Intelligent Design & the tapeworm?

[Vagabond]

I can't see any scenario where God might "use evolution" to further his or her own ends.<<<<<

How about curiosity? Why do people do the things they do? Why do you come to this board? What if he is performing an experiment of some kind?

In an old Issac Asimov short GOD is a being all alone and eternal. What would be such a beings greatest wish? To end it's own existence? So it creates beings with intellect with the hope they might someday achieve that end.

 

[nabiscothejerd]

There is no way to prove myself right, just as there is no way for you to prove yourself right. However, if we find an air conditioner sitting on the surface of Mars when we finally get there, will we think that was a matter of evolution? That GOD put that air conditioner there or that perhaps John Carter had access to an air conditioner for his journey. If something logically cannot be created by accident, it must have been created by intelligence. This is not a hypotheisis, if you argued for the spontanous creation of an air conditioner you would be considered a fool. No difference claiming the same for things many times more complex.

This is not a matter for facts or anything else it is a matter of ego. I have asked many times exactly what it would take to convince somebody who doesn't believe in creation, that creation took place. Would parting the Red sea be good enough? Nobody will ever answer because the answer is for them NOTHING would be good enough to convince them. That is the ego. How can parting the Red sea be a miracle but the Red sea itself not be? You want to see a miracle look around you. Life is a miracle.

First off, I guarantee you that we will not find a air conditioner on mars unless you put it there yourself. Your Air Conditioner Hypothesis is just that "a hypothesis". To move it to the theory category you would have to state many articles of evidence for that idea. So yes you're right, but you're example is horrible and makes little sense to me, so why did you use it? Remember that I predicted that you would make very little sense, so I must be psychic right, wrong. That in no way proves that i'm psychic. All that it really proves is that I predicted what you would do, but I did not know for sure. That has not much to do with it but boy did I school you, huh.

Remember this, my ego is bigger than yours most likely. Now what would it take to convince me that creation exists, well how about God getting his lazy butt down here and telling me himself, instead of relying on blind faith. Oh yeah, forget the red sea I have the better example. See, I told you that my ego was bigger, but it is better for me because I made a stronger argumentative case.

 

[Oregon_Skeptic]

Originally posted by Vagabond:
During all the transitional stages the organ would be working contrary to the laws of evolution you are claiming. It would use up calories and would have to be supported by the life form, would be subject to disease and damage yet contribute nothing significant to the organism's survival. It would atrophy and disappear from disuse not proceed forward to an unknown end without guidance.

Hmmm…I recall something about vestigial organs. Why would there be any such critters if the above is true? However, if nature is a rather messy business, then we might just have things like whales that have been found with what seem to be femurs and tibias, humans with tails, and birds that use wings as flippers.

I have asked many times exactly what it would take to convince somebody who doesn't believe in creation, that creation took place.

I think it might first start with proving that there is a god, and that this god is the god of the bible, and specifically that this character is the same one referred to in Genesis. And once you introduce god to a few people, give it some solid media attention, maybe a spot on Oprah and Letterman, then ask this being why there are two versions of creation in Genesis and which one is the right one.

But what do I know—I’m not an evolutionary biologist or a Christian.

 

[DuckTapeFileMan]

Preachers have a vested interest in people believing everything in the Bible, it is all they have, it is their guarantee. Without it they might not have a job. If people start thinking for themselves then they might not need the preacher.

It is in the preachers interest to keep telling their audience that "it is all true" and they keep spoon feeding them.
Bad preachers do not want people to think for themselves, they want their audience to want and need them.

 

[Vagabond]

Hmmm…I recall something about vestigial organs. Why would there be any such critters if the above is true? However, if nature is a rather messy business, then we might just have things like whales that have been found with what seem to be femurs and tibias, humans with tails, and birds that use wings as flippers. <<<<

This is a good point, however vestigial organs might be ones that are atrophying and just haven't completed the process yet. However, most of the ones you mention the organ went from one use to another. Thus stopped the lack of use atrophy and kept it in somewhat of it's earlier form. But, while an animal might consciously decide to walk on land with it's flippers, it can't make a decision to start using it's spinneretts to launch flaming chemical bombs and switch uses. This is not possible.

