unintelligent design.

Jerry Smith · Jul 24, 2002

Louis, there are differences, yes, in application. In principle, it is not impossible (as many would like for us to believe) to scientifically assess evidence of past events and learn about them. In practice, it is being done. In practice the methods differ somewhat from criminal forensics.

The thing about "tastes like chicken" is that taste is not a structure that is responsible for replication of living things. DNA is. That's one reason that DNA homology is such an important (new, powerful, and expected from the theory before DNA could be sequenced) piece of evidence for evolution. The reasons it is not good evidence for a common designer are discussed throughout this thread.

Jerry Smith · Jul 25, 2002

Why not? We didn't have a clue that the appendix was useful until relatively recently.

Yet, the appendix remains vestigial. It is diminished in size and function compared to its structure and function in organisms that depend on it. And, while it has a function, the same function might be served equally well with something that was not an appendix... an extra length of intestine would serve. The same question comes to mind, why does the human design borrow its structures from the design of other organisms (in which those structures perform a different or greater function)? Why does not the human design use structures uniquely designed to suit human needs?

LouisBooth · Jul 25, 2002

I think its pretty funny how evolustionists still put humans at the top of the scale too...If you take that view, in function, we aren't...are we?

Jerry Smith · Jul 26, 2002

I think its pretty funny how evolustionists still put humans at the top of the scale too...If you take that view, in function, we aren't...are we?

Depends on what function. If its terrestrial speed, the cheetah has us beat. If it is dexterity in climbing trees, any given squirrel is much closer to the top of the scale. Use of language, symbolic representation, and other cognitive abilities? We are are at the top of the scale.

Jerry Smith · Jul 26, 2002

Also, plants are better at photosynthesis than us.

RufusAtticus · Jul 26, 2002

Yeah, and tapeworms are more fertile than us too.
Chimpanzees have larger yarbles.
Bonobos get more sex.

What is so special about humans? We can split the atom. I've never see a tapeworm do that!

seebs · Jul 26, 2002

Originally posted by RufusAtticus

What is so special about humans? We can split the atom. I've never see a tapeworm do that!

Yeah, but they can split *whole tapeworms*.

LouisBooth · Jul 26, 2002

"Depends on what function. "

*sigh* I see the evolutionists can't even think in terms of evolution..survival of course.

Cantuar · Jul 26, 2002

Humans aren't the only species that's managing to survive very impressively. We're certainly making life difficult for other mammals, but a lot of insects and microorganisms are doing great.

npetreley · Jul 27, 2002

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
Yet, the appendix remains vestigial. It is diminished in size and function compared to its structure and function in organisms that depend on it.

Can you explain, in detail, why you imagine this is true? What is it that the appendix does? What is diminished about its function? Which organisms depend on it? What was it before it was an appendix? What animals have a fully functioning pre-appendix, what did it do, and how do you know it is the same organ as the appendix?

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
And, while it has a function, the same function might be served equally well with something that was not an appendix... an extra length of intestine would serve.

How could an extra length of intestine serve the same purpose as the appendix?

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
The same question comes to mind, why does the human design borrow its structures from the design of other organisms (in which those structures perform a different or greater function)? Why does not the human design use structures uniquely designed to suit human needs?

Why do we borrow design from a car in order to design a truck?

npetreley · Jul 27, 2002

Originally posted by LouisBooth
I think its pretty funny how evolustionists still put humans at the top of the scale too...If you take that view, in function, we aren't...are we?

That makes the roach the supreme life on earth, doesn't it? Or perhaps cyanobacteria. I'll bet neither one believes in evolution, though, so doesn't that make them inferior?

Jerry Smith · Jul 28, 2002

Can you explain, in detail, why you imagine this is true? What is it that the appendix does? What is diminished about its function? Which organisms depend on it? What was it before it was an appendix? What animals have a fully functioning pre-appendix, what did it do, and how do you know it is the same organ as the appendix?

How could an extra length of intestine serve the same purpose as the appendix?

[Removing foot from mouth]
After reviewing the evidence, and I must correct my statements from earlier in this thread. The appendix is not demonstrably vestigial. Apparently it is possessed of lymphatic tissue that does impart a function that is important at some stage of life (whether or not that function is offset by risks of later infection), and does not appear to be degenarate relative to homologous structures in other organisms.

Why do we borrow design from a car in order to design a truck?

That would be a case of similar structure for similar function (in this case, so designed). Most of this thread discusses variant structures for similar function and similar structures for variant function, which is not predicted by design.

