Intelligent Design & the tapeworm?

[DuckTapeFileMan]

If I understand the ID theory correctly then, according to this theory an entity designed and build the tapeworm and all the other parasitic worms etc that plague mankind and other species.

Is that correct?

 

[username]

If I understand the ID theory correctly then, according to this theory an entity designed and build the tapeworm and all the other parasitic worms etc that plague mankind and other species.

Is that correct?

That would be correct, by definition. If you are looking for someone to debate this with though you are on the wrong forum as most here have professional degrees in ripping the idiocy known as ID apart.

 

[Yahweh]

"All things sick and cancerous,
All evil great and small,
All things foul and dangerous,
The Lord God made them all."
- Monty Python

 

[Yahweh]

By the way, one of my favorite parodies of the ID movement is The Argument from Irreducible Grotesqueness by WinAce:

In his 1996 best-seller God's S&M Chest, Dr. Behe describes, in meticulous detail, more than a dozen irreducibly grotesque organisms and their elaborately designed subsystems. He convincingly argues that multi-component maiming systems cannot evolve: Since evolution supposedly operates via incremental changes, the likelihood of spontaneously creating an IG system out of thin air, in one generation, drops exponentially as the number of required parts goes up. Since no other process, now known or hereafter discovered, can (even in principle) account for IG systems, intelligent design is verified by process of elimination.

 

[c4ts]

If I understand the ID theory correctly then, according to this theory an entity designed and build the tapeworm and all the other parasitic worms etc that plague mankind and other species.

Is that correct?

Nope, the Devil made 'em.

 

[Iacchus]

That would be correct, by definition. If you are looking for someone to debate this with though you are on the wrong forum as most here have professional degrees in ripping the idiocy known as ID apart.

So, where did the order in the Universe originate? Were there already "ground rules" set in place -- and if there were, where did they come from? -- or, did it all of sudden "just happen?"

 

[RandFan]

By the way, one of my favorite parodies of the ID movement is The Argument from Irreducible Grotesqueness by WinAce:

Excellent site. Thank you. Just one problem. I don't get it. Is the argument that an inteligent designer wouldn't make grotesque creatures? I used to be a proponent of ID. I am not anymore and accept evolution unconditionally. I find ID romantic perhaps and I still like to consider it from time to time but I could not and would not try and argue that ID has any credibility what so ever. That being said, I don't think this particular argument would change my belief in any way. I had accepted that god designed ALL creatures no matter how wierd or gruesome. I really do not get the argument. Oh well. Fascinating, some I had known about.

 

[Vagabond]

If I understand the ID theory correctly then, according to this theory an entity designed and build the tapeworm and all the other parasitic worms etc that plague mankind and other species.

Is that correct?

I don't understand why people seem to always argue ID and evolution as if they are exclusionary. Why can't some things have been ID and others not? Why can't things have been designed to evolve? The tapeworm doesn't bother me much, but there are plenty of parasites like the aids virus that end up killing their host. This would seem to me to be contrary to the survival of the fittest rule.

Biggest arguement for me in favor of ID is a spider's spinneretts. It is impossible for an organ to evolve for which it has no purpose until it is complete. How does the first spider with a fully functional spinerett know it has one to use? Or what to do with it?
There is also this conch that lives in the deepest part of the ocean and manages to put just enough air into it's shell to achieve neutral bouyancy and the propels itself with twin jets of water out the back. If you see that thing in action, you can't but think somebody designed that on a drawboard someplace.

 

[Darat]

Re: Re: Intelligent Design & the tapeworm?

...snip...

Biggest arguement for me in favor of ID is a spider's spinneretts. It is impossible for an organ to evolve for which it has no purpose until it is complete. How does the first spider with a fully functional spinerett know it has one to use? Or what to do with it?
There is also this conch that lives in the deepest part of the ocean and manages to put just enough air into it's shell to achieve neutral bouyancy and the propels itself with twin jets of water out the back. If you see that thing in action, you can't but think somebody designed that on a drawboard someplace.

Don’t take this as an insult but just because you can't imagine what a "partially evolved" spinneret could be useful for doesn’t mean no one else can’t or that it wasn't useful. Indeed I can imagine many useful adaptations along the "path" that "leads" to some of the spinnerets we see today (and indeed many of the species of spiders in the world today show how this "specialised" organ is as unremarkable as any other organ and shows a remarkable level of dissimilarity from species to species. For instance some can only exude a sticky mass that lets them stick onto surfaces or use to trap prey, others show an ability to spin the fine gossamer threads you were probably thinking about.)


(Edited for words.)

 

[Iacchus]

Do the petals of a flower unfold arbitrarily? Or, do they pretty much follow a predefined pattern? Doesn't that suggest to you that "the rules" have already been predefined before anything comes into existence?

 

[Kiless]

I refuse to prove that I exist," says god. "For proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing."

"But," says man. "The babel fish is a dead giveaway isnt it? It proves you exist and so therefore you don't. QED."

"Oh dear," says god. "I hadn't thought of that." And promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

"Oh that was easy." says man. And for an encore he proves that black is white and gets killed on the next zebra crossing.

--Douglas Adams

 

[Iacchus]

Without the mystery, we would never be able to approach God. Either that or we would experience ourselves as God or, burn up in a flash in His presence.

 

[Dr Adequate]

The tapeworm doesn't bother me much, but there are plenty of parasites like the aids virus that end up killing their host. This would seem to me to be contrary to the survival of the fittest rule.

There is no "survival of the fittest rule". This is a creationist straw man. The phrase you want to look up is "natural selection". It's not about "survival" --- it's about differential reproductive success. Ask any salmon.

The other mistake you've made is the fallacy of "group selection". This is quite interesting, so listen carefully.

HIV, like other viruses, works by getting into a cell and hijacking the cell machinery so as to make lots of copies of itself, which then burst the cell and go looking for more cells to infect. HIV is adapted to attack the cells of the immune system, and obviously this is going to have a very bad effect on the patient, as it leaves him prey to opportunistic infections which otherwise he could fight off.

So the virus would do well, you might say (I think this is what you're getting at) if it kept the patient alive as long as possible (to hold on to the territory it already has) and superficially healthy (to increase the chances that he'll spread the virus to other human hosts.)

The fallacy comes in talking about "the" virus, and "it". The question is --- which virus? In order for them to keep the patient heathy for longer, they'd have to kill fewer cells of his immune system, which means they'd have to reproduce less. But how is this change to take place?

A mutation must occur in one specific virus. Suppose we have one mutant virus, with a mutation which makes it reproduce less abundantly or less quickly then all the other viruses. But this virus and its decendants (which carry the mutation) are competing with other viruses for resources (in particular, cells to infect) and this means that its gene line will soon be history, for such a mutation is by definition bad for the reproductive prospects of the virus carrying it.

If the viruses could all get together and agree all to mutate to be less fecund for the long-term good of viruskind and the little viral civilization they've set up in the patient... then HIV wouldn't kill. But this is the exact opposite of what the theory of evolution says. It's not about survival, it's about reproduction. It's not about long-term success, it's about short-term success. It's not about the success of groups, it's about the success of genes. It's not directed, it's random. So HIV kills people.

I think you should try to learn more about the theory of evolution before you try to find counterexamples. At the moment, you're criticising what you think is the theory of evolution and its implications. But you're wrong.

 

[Kiless]

Without the mystery, we would never be able to approach God. Either that or we would experience ourselves as God or, burn up in a flash in His presence.

Burn up? Like a wombat?

 

[Iacchus]

Burn up? Like a wombat?

How so? Am I supposed to "Google" something here or what?

 

[Kiless]

How so? Am I supposed to "Google" something here or what?

Actually, some evidence would be good.

 

[Iacchus]

Actually, some evidence would be good.

Well, the evidence is the fact that we're here. The mystery is in how it happened.

 

[Ryokan]

Well, the evidence is the fact that we're here.

Hmm, I thought that was just an illusion..?

 

[Kiless]

Hmm, I thought that was just an illusion..?

LOL!! Lunchtime doubly so!

 

[Vagabond]

There is no "survival of the fittest rule". This is a creationist straw man. The phrase you want to look up is "natural selection". It's not about "survival" --- it's about differential reproductive success. Ask any salmon.

The other mistake you've made is the fallacy of "group selection". This is quite interesting, so listen carefully.

HIV, like other viruses, works by getting into a cell and hijacking the cell machinery so as to make lots of copies of itself, which then burst the cell and go looking for more cells to infect. HIV is adapted to attack the cells of the immune system, and obviously this is going to have a very bad effect on the patient, as it leaves him prey to opportunistic infections which otherwise he could fight off.

So the virus would do well, you might say (I think this is what you're getting at) if it kept the patient alive as long as possible (to hold on to the territory it already has) and superficially healthy (to increase the chances that he'll spread the virus to other human hosts.)

The fallacy comes in talking about "the" virus, and "it". The question is --- which virus? In order for them to keep the patient heathy for longer, they'd have to kill fewer cells of his immune system, which means they'd have to reproduce less. But how is this change to take place?

A mutation must occur in one specific virus. Suppose we have one mutant virus, with a mutation which makes it reproduce less abundantly or less quickly then all the other viruses. But this virus and its decendants (which carry the mutation) are competing with other viruses for resources (in particular, cells to infect) and this means that its gene line will soon be history, for such a mutation is by definition bad for the reproductive prospects of the virus carrying it.

If the viruses could all get together and agree all to mutate to be less fecund for the long-term good of viruskind and the little viral civilization they've set up in the patient... then HIV wouldn't kill. But this is the exact opposite of what the theory of evolution says. It's not about survival, it's about reproduction. It's not about long-term success, it's about short-term success. It's not about the success of groups, it's about the success of genes. It's not directed, it's random. So HIV kills people.

I think you should try to learn more about the theory of evolution before you try to find counterexamples. At the moment, you're criticising what you think is the theory of evolution and its implications. But you're wrong.

I could say the same to you. Your post is rambling and you didn't say anything nor make any points. Evolution is not a fixed thing you get to decide what is included. Well you can but the only person you will be talking to, is yourself in the mirror. You probably do that a lot already.