Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 51 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,197 Year: 5,454/9,624 Month: 479/323 Week: 119/204 Day: 19/16 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biological Evidence Against Intelligent Design
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 3004 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 1 of 264 (543962)
01-22-2010 11:45 AM


I propose a discussion on the question,
"What biological evidence is there against Intelligent Design?"
Discussion should center around what we would expect to see in extant species if in fact organisms were designed by an intelligent being? The assumption is that as intelligent beings we should be able to make such an assessment. Then, having made the assessment, it should be relatively easy to identify flaws in design that would suggest that rather than intelligent design we are dealing with some kind of ad hoc mechanism, such as evolution. To simplify things, I suggest that we focus on the human body mostly, but if someone has a really good example from another species - particularly another primate - let us hear it. But in order to not get caught up in the "transitional fossil" argument - which already has a current thread, I would like to stick to existing organisms.
I think Biological Evolution is the best home for this, as ID is usually proposed as an alternative to evolution.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by hooah212002, posted 01-22-2010 1:12 PM deerbreh has replied
 Message 9 by greyseal, posted 01-22-2010 3:32 PM deerbreh has not replied
 Message 19 by Iblis, posted 01-22-2010 10:33 PM deerbreh has not replied
 Message 28 by Trae, posted 01-23-2010 11:20 PM deerbreh has not replied
 Message 77 by nwr, posted 01-27-2010 3:46 PM deerbreh has not replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 3004 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 4 of 264 (543970)
01-22-2010 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by hooah212002
01-22-2010 1:12 PM


Re: Hopefully I'm on track here....
I would start with the human head/neck combination. An intelligent designer would not have made our heads to as proportionally large in comparison to our necks: whiplash is evident.
Good example. I would add also that an intelligent designer would presumably have anticipated motorized travel by these intelligent beings - another reason for not making the head subject to whiplash.
One of my favorite examples is the flying buttresses above the eye teeth. Now if we were saber tooth tigers or even baboons, such support for the eye teeth would make some sense but for the wimpy little eyeteeth in the upper mouth of Homo sapiens such support makes no sense.
Edited by deerbreh, : Correct usage.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by hooah212002, posted 01-22-2010 1:12 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by hooah212002, posted 01-22-2010 2:24 PM deerbreh has replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 3004 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 54 of 264 (544463)
01-26-2010 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by RAZD
01-25-2010 9:50 PM


Re: perhaps still missing the point?
No, the point is that because you can't disprove it, you can't assume it is false. Simple logic dictates that non-invalidated possibilities need to be considered in any complete evaluation.
I am going to try to redirect a bit if I might.
First of all, I did not intend to try to DISPROVE anything. What I asked for in the OP was biological evidence against ID. You CAN have biological evidence against special creation and ID (really one and the same) without having the burden of disproof. Just as we can have lots of biological evidence that supports evolution, yet evolutionary biologists, like all scientists avoid using the term proof. On the other hand we can certainly make a strong case against something like irreducible complexity by looking at the biological evidence. And in so doing we make a strong case against ID because evolution provides a more plausible explanation of the complexity we observe. Plus we can point to lots of biological evidence that only makes sense when viewed through the prism of evolution and thus we accept evolution. The only other alternative is to conjure up a trickster God - one who "plants evidence". The only Intelligent Designer that makes any sense is the one who is either incredibly inept or a cynic who likes to play tricks on people just for amusement. We are not creating and destroying straw men here. The ID proponents have created the argument. All we are doing is showing why, if one considers the biological evidence, it has so little going for it that for all practical purposes we can be confident that it is false.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by RAZD, posted 01-25-2010 9:50 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by RAZD, posted 01-27-2010 10:44 PM deerbreh has not replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 3004 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 242 of 264 (547109)
02-16-2010 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by hooah212002
01-22-2010 2:24 PM


Re: Hopefully I'm on track here....
deerbreh writes:
One of my favorite examples is the flying buttresses above the eye teeth. Now if we were saber tooth tigers or even baboons, such support for the eye teeth would make some sense but for the wimpy little eyeteeth in the upper mouth of Homo sapiens such support makes no sense.
hooah writes:
What? You lost me on this one.
Slide your finger across your upper gums. You will feel a significant bulge above each eyetooth. These bulges are way out of proportion to the size of the eyeteeth. There is absolutely no reason to have such support for the eyeteeth in humans.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by hooah212002, posted 01-22-2010 2:24 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by hooah212002, posted 02-18-2010 11:28 PM deerbreh has not replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 3004 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 246 of 264 (547244)
02-17-2010 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by Adminnemooseus
02-16-2010 7:47 PM


Re: What the hell is "HGT"?
Isn't horizontal gene transfer just a fancy name for SEX?
(Yes, I know that HGT likely usually refers to gene transfer without sex).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Adminnemooseus, posted 02-16-2010 7:47 PM Adminnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by Taq, posted 02-17-2010 4:33 PM deerbreh has replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 3004 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 248 of 264 (547330)
02-18-2010 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by Taq
02-17-2010 4:33 PM


Re: What the hell is "HGT"?
Ok I had my tongue firmly in my cheek.....
horizontal (lying down) + gene transfer = sex

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Taq, posted 02-17-2010 4:33 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-18-2010 10:23 AM deerbreh 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