too intelligent to actually be intelligent?

I think Nator's point is that she perceives flaws in the overall design. Rather than getting into an argument with her about the specifics of her points, (which I'm not qualified to do anyway), and getting right off the subject I was just suggesting that the overall result of the design is outstandingly successful.Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

quote:

---

Why does a non-directed evolution that is based on survival of the fittest produce any of those things you mentioned.

---

Becasue they are "good enough" designs, with lots of compromise and tradeoffs.Certainly sub-optimal, to say the least, though.

quote:

---

The answer to either of our questions is that there is no answer. We don't know.

---

Sure we do. Evolution produces "good enough" design with lots of trade-offs and compromise.We have crossover air and food pipes because that construction allows for complex speech while also making us vulnerable to choking and aspirating food and liquid into our lungs.Complex speech was a huge benefit to humans' survival, even if we lost individuals to choking. Remember, most individuals don't choke, and most of those that do, don't die. however, we are far more prone to choking than the majority of other mammals.Human birth is so difficult and dangerous in large part because we developed such incredibly large brains that made it difficult to push babies' heads out of the cervix. Large brains, however, are a very important survival benefit to the species.Lastly, the reason that we have sharp bone ridges on the inside of our skulls is simply because the shape of the skull matches the shape of the brain. There is no tradeoff here. It's just that the everyday life of your average savanna-dwelling homo Sapien didn't involve travelling in vehicles that go 50 mph and bounce our brains around our skulls when they stop suddenly.Your answer "we don't know", is merely a copout on your part.I guess we can conclude that your "intelligent" designer isn't a very good designer, and in the case of the skull ridges, he's pretty much an asshole.

quote:

---

I would however point out that in spite of those things life flourishes on this planet.

---

Right.In spite of.In spite of a lot of barely good enough design, rife with compromise and trade-offs, life flourishes.Of course, life also goes extinct at a very rapid rate on this planet and always has.If the designer is so great, why do extinctions happen at all?

quote:

---

So, as much as you like to find perceived flaws in the design it would appear to me that the overall result is more than just a little impressive.

---

The point is, you have not shown that "intelligence" is responsible for the design of anything in the natural world.

This is where it gets interesting, ICDESIGN. You see, you are making a prediction based on a theory. That's one of the things that theories are for: making predictions. You predict that, if the theory is true, we should see a lot of lifeforms with major malfunctions.Now, people here have been saying that we do see this in nature, and indeed, a lot of things can and do go wrong in the making of new creatures. But I think that's not what you meant. You said "lifeforms", and I think you meant that there should be a lot of extant species with major malfunctions. You think there should be whole groups of creatures, all the same, all going about their business, and all with the same malfunctions, am I right?On the assumption that I am, I think we can agree that, in fact, this is not what we are seeing. Therefore we should conclude that the theory, the one we have based our prediction on, is in fact false. We are doing science here. And we are progressing nicely, because we have just disillusioned ourselves from a theory that isn't true.But now there's a slight problem. We may agree that the theory we've based our prediction on is false, but I don't think we'll agree on what that theory actually is. You think it's the theory of evolution you've proven false, but I think it was actually just a misconception of it that went down the drain. And it's hardly surprising that you should get the theory of evolution wrong, because, by your own admission, you haven't studied it very well.So, for your benefit, allow me to explain something. One of the core elements of the theory of evolution is natural selection, also often described as the "survival of the fittest". It means that only the best adapted species thrive. Now, a species that has major malfunctions would hardly qualify as the "best adapted", would it? So, what the theory of evolution really predicts is that we should not, repeat not, see species with major malfunctions. And that's exactly the case: what we see is well-adapted species instead. I am sorry to hear that. Have you tried using some moisturizing facial cream? (Sorry, I am not mocking you, I just couldn't resist this one. It's a language thing.) This is easy. Try to see natural selection as a sieve. The wrong answers are the larger grains of sand and the right answers are the smaller ones. Looking at it this way, what you are asking is: how is it possible that only the smaller grains of sand fall through the sieve? Doesn't the answer seem a lot less baffling all of a sudden?I really hope you see the points I am trying to make here. You and I have no quarrel, and I am only trying to help you understand what you are fighting against. Do with it what you will.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

My starfish beats your Pleco, because its mouth is its bottom. If it could talk, it would be like a creationist.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