If only my intestines reached all the way to my ass, boy I could move then!

 

[Vagabond]

Preachers have a vested interest in people believing everything in the Bible, it is all they have, it is their guarantee. Without it they might not have a job. If people start thinking for themselves then they might not need the preacher.

It is in the preachers interest to keep telling their audience that "it is all true" and they keep spoon feeding them.
Bad preachers do not want people to think for themselves, they want their audience to want and need them.

Who said anything about preachers? I am not religious in the slightest. Facts are facts regardless of whether they are a small part of religion or not. It's just as foolish to discount everything as to swallow it all unexamined.

 

[DuckTapeFileMan]

Hmmm…I recall something about vestigial organs. Why would there be any such critters if the above is true? However, if nature is a rather messy business, then we might just have things like whales that have been found with what seem to be femurs and tibias, humans with tails, and birds that use wings as flippers. <<<<

This is a good point, however vestigial organs might be ones that are atrophying and just haven't completed the process yet. However, most of the ones you mention the organ went from one use to another. Thus stopped the lack of use atrophy and kept it in somewhat of it's earlier form. But, while an amimal might consciously decide to walk on land with it's flippers, it can't make a decision to start using it's spinneretts to launch flaming chemical bombs and switch uses. This is not possible.

If only my intestines reached all the way to my ass, boy I could move then!

I think that primative spiders just use webbing to line their nests, they didn't just suddenly start making webs.

 

[Vagabond]

I think that primative spiders just use webbing to line their nests, they didn't just suddenly start making webs.

You have to have the same complex organ to do either task. Doesn't make any difference. What would be the purpose of lining a nest?

 

[nabiscothejerd]

Who said anything about preachers? I am not religious in the slightest. Facts are facts regardless of whether they are a small part of religion or not. It's just as foolish to discount everything as to swallow it all unexamined.

But do you believe in Intelligent Design?

 

[DuckTapeFileMan]

I have seen spiders(on TV) that make a primitive lining that extends outside their nest. They can then feel if an animal has walked onto this and spring out and grab them.

I think that this is a primitive use for webbing.

Maybe it adapted from some other kind of gland which in turn was just an adaption from a skin defect(genetic).


I think that milk glands are said to have evolved from sweat glands.

 

[DuckTapeFileMan]

If they start teaching ID seriously in schools then if people want their children to have a decent education(in science) then they would have to have science lessons outside of schools or take their children out of schools. Because people who apply ID ideas can't really do decent science. Because it ISN'T true....[edit] or should I say that it isn't real?

 

[Meadmaker]

I would imagine that a primitive spider layed eggs, and they were probably covered with some sort of gooey, yucky stuff, with not much purpose except that it just came out of the spider.

Suddenly, a mutation developed and that gooey, yucky stuff, which was some weird organic chemical, now had a free charged end on it, which would cause it to behave like a polymer, and form fibers. These fibers could spread out around the nest.

The beauty of these fibers is that they are sticky. Mama spider suddenly finds that there are trapped bugs, right there in the nest. She doesn't even have to hunt. Yum. If she were an intelligent creature, she would no doubt recognize that God suddenly started sending mana-bugs from heaven.

She didn't intend to cover her eggs with sticky fibers, it just happened that way, but her eggs survived because hunting was easier.

Generations later, some messed up spider didn't know she was supposed to stop secreting fiber when she was done laying eggs. This poor helpless thing was done laying eggs, but kept secreting the stuff that covered them. Poor thing was wasting all that energy because of her defective mutation that caused her to spread extra threads around the nest, but at least God took pity on her, by sending more mana bugs that were now all over the nest, instead of just near her eggs, and so her and her offspring, who were similarly cursed, prospered.

