unintelligent design.

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by npetreley


What, you mean like Rufus' criticism of someone using "their" instead of "there"? That kind of insult?

Ohh, I made fun of a troll. I fell soo bad....

 

[LouisBooth]

"It would be better for humans if we didn't grow them. "

Okay, I disagree. for me wisdome teeth so far has been a great time of patience, or do you think physical things don't have a other then physical reason for being there?

"The recurrent laryngeal nerve. I would have a hard time justifying the extra material necessary to loop it around the aorta. That goes hextuple for giraffe design. "

Okay, so can someone survive without this?

"Curvy backbone. When experimenting with the new "bipedal" gait, I might have kept the quadruped body plan while I worked out the ankles and knees. I would have re-engineered the vertebral column to accomodate bipedalism before I took my new bipedal models to market though.
"

Can you see an animal with this description of trait?

"Evolution predicts them and explains them elegantly and simply"

From my readings I would agree, but it vastly streches when put to the test on many many many many other areas.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Okay name the areas Louis Booth, lets discuss this and not make it another of your hit and run insultings.

And before we thow away evolution for you because of its "many" problems you can give us another model that has even better predictive powers and matches the evidence even better.

Do creationists also go to cookouts and whine that everyone else is cooking wrong while never bothering to light their own grill as their children starve to death?

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"It would be better for humans if we didn't grow them. "

Okay, I disagree. for me wisdome teeth so far has been a great time of patience, or do you think physical things don't have a other then physical reason for being there?

Thankfully we have good dentists nowadays, so that wisdom teeth have become a cup half-full: a means of developing patience. I personally would have preferred learning patience another way, but I suppose the physical harm done by impaction of wisdom teeth must far outweigh the benefits they confer as a teacher of patience.

Who gets the point for this one? I think I am going to mark it down for my team.

"The recurrent laryngeal nerve. I would have a hard time justifying the extra material necessary to loop it around the aorta. That goes hextuple for giraffe design. "

Okay, so can someone survive without this?

I imagine a person or animal could survive without a laryngeal nerve, although the nerve is there to perform an adaptive function. Strictly on an economy of design basis, though, a good engineer wouldn't add extra material so that they could loop one of them around the aorta. Particularly when they have to add 15 feet of material to do this in giraffes. 

"Curvy backbone. When experimenting with the new "bipedal" gait, I might have kept the quadruped body plan while I worked out the ankles and knees. I would have re-engineered the vertebral column to accomodate bipedalism before I took my new bipedal models to market though.
"
Can you see an animal with this description of trait?

Humans and quadruped mammals share a curvy vertebral column. It is generally a problem only for certain adaptations, such as bipedalism.  

"Evolution predicts them and explains them elegantly and simply"

From my readings I would agree, but it vastly streches when put to the test on many many many many other areas.

Ok... Care to discuss them?

 

[1bad350]

maybee after adam sinned and god no longer wanted people to live 900+ years he broke our vitamin c chain.

you can prove absoultely everything with science, but at the same time not prove anything....
of corse your therorys prove each other, i mean god did not say that humans bats and dolphins were related, scientists did, this proves nothing.

 

[chickenman]

and god also broke chimpanzee's vitamin c gene in the same places?

 

[Stormy]

Chickenman: We as Christians do not have all the answers but neither does anyone else. If Science truly understood how God created all that he did then they also would be able to create. But no... At best all we can do is duplicate.

God did not create us to be perfect. No Christian as ever said that he did. Our human bodies are flawed... everyone who owns one will agree.

As the years of our life pass...Our eyes will deteriorate... our hair will gray... we will lose muscle mass... teeth may full out along with our hair... brain activity will weaken.... Etc. etc. We are a mess... not perfect at all! Add to that our susceptibility to illness, disease, and accidents and you will see how truly imperfect we are!

Now why would God make us this way?

Because.. Our bodies are meant to live a time... age ... and die.

This is God's plan.

To the Atheist death is though to be the end.

To a Christian death is but a new beginning.

It troubles me that people are more concerned to understand a body that is discarded than the soul that survives.

 

[WinAce]

And that explains the identical mutation which breaks our and chimps vitamin C gene how, exactly?

This gene is present in all other mammals. It has a big error in ours that makes it incapable of that function. Moreover, we can insert the same errors in functioning genes and they will be broken, as expected. Depending on whether the gene is needed, this can cause a disease or have no ill effect at all.

