Another example of truly piss poor engineering design touted
In just about every species they are classic examples of just barely good enough to get by implementation.
If they are all barely good enough then why are a myriad of species doing just fine? Creatures on the extinction watch list are those that have been relentlessly hunted by humans. The physical process of sex has never been a problem for any known animal. In fact, the biggest problem is just getting them to try to mate, rather than the actual process itself.
This is particularly true in the evolved primate called man. There is lousy fit between the males penis and the females vagina,
A lousy fit? In comparison to what?
the males sperm are released way away from the females eggs
And yet, miraculously, only a small percentage of the human population is incapable of reproducing.
the womans body produces enzymes that tend to obstruct and kill off many of the sperm even inside her
Again, amazingly millions of people are born every year. The efficacy is not effected by the enzymes.
the male's sperm are so heat sensitive that the producing organ has to he hung outside the body where it is vulnerable to damage
The fact that sperm are so heat sensitive and that the scrotum will retract in cold weather, and let it all hang down in hot weather is an amazing feature. You criticizing the only design you know of should compel you to make a better design.
and the males penis is simple an organ that was co-opted to serve multiple functions, only one of which is related to procreation.
Multiple functions? Urination and ejaculation are the only uses for the penis I know of-- unless you're into some freaky sex acts.
There are designs where the act of copulation kills the male
So? Bees die every time they defend themselves or the Queen by after stinging its invader, removing themselves disembowels the bee.
Short comings do NOT get picked up early and corrected but as long as the current solution is just barely good enough to get by, no changes or improvements are made.
According to what? Marine biologists say that the shark has evolved little in the last (x) million years because its so well suited to its environment that overhauls have never been necessary. Any organism not suited to its environment would be severely effected by natural selection. The specie in question, whatever it may be in this case, must wait for the introduction of a beneficial mutation to be selected or it will go extinct. I want to know which species have gone extinct because their sexual organs were so poorly designed.

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by jar, posted 12-27-2006 4:11 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by jar, posted 12-28-2006 1:14 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 244 by DrJones*, posted 12-28-2006 4:00 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 236 of 302 (372566)
12-28-2006 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by platypus
12-28-2006 12:05 PM


Re: lieing
We have two groups looking at the same evidence and claiming two different conclusions. Assuming both groups are composed of intelligent individuals, that leaves one alternative- one group is lieing. Which group has the stronger motivation to lie?
I think the Dover trial answered that quite distinctly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by platypus, posted 12-28-2006 12:05 PM platypus has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 237 of 302 (372569)
12-28-2006 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by Hyroglyphx
12-28-2006 1:02 PM


Re: Another example of truly piss poor engineering design touted
I want to know which species have gone extinct because their sexual organs were so poorly designed.
Yet another truly stupid question.
I am constantly amazed at how utterly silly the Intelligent Design proponents can be and the lengths of mental gymnastics they go through to defend a ludicrous theory.
The point which I made and which you even quoted is ...
In just about every species they are classic examples of just barely good enough to get by implementation.
Species continue because they live long enough to reproduce.
As I pointed out, the design is just barely good enough to get by. That is not Intelligent Design, it is Just barely Competent Design.
The rest of your post is simply more argument from incredulity.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-28-2006 1:02 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

limbosis
Member (Idle past 6278 days)
Posts: 120
From: United States
Joined: 12-06-2006


Message 238 of 302 (372573)
12-28-2006 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by johnfolton
12-27-2006 6:43 PM


common sense?
Charley writes: I could find no evidence that the God of the bible is driving the corruption.
Now Charley, if the god of the bible is driving this corruption, do you think the proof of that fact would be readily available, or would that god do everything in its power to lead you away from that realization and, in effect, support the proliferation of forums like this one, whose participants cling to ideas that could not be further from the truth, further from reality?
You seem to be discreet enough to curb your desire for spreading truth, yet not quite discrete enough to make a difference in this world. I say, go with your gut feelings and do what you think is right. But, don't be so quick to abandon common sense...
Its likely the god of this world that is driving the corruption to weaken the health of the world.
Why would the "God" of the bible allow the god of this world to drive that corruption? Do you know something I don't?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by johnfolton, posted 12-27-2006 6:43 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by johnfolton, posted 12-28-2006 11:35 PM limbosis has not replied

limbosis
Member (Idle past 6278 days)
Posts: 120
From: United States
Joined: 12-06-2006


Message 239 of 302 (372583)
12-28-2006 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Dr Adequate
12-27-2006 5:51 PM


Is there a doctor in the house?
Perhaps the Designer merely wants to see what happens over a given period of time (say, billions of years) which is trivial to him.
C'mon Doctor, is that the best you can do? Again, common sense. Why not say godzillions of years? There's no apparent purpose to inventing flippant scenarios. We're wasting posts now.
Remember, the whole world is watching. And, so is this god.
This god may strike you down for not giving it enough credit. For all you know there may be a sliver of nobility beneath all of the corruption. I personally doubt it. Yet, I must concede that I am not certain.
Besides, my position is very clear. I am fully aware of what I have committed to. Not only am I unafraid, I call this god a coward where I stand!
Now, the least you can do is entertain an interesting discussion, as if your life did not depend on it. Don't make me start this thread over again.
What's up, Doc?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-27-2006 5:51 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 240 of 302 (372586)
12-28-2006 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by johnfolton
12-27-2006 6:43 PM


Re: the intelligently designed toothache
Charley:
I could find no evidence that the God of the bible is driving the corruption. Its likely the god of this world that is driving the corruption to weaken the health of the world.
One reason why is that flouride affects the mind and this was why Hitler used flouride is said to manipulate the minds of the peoples.
Did you really write something this surreal or has my Colgate just kicked in?
__

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by johnfolton, posted 12-27-2006 6:43 PM johnfolton has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024