Meanwhile, the glands that secreted the fiber got a bit elongated in one spider. This poor creature didn't have any hope of covering her nest with the sticky fiber. The elongated glands made it come out in long threads instead of a fibrous mass. She just ran all over the nesting grounds laying out these threads. Fortunately, the stuff was strong, and enough bugs still hit the area that had thread in it, so even though her glands were all swollen, and she could only produce threads instead of a sticky mass, it was still good enough. In fact, it seemed to use up a bit less energy. Her offspring flourished.

And so it goes. Each step was a tiny change, that gave the spider just a bit more advantage than the last one, or at least didn't cause the species to go extinct, untill another mutation managed to make it all better.


Is that really what happened? I have no idea. I do know that a fully formed spinnerett would not be necessary to start making use out of thread spinning. A partially formed spinnerett would still do something useful for the spider.

My objection to ID as a "scientific" theory is that it is, as someone else has already said, an argument from ignorance. I can't see why this is useful, therefore it is not useful. If the ID people could somehow prove that transitional forms were non-existent or useless, then they would have something, but they can't do that. All they can say is either, "we haven't found transitional forms" or "we're pretty sure that the transitional form is useless" At best, it's a hypothesis looking for experimental evidence, not a theory at all.

 

[Ossai]

Vagabond

Once you reach this step you have a spinnerett already. I don't care what stages you bring up. The bottom line is you cannot have a complex organ develop to an end purpose by accident.

You didn’t even bother looking it up did you? Basically, you’re declaring your own ignorance and the saying goddidit. What it all comes down to is that your ignorance is the basis of your god.

During all the transitional stages the organ would be working contrary to the laws of evolution you are claiming. It would use up calories and would have to be supported by the life form, would be subject to disease and damage yet contribute nothing significant to the organism's survival.

Eggs, next generation of spiders = survival. Looks like you’re wrong here as well.

It would atrophy and disappear from disuse not proceed forward to an unknown end without guidance.

Like a dog’s dew claw? Hmmm, evolution in action.

There is no way to prove myself right, just as there is no way for you to prove yourself right.

You’re not up on science are you? Science is both explanatory and predictive. Based on current evidence, predictions can be made as to why caused a system to develop into it’s current state and what evidence can be expected. If the evidence is found then that’s one step closer to proving the hypothesis correct. However, since new evidence is often found the hypothesis can and does change i.e. it’s self correcting. Once enough evidence has been gathered – observations, tests, fossils, etc the hypothesis eventually becomes a theory. A theory isn’t set in stone, as new evidence emerges the theory is also reexamined and parts or even the whole thing may have to be reworked.

As for the spider’s spinneret and the bombardier beetle, the basic work has been done for decades. You are just to stubborn to look into it.

This is not a matter for facts or anything else it is a matter of ego. I have asked many times exactly what it would take to convince somebody who doesn't believe in creation, that creation took place. Would parting the Red sea be good enough? Nobody will ever answer because the answer is for them NOTHING would be good enough to convince them. That is the ego. How can parting the Red sea be a miracle but the Red sea itself not be? You want to see a miracle look around you. Life is a miracle.

Wow! All that for a straw man. Again, your ignorance and arrogance are showing.

How about curiosity? Why do people do the things they do? Why do you come to this board? What if he is performing an experiment of some kind?

The god you’re proposing just lost omnipotence. Now you may be getting somewhere.

This is a good point, however vestigial organs might be ones that are atrophying and just haven't completed the process yet. However, most of the ones you mention the organ went from one use to another. Thus stopped the lack of use atrophy and kept it in somewhat of it's earlier form. But, while an animal might consciously decide to walk on land with it's flippers, it can't make a decision to start using it's spinneretts to launch flaming chemical bombs and switch uses. This is not possible.

Honestly the best thing you could do if you’re actually interested in this is to take some biology classes. Your entire statement rests upon ‘I don’t know, therefore goddidit.’

