NationStates Jolt Archive

I have, after looking at the world around me, concluded that any designer that might exist (as opposed to natural selection, which will generate species with an advantage, not perfect species) must be mindlessly stupid. Although there is a plethora of evidence all over the place, I will stick to the human body for simplicity's sake.

1: Wiring is too long and complicated. Rather than connecting directly to the brain, the optic nerve crosses to the other side of the face, then connects, thus increasing the cost of the pruduction through excessive wiring and increasing chances of a malfunction in one part spreading to the other, since the wiring crosses.

2: Useless/superfulous parts. Examples: tail bone (all it does is break easily), appendix (potenially lethal design flaw with no purpose whatsoever), wisdom teeth (have to be pulled on most individuals lest they force the teeth into the wrong positions). These add to the cost of production while serving no purpose and reducing, rather than increasing, the effectiveness of the product.

3: Lack of redundancy in essential systems. What sort of moronic engineer would make the fule intake and the air intake share the same entrance tube, especially when the types of fuel needed have a distinct possibility of clogging said tube for a longer period of time than the product can survive without air? Why is there only one tendon per direction of movement for each moving part, when everyone who has looked at a cutaway of an airplane can tell that having a redundant tendon is a very slight increase in production cost, and lends a disproporionately high degree of durability?

4: Inefficiency of certain subsystems, especially compared to existing better models with no copyright on them. The lungs consume only a fraction of the available oxygen; the eyes of the "human" are much less effective than eyes on birds of prey and other animals, the human musculature and propultion system is notably inferior in design and capability to that of the chimpanzee or gorrilla. Data storage and retrieval is highly inefficient and number-processing speeds are dismally low compared to those that could be attained with software built into the design. Birth is difficult, takes a very long time, and, without sophisticated medical techniques, often fatal, whereas birth for most animals is simple and easy.

5: Insufficient control surfaces. The rate of release of hormones, signals to the muscles to grow, singnals to the body to store or expend fat, control over heart rate, digestive rate, et cetera, are insufficiently controlled by the operator. There are no kill swiches for pain, no activation systems for erections or ovations, no adrenalyn injection rate control. The operator lacks vital controls that would be highly useful and often life-saving for the product.

6: Lack of use of the best available design. Some variants designed are notably superior to others in one or more areas. Yet only a miniscule fraction of products are smart, strong, quick, and good-looking. When a half-decent engineer sees something that works, he should adapt it and build it into his model, especially if it isn't copyrighted.


Grant you, all these things make a good amount of sence if one uses the evolutionary model. All an organism needs to out-evolve its competition and eventually speciate away from its ancestors is a slight, miniscule edge for a tiny fraction of history in a particular environment, and flaws don't matter as long as they do not take away that edge.

But if one uses the design model, it is neccessary that we assume we were designed by a fool.

In essence, God farted...and BOOM we get the universe?

People thought people that claimed the Earth revolved around the sun, and not the other way around, were pretty stupid.

People thought people that claimed the Earth revolved around the sun, and not the other way around, were pretty stupid.

Does this have any relevance, or are you just posting random fortune cookie quotes? If so, I suggest "That wasn't chicken".

Does this have any relevance, or are you just posting random fortune cookie quotes? If so, I suggest "That wasn't chicken".
No no, it does have relevance. Seriously.

I have, after looking at the world around me, concluded that any designer that might exist (as opposed to natural selection, which will generate species with an advantage, not perfect species) must be mindlessly stupid. Although there is a plethora of evidence all over the place, I will stick to the human body for simplicity's sake.

1: Wiring is too long and complicated. Rather than connecting directly to the brain, the optic nerve crosses to the other side of the face, then connects, thus increasing the cost of the pruduction through excessive wiring and increasing chances of a malfunction in one part spreading to the other, since the wiring crosses.

2: Useless/superfulous parts. Examples: tail bone (all it does is break easily), appendix (potenially lethal design flaw with no purpose whatsoever), wisdom teeth (have to be pulled on most individuals lest they force the teeth into the wrong positions). These add to the cost of production while serving no purpose and reducing, rather than increasing, the effectiveness of the product.

3: Lack of redundancy in essential systems. What sort of moronic engineer would make the fule intake and the air intake share the same entrance tube, especially when the types of fuel needed have a distinct possibility of clogging said tube for a longer period of time than the product can survive without air? Why is there only one tendon per direction of movement for each moving part, when everyone who has looked at a cutaway of an airplane can tell that having a redundant tendon is a very slight increase in production cost, and lends a disproporionately high degree of durability?

4: Inefficiency of certain subsystems, especially compared to existing better models with no copyright on them. The lungs consume only a fraction of the available oxygen; the eyes of the "human" are much less effective than eyes on birds of prey and other animals, the human musculature and propultion system is notably inferior in design and capability to that of the chimpanzee or gorrilla. Data storage and retrieval is highly inefficient and number-processing speeds are dismally low compared to those that could be attained with software built into the design. Birth is difficult, takes a very long time, and, without sophisticated medical techniques, often fatal, whereas birth for most animals is simple and easy.

5: Insufficient control surfaces. The rate of release of hormones, signals to the muscles to grow, singnals to the body to store or expend fat, control over heart rate, digestive rate, et cetera, are insufficiently controlled by the operator. There are no kill swiches for pain, no activation systems for erections or ovations, no adrenalyn injection rate control. The operator lacks vital controls that would be highly useful and often life-saving for the product.

6: Lack of use of the best available design. Some variants designed are notably superior to others in one or more areas. Yet only a miniscule fraction of products are smart, strong, quick, and good-looking. When a half-decent engineer sees something that works, he should adapt it and build it into his model, especially if it isn't copyrighted.


Grant you, all these things make a good amount of sence if one uses the evolutionary model. All an organism needs to out-evolve its competition and eventually speciate away from its ancestors is a slight, miniscule edge for a tiny fraction of history in a particular environment, and flaws don't matter as long as they do not take away that edge.

But if one uses the design model, it is neccessary that we assume we were designed by a fool.

So how do all of these flaws as being products of natural selection produce advantages in the human species?

If thes flaws are a hinderance, shouldnt they have gone the way of the do-do? :p

EDIT: I actually believe natural selection is sound science but that doesn't negate the existence of a designer. Just because one group says a designer would make perfect species everytime doesn't make it so. How can anyone claim to know the intentions or even the nature of it's creator? Looking at programming, I am not so sure there are any perfect programs that can't be designed better. How many incarnations of Windows are there? Maybe the designer thinks that there could be improvement in the old systems but it's too much work and if it ain't broke theres no reason to fix it or the fixes are to come out in a later model.

Grant you, all these things make a good amount of sence if one uses the evolutionary model. All an organism needs to out-evolve its competition and eventually speciate away from its ancestors is a slight, miniscule edge for a tiny fraction of history in a particular environment, and flaws don't matter as long as they do not take away that edge.

We still exist because our avantages outweigh our flaws and our competition is worse than we are. Evolution isn't a tree straining upwards to perfection. It's a bush, pushing outwards towards "yet another batch of babies".

No no, it does have relevance. Seriously.

Yup.

Earth revolving around the sun: Divined by scientific process, proven over and over again.

Sun around Earth: Disproven. Early resistance to scientific theory caused by religious beliefs.

Evolution: Divined by scientific process. While observational proof or macro-evolution is impossible due to the timescale involved, micro-evolution is easily seen. Enough evidence has been gathered by scientists to make evolution the best theory we have available. Details can and will be disproven in part, but the general concept is unassailable.

Intelligent Design/Creation: No scientific proof of either has ever been found. Creationists point to gaps in evolutionary theory as proof of Creation. At the very least, this is a false dichotomy (i.e. "if it ain't evolution, it must be creation! Durr!"). Resistance to scientific theory is primarily due to religious beliefs.

We still exist because our avantages outweigh our flaws and our competition is worse than we are. Evolution isn't a tree straining upwards to perfection. It's a bush, pushing outwards towards "yet another batch of babies".


Maybe your version of evolution isn't :D I plan to evolve for the better dammit!

Hmmmm...perhaps said Intelligent Designer simply outthinks you in every fashion?
I mean, I always thought it was stupid to have a million different companies doing the same thing when I was little. Doesn't mean everyone should listen to me, though. :p

Isn't anyone gonna comment on my "Holy Fart" theory...?

Yup.

Earth revolving around the sun: Divined by scientific process, proven over and over again.

Sun around Earth: Disproven. Early resistance to scientific theory caused by religious beliefs.

Evolution: Divined by scientific process. While observational proof or macro-evolution is impossible due to the timescale involved, micro-evolution is easily seen. Enough evidence has been gathered by scientists to make evolution the best theory we have available. Details can and will be disproven in part, but the general concept is unassailable.

Intelligent Design/Creation: No scientific proof of either has ever been found. Creationists point to gaps in evolutionary theory as proof of Creation. At the very least, this is a false dichotomy (i.e. "if it ain't evolution, it must be creation! Durr!"). Resistance to scientific theory is primarily due to religious beliefs.

Er, I was kinda leaning in favor of religous beliefs, but your way is fine too in opposite land (Apparently it's Brazil, according to Homer Simpson)

The only way a human was designed is if it was done by a committee.

If our existance was perfect, then we would be boring. No one likes perfect things, it's too difficult to do, tedious to keep perfect, and cheap.

Isn't anyone gonna comment on my "Holy Fart" theory...?
Yes. You can't be serious?

If our existance was perfect, then we would be boring. No one likes perfect things, it's too difficult to do, tedious to keep perfect, and cheap.

Since no person in existance has ever experienced perfection, how do you know it would be boring?

Yes. You can't be serious?

Touche', Colodia.

I make my exit.

Isn't anyone gonna comment on my "Holy Fart" theory...?


I always thought it was more like God ate a tonenail that had toecheese all over it and then threw up and there was the univese in all it's disgusting glory.

EDIT: I actually believe natural selection is sound science but that doesn't negate the existence of a designer. Just because one group says a designer would make perfect species everytime doesn't make it so. How can anyone claim to know the intentions or even the nature of it's creator? Looking at programming, I am not so sure there are any perfect programs that can't be designed better. How many incarnations of Windows are there? Maybe the designer thinks that there could be improvement in the old systems but it's too much work and if it ain't broke theres no reason to fix it or the fixes are to come out in a later model.

That's exactly the point of this thread ... to prove that if there IS a designer, he/she/it/they would have to be idiot(s) (or at the very least, fallible) to design something so inefficient.

Er, I was kinda leaning in favor of religous beliefs, but your way is fine too in opposite land (Apparently it's Brazil, according to Homer Simpson)

So you believe the sun revolves around the Earth?


In all fairness, the Earth doesn't revolve around the Sun. They both orbit a common center of gravity (which is why scientists can detect a planet around a distant star by tracking the "wobble" of the star.)

Since no person in existance has ever experienced perfection, how do you know it would be boring?
Play a video game with invincible health sometime for the entire length of the game.

Since no person in existance has ever experienced perfection, how do you know it would be boring?

Speak for yourself. :p

Play a video game with invincible health sometime for the entire length of the game.

How is that perfection?

So you believe the sun revolves around the Earth?


In all fairness, the Earth doesn't revolve around the Sun. They both orbit a common center of gravity (which is why scientists can detect a planet around a distant star by tracking the "wobble" of the star.)
No no no...I meant that we don't have all the facts yet in the world and it seems rather stupid for both the religous and the scientists to conclude anything at all.

We still can't send a spacecraft at the speed of light. We're in no position to be claiming whether something is God's doing or not.

How is that perfection?
Fine. Invincible and infinate everything. There.

People thought people that claimed the Earth revolved around the sun, and not the other way around, were pretty stupid.
Perhaps you should go outside and stare at the sun for a while, not drinking any water might help as well.
Report back after a week of this and tell us what you think, that was what a number of people who determined that Earth was the center of the universe did :P

On another note, I find the blatant hostility with which some people (who shall remain unnamed) treat religion.
They seem to have this conception that Science and Religion Dont Mix, which is pretty much totaly false. If science and religion worked together, I think it would be, simply put, a very good thing. The trouble is that both segments (for the most part) react in the classical Exorcist fashion when they encounter the other.
They make the Sign of the Cross with their fingers and shout "AWAY WITH THEE DEMON! TROUBLE ME NOT!".
Hypotheticaly, of course.

It is also rather amusing to remember that the "greatest scientist of his era" was the one who determined that the Sun revolved around Earth. Apparently he came up with this simply as something to say, which is true of most of his theories.
Hooray for BSing!

1: Wiring is too long and complicated. Rather than connecting directly to the brain, the optic nerve crosses to the other side of the face, then connects, thus increasing the cost of the pruduction through excessive wiring and increasing chances of a malfunction in one part spreading to the other, since the wiring crosses.

2: Useless/superfulous parts. Examples: tail bone (all it does is break easily), appendix (potenially lethal design flaw with no purpose whatsoever), wisdom teeth (have to be pulled on most individuals lest they force the teeth into the wrong positions). These add to the cost of production while serving no purpose and reducing, rather than increasing, the effectiveness of the product.

