Examples of bad "design" in humans

[gumboot]

Because, for instance, your post I was replying to transports this idea.

How?

Where it is grossly wrong to call our locomotion a flaw, like you do. It is, in fact, one of our greatest strengths. With due respect, I'm tired repeating this statement of facts.

To be fair I claimed out basic structure was flawed. The key to our success in running (which is indeed a strength of ours) is not because of our basic structure, but because of our tolerance for heat and cooling abilities. This has been demonstrated. Even the scientist who makes the controversial claim that we are the best long distance runners in the world agrees that the primary reason is our ability to keep cool, not our basic structure.

 

[gumboot]

Oh... I didn't know this thread was about God. I thought it referenced Intelligent Design. I'll have to go back and read to see what it says.

Intelligent Design is a reworking of Christian Creationism to try and fool the gullible into thinking it's a scientific theory not a religious one, thus allowing it to be taught in public schools.

 

[six7s]

God designed every single animal to be exactly the way it is

Amen

 

[gumboot]

Amen

Exactly.

 

[SeanDamnit]

hey guys, lets lay off the designer a little bit. this was probably his first time.

 

[VonNeumann]

Intelligent Design is a reworking of Christian Creationism to try and fool the gullible into thinking it's a scientific theory not a religious one, thus allowing it to be taught in public schools.

Perhaps that is true about some people -- I don't know. I'm a skeptic.

You are misinformed about "intelligent design folks". You can't lump them all together like that without being dead wrong.

There is no evidence that random mutation and natural selection can design -- at best it can tweak what was already there, as far as what has been observed. We have no theory on what "designed" the physical laws of the universe so that we would get the "just so" elements from which emerge the "just so" molecules, and from the "just so" molecules would emerge the "just so" self-replicating / metabolising sets. That is a bunch of handwaving to say we have a notion other than a million monkeys and a million typewriters on what bootstrapped all this.

Satisfy yourself then to argue against church lady that there is no God and that the magic you believe in (magic of chance?) is better magic than her belief in magic. But we aren't talking about church lady and her magic. Origins is still not the domain of science. Not even in 2008. So go and believe that the choice is a-perfect-god versus chance if it makes you feel good -- but that isn't the argument, is it?

All intelligent design means is that: whatever organized the objects we see today, from photons to human brains, we have no proof it could happen by chance, and yet we know what design is because it is something we humans can do -- therefore teleological design by something is still a candidate. Problem is, we don't know what the something is. Just as we don't even know what it is in our minds that creates stuff -- we have no model for some kind of "design mechanism".

To me, this is the only valid stance for a freethinking skeptic. For me it all appears tentative. Why should we pretend we know enough to believe more than that?

 

[Herzblut]

How?

How not?

To be fair I claimed out basic structure was flawed. The key to our success in running (which is indeed a strength of ours) is not because of our basic structure, but because of our tolerance for heat and cooling abilities. This has been demonstrated. Even the scientist who makes the controversial claim that we are the best long distance runners in the world agrees that the primary reason is our ability to keep cool, not our basic structure.

This is bizarre. Trees also show great heat tolerance, which doesn't make them particularly good runners. Your thinking is hopelessly flawed.

 

[six7s]

we have no proof it could happen by chance

Nope

Maybe you are just using arguing from incredulity... maybe you have ignorance in support... whatever, you're wrong

Do some research, it ain't difficult - especially with the most immense repository of information in history literally at your finger tips

 

[six7s]

Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0

In this video I deconstruct the broken watch straw man argument used by creationist / ID supporters to attack evolution. I had to pack a ton of information into this video so you WILL need to pause it periodically.

The basic premise of the argument is that a bunch of parts will never randomly assemble into the correct arrangement to form a properly functioning complex. Once again, creationists / ID supporters miss the basic concept of evolution entirely. No biologists believes, nor is there any evidence that complex systems form spontaneously in one fell swoop. That would be creation. Systems evolve through many intermediates, one step at a time, slowly building up the complexity.

Here I deconstruct their straw man argument. Basically, I simulate clocks as living organisms. Selective pressure is focused on their ability to accurately tell time. NO goal is imposed on the design (you can tell this because every simulation ends with a differently constructed clock). And it works. Clocks evolve through a series of transitional forms: Pendulum, Proto-clock, 1-handed Clock, 2-handed Clock, 3-handed Clock, and 4-handed Clock. Gradually the complexity is built up.

<snip/>
To download this video go to:
http://www.mediafire.com/?9e1zz000mq7

To download the program go to:
http://www.mediafire.com/?1umdtnwayyp

Learn the facts, spread the truth, and most importantly, Think About It.

Snipped purely for copyright reasons only... it's well worth reading!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0

 

[gumboot]

You are misinformed about "intelligent design folks". You can't lump them all together like that without being dead wrong.

The term "intelligent design" was first applied in its current meaning when it was stolen from NASA and retrofitted to the creationist book Of Pandas And People by a bunch of Christians after a US Supreme Court ruling that creationism couldn't be taught in US public schools. They quite literally went through and replaced "creationism" and "creationists" with "intelligent design" and "design proponents" (in fact once they screwed it up and ended up with "cdesign proponentsists", as if their dishonesty wasn't obvious enough already).

They're not fooling anyone.

There is no evidence that random mutation and natural selection can design

Obviously. No one claims it can. The natural world wasn't designed.

We have no theory on what "designed" the physical laws of the universe so that we would get the "just so" elements from which emerge the "just so" molecules, and from the "just so" molecules would emerge the "just so" self-replicating / metabolising sets. That is a bunch of handwaving to say we have a notion other than a million monkeys and a million typewriters on what bootstrapped all this.

Some one who has an infant's understanding of physics, origin of life, evolution, and everything else. Excellent.

Satisfy yourself then to argue against church lady that there is no God and that the magic you believe in (magic of chance?) is better magic than her belief in magic. But we aren't talking about church lady and her magic. Origins is still not the domain of science. Not even in 2008. So go and believe that the choice is a-perfect-god versus chance if it makes you feel good -- but that isn't the argument, is it?

WTF are you talking about?

All intelligent design means is that: whatever organized the objects we see today, from photons to human brains, we have no proof it could happen by chance, and yet we know what design is because it is something we humans can do -- therefore teleological design by something is still a candidate. Problem is, we don't know what the something is. Just as we don't even know what it is in our minds that creates stuff -- we have no model for some kind of "design mechanism".

To me, this is the only valid stance for a freethinking skeptic. For me it all appears tentative. Why should we pretend we know enough to believe more than that?

Bottom line - "intelligent design" is an alternative way of saying "made by (a) God". It always has been, since the Greek philosophers of the 4th C BC first proposed the notion of the universe being designed.

The only reason the religious types clinging to a creationist theory try to argue the "we don't know who designed it" nonsense is because they know they can't preach their religion in public schools. It's a game of semantics and it's one they're winning, because no one is fooled.

Even putting aside the religious aspect, you've neatly highlighted the huge flaw in intelligent design which this thread addresses.

"just so" elements from which emerge the "just so" molecules, and from the "just so" molecules would emerge the "just so" self-replicating / metabolising sets"

This is the fundamental flaw of logic in the intelligent design argument. There is no "just so". Intelligent Design argues the "one solution to the problem" approach, thus arguing it cannot possibly be by mere random variation. Yet as this thread is intended to highlight, and as the animal kingdom so abundantly demonstrates, "just so" isn't necessary - only "good enough" is.

The "just so" argument is faulty logic, and no one claiming it has ever proved an iota of evidence that the world is "just so" (it's all just arguments from personal incredulity) whereas the entire physical world is a veritable larder of evidence of "good enough".

 

[gumboot]

How not?

You're the one who's making the claim here, not me.

This is bizarre. Trees also show great heat tolerance, which doesn't make them particularly good runners. Your thinking is hopelessly flawed.

Now this is bizarre.

 

[gumboot]

Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker:

I've never seen that video before. Thanks, that's excellent and fascinating.

 

[Herzblut]

You're the one who's making the claim here, not me.

I am interpreting your statements. Like this one:

That's because we manipulate our environment and make things to help us survive. Left to fend on their own humans would die in practically every climate on earth.

Just correct me if my understanding is wrong and tell us what you mean by what you said.

Also point to any of my posts giving evidence to your claim that I have alledgely mentioned that our intellectual capacity was basically our only evolutionary advantage.

Like you did say, just see above.

Now this is bizarre.

Isn't it?

 

[Herzblut]

All intelligent design means is that: whatever organized the objects we see today, from photons to human brains, we have no proof it could happen by chance, and yet we know what design is because it is something we humans can do -- therefore teleological design by something is still a candidate.

Yes. It's a candidate for a philosophical or religious doctrine, but not for a scientific hypothesis.

Actually, science doesn't care at all, as long as there is no empirical evidence (observation) described which is either supporting or questioning this idea. For now, it is unreckognizable if the physical world would look any different depending on whether the assertion is true or false.

