• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Universal Design

Iacchus said:
By the way Cleo, this goes a long ways to express what I'm trying to say here ...


Originally posted by zaayrdragon

Functionality insists that, if you remove an item from the whole it in some way detracts from that whole. If you remove a cog from a watch, the watch may cease to function; therefore, we know the cog has a function.

Likewise, we know that if we remove a finger from a body, the body's functions become impaired, albeit slightly. This denotes that the finger has a function.

Intelligent design infers function toward a purpose, and insists that all parts of the whole further the totality of its purpose. The cogs of a watch all function toward the purpose of measuring the movement of time. The primary organs of the body all function toward the necessary processes to sustain life, reproduce, etc.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

This would explain the appendix then. ;)
 
Ratman_tf said:

This would explain the appendix then. ;)
Click to expand...
All this suggests is that some things are more significant than others, but doesn't necessarily entail the lack of meaning. Obviously the appendix used to have some significance, right? It didn't just appear out of nowhere did it?
 
The point I am trying tomake Iachuss is this, any meaning we assign to the universe is just a human thought imposed upon That Which Might or Might Not Be.

All the 'design' you see in the universe is 'contingent design' meaning(haha) in this case that the patterns we discern are there because of the random interactions of a very large number of energy particles.

When humans talk of 'design' it generaly implies a 'purposeful intent', such as "I wish to create art", "I wish to cloth myself", etc. The products of these intents are deliberate, when I look out at the universe, the patterns I generaly see are the patterns of 'contingent history' like a sand dune or a galaxy. They are most often not the patterns of 'purpose full intent' like a snake track or a beehive.

So which patterns do you feel indicate a purposeful intent?

The fact that apparent order exists, like soap bubbles, could be the result of an acacusal creation. Which is why I mentioned the Grand Geometer, the events leading to the creation could have been causal but still random and accidental (IE the Cat spills the Bottle of Ink, the Ball goes down the Sewer Grate).

So I ask why is there is a creation must it be deliberate, what patterns say that there is 'purposeful intent' in the 'design' of the universe?
 
Notice Iacchus samples my post without getting the whole thing.

I was putting together definitions of what entails purpose and intelligent design so that I could then demonstrate how some things, like the appendix, refute those definitions.

However, and not unsurprisingly, he takes a partial definition and tries to use it to support his arguments.

Ya know, all this board needs now is a Bible-thumping homeopath!

Don't suppose any of the Three of You (Iacchus, Radrook, Irritating Ian) are also Homeopaths?
 
Iacchus said:
All this suggests is that some things are more significant than others, but doesn't necessarily entail the lack of meaning. Obviously the appendix used to have some significance, right? It didn't just appear out of nowhere did it?
Click to expand...
And the oesophagus indicates that any meaning must be garbled and the designer, if any, must have been a bloody idiot.
 
Wudang said:

And the oesophagus indicates that any meaning must be garbled and the designer, if any, must have been a bloody idiot.
Click to expand...

The only thing it indicates is that you are totally ignorant of the biblical explanation or else are unable or unwilling to accept it because you have a very important agenda with which such an acceptance would strongly interfere and you really don't want that.
 
Enlighten me, Rad... what IS the Biblical explanation of the Esophagus?

Oh, wait, you're going to use the 'Man was Perfect until he Sinned and suddenly became Imperfect' argument, right?

Or is there something more concrete?

I still fail to see how a 'Perfect' person could 'Sin' and therefore 'Fall' in the first place.

Have you ever addressed the theory that the entire Adam, Eve, & Lilith tale was an adaptation of Jewish myth, inserted into Bible text some time after Moses was dead and gone? I only remember this theory vaguely - I'll have to see what I can find on this one.
 
Wudang said:

And the oesophagus indicates that any meaning must be garbled and the designer, if any, must have been a bloody idiot.
Click to expand...
Okay, so what's the bloody awful problem wrong with the esophagus that I keep hearing about? Is it because somebody is prone to heart burn (acid reflux) and they haven't figured out how to eat properly yet? Other than that, I have no idea what you're talking about?
 
zaayrdragon said:
Enlighten me, Rad... what IS the Biblical explanation of the Esophagus?


Have you ever addressed the theory that the entire Adam, Eve, & Lilith tale was an adaptation of Jewish myth, inserted into Bible text some time after Moses was dead and gone?
Click to expand...

If you feel it is myth then do not refer to it as if it were fact by giving examples of anatomy presumably caused by what you admit you consider myth.
 
Rad, I gotta ask.. what the heck are you saying? Where did I give examples of anatomy presumably caused by the fall of Adam? Rather, I wondered if you would explain the Biblical explanation of the Esophagus by your aforementioned use of the Eden myth.

Yes, I consider that a myth, and any 'flaw' in Human design as a result would be a myth too. In fact, that site I just found shows that humans aren't quite so flawed after all, and maybe your argument that flaws in human design were caused by the Fall might be falsified as well by this website.

Anyway, please, take a moment to look it over. Most logical explanations I've ever seen for appendices, eye designs, etc. Seems they're just fine after all.

EDIT - Please, Radrook, in spite of my obvious strong dislike of your thinking process and beliefs, please READ what I post rather than jump to hasty conclusions. I feel that we may yet be able to discuss on common ground.
 
zaayrdragon said:

Well, here's the summary with a pretty good rebuttal...

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/designgonebad.html

Of course, the rebuttal comes from a probably biased source, but it shows both the perceived problem with the esophagus, and why it may be the best available design after all.

Just found it - still studying it myself.
Click to expand...
My goodness, it's a wonder anything works at all, right? Anyone ever stop to consider that possibility? Or, are we just too busy "playing God" about the whole thing?
 
zaayrdragon said:
Well, here's the summary with a pretty good rebuttal...

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/designgonebad.html

Of course, the rebuttal comes from a probably biased source, but it shows both the perceived problem with the esophagus, and why it may be the best available design after all.
Click to expand...

One problem I spotted immediately:

The only way to allow for a large respiration rate with one tube to the nose would be to greatly increase the size and openings in our nose. Not only would this look ugly, but the larger openings would present problems.
Click to expand...

Look ugly? To Who? Obviously if all humans had bigger nostrils, bigger nostrils would be the norm and nobody would think anything about it.

As for the rest of his objections: Whales seem to manage okay with separate breathing and eating apparatus. (And some of them live in extremely cold areas, and exert themselves greatly)

Besides, the more important lesson is that the lungs currently occupy the space that a swimbladder would occupy in a fish. This would be closed off in a fish so wouldn't be a hindrance. As the swimbladder developed into a lung, the opening became more regularly open, causing the choking difficulty we see today. If the human body had been designed from the outset to have lungs, it wouldn't have been hard to find a solution to this problem.

Suppose you were developing a car from scratch, and were working on a fuel injection system. You came up with a neat solution, but it meant you had to reach over the open fuel trough to put things in the trunk. Sometimes you'd drop things into the trough and set fire to the car. You'd fix that problem, wouldn't you? You are, after all, an expert designer.
 
No wonder at all. I still maintain that in a large enough (I used to say 'infinite', but I think there's a flaw there) universe, even minute probability becomes reality.

The incredibly small chance of biosystems working so well as they do is just a function of minute probability in a vast reality. After all, if there's only one chance in 200 million that a life form could evolve a heart suitable for pumping blood, certainly there's space enough in our universe to accomadate it.

That being said...

Makes me wonder how far out THERE we have to go before we find those silica-based life forms and creatures that breath through their skins (Macro creatures; I know, some small critters do).
 
One problem I spotted immediately:
Click to expand...

*snip*

Good point also... I'm sure I'll have to read and research this site for a few weeks before I feel qualified to judge one way or the other.
 
richardm said:

If the human body had been designed from the outset to have lungs, it wouldn't have been hard to find a solution to this problem.
Click to expand...

I just wanted to highlight this key point.

The rebuttal is written from the view of someone who takes the rest of the body as a given, not of doing the design from the start.
 
Iacchus said:
This was in reference to doing yourself in by the way. ;) In which case I ask, is destroying the body -- in any way, shape or form for that matter -- good for the body?
Click to expand...
One word: surgery.

You really have an impoverished ability to think past your preconceptions.
 
BillHoyt said:

One word: surgery.

You really have an impoverished ability to think past your preconceptions.
Click to expand...
Must be a God given talent I guess? ;)

But why the need to perform surgery, besides circumcision perhaps :D if, the body is healthy? And you know what they say, "If it ain't broke don't fix it." Right?
 
Iacchus said:
But why the need to perform surgery, besides circumcision perhaps :D if, the body is healthy? And you know what they say, "If it ain't broke don't fix it." Right?
Click to expand...
Come-on. Don't start now. And why circumcision is necessary?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom