Evolution answers

[Sideroxylon]

Riiight...the only practical value in what a paleontologist might say is in being able to quote-mine it so you can say that what paleontologists say is irrelevant. Justinitime, you're a hoot.

I'm getting a few chuckles from these antics.

 

[turingtest]

I have put literally minutes of thought into it, and I am now ready to present my alternative theory to evolution, one which explains all the sub-optimal anomalies we see in nature.

The theory posits that God created the Universe, but put most of his efforts into some planet other than Earth, say, Rigel VII. The life on that planet is AWESOME. Efficient, highly homeostatic, and with sleek, eye-popping design. God put a lot of thought into that planet's biosphere, and it shows. (Not to us, though. We'll never see it.)

Meanwhile, God delegated the work of creating life on backwater worlds such as Earth to a team of elves, or something. These elves were definitely not the "A" team of bio-designers. One of them screwed up and created an eye that inverted the image. Rather than fix this problem (it was nearly five o'clock), they threw together a quick kludge whereby extra processing power from the brain turns the image right-side up. It works OK, and as long as no one looks at their work too closely, no one will be the wiser.

Another elf routed the esophagus of the giant squid through its freaking BRAIN. "What were you thinking here!?" the head elf asked him. "If he takes too big a bite, it will kill him!"

"Relax," said the underling. "It's a SQUID. Who gives a crap?"

It was nearly time for happy hour, so they came to a compromise whereby the squid would live so far underwater that it would take thousands of years for anyone to detect the mistake. By then, both elves would have moved on to other jobs.

I'm a software developer, and believe me...I have seen this sort of thing many, MANY times. People throw stuff together without thinking it through. When bugs are found (which they always are), they throw together a fix that works around the problem. Eventually, the code becomes a tangled mess of counter-productive instructions as well as huge sections of completely inert stuff that represents many thousands of man-hours of wasted time. But, it works, and it's too much trouble to fix it.

This type of organically designed code is strangely similar to DNA.

That was not only lol-worthy, it has the virtue of being exactly as provably true as anything creationists claim (which I'm guessing was the point).

 

[Wowbagger]

I hate it when evolutionists bring up flaws in evolution to disprove Intelligent Design. It's a trap, you guys! Don't do it!!

Demonstrating evolution is NOT a matter of finding 'flaws' in things. And, Intelligent Design is NOT a matter of finding 'purposes' for things!

Evolution can be demonstrated on grounds that it predicts branching tree relationships across all aspects of biology. And, so far, this does seem to be the case: Regardless of what 'flaws' you perceive!
And, these relationships can help further our understanding of life.

Intelligent Design can be demonstrated on grounds that it predicts that we should find out something about the Designer, itself, or Its Process: Its lab or documents, perhaps. Or, at the very least: Reconstructed documents about the engineering issues regarding life.
So far, nothing like that has been found. And, most Creationists don't see this as a problem: They are content with merely inferring that a Designer must exist, simply because they can deduce some 'purpose' for everything in life.

The problem with deducing 'purpose' is that it doesn't really tell us anything about the Designer or its process. And, those same 'purposes' could also be explained through evolutionary processes, which DO explain origins in much more detail.

If creationists DID find empirical evidence for the Designer and/or its Process, it would further our understanding of life quite a lot! And, in ways Evolution would never grasp!!

So, my fellow Evolutionists: Don't fall into the trap of discussing 'design flaws'. There are more fundamental issues you can pick on, than that!

Please, educate us. Who discovered this?

Even if we assume it's true, that the "laryngeal nerve serves a multi-function role" and its length has a "purpose", that does NOT necessarily imply design.

So, I wouldn't even care if he did have a good answer for this.

Longer than that.

After I posted that, I realized I should probably be more specific in what I meant.

Knowledge inside science certainly changed their views around, longer than that.

But, the content written for popular communication of science took longer. In the 1960's, the layman scientist probably still thought the "missing link" was an issue. Around the 1970's, once books like The Selfish Gene and its predecessors were published, the popular press didn't seem to think of it as an issue, any more. We found lots of stuff in that general area, and biologists were moving on to more interesting things.

Though, some folks never grew out of that era, I suppose.

 

[Dinwar]

I'm a software developer, and believe me...I have seen this sort of thing many, MANY times.

Here's mine: God is play-testing the universe. As each bug is found He sends in a bug report, and the real designer edits the code to fix the more game-breaking ones. That's why the genetic code is speghetti code--the designer is inefficient, and is reparing each bug as he finds them. Then god plays with the next generation, and the new bug reports go in. This also explains Jesus--the designer wanted this to be a first-person game, and God had to play-test that. It didn't go so well, so the plan was abandoned.

