Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,814 Year: 3,071/9,624 Month: 916/1,588 Week: 99/223 Day: 10/17 Hour: 6/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent (maybe), but far from perfect
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 31 of 91 (51342)
08-20-2003 8:52 AM


(singing) "a post so gooo-o-o-o-d, they posted it twice!"
Sorry.

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Parasomnium, posted 08-20-2003 9:02 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 32 of 91 (51343)
08-20-2003 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Dr Jack
08-20-2003 8:52 AM


I'm the one who is sorry, Mr Jack.
Thanks for the hint.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Dr Jack, posted 08-20-2003 8:52 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 33 of 91 (51346)
08-20-2003 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Parasomnium
08-20-2003 8:49 AM


Hi Parasomnium,
I do get your point...however, in your description you are anthropomorphizing evolution a bit by suggesting "wishing" for the next modification. It is clear that one can "progress" from a simple structure to a more refined and sensitive structure this seems to be rare in evolution i.e. optimizing a function. For example, it is becoming clear that humans are gradually losing olfactory receptor genes and our eyesight is rather poor contrasted with other primates, birth is hindered as a consequence of bipedal locomotion. Should this be called poor design? A solution to a problem is more accurate as it does not imply planning and it also does not imply that it is even a good solution to the problem...just the best that is out there currently.
As to the comment on computer programs and what it means..perhaps it means my email system has been kaputt all day .....and my western blot crapped out ...and my back hurts ...all these poor designs...
Zealot is trying...but get a load of A Christian
quote:
Catholicism preceded Protestantism. Ever tried to convince Protestants that they are the heretics, and not the Catholics?
Robin rules.
Neither group can dance the Batoozy..and Robin had to learn from Adam West aka the real Batman

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Parasomnium, posted 08-20-2003 8:49 AM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Parasomnium, posted 08-20-2003 9:51 AM Mammuthus has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 34 of 91 (51350)
08-20-2003 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Mammuthus
08-20-2003 9:16 AM


Mammuthus writes:
you are anthropomorphizing evolution a bit by suggesting "wishing" for the next modification.
The wishing was done by the unfortunate flying furball after a rather hefty meeting with a treetrunk.
Mammuthus writes:
It is clear that one can "progress" from a simple structure to a more refined and sensitive structure this seems to be rare in evolution i.e. optimizing a function.
Not quite. Moving from a simple structure to a more refined and sensitive structure happens all the time in evolution. Your apprehension of the idea of 'progress' is justified; however equating this movement with optimization of function is unwarranted.
Mammuthus writes:
For example, it is becoming clear that humans are gradually losing olfactory receptor genes and our eyesight is rather poor contrasted with other primates, birth is hindered as a consequence of bipedal locomotion. Should this be called poor design?
No, I'd call it 'once-good-enough-design becoming obsolete or outdated'.
Mammuthus writes:
A solution to a problem is more accurate as it does not imply planning and it also does not imply that it is even a good solution to the problem...just the best that is out there currently.
At least we can agree on that.
Mammuthus writes:
As to the comment on computer programs and what it means..perhaps it means my email system has been kaputt all day .....and my western blot crapped out ...and my back hurts ...all these poor designs...
You have my sympathy...
Mammuthus writes:
Zealot is trying...but get a load of A Christian
Hey! Do you mind?
Mammuthus writes:
Robin had to learn from Adam West aka the real Batman
Hah! Robin was saving the world three times over when Adam West was merely a naughty glint in the eyes of his mother.
Cheers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Mammuthus, posted 08-20-2003 9:16 AM Mammuthus has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 35 of 91 (51353)
08-20-2003 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Mammuthus
08-20-2003 4:14 AM


I am not advocating the position mind you...
Yes, I realize that. I'm mostly just thinking aloud.
we can tell when something is designed by humans i.e. clovis artifacts, Mt. Rushmore etc...
Right, because as humans ourselves we're exposed to the idea of humans making things. And that's how we find out if a thing had been designed, in the past - comparing it to things that are being designed right now.
On the other hand, there's no aspect to a clovis point that you could use to infer the existence of humans if you didn't already know that humans exist. There's no magic design essence that is imparted to those things that are designed, so the answer to your question:
what would indicate it in a natural system.
would be, in my opinion, "nothing at all." There's no part of an object that can tell you it was designed unless you're looking at a part specifically designed for the purpose of telling you it was designed. (The "maker's mark" idea.)
Life is nothing like anything we've ever seen designed. Ergo it seems reasonable to me to assume that it was not designed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Mammuthus, posted 08-20-2003 4:14 AM Mammuthus has not replied

  
joshua221 
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 91 (51382)
08-20-2003 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by MattS
08-07-2003 3:08 PM


quote:
I am new to this forum, but I tend to look at things from a high level. You can bicker about whether this animal, or that biological process, or that organ is likely or not the result of ID. Even though we humans are very complex, and work very well (usually), I can point out any number of serious design flaws that we exhibit.
- For most of human history, and only without recent medical technology, infant mortality was quite high. Who would design something that could reproduce but that whose offspring had a relatively low chance of survival?
- Vital components do not heal to their original state (eyes, teeth, whole limbs)
- Many people have diseases and disorders that have meant certain death if not for recent medical advances (e.g. cancer)
- Vital blood vessels are located precariously close to the surface.
I can go on, but you get the idea. If ID is true, then we might want to rename it SID (somewhat intelligent design), or maybe IFITD (I'll finish it tomorrow design). Maybe we are prototypes - if so I can't wait to see what the final product will look like.
The world was perfect in the ID standpoint, about 6000 years ago before the fall of man. You do not know what you are talking about.
Man was also perfect, Adam, Eve. Well almost perfect, they did sin.
FALL OF MAN STARTED this "imperfectness" that you observe today.
You obviously aren't looking at things from a high level. You need to know where Creationists stand on certain things before making faulty and rather blatant insults towards them.
------------------
"As by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? The number of intermediate links between all living and extinct species must have been inconceivably great!" (emphasis added) -- Charles Darwin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by MattS, posted 08-07-2003 3:08 PM MattS has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Dr Jack, posted 08-20-2003 11:55 AM joshua221 has not replied
 Message 38 by Brian, posted 08-20-2003 12:57 PM joshua221 has not replied
 Message 39 by Dan Carroll, posted 08-20-2003 1:46 PM joshua221 has not replied
 Message 40 by Parasomnium, posted 08-21-2003 3:35 AM joshua221 has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 37 of 91 (51384)
08-20-2003 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by joshua221
08-20-2003 11:43 AM


So, ProphecyExclaimed, you are telling us that every lifeform was, in fact, designed twice. Once for the 'perfect' version and then again for the 'imperfect' version, yes? That life has been designed to be flawed? Correct?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by joshua221, posted 08-20-2003 11:43 AM joshua221 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by randman, posted 06-22-2005 3:11 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 38 of 91 (51386)
08-20-2003 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by joshua221
08-20-2003 11:43 AM


Hi, PE
The world was perfect in the ID standpoint, about 6000 years ago before the fall of man. You do not know what you are talking about.
Your evidence that this was the case?
Man was also perfect, Adam, Eve. Well almost perfect, they did sin.
So you agree then that mankind was not created perfect?
'Almost' perfect is not the same as perfect, why do you think God created an imperfect human and then was miffed because that human made a mistake?
A quote from Gene Roddenberry sums the situation up perfectly:
"We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing, all-powerful God, who creates faulty humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes."
From: http://thewaronfaith.com/atheist_quotes.htm
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by joshua221, posted 08-20-2003 11:43 AM joshua221 has not replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 91 (51391)
08-20-2003 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by joshua221
08-20-2003 11:43 AM


quote:
FALL OF MAN STARTED this "imperfectness" that you observe today.
Then you agree that the human body, as it stands today, is not enough to suggest intelligent design?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by joshua221, posted 08-20-2003 11:43 AM joshua221 has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 40 of 91 (51460)
08-21-2003 3:35 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by joshua221
08-20-2003 11:43 AM


prophecyexclaimed writes:
You need to know where Creationists stand on certain things before making faulty and rather blatant insults towards them.
In the text you quoted I could find no insults, let alone faulty ones. Would you care to point out where MattS has insulted creationists? And could you also specify the faults?
Cheers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by joshua221, posted 08-20-2003 11:43 AM joshua221 has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 41 of 91 (52332)
08-26-2003 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Mammuthus
08-20-2003 4:14 AM


quote:
we can tell when something is designed by humans
Unfortunately not even this is always true.
There are some formations in the oceans (esp. around Japan)
which some marine archeologists claim to be sunken city
remains while others say that they could be naturally formed.
Both have reasonably credible arguments, and a detrmination
is pretty much impossible.
The remains are so ancient, and have been underwater, that any
hope of tool-marks is gone.
One of my problems with evidence of design in bioogical systems
is knowing 'what' has been designed.
I'm not designed (as such) I was born and grew -- so what is it
in biological systems that is claimed to have been
designed?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Mammuthus, posted 08-20-2003 4:14 AM Mammuthus has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 42 of 91 (52339)
08-26-2003 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Parasomnium
08-20-2003 8:49 AM


I've swayed back and forth between thinking of 'intelligent
design' as tautological and not, for exactly the reason
you have mentioned.
As a verb, 'to design' REQUIRES a design intelligence.
This is, I think, why IDists focus on trying to proove that
biological systems were designed -- and therefore intelligently
so.
I think the use of the word 'design' for the end result of natural
processes is more for brevity -- otherwise we'd have to say
something like 'structures developed via natural processes which
have the appearance of design' all the time.
PS: Robin is a quitter -- he left and became Nightwing (which
was just a poor copy of the persona Batman took on in the bottled
city of Kandor) and his replacement (Jason Todd) got beaten to
death by the Joker -- how can Robinism be of any worth?!??

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Parasomnium, posted 08-20-2003 8:49 AM Parasomnium has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Dan Carroll, posted 08-26-2003 12:24 PM Peter has replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 91 (52348)
08-26-2003 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Peter
08-26-2003 11:50 AM


The Robinists lost me when they covered up all those scandals involving the young boys in green speedos.
Me, I'm a strict Millerite, who awaits the Dark Knight's Return. We ordain women as Robins, you know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Peter, posted 08-26-2003 11:50 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Peter, posted 08-27-2003 4:20 AM Dan Carroll has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 44 of 91 (52458)
08-27-2003 4:20 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Dan Carroll
08-26-2003 12:24 PM


quote:
Me, I'm a strict Millerite, who awaits the Dark Knight's Return. We ordain women as Robins, you know.
Yeah, but one slip and ... street pizza

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Dan Carroll, posted 08-26-2003 12:24 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

  
Pro Terra
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 91 (218519)
06-21-2005 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by MattS
08-07-2003 3:08 PM


RE: Faults
Dear MattS,
Now note that this is only a suggestion, but where would we be with out the ability to improve. AND a lot of diseases are because of our modern society.
Pro Terra

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by MattS, posted 08-07-2003 3:08 PM MattS 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