3
   

Intelligent Design Theory Solution

 
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Sep, 2005 11:30 pm
farmerman wrote:

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.


The quote was from University of Michigan Museum of Zoology web page http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/topics/mammal_anatomy/jaws_and_ears.html

Whether they quoted van der Dennen without giving proper attribution or not, I'll let you decide.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Sep, 2005 11:52 pm
rosborne979 wrote:
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.


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.

It states the obvious, as I mentioned. Organisms have structures and processes that depend on other structures and processes to be in place for them to work properly.

Evolution paints itself into a corner by suggesting that structures develop haphazardly by means of sheer blind chance, and even then only a little at a time. So that even after many generations and the completed structure is there, the required processes and structures which support and maintain it are not necessarily there yet because they too have to develop by blind chance , little by little.

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' ( and you accuse Creationists of Poofism ! ) out of nowhere, for no reason, by sheer blind chance.

Somehow these various partial structures (since they just "happened" to evolve right next to each other ) melded themselves into an incredibly complex and finely tuned structure such as the eye.

(Kinda reminds me of the Reese's Peanut Butter cup commercials way back. Remember the guy carrying the chocolate and the gal carrying the peanut butter always collided "Hey you got chocolate on my peanut butter" "Hey you got peanut butter on my chocolate" , to discover 'hey these taste great together' and thus the candy apparently evolved also. )

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?).
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Sep, 2005 05:42 am
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).


Youre taking up and joining of Intelligent Design arguments and Creationist arguments means one of two things.

1You dont understand the almost mutual exclusivity between the two concepts by their proponents or

2Your trying to cobble an argument that has some components o both , and your failing nicely.

At least the IDers stipulate to the tons of evidence and dont deny that evolution occurs (read Page 5 of Mike Behes "DARWIN"S BLACK BOX"). Thats why the Creationists have major discomfort with he and Dembski's views.


.

Quote:
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.

And the reason for this statement is?

Quote:
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?).


This is exactly the mold in which ID works. "First a Miracle Happens" I hope science is a hobby with you because you dont have the objectivity thing down pat. I argue from evidenc only. You argue with absolutely no evidence at hand, and then you deinvent that which already exists. Your more an alchemist.
0 Replies
 
thunder runner32
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Sep, 2005 08:06 am
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?
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Sep, 2005 09:21 am
farmerman wrote:
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.


I owe you at least that many Smile
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Sep, 2005 02:53 pm
real life said
Quote:
Whether they quoted van der Dennen without giving proper attribution or not, I'll let you decide.
Actually it was the other way around. van der Dennen copied a whole bunch of that Mich zoo post without any quotes. Mich was copywrighted in 97 and van der Dennens was 2004.

van der Dennen made this huge paper from bits of others work and he didnt even have a bibliog. Damn Dutch.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Sep, 2005 03:08 pm
thunder_runner32 wrote:
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?


I dunno - this seems a fair question to me. Any evolution experts wanna field it?
0 Replies
 
El-Diablo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Sep, 2005 03:56 pm
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.

Quote:
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.

Source

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.

Quote:

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.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Sep, 2005 05:11 pm
Quote:
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?
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Sep, 2005 06:37 pm
snood wrote:
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?


No. It makes *every* living thing, the current climax of evolution.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Sep, 2005 10:59 pm
farmerman wrote:
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).



Not sure why you think you are misquoted here when you then seem to restate the points I had just made.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2005 06:47 am
In your mind, perhaps any mis- interpretation is possible.
0 Replies
 
thunder runner32
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2005 07:42 am
Quote:
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.


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

Quote:
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
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2005 03:30 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2005 03:47 pm
rosborne979 wrote:
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?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2005 04:01 pm
evolution doesnt imply complexity, just variety.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2005 04:24 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
El-Diablo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2005 05:16 pm
Quote:
I'm glad you have an open mind... Rolling Eyes


You fool. My statement obviously meant I have seen both sides of the argument and lean a certain direction. Don't dare lecture me on having an open mind. I almost always look at both sides before making final judgment. One reason why im a moderate not leaning to one political party but that's for another thread.

Trust me I don't think appendix function in the body (if indeed it was put there by god) would be just to fight one type of disease in Hodgkin's disease. As far as I'm concerned the vestigiality of the appendix has not been fully disproven. Some data is coming forth that the appendix also helps prevent certain types of cancer etc.. so that may change.

Quote:
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?


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.

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


My my you have an ego Laughing

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

Rolling Eyes [sarcasm]Well I'll be darned, that darn evolutionary theory is wrong because it says that darn whites can kill off them negroes[/sarcasm]
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2005 06:13 pm
rosborne979 wrote:
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.


The second question "would the same be true....?" would apply equally whether you responded in the affirmative or not.

I thought it was pretty plain. But alright, if you need it said in a simpler way, does the end justify the means?

Can we justify any act in the name of evolution because it is in our own self interest and therefore will help insure our own survival, etc ?

If evolution is the law of the universe, can we blame anyone for acting in accordance with it, no matter how heinous the act?
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2005 06:18 pm
El-Diablo wrote:

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.



Well maybe I sell the parts to feed my family, and maybe it's not deer, but rhino or maybe some rare species, but it makes me a lot of dough to feed the household.

Justifiable?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/25/2021 at 10:19:54