Furthermore, it is unwise to invest any research efforts into this, as long as the assertion is not formulated much more precisely, such that it becomes falsifiable by observation in principle. And I'm afraid this will never be the case.

 

[DC]

Yes. It's a candidate for a philosophical or religious doctrine, but not for a scientific hypothesis.

Actually, science doesn't care at all, as long as there is no empirical evidence (observation) described which is either supporting or questioning this idea. For now, it is unreckognizable if the physical world would look any different depending on whether the assertion is true or false.

Furthermore, it is unwise to invest any research efforts into this, as long as the assertion is not formulated much more precisely, such that it becomes falsifiable by observation in principle. And I'm afraid this will never be the case.

can we really be sure that it is impossible that there is indeed a "creator/designer"?

 

[Herzblut]

can we really be sure that it is impossible that there is indeed a "creator/designer"?

No. Like millions of other ideas which are not impossible, hence not prohibited by laws of nature. So, obviously, just that doesn't qualify any of them for being a subject of research.

Personal fondness for a certain stance, "Hey, I like this idea!", doesn't qualify either. I think, that's the great misconception of the ID adherents.

BTW, I think this ID movement is almost exclusively taking place in Americas, mostly USA, and it is driven by fundamentalistic evangelicals. In Europe ID is totally insignificant, from what I see.

 

[DC]

No. Like millions of other ideas which are not impossible, hence not prohibited by laws of nature. So, obviously, just that doesn't qualify any of them for being a subject of research.

Personal fondness for a certain stance, "Hey, I like this idea!", doesn't qualify either. I think, that's the great misconception of the ID adherents.

BTW, I think this ID movement is almost exclusively taking place in Americas, mostly USA, and it is driven by fundamentalistic evangelicals. In Europe ID is totally insignificant, from what I see.

indeed never heard anything about ID in switzerland

also think it is nonsence, but somehow i think we cannot really rule it out completly yet.

 

[gumboot]

I am interpreting your statements. Like this one:

Just correct me if my understanding is wrong and tell us what you mean by what you said.

Well it's true, we would. Modern humans can't survive in a "wilderness" climate because we've lost that survival instinct and the knowledge for surviving that environment is no longer commonly taught. For starters without clothes we'd die of exposure in winter pretty much anywhere except along the tropics. In the tropics we'd probably die of heat exhaustion or dehydration. We wouldn't know how to find water, how to catch prey, or what plants we could eat. Most people don't even know the most fundamental survival skills.

Getting the idea?

Also point to any of my posts giving evidence to your claim that I have alledgely mentioned that our intellectual capacity was basically our only evolutionary advantage.

Why would I want to provide evidence for something I don't think happened? You're not making the slightest bit of sense.

 

[cwalner]

Back to original post,

I am surprised no one else has yet mentioned either of the following two organs: tonsils and appendix. both are completely useless in humans (they can be removed without impacting the functionality of the whole).
Furthermore the reason we know this is that they they commonly get infected and need to be removed to prevent further dissease.
Why would an 'intelligently designed' human have parts that serve no purpose other than to pose a threat to other parts.

 

[gumboot]

can we really be sure that it is impossible that there is indeed a "creator/designer"?

Science is built on the entire notion that nothing is certain. Science provides the best explanation for things based on known evidence. People make the mistake (and scientists do it too) of thinking that science is about right and wrong. It's not. It's about supported and unsupported.

Now let's be clear here that Intelligent Design is not just a claim that some sort of creator or designer was involved at some point in the development of the world/universe.

Intelligent Design is specifically the claim that a creator or designer made all life precisely in the current form that it now appears.

Whether some entity had some hand in creating the universe or whatever, who knows. But all of the available evidence - and there's mountains of it - indicates that the current life forms that populate on our planet evolved over a long period of time, through a process of natural mutation and natural selection, from a common origin. This is the scientific theory of evolution, which is a thoroughly robust and well supported theory.

Thus we can conclude, based on the current evidence that Intelligent Design is false.

The only theory that can incorporate Intelligent Design and the available evidence is that this creator person intentionally put evidence of evolution into the earth to test our faith, fool us, entertain us, encourage us to develop our brains (I've seen all of these arguments offered).

At this point our friend Occam's Razor comes into the mix. Both theories fit the available evidence. One theory relies a ridiculous level of assumption and speculation. One does not. The simple theory wins.

Now maybe one day in the future someone will uncover an incriminating photo of God burying a fossil in the ground, but until someone does the Intelligent Design theory must be rejected as unsupported. That's how science works.