Plan 9 · Jul 28, 2002

Jerry, are you saying that form doesn't follow function?

npetreley · Jul 29, 2002

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
[Removing foot from mouth]
After reviewing the evidence, and I must correct my statements from earlier in this thread. The appendix is not demonstrably vestigial. Apparently it is possessed of lymphatic tissue that does impart a function that is important at some stage of life (whether or not that function is offset by risks of later infection), and does not appear to be degenarate relative to homologous structures in other organisms.

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
That would be a case of similar structure for similar function (in this case, so designed). Most of this thread discusses variant structures for similar function and similar structures for variant function, which is not predicted by design.

Not predicted by design? Who is doing the predicting?

Funny how easily you turn off your evolutionist imagination when it comes to design. You can imagine that an Ambulocetus is a relative of the whale (a stretch that would impress even Barney), but you can't think of a real-world example of design that fits this description?

How about a radio and a voltmeter? Two different integrated circuits? Heck, you can even use the very same transistor in two or more different ways.

And you want variant structures for similar function? Tubes vs. transistors.

So maybe it's time to remove the other foot...

chickenman · Jul 29, 2002

design cannot explain the shared homology of functionless DNA in humans and primates.

npetreley · Jul 29, 2002

Originally posted by chickenman
design cannot explain the shared homology of functionless DNA in humans and primates.

Prove it.

chickenman · Jul 29, 2002

Design implies function or purpose.

homology in non coding regions and processed pseudogenes can therefore not be due to design, because they are functionless (unless you can show that every base pair that is shared between humans and chimpanzees confers function)

Jerry Smith · Jul 29, 2002

Originally posted by Plan 9
Jerry, are you saying that form doesn't follow function?

Plan 9 - Yes & no. Take a dolphin's fin. It's overall form follows its use as an adaptation for swimming. It's underlying structure depends on its evolutionary history. Look at a dolphin fin and then look at a swordfish fin. You will see that the swordfish fin is similar in structure to the fins of other teleost fish. You will see that the dolphin fin has all of the same bones as the human arm and hand, with the differences being in their porportional size.

Same when you look at a bird's wing, and a bat's wing. The bird's wing follows the structure of therapod front limbs. The bat's wing follows the structure of mammalian front limbs.

Jerry Smith · Jul 29, 2002

How about a radio and a voltmeter? Two different integrated circuits? Heck, you can even use the very same transistor in two or more different ways.

And you want variant structures for similar function? Tubes vs. transistors.

Yes, of course - design can explain anything on an ad hoc basis. Why do we have similar structures as chimps? Similar structure for similar function! Why do bats have similar wing structures a mammal front limb structure? Different structure for similar function!

The advocates of the design 'hypothesis' use one design principle to explain homology at the genus level, then use a radically different design principle to explain homology at the class level (this one closely resembling the "design principle" of field improvisation/aka jury rigging). Then they turn around and employ a third design principle to explain non-homology at the order level (this one resembling an economic design principle like "if we can't afford transistors, we can make this work with tubes"). It is completely ad hoc and tells us nothing about what we should hope to find if we cut open the wing of a swimming bird (like the penguin... answer - bird wing/therapod limb bone structure).

Evolution predicts all of these features with the single economical theory of descent with modification. It does not have to be stretched or changed to accomodate the data. It does not rely on ad hoc explanations to avoid falsification.

By the way, which "design principles" explain the broken vitamin C gene? Which explain bacteria that have irreducibly complex mechanisms specifically for defeating the irreducibly complex human immune system? Which design principle explains the telomeric regions in the middle of human chromosome 2? Which one explains goosebumps? Which one explains the fact that my urethra is routed through the middle of my prostate?

Plan 9 · Jul 29, 2002

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

Plan 9 - Yes & no. Take a dolphin's fin. It's overall form follows its use as an adaptation for swimming. It's underlying structure depends on its evolutionary history. Look at a dolphin fin and then look at a swordfish fin. You will see that the swordfish fin is similar in structure to the fins of other teleost fish. You will see that the dolphin fin has all of the same bones as the human arm and hand, with the differences being in their porportional size.

Same when you look at a bird's wing, and a bat's wing. The bird's wing follows the structure of therapod front limbs. The bat's wing follows the structure of mammalian front limbs.

This sounds a great deal more like "yes" to me than "no".  Possibly I'm misunderstanding your post, but I don't even know what questions to ask for clarification.

Perhaps you should start a thread to specifically refute theistic evolutionary theory?

unintelligent design.

Fish out of water

Fish out of water

Well-Known Member

Fish out of water

Fish out of water

PopGen Grad Student

God Made Me A Skeptic

Well-Known Member

Forever England

pumpkin sailor

pumpkin sailor

Fish out of water

Absolutely Elsewhere

pumpkin sailor

evil unamerican

pumpkin sailor

evil unamerican

Fish out of water

Fish out of water

Absolutely Elsewhere

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency