Intelligent Design Theory Solution

If Im not dreaming, this is extracted from a recent work by J. M. van der Dennen, whose long articles are mainly on the evolution of societal structure. Id reccomend that the last edition of Colbert is about as final a say in such developmental matters as any.

farmerman wrote:

real life said

Quote:

So an organism might develop some partial eye structures, for instance, for no apparent use and retain them for many generations until additional structures show up to make them useful? How lucky of them. [Laughing]

.
real life has the market cornered on being obtuse, (I rather believe that hes sharp enough, he just wants to avoid information that disagrees with a" real life" worldview

I know. His obvious dodging is getting very tedious. His questions took a more thoughtful path for a while there, and I had hope that we might actually explore some valid points, but every time we come down to the heart of an issue (where philosophical stances must be defined), he see's the corner he's being backed into an squirts away on some meaningless dodge.

Farmerman wants us to believe that complex structures such as the eye have evolved not once, but MANY times under just this sort of situation. Time and again, partial structures 'showed up' , having no purpose or function and were retained for many generations until additional structures also 'appeared'

As you might recall, if you review the thread you'll see it was NOT me that introduced the topic of Irreducible Complexity. But I'm happy to discuss it.

This magic moment, we are told, is the best explanation science can come up with to explain why we have eyes ( and by extension, everything else . It all works the same way, doncha know?).

Only a zealot, or one totally ignorant of any scientific literature would refute
the fossil evidence of features that , once present, sit and wait as vestigial organs until th environment finds them to be an advantage. (cf, wings, mouth parts, antennae, segmented bodies stc).

In all these years practicing , I never put it together that a LAw is best described as a single equation, yer right rosborne. One cool one is on your talley board from me whenever we meet.

Whether they quoted van der Dennen without giving proper attribution or not, I'll let you decide.

Quote:

Only a zealot, or one totally ignorant of any scientific literature would refute
the fossil evidence of features that , once present, sit and wait as vestigial organs until th environment finds them to be an advantage. (cf, wings, mouth parts, antennae, segmented bodies stc).

What vestigual organs do I have? If I am the climax of evolution, should I have a lot?

However, contrary to what one is apt to read in anti-evolutionary literature, there is currently no evidence demonstrating that the appendix, as a separate organ, has a specific immune function in humans (Judge and Lichtenstein 2001; Dasso et al. 2000; Williams and Myers 1994, pp. 5, 26-29). To date, all experimental studies of the function of an appendix (other than routine human appendectomies) have been exclusively in rabbits and, to a lesser extent, rodents. Currently it is unclear whether the lymphoid tissue in the human appendix performs any specialized function apart from the much larger amount of lymphatic tissue already distributed throughout the gut. Most importantly with regard to vestigiality, there is no evidence from any mammal suggesting that the hominoid vermiform appendix performs functions above and beyond those of the lymphoid-rich caeca of other primates and mammals that lack distinct appendixes.

What vestigual organs do I have? If I am the climax of evolution, should I have a lot?

Now where did that bloated head of yours get the idea that you are the "climax of evolution". There's no "goal" to evolution, no "top of the mountain." There's no one organism is more "climactic" that any other.

I don't know much about it (so please forgive my ignorance) but isn't Natural Selection the process of the "fittest" beings remaining; the rest falling by the wayside? If so, would not that make man the current "climax" of evolution?

real life says

Quote:

Farmerman wants us to believe that complex structures such as the eye have evolved not once, but MANY times under just this sort of situation. Time and again, partial structures 'showed up' , having no purpose or function and were retained for many generations until additional structures also 'appeared'

Once again incorrect and a misrepresentation of what I said.Youve connected what I said and what someone else has said. Im used to that type of arguments from Creationists. Its classic.
Both what I and rosborne said are correct, what youve done is tried to conjoin them as afoul conclusion.

Only a zealot, or one totally ignorant of any scientific literature would refute
the fossil evidence of features that , once present, sit and wait as vestigial organs until th environment finds them to be an advantage. (cf, wings, mouth parts, antennae, segmented bodies stc).

Also the multiple evolution of many solutions to serve a single need by many diverse organisms is also true. (eyes brain, digestion, circulatory system, exoskeletons etc).

appendix, coccyx (the so called "tail-bone"), tonsils, wisdom teeth, and my favorite.... male nipples. I know the argumetns against these vestigial organs so don't bother posting it.

And yes I know about Bierman's study that 84% of patients he had suffering from hodgkin's disease had no appendix blah blah blah.

No. It makes *every* living thing, the current climax of evolution.

Rosborne979 wrote:

No. It makes *every* living thing, the current climax of evolution.

My capability for intricate thought and emotion doesn't put me ahead of a single-celled organism? .......wierd

thunder_runner32 wrote:

Rosborne979 wrote:

No. It makes *every* living thing, the current climax of evolution.

My capability for intricate thought and emotion doesn't put me ahead of a single-celled organism? .......wierd

Not everything is about you Thunder. Nor is everything about Humanity.

Just because an organism is smarter, or more complex, doesn't make it a "climax" of evolution. It just makes you smarter and more complex.

The fact that you are smarter doesn't matter to a shark, which survives very well using teeth and tail. And it doesn't matter to a Hummingbird which doesn't need calculus to sip a flower. Evolution as a process doesn't care that you are aware, or can think. It only matters that you are alive, but shark and bird can claim that success as well. So how can you say you're a climax to a process which measures success only by survival.

Evolution is an ongoing process, not a race to be won.

If evolution only measures success by survival, would it be true that any actions of humans that negatively impact other species are justified if they help insure our survival?

Would the same be true of any actions of humans that negatively impact other humans?

I'm glad you have an open mind... Rolling Eyes

If evolution only measures success by survival, would it be true that any actions of humans that negatively impact other species are justified if they help insure our survival?

My capability for intricate thought and emotion doesn't put me ahead of a single-celled organism? .......wierd

Would the same be true of any actions of humans that negatively impact other humans?

real life wrote:

If evolution only measures success by survival, would it be true that any actions of humans that negatively impact other species are justified if they help insure our survival?

Not to evolution. Evolution doesn't care, it's just a process. You're treating it like some kind of mandate to create a human (as judged by some outside entity). Who is doing the "justifying" in your mind?

real life wrote:

Would the same be true of any actions of humans that negatively impact other humans?

Nice of you to follow up your first question with one which implies a previous answer. In court that's called leading the witness. In your case it's more like you're leading yourself.

If you're getting at something, why not just come out and say it.

Lol if it ensures our survival then yes negative impacts on other species are fine. That's how some animals go extinct. It's not evolution when we whip out a .22 and go deer huntin' though.