You have to have the same complex organ to do either task. Doesn't make any difference. What would be the purpose of lining a nest?

Protecting eggs - survival.

Ossai

 

[roger]

ancestor squirted out some kind of vaguely sticky goop to hold eggs together.<<<<


Once you reach this step you have a spinnerett already. I don't care what stages you bring up. The bottom line is you cannot have a complex organ develop to an end purpose by accident.

No, you have a gland that makes goop, and a hole in the body. It's not silk, and there's no spinnerett. The spinnerett doesn't come in until much later.

 

[DuckTapeFileMan]

If the Bible is such a good supply of scientific information, where are the designs for a fusion reactor and a warp drive? Where was the method outlined to make penicillin? Or does mankind have to work out these little things for itself?

 

[RandFan]

I can't see any scenario where God might "use evolution" to further his or her own ends.

Yes but in the end this is just an argument from ignorance. That you can't see an argument does not mean that one does not exist. What are god's "ends" BTW? My understanding is that it is the salvation of man (whatever that means). If so I can't see how evolution doesn't further his or her needs.

 

[arthwollipot]

Yes but in the end this is just an argument from ignorance. That you can't see an argument does not mean that one does not exist. What are god's "ends" BTW? My understanding is that it is the salvation of man (whatever that means). If so I can't see how evolution doesn't further his or her needs.

This is the most insightful comment on what I said that I'll address it first.

Yes, you're right. I am guilty of making an argument from ignorance. I should be slapped for it. Ow!

But in fact I expressed myself badly. My argument was that the Deity (nature) was not actually a conscious entity, and thus did not have "goals" or "ends". The deity is merely a description of the natural laws of the universe. This comes about because the God of the Gaps gets smaller and smaller the more we know about the laws of nature.

Back to the bombardier beetle. Vagabond, you have missed the point.

Simply because a plausible scenario can be thought of does not mean that scenario is right.

But it does mean that the statement "this is impossible" is wrong.

You cannot claim that it is impossible for a bombardier beetle to have evolved its defence mechanism when you have been shown one scenario by which it is possible. Again, it does not mean that the scenario is "the" way that it occurred, but it does demonstrate that it is not impossible.

 

[RandFan]

But in fact I expressed myself badly. My argument was that the Deity (nature) was not actually a conscious entity, and thus did not have "goals" or "ends". The deity is merely a description of the natural laws of the universe. This comes about because the God of the Gaps gets smaller and smaller the more we know about the laws of nature.

Thanks, sorry if I was impertinent.

You are absolutly correct about god of the gaps (as if you need my exhalted afirmation )

This was a powerful point that had a great deal of influence on me. For a time I tried to make an argument that questions were somehow answers. Certain things seemed unexplainable and therefore they must be divine. It was I that was really arguing from ignorance. But time after time such thinking has fallen to scientific inquiry. I still cling to some of these instance to a small degree. Including ID and HPC. But these are mostly quaint and romantic. Intelectually I know that such arguments are fallacious.

There have truly been some grand "gaps" that have been closed by science. We could fill a library.

 

[arthwollipot]

I can't see any scenario where God might "use evolution" to further his or her own ends.<<<<<

How about curiosity? Why do people do the things they do? Why do you come to this board? What if he is performing an experiment of some kind?

In an old Issac Asimov short GOD is a being all alone and eternal. What would be such a beings greatest wish? To end it's own existence? So it creates beings with intellect with the hope they might someday achieve that end.

My point is that evolution proceeds without any intervention by any deity. God is not needed in evolution. If a God was involved at all (and that's a big IF), then he set it running in the first place and has not been involved in any way since.

 

[RandFan]

My point is that evolution proceeds without any intervention by any deity. God is not needed in evolution. If a God was involved at all (and that's a big IF), then he set it running in the first place and has not been involved in any way since.

And of course parsimony would dictate that adding god to the mix is unnecassary. Which I gues is what you are saying now that I think about it.