There is no point getting into a debate about anatomy with you as I am singularly unqualified to do so. Call it a cop-out if you want but it ain't my field. I have never claimed that I have shown that "intelligence" is responsible for anything. You haven't shown that it isn't. You've expressed an opinion just as I have. All we can do is come to our own conclusions, based on our knowledge and perceptions, about why we or anything exists. It isn't science. It is philosophy and theology.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Will you look at those two statements, GDR?Will you just look at them?In the first, you base your argument on the claim that "we" don't know the answer. In the second you admit that you are "singularly unqualified" to know the answer and that knowing the answer "ain't your field".So who are you to pronounce on what "we" know?It's not even the Argument From Ignorance --- it's the Argument From Personal Ignorance. What you don't know becomes what "we" don't know --- about a subject in which you are "singularly unqualified" in your own words.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I have been answering questions Frog. For example you asked
me to define intelligence (which I can understand your not
knowing) and I gave you my definition. Now you answer the
same question. If the human body isn't an intelligent design
then you tell me what an example of an intelligent design
is, in your opinion of course.A bit later I will tell you exactly what I'm doing here OK?
IC

Something that people made.

I have a few questions/observations, and they are not indicative of any particular personal stance on ID, so no stereo typing allowed. First one; although the human body is 'sub-optimal' it is not necessarily true that we could ourselves conceive of a better 'design'. Only considering birth and brain size, what sort of improvements could you or anyone foresee in nature that would solve all problems, with no trade-offs? I know that is not a fair question, but we are coming from a position in many cases where IDists see the body as finished, and if it is not, there can be a continued advance in 'design' in ways that we intelligent beings can't even predict.So are we looking at 'best'? And if not, I will defend GDR a little, since he may not have been saying that he doesn't know what the anatomical functions of those particular flaws are, but he has not even realized he is asking why natural selection would have 'ended' there.In other words there may be an assumption that we are already viewing the best result of natural selection possible, rather than, to date. Hence the question 'why' did so many flaws get through? See? GDR may know the things you posted. They are fairly common knowledge items, but s/he isn't sure why nature selected imperfection rather than a 'better' design. It is another version of not understanding the big picture, or how it works entirely. And, if design ISCEEN, it is always assumed to be God doing the designing. God who is perfect, omniscient, powerful. There is in reality no reason to assume perfection in creation, maybe only 'goodness', as in the Bible.
There is likewise no reason to assume that God can't do better, didn't choose to, has elsewhere, or is still designing. I don't believe that the flaws and trade-offs in themselves rule out design, but only force us into a different view of the designer or its motivation. Biblically speaking, the body was already known to be flawed, and this was accounted for by the 'fall' etc...with no compromise to its 'designer' status.So, I am not promoting one view or another, but it is not quite relevent to talk of flaw as ruling out intelligent design. Maybe perfect design on behalf of the creative being is ruled out, maybe a perfect intelligence of the being is ruled out, maybe we are just how the being chose to make us. Maybe not. I just think there are more important ways to discover if we were designed than by making assumptions about God and how we think God should have done things. That is afterall very unscientific.

Being marsupials? Tiny baby and a year in the pouch?

My point is that I am not prepared to debate anatomy. Nator's point is that there are flaws in the design, hence no intelligent designer. I merely pointed out that it seems to me that if we have non-directed evolution occurring that is largely based on "survival of the fittest" then the flaws should have been bred out of us by now.Edited by GDR, : sp

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Jonicus,
Thank you for your kind and respectful feed back. One of
the many reasons that keep me from being able to believe
evolution happened as claimed is why aren't their a bunch
of the malformed life forms in the fossil record. I could
understand how they wouldn't survive- but shouldn't their
be a multitude of things that a non-thinking process
of natural selection got way wrong along the way?
IC

1) Fossilization is rare. The odds of a single individual being fossilized are fairly low.2) If an organism is too deformed, it doesn't even gestate. Miscarriage is the usual result.3) There are plenty of bizzarely deformed individuals, but it's important to remember that evolution doesn't proceed by gross deformity, but by subtle changes to body structure over a very long time.4) It's also important to remember that natural selection doesn't create changes in organisms; it selects among variant individuals to allow the best-adapted organisms to reproduce. Random mutation is the process that is responsible, largely, for the variation in individuals that natural selection acts on. Does that make sense?

==================================================
Something that people made.
=================================================Thats it? I know you could do better if you try.
What is an example of an intelligent design and
what makes it an intelligent design other it being
"Something that people made"
ID

Crashfrog,When I ask someone else a question, I'll thank you
to stay out of it and let the person I asked corrispond
with me. Thank you.
IC