Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   too intelligent to actually be intelligent?
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 16 of 304 (390137)
03-18-2007 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by jar
03-18-2007 8:19 PM


Design Quality
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by jar, posted 03-18-2007 8:19 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by jar, posted 03-18-2007 9:02 PM NosyNed has not replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 304 (390139)
03-18-2007 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by ICdesign
03-18-2007 8:11 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by ICdesign, posted 03-18-2007 8:11 PM ICdesign has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by anastasia, posted 03-18-2007 8:57 PM Jon has replied
 Message 57 by ICdesign, posted 03-19-2007 9:05 PM Jon has not replied

ICdesign
Member (Idle past 4797 days)
Posts: 360
From: Phoenix Arizona USA
Joined: 03-10-2007


Message 18 of 304 (390141)
03-18-2007 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by crashfrog
03-18-2007 8:15 PM


--------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by crashfrog, posted 03-18-2007 8:15 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Chiroptera, posted 03-18-2007 8:57 PM ICdesign has not replied
 Message 23 by DrJones*, posted 03-18-2007 8:58 PM ICdesign has not replied
 Message 25 by NosyNed, posted 03-18-2007 9:03 PM ICdesign has not replied
 Message 26 by crashfrog, posted 03-18-2007 9:06 PM ICdesign has replied
 Message 36 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-19-2007 6:35 AM ICdesign has not replied
 Message 41 by GDR, posted 03-19-2007 10:07 AM ICdesign has not replied
 Message 43 by Larni, posted 03-19-2007 11:56 AM ICdesign has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 19 of 304 (390142)
03-18-2007 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by ICdesign
03-18-2007 8:11 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by ICdesign, posted 03-18-2007 8:11 PM ICdesign has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by ICdesign, posted 03-18-2007 9:44 PM ringo has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 20 of 304 (390145)
03-18-2007 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by ICdesign
03-18-2007 8:01 PM


quote:
I measure the "intelligence' of a design by how complicated it
was to achieve the goal. When a feature of the body has to have many
functions working together to achieve the feature- and each functions
design is complex in and of itself- and everything has to have an exact order or it won't work at all, I call that intelligent design.
So, was this intelligently designed?:
It meets all of your criteria.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by ICdesign, posted 03-18-2007 8:01 PM ICdesign has not replied

anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 21 of 304 (390146)
03-18-2007 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Jon
03-18-2007 8:39 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Jon, posted 03-18-2007 8:39 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Jon, posted 03-18-2007 9:06 PM anastasia has not replied
 Message 49 by Parasomnium, posted 03-19-2007 7:16 PM anastasia has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 304 (390147)
03-18-2007 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by ICdesign
03-18-2007 8:49 PM


quote:
I haven't studied the theory of evolution much because I disagree 100%
with its claims.
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:
I will never believe something came from nothing without the help of God.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by ICdesign, posted 03-18-2007 8:49 PM ICdesign has not replied

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 23 of 304 (390148)
03-18-2007 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by ICdesign
03-18-2007 8:49 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by ICdesign, posted 03-18-2007 8:49 PM ICdesign has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Chiroptera, posted 03-19-2007 9:35 AM DrJones* has not replied

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


Message 24 of 304 (390150)
03-18-2007 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by NosyNed
03-18-2007 8:30 PM


Re: Design Quality
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by NosyNed, posted 03-18-2007 8:30 PM NosyNed has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 25 of 304 (390151)
03-18-2007 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by ICdesign
03-18-2007 8:49 PM


Fingers in ears
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by ICdesign, posted 03-18-2007 8:49 PM ICdesign has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 26 of 304 (390152)
03-18-2007 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by ICdesign
03-18-2007 8:49 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by ICdesign, posted 03-18-2007 8:49 PM ICdesign has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by ICdesign, posted 03-18-2007 9:55 PM crashfrog has replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 304 (390153)
03-18-2007 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by anastasia
03-18-2007 8:57 PM


That's about the point I was making. IC's misconceptions about evolution are all based on his/her own arbitrary crap.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by anastasia, posted 03-18-2007 8:57 PM anastasia has not replied

ICdesign
Member (Idle past 4797 days)
Posts: 360
From: Phoenix Arizona USA
Joined: 03-10-2007


Message 28 of 304 (390157)
03-18-2007 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by ringo
03-18-2007 8:49 PM


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 forms
that 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 have
semidry (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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by ringo, posted 03-18-2007 8:49 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Coragyps, posted 03-18-2007 10:02 PM ICdesign has not replied
 Message 33 by ringo, posted 03-19-2007 12:21 AM ICdesign has not replied
 Message 34 by Doddy, posted 03-19-2007 4:52 AM ICdesign has not replied
 Message 48 by Parasomnium, posted 03-19-2007 5:56 PM ICdesign has not replied

ICdesign
Member (Idle past 4797 days)
Posts: 360
From: Phoenix Arizona USA
Joined: 03-10-2007


Message 29 of 304 (390159)
03-18-2007 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by crashfrog
03-18-2007 9:06 PM


back to my opening statement please
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by crashfrog, posted 03-18-2007 9:06 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by crashfrog, posted 03-18-2007 10:06 PM ICdesign has replied
 Message 32 by Coragyps, posted 03-18-2007 10:07 PM ICdesign has not replied
 Message 75 by anglagard, posted 03-19-2007 10:26 PM ICdesign has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 30 of 304 (390160)
03-18-2007 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by ICdesign
03-18-2007 9:44 PM


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.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by ICdesign, posted 03-18-2007 9:44 PM ICdesign 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