Now, we've established that this is a broken vitamin C gene. It looks like one, is at the same position as one, and if not for the error would produce it.

Is it considered better design to put a broken radio in a car, or not to put a radio there at all?

You might say 'it might have some other function'. Sure it might, even though numerous tests have never detected one, you can cut it out completely with no ill effects, you can add more mutations to it, etc.

The radio I described might be holding the dashboard up for all we know, but that doesn't make it the most logical design choice because it's first and foremost a radio that doesn't function as a radio.

So, what are we left with as the possible origin of this pseudogene? Either it was somehow placed there broken, identically in both chimps and humans, in such a manner as to deliberately make common ancestry the only reasonable conclusion,

or

the common ancestor of chimps and humans had a vitamin C gene, like all other mammals, and it was subsequently deactivated by known processes of mutation which we can observe in the lab today. Both humans and chimps inherited the identically broken gene.

Which hypothesis perfectly explains this phenomenon of vestigial DNA and actually predicts its occurence as a natural consequence of known processes, and which must be stretched to the breaking point to even accomodate it, much less expect it? Evolution or design?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by chickenman
and god also broke chimpanzee's vitamin c gene in the same places?

If you really want to know if it's broken, fix it and see what happens.

 

[LouisBooth]

"Who gets the point for this one? I think I am going to mark it down for my team. "

So wisdom teeth don't play any part at all in anything huh? I'll ask my dentist.

"Particularly when they have to add 15 feet of material to do this in giraffes. "

Ahh..you mean according to you. Now we can only question things that we can recreate without this adaption, otherwise its just a shot in the dark based on incomplete evideince.

So you think that our inablity to make vit C (am I mistaken but do you say that's what this gene should do? ) makes us an imperfect design?

 

[Jerry Smith]

So you think that our inablity to make vit C (am I mistaken but do you say that's what this gene should do? ) makes us an imperfect design?

Imperfect? I guess that is one way to put it. In "design" terms, "suboptimal" would be a better word. Anyway, the big point on vit C is that the broken gene is shared with the chimpanzee. Similar blueprints for similar functions does not explain this because it is a case of homologous DNA without function - at least not function that requires sequence homology...

 

[LouisBooth]

"at least not function that requires sequence homology..."

That wasn't the point we were talking about now was it? I asked you about what imperfect things you wanted to change. You named this, now can you address my last post in that context?

 

[Jerry Smith]

Louis - actually the vit C gene was not in my list of things I would have changed... But I guess I would have left the whole gene out, or just put in a series of Adenines to fill the space (if that space needed filling for whatever reason.) I wouldn't have put in a gene that would code for vitamin C except for the stop codons in the middle of it. For reasons of economy of design and to avoid arbitrariness.

 

[LouisBooth]

So you think everything must be tight and compact? So you think the atom is a poor design also?

 

[Jerry Smith]

So you think everything must be tight and compact?

Nope.

So you think the atom is a poor design also?

I consider the atom neither poor nor designed. I consider it a collection of particles which interact according to the fundamental laws of nature.

 

[LouisBooth]

"Nope. "

But that is the logic you use behind saying that nerve is too long. So either 1. you are misusing your logic or 2. those are not good "reasons".

 

[Jerry Smith]

No, that isn't the logic behind syaing that the nerve is longer than it needs to be.

According to common design principles, one should not use more materials than are necessary to implement the intended function. By standard design principles, the better design requires fewer materials than a functionally equivalent design.

Without using standard desing principles, it is impossible to detect design in nature, and absurd to attribute genetic or morphological homology to design - since we cannot recognize design apart from the design principles we are familiar with.

 

[LouisBooth]

So now you think that because of "more" materials it is a design flaw? Who is to say this isn't the right amount and less would cause it to misfunction? Again, I cite the atom example.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Louis as I said before, and not only to you but to all creationists, bring a better theory to the table that fits the evidence better and has more predictive power.

Otherwise you are just complaining how the family next to you at your picnic is cooking their hamburgers when you haven't even bothered to bring any food for yourself.

 

[LouisBooth]

"Otherwise you are just complaining how the family next to you at your picnic is cooking their hamburgers when you haven't even bothered to bring any food for yourself."

Umm..whatever you say, I think that's a terribly inaccurate analogy. I could say that exact thing to evolutionists.