|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4825 days) Posts: 360 From: Phoenix Arizona USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: too intelligent to actually be intelligent? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Frankly, complexity and piss poor design, crap just barely good enough to get by is all that is seen when we look at living things. The human is a great example, overly complex. poorly designed, sloppy build, light of no QC or error correction built into the critter. Well, very inelegant designs by the standards set for intelligent designers with a particular set of limitations and a particular set of freedoms. In the case of the intelligent designs we have limitations of cost and we have the freedom to start with a clean sheet of paper when we think that is a good idea. In the design of a car we are not allowed to build millions of unique examples, sell them to drivers and see how well or badly they work. We have very severe cost constraints (not to mention legal ones). In the case of the biological "designs" we have an unlimited "budget" we can make an enormous number of "mistakes". For example, it seems that more than half of ALL humans are mistakes and don't make it through the early stages of gestation. This is only a minor problem for biological "designs". However, biological "designs" do NOT get to start with a clean sheet of paper. Nor can they "know" (in the sense of think through) what will work and will not so they are constrained to making small changes in something that is "known" to work. If an intelligent designer was so constrained s/he would be forced to produce some very messy intermediate designs even if s/he did know where they wanted to get to. Each new "design" must work and have a high degree of compatibility with the previous one. These freedoms and constraints produce, again, EXACTLY the kind of designs we see in both human designed objects and in living things. The designs are NOT so much crap as representative of what can be done within the constraints. Human designs are less flexible than biological ones and do NOT offer the very large range of diversity we see in living things that are "ready" for a change in environment.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
How come ,for instance, we don't have like some monkeys with a mouth that ended up on the side of their head type of thing? Well, first off, if you think of it, heads are pretty round. We set up our definitions of 'front,' 'side,' and 'back' based on where features are. Wherever on the head we have ears, we make it the side. Wherever there is a mouth, we make it the front. Wherever there is nothing but hair, we make it the back. If there were cMrOeNaKtEiYoSnists running around with mouths on the 'side' of the head, we would probably just see the side as being the front and consider them normal . However! There is the fact that monkeys with funky mouths would have a hard time surviving. The ridiculous shape and contortion of their inner workings would be so messed up, they might not even make it past child years. Which, is the idea of evolution... the ones who can't make it die; all who can live and pass on their genetic information. Besides, mouth position has been around a LOT longer than primates, and with no selective pressure to dramatically alter such things, well, they probably had fun just sticking around . Jonicus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICdesign Member (Idle past 4825 days) Posts: 360 From: Phoenix Arizona USA Joined: |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Why, when we know that mutation and selection working together can produce the same kind of designs? --------------------------------------------------------------------- If "we" knew that mutation and selection produce designs then the 'big debate' wouldn't be going on. I know your side claims the above to be a fact but I disagree with those conclusions and so do a whole lot of other people. Going back to the computer simulating evolution by comming up with positive mutations- or whatever the heck it does- what is the 'natural' computer that evolution took place on. Its not even a true simulation when it took place on a man-made computer. ....look you guys wear me out with all these questions. I haven't studied the theory of evolution much because I disagree 100%with its claims. No matter what you tell me -I will never believe something came from nothing without the help of God. I don't care what a man-made computer does! Please don't bombard me with so much at one time. Will look over the various responses and get back with you guy later. Bye the way, thank all of you for caring enough to spend the time to correspond with me. ICDESIGN Edited by ICDESIGN, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ICDESIGN writes: How come ,for instance, we don't have like some monkeys with a mouth that ended up on the side of their head type of thing? We do have the halibut and its near relatives, with both eyes on the same "side" of its head - nicely adapted to its habitat and lifestyle. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2197 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: So, was this intelligently designed?:
It meets all of your criteria.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5980 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Jonicus writes: However! There is the fact that monkeys with funky mouths would have a hard time surviving. The ridiculous shape and contortion of their inner workings would be so messed up, they might not even make it past child years. Which, is the idea of evolution... the ones who can't make it die; all who can live and pass on their genetic information. Besides, mouth position has been around a LOT longer than primates, and with no selective pressure to dramatically alter such things, well, they probably had fun just sticking around . Mouth designs are some of the constraints Ned was talking about I think, but in the animal kingdom, outside of mammals, and probably within as well, mouths are not found on the 'front' necessarily at all. I have a pleco fish over here with a mouth that is decidedly on the bottom. I don't even know that a snake has a 'front' of his face.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: Well, that's a problem, isn't it, IC? How can you possibly determine that evolution is wrong if you don't know anything about it? More importantly, how do you think you can argue against people who do know something about it? -
quote: Are you saying that your mind is made up? And that you have no desire to learn more about the theory of evolution? If so, then what is your purpose in discussing it? Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
I haven't studied the theory of evolution much because I disagree 100% with its claims.
How do you even know what its claims are if you won't study it?
I will never believe something came from nothing without the help of God
And where did this alleged "god" come from?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The designs are NOT so much crap as representative of what can be done within the constraints. Well while I agree with everything in your post, I will stick with my assessment that what we see in living things is crap design. Let me try to explain. Biological critters must pass only one QC test, does it survive long enough to reproduce in the current environment. This is a very low design threshold, far lower than would be applied to any human created design. There is no need for it to excel in any area, only that it live long enough to pass on its genes. Even in your example of designing an automobile, there are restrictions on the designers. They cannot incorporate unknown technology, they cannot, as you point out, simply try lots of things to see what works, they must design something that could be built using the plants and equipment available. When we look though at living critters it is immediately obvious that there was no design oversight at all, certainly no Intelligent Oversight. Living things are simply not designed in anything like an intelligent manner. They are a collection of Rube Goldberg creations that are just barely good enough to work; not to work well, not to exceed some minimal specifications, but to just barely work. And if that isn't a definition of crap designs, I don't know what it is. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
I haven't studied the theory of evolution much because I disagree 100% And that says it all doesn't it. You know just about nothing about it but you disagree anyway. Dr. Lewis Thomas in a speech I was at once was asked a question about some topic rather removed from what he was talking about. His response was: "I don't have the right to an opinion on that. I don't know enough about the topic."
or whatever the heck it does- what is the 'natural' computer that evolution took place on. The natural computer that evolution takes place on is the earth with the laws of physics it operates under. It is a separate arguement as to how the computer came to be but once it is running evolutionary processes DO produce what appear to be designs. They produce designs that the 'design' of living things mimic. Living things do NOT mimic the designs of intelligent designers.
No matter what you tell me -I will never believe something came from nothing without the help of God. There are a number around here who believe that God set up the "computer" -- that is, the universe and it's behaviour. Once all that is in place the evolution of living things does NOT come from nothing. That should be obvious.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
If "we" knew that mutation and selection produce designs then the 'big debate' wouldn't be going on. Well, I know it, and I just told you for the second time, so why is the debate going on? It seems like you've correctly identified that the debate is between the knowledgable and the ignorant.
I know your side claims the above to be a fact but I disagree with those conclusions and so do a whole lot of other people. In fact, nobody disagrees that genetic programming employs mutation and selection.
Going back to the computer simulating evolution by comming up with positive mutations- or whatever the heck it does- what is the 'natural' computer that evolution took place on. The "natural" computer is the real world. In the way that things in computers happen according to programs, things in the real world happen according to physical laws. In this particular case we can simulate the operation of those physical laws inside a computer. Such a simulation tells us what happens in the real world. That's how simulations work.
Its not even a true simulation when it took place on a man-made computer. What other kind of simulations could there be? Are you saying that simulations are impossible, that they don't exist?
I haven't studied the theory of evolution much because I disagree 100% with its claims. How does that make any sense? If you don't study the claims you don't know what you're arguing against. I disagree with creationism 100% but I still familiarize myself with creationism and what people say in it's defense. How else could I argue against it? Ignorance is not a good basis for discussion.
No matter what you tell me -I will never believe something came from nothing without the help of God. I thought you said that true science followed the evidence? If there's no evidence that you would ever allow to convince you, how can you claim to be doing or representing true science?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
That's about the point I was making. IC's misconceptions about evolution are all based on his/her own arbitrary crap.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICdesign Member (Idle past 4825 days) Posts: 360 From: Phoenix Arizona USA Joined: |
Hi Ringo,
--------------------------------------------------------------------- We do have the halibut and its near relatives, with both eyes on the same "side" of its head - nicely adapted to its habitat and lifestyle. -------------------------------------------------------------------- The issue for me is that their should be a zillion life formsthat have major malfunctions- not just a different body style but features that came out way off. When you look at your face in the mirror all your features havesemidry (if I spelled that right). Anyway, how did everything come out in the perfect position. Why would natural selection get all the answers so right. (and lets don't get into all the sidetracks like the retina, lets stay on the big picture) IC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICdesign Member (Idle past 4825 days) Posts: 360 From: Phoenix Arizona USA Joined: |
Look Mr. Frog,
I'm not going to get into the giant topic of "physical Laws" with you. I would just like you to post your answer for all to see on the quote I sited you made how the body is so far past intelligent- that it proves a designer is not possible. You talk about ignorance- you have to be a complete moron to believe that statement! IC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 762 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
The issue for me is that their should be a zillion life forms that have major malfunctions- You've been told already that there are. They die! If you have "major malfunctions" and don't have modern medicine helping you out, you are toast! That's the extreme end of this Natural Selection stuff you hear about on occasion.....
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024