I'm imagining God sitting in some cubicle somewhere with a mouse and keyboard, sipping Red Bull and arguing with the dev team. "Dude, seriously, EXTERNAL GENITALIA? You know how many humans I've lost that way?! And whos' bright idea was it to add psychotropic drugs? Ever try to build a space-fairing civilization when all the people are getting high all the time?!" We are Dwarf Fortress for the divine!

 

[Aridas]

But she wasn't our only female ancestor, just a highly common link in our ancestry.

I seem to recall pointing out that in my post? Either way, that's what the link was about.

Explanation offered for what humans perceive as anomalies such as the extended long neck or giraffes and the laryngeal nerve are not necessarily anomalies when seen in context of their full function rather than taken in isolation.
It was discovered the laryngeal nerve serves a multi-function role and there is purpose for its anomalous pathway.

You know... the last time I saw this particular argument tried (yes, regarding the giraffe's laryngeal nerve), when the specifics were put forth, the claimed benefits in comparison to a direct pathway were... not actually benefits in comparison to a direct pathway and the detriments in comparison to a direct pathway were being strangely ignored. Would you happen to be able to do better?

 

[tsig]

Even if we ignore the "practical applications" part, the whole point of doing science is to gain more empirical knowledge about something.

What new empirical knowledge can be gained from insights into Creationism or Intelligence Design research?

What hard-won facts has any anti-evolution stance gained us, that we would never have fathomed, otherwise?!

The fact that Jesus loves me and wants me to be happy with Him in Heaven. Your small, cold, materialist heart could never understand the love that is god so you will burn in hell forever, god bless you(but not so much you escape the HELL you deserve).

 

[turingtest]

I'm getting a few chuckles from these antics.

The knots justintime is tying himself into (along with science and logic) remind me of some of the truly chucklelicious posts by DOC in his threads about Thomas Jefferson, the New Testament writers, and Biblical prophecy. DOC, as I recall, also had a habit of avoiding direct questions that he couldn't even answer with illogic or bad science.

 

[Wowbagger]

The theory posits that God created the Universe, but put most of his efforts into some planet other than Earth, say, Rigel VII...

This sounds a lot like my old Dust Bin Theory:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7417376#post7417376

Dust Bin Theory does not imply that there was any design effort taken in life forms on Earth. We could have emerged from the bottom God's garbage can.

 

[aggle-rithm]

This sounds a lot like my old Dust Bin Theory:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7417376#post7417376

I hadn't seen that before. Thanks!

 

[tsig]

That's a pretty well-phrased question; I may use that, even though I have my doubts as to whether they really understand the word "metric," much less the need for it that they themselves have unnecessarily introduced. The usual answer would be something like "it's obvious!" which just tells me that they don't know the difference between a subjective quality and an objectively-measurable quantity.

That furrin metric system was invented to aid in faking math proofs for eviloution.

It's French and we all know that French = cowardice so using the metric system is proof positive that you have capitulated to the devil theory called Darwins' Delusion.

 

[tsig]

Good question.
In the grand scheme of things when you view the complexities of the Universe and the natural and physical laws that govern it. All our cumulative knowledge has barely scratched the surface.
Explanation offered for what humans perceive as anomalies such as the extended long neck or giraffes and the laryngeal nerve are not necessarily anomalies when seen in context of their full function rather than taken in isolation.
It was discovered the laryngeal nerve serves a multi-function role and there is purpose for its anomalous pathway. The lost of scientists to explain everything in the context of evolution does not preclude alternate explanation that are available or viable. Evolutionists have box themselves in by accepting too readily over simplified theories of evolution and now forced to force fit new data to accommodate outdated concepts.

God decided how long the laryngeal nerve in the giraffe is?

I'd think he had people for that, micromanaging is poor managing.

 

[tsig]

Then why didn't you answer it? The rest of your response to a request for your theory just amounts to "science does't know everything!"- the petulant cry of a child demanding that science must have what his religion can only claim, when "goddidit!" isn't even "scratching the surface," it's pretending the surface is all there is.

It's usually the cry of someone who refuses to learn anything, then blames science for their ignorance.

 

[turingtest]

It's usually the cry of someone who refuses to learn anything, then blames science for their ignorance.

True; it's really just plain childish petulance using religion as a cover for the whine.

 

[justintime]

Originally Posted by justintime View Post
Good question.
In the grand scheme of things when you view the complexities of the Universe and the natural and physical laws that govern it. All our cumulative knowledge has barely scratched the surface.
Explanation offered for what humans perceive as anomalies such as the extended long neck or giraffes and the laryngeal nerve are not necessarily anomalies when seen in context of their full function rather than taken in isolation.
It was discovered the laryngeal nerve serves a multi-function role and there is purpose for its anomalous pathway. The lost of scientists to explain everything in the context of evolution does not preclude alternate explanation that are available or viable. Evolutionists have box themselves in by accepting too readily over simplified theories of evolution and now forced to force fit new data to accommodate outdated concepts.

God decided how long the laryngeal nerve in the giraffe is?

I'd think he had people for that, micromanaging is poor managing.

The multi-function role the laryngeal nerve serves affects (heart, windpipe muscles, mucous membranes, and the esophagus ) and its circular route is explained in Gray’s Anatomy:

“As the recurrent nerve hooks around the subclavian artery or aorta, it gives off several cardiac filaments to the deep part of the cardiac plexus. As it ascends in the neck it gives off branches, more numerous on the left than on the right side, to the mucous membrane and muscular coat of the esophagus; branches to the mucous membrane and muscular fibers of the trachea; and some pharyngeal filaments to the Constrictor pharyngis inferior.”

 

[justintime]

Here's mine: God is play-testing the universe. As each bug is found He sends in a bug report, and the real designer edits the code to fix the more game-breaking ones. That's why the genetic code is speghetti code--the designer is inefficient, and is reparing each bug as he finds them. Then god plays with the next generation, and the new bug reports go in. This also explains Jesus--the designer wanted this to be a first-person game, and God had to play-test that. It didn't go so well, so the plan was abandoned.

I'm imagining God sitting in some cubicle somewhere with a mouse and keyboard, sipping Red Bull and arguing with the dev team. "Dude, seriously, EXTERNAL GENITALIA? You know how many humans I've lost that way?! And whos' bright idea was it to add psychotropic drugs? Ever try to build a space-fairing civilization when all the people are getting high all the time?!" We are Dwarf Fortress for the divine!

I don't fell anything like that at all. I feel compelled to return to the topic a second time because of popular demand.

 

[Dinwar]

I don't fell anything like that at all.

I was mocking you. My argument is actually a better explanation than your nonsense for what we see in biology--at least mine explains some facts, rather than ignoring them the way you do.

 

[aggle-rithm]

The multi-function role the laryngeal nerve serves affects (heart, windpipe muscles, mucous membranes, and the esophagus ) and its circular route is explained in Gray’s Anatomy:

“As the recurrent nerve hooks around the subclavian artery or aorta, it gives off several cardiac filaments to the deep part of the cardiac plexus. As it ascends in the neck it gives off branches, more numerous on the left than on the right side, to the mucous membrane and muscular coat of the esophagus; branches to the mucous membrane and muscular fibers of the trachea; and some pharyngeal filaments to the Constrictor pharyngis inferior.”

That doesn't explain why it has to double back on itself. Wouldn't it be better to make one trip down and branch off to the closest structures as it passes them?

You could come up with all kinds of convoluted justifications for the notion that there's a "purpose" for this, but in the end the simplest explanation is that it was not designed.

 

[John Jones]

The multi-function role the laryngeal nerve serves affects (heart, windpipe muscles, mucous membranes, and the esophagus ) and its circular route is explained in Gray’s Anatomy:

What page number?

 

[foophil]

Foophil, here is a link to a site that also argues against evolution being a science. It goes beyond your friends 10 point creationists views by producing actual Evolution frauds, fossil gaps and list of unconvinced scientists. Maybe your friend is not aware of this site.

No thanks. I'll stick to what the (overwhelming) majority in the scientific community agrees upon regarding evolution. Until that changes, I see no reason to go off reading about other theories as I am not qualified to judge those. I'll accept the fact that if there is something inherently so wrong with the current Theory of Evolution, scientific testing will discover it and help evolve the theory further. Until then, I'll let the experts make that decision.

And frankly, I don't see you getting very far with your theory if you can't answer some of the basic (to me... a non-biologist) questions that have been asked of you so far.

 

[justintime]

That doesn't explain why it has to double back on itself. Wouldn't it be better to make one trip down and branch off to the closest structures as it passes them?

You could come up with all kinds of convoluted justifications for the notion that there's a "purpose" for this, but in the end the simplest explanation is that it was not designed.

Someone offered an analogy of a car engine and car exhaust. Why does the exhaust run all the way from the front of the car to the rear? Was the engine badly designed to have it in front when it could have been put at the back making for a shorter exhaust?

Actually the existing design and relationship between engine and exhaust makes a lot of sense and once understood also makes it very acceptable. And for that very reason most cars are made that way.