3: Lack of redundancy in essential systems. What sort of moronic engineer would make the fule intake and the air intake share the same entrance tube, especially when the types of fuel needed have a distinct possibility of clogging said tube for a longer period of time than the product can survive without air? Why is there only one tendon per direction of movement for each moving part, when everyone who has looked at a cutaway of an airplane can tell that having a redundant tendon is a very slight increase in production cost, and lends a disproporionately high degree of durability?

4: Inefficiency of certain subsystems, especially compared to existing better models with no copyright on them. The lungs consume only a fraction of the available oxygen; the eyes of the "human" are much less effective than eyes on birds of prey and other animals, the human musculature and propultion system is notably inferior in design and capability to that of the chimpanzee or gorrilla. Data storage and retrieval is highly inefficient and number-processing speeds are dismally low compared to those that could be attained with software built into the design. Birth is difficult, takes a very long time, and, without sophisticated medical techniques, often fatal, whereas birth for most animals is simple and easy.

5: Insufficient control surfaces. The rate of release of hormones, signals to the muscles to grow, singnals to the body to store or expend fat, control over heart rate, digestive rate, et cetera, are insufficiently controlled by the operator. There are no kill swiches for pain, no activation systems for erections or ovations, no adrenalyn injection rate control. The operator lacks vital controls that would be highly useful and often life-saving for the product.

6: Lack of use of the best available design. Some variants designed are notably superior to others in one or more areas. Yet only a miniscule fraction of products are smart, strong, quick, and good-looking. When a half-decent engineer sees something that works, he should adapt it and build it into his model, especially if it isn't copyrighted.


Now lets gut all of these.

1. The wiring that way maybe more efficient, also we see only a certain perctenage with our eyes, the rest is made up by our brain.

2. Appendix has a purpose, to help digest plant matter (probably doesn't do much of anything at all now, maybe it does, who cares?), but the disease is to help limit the population. The tailbone, I have no clue what purpose it ever had, but it helps make the spine look all neat on diagrams.

3. More effecient, and requires less space. There is a muscel (organ?) called the epiglottis that helps prevent the problem. Also we also have things to help dislodge objects already inside the trechea such as coughing.

4. We only use a certain amount of oxygen, that we need for aerobic repiration. We don't need super eyes, as it would be a waste of energy and resources, providing no needed ability.

5. Pain is a warning, like fear, therefore if it could be "turned off" then it would be pretty useless now wouldn't it. Hormones are controlled by the brain (not all the time) and used only when needed. If we could control hormones, wouldn't people be a lot bigger(for height wise because of the growth hormone)?

6. Why give something it doesn't need? It would waste resources, providing no needed benefit.

That's exactly the point of this thread ... to prove that if there IS a designer, he/she/it/they would have to be idiot(s) (or at the very least, fallible) to design something so inefficient.


Well perhaps the designer (if there was one) is fallible. Maybe it is a group beings that made us in their image in a super computer and we are nothing mroe than programs. Maybe The flaws are there to make it look like it was all a product of a bunch of random happenings. Maybe it is all a product of a bunch of random happening. What I don't get is why people hold so much contention for those who want to believe in a Creator of any sort perfect or not. Who freakin cares? Get over it... so many atheists that worship at the alter of science act as if science has disproven God somehow. Has that happened? Just because some of you can't see see past one or two groups versions of a Creator doesn't make any idea of a creator completely impossible.

And besides.... if any of you are such geniuses, then create a cell that lives and reproduces. If random happenings can create somehting as complex as a cell, surely with all your knowledge of how cells work you could purposefully create one right? We have nanotechnology and the ability to maneuver atoms at will so get to it.

Since no person in existance has ever experienced perfection, how do you know it would be boring?

Well the guy from Gataca was near perfect, and pretty bored. If you know you could do anything, why bother doing it? You would know the end result already. Also in the Twilight Zone, a guy was sent to the after life (he was a criminal) his perfect life (won every poker game, got every girl he wanted, etc), and he was bored. It turned out he was in hell.

Well the guy from Gataca was near perfect, and pretty bored. If you know you could do anything, why bother doing it? You would know the end result already. Also in the Twilight Zone, a guy was sent to the after life (he was a criminal) his perfect life (won every poker game, got every girl he wanted, etc), and he was bored. It turned out he was in hell.


I loved that episode!

If our existance was perfect, then we would be boring. No one likes perfect things, it's too difficult to do, tedious to keep perfect, and cheap.
Except we're in the image of god. If we're flawed, so is god.


We are flawed, see above, so ergo, god is flawed.

And besides.... if any of you are such geniuses, then create a cell that lives and reproduces. If random happenings can create somehting as complex as a cell, surely with all yoru knowledge of how cells work you could purposefully create one right? We have nanotechnology and the ability to maneuver atoms at will so get to it.

Do I get to invent the building supplies and laws of physics while making my blueprint?

Alternately, do I need to build the self-reproducing cell, or merely design a self-reproducing system that naturally selects more effective models over time and give it a few hundred million years?

Do I get to invent the building supplies and laws of physics while making my blueprint?

Alternately, do I need to build the self-reproducing cell, or merely design a self-reproducing system that naturally selects more effective models over time and give it a few hundred million years?


No you are building the entire thing and it shall start living and reproducing right away. You don't get the time that random events had because you have a surperior intelligence and can do things with specific intent. Ah hell, I'm nice, I'll give you 10 years to acheive this goal.

Except we're in the image of god. If we're flawed, so is god.


We are flawed, see above, so ergo, god is flawed.

The image of God, not the workings. Think about it, it only applies to his appearence, not any innerworkings (if any).

Fine. Invincible and infinate everything. There.

But if the game were designed to let you always win by what you percieved to be your own skill/wit/talent in such a way as the illusion were perfect, wouldn't that be endlessly entertaining?

To look at it in another way, how fun would a game of Halo be if you also had to worry about your character choking on a rare piece of beef or dying of appendicitis?

No you are building the entire thing and it shall start living and reproducing right away. You don't get the time that random events had because you have a surperior intelligence and can do things with specific intent. Ah hell, I'm nice, I'll give you 10 years to acheive this goal.

Recombadent DNA may go with your new cell thing, then again it is a little modification, nothing from scratch so maybe not.

But if the game were designed to let you always win by what you percieved to be your own skill/wit/talent in such a way as the illusion were perfect, wouldn't that be endlessly entertaining?

To look at it in another way, how fun would a game of Halo be if you also had to worry about your character choking on a rare piece of beef or dying of appendicitis?

Greater, MC should also be able to trip over random rocks, he is not a super human (well he technically is), but he still is human nonetheless.

Well perhaps the designer (if there was one) is fallible. Maybe it is a group beings that made us in their image in a super computer and we are nothing mroe than programs. Maybe The flaws are there to make it look like it was all a product of a bunch of random happenings. Maybe it is all a product of a bunch of random happening. What I don't get is why people hold so much contention for those who want to believe in a Creator of any sort perfect or not. Who freakin cares? Get over it... so many atheists that worship at the alter of science act as if science has disproven God somehow. Has that happened? Just because some of you can't see see past one or two groups versions of a Creator doesn't make any idea of a creator completely impossible. Grow an imagination for Christs sake.

Whatever. I would say, however, that the evidence posted says very little for a perfect designer who created humans in the image of perfection. Just because it discounts the possiblities of 'one or two versions of a Creator' doesn't mean that anyone (or at least me) is trying to use it to discount any and all versions.

Btw, I did get an imagination ... I imagined that happy cosmic walruses are coming to give me candy. Yay!

And besides.... if any of you are such geniuses, then create a cell that lives and reproduces.

I've tried ... no dice. I've never really had much luck with women. :(

The image of God, not the workings. Think about it, it only applies to his appearence, not any innerworkings (if any).

So, an all-knowing, all-caring god couldn't think of a better way to test us/keep us entertained than to inflict/allow misery on good people? Then he wants us to worship him and only him?

Check please.

Recombadent DNA may go with your new cell thing, then again it is a little modification, nothing from scratch so maybe not.

I'm doubting that anyone coudl purposefully create a living cell from scratch at this point in time. I'd LVOE to see it done though, it shoudl be easy for those who think the complex human body/mind with all its interdependant systems have such a mindlessly stupid design.

You forgot the obvious flaw, namely, that waste is disposed of through the reproductive areas.

Also, there is the possibility that the present model is not the ultimate design, that there is a future model in planning...

The image of God, not the workings. Think about it, it only applies to his appearence, not any innerworkings (if any).
Then god is still flawed, because he created many flawed creations.

Do I get to invent the building supplies and laws of physics while making my blueprint?

Alternately, do I need to build the self-reproducing cell, or merely design a self-reproducing system that naturally selects more effective models over time and give it a few hundred million years?

It'll only come back in time in search of Sarah Connor.

So, an all-knowing, all-caring god couldn't think of a better way to test us/keep us entertained than to inflict/allow misery on good people? Then he wants us to worship him and only him?

Check please.

Why should he keep us entertained, maybe he was actually thinking about the animals, so we just don't, I don't know, randomly slaughter them.

If you invented a self aware, intelligent species what would you have them do?

Whatever. I would say, however, that the evidence posted says very little for a perfect designer who created humans in the image of perfection. Just because it discounts the possiblities of 'one or two versions of a Creator' doesn't mean that anyone (or at least me) is trying to use it to discount any and all versions.

Btw, I did get an imagination ... I imagined that happy cosmic walruses are coming to give me candy. Yay!



I've tried ... no dice. I've never really had much luck with women. :(

I'm sorry I didn't mean you personally and obviously you have a very good imagination... worrisomely so :p I meant anyone who can only think of a creator in one or two ways. It's ridiculously frustrating.

I'm doubting that anyone coudl purposefully create a living cell from scratch at this point in time. I'd LVOE to see it done though, it shoudl be easy for those who think the complex human body/mind with all its interdependant systems have such a mindlessly stupid design.
It would be extremely difficult...for us to do. For an omnipotent, ominpresent god it should be child's play.

You forgot the obvious flaw, namely, that waste is disposed of through the reproductive areas.

Also, there is the possibility that the present model is not the ultimate design, that there is a future model in planning...

Bingo. I think that's what scared religious people most: That we are not God's final creation. It might very well be 23:59 hours into the 6th day...

Suddenly, we are not the body that the Universe revolves around...

Then god is still flawed, because he created many flawed creations.

Why would he want to create perfection? If we were perfect then how the hell would we die? Reproduction would be pointless, any competitions would be pointless, mirrors, taste, and a lot more would be pointless.

You forgot the obvious flaw, namely, that waste is disposed of through the reproductive areas.

Also, there is the possibility that the present model is not the ultimate design, that there is a future model in planning...

That is not a flaw. It is effecient, and urine is highly clean (I got that from grossology).

Why would he want to create perfection? If we were perfect then how the hell would we die? Reproduction would be pointless, any competitions would be pointless, mirrors, taste, and a lot more would be pointless.

Why do we have to die? Why is reproduction the point of all Creation? Why are competitions only important if someone can win? If perfection is so unsatisfactory, why is God perfect? He's perfect. What drives him? Why couldn't we be driven similarly? If it has to do with free will, does that mean that God doesn't have free will?

Whoa.

Then god is still flawed, because he created many flawed creations.

What would his motivation be? Why would he want things to be perfect. As long as they are imperfect, then they can always be improved.

That is not a flaw. It is effecient, and urine is highly clean (I got that from grossology).
Yeah, but it's damn near impossible to urinate when aroused.

Why do we have to die? Why is reproduction the point of all Creation? Why are competitions only important if someone can win? If perfection is so unsatisfactory, why is God perfect? He's perfect. What drives him? Why couldn't we be driven similarly? If it has to do with free will, does that mean that God doesn't have free will?

Whoa.

1. To conserve space and energy (for the cycle). After a certain point, living is kindof pointless.
2. To insure the survival of the species.
3. What would be the point of a competition if everyone is equal? Competitions prove who is superior to who at what.
4. He was always perfect. He has no reason to be imperfect.
6. Because we are humans, and not God. Besides why would he want the same thing to drive us.
7. God has freewill.

Yeah, but it's damn near impossible to urinate when aroused.

I have no problem whizzing when I'm sporting chub or wood. Now, getting the urine to go where I want it to go, that's another story...

Yeah, but it's damn near impossible to urinate when aroused.

It is impossible, that's because of a superior design that is also effecient, and space conserving.

Lets all assume that we could possibly know what the motivations of a creator would be and what the nature of said creator is. Go ahead let's assume. There do we all feel better? What? It was pointless and didn't solve anything? Oh.

It is impossible, that's because of a superior design that is also effecient, and space conserving.
Now with more kidney injuries!

Now with more kidney injuries!

... No. It takes a while to get kidney injuries from it.

1. To conserve space and energy (for the cycle). After a certain point, living is kindof pointless.
2. To insure the survival of the species.
3. What would be the point of a competition if everyone is equal? Competitions prove who is superior to who at what.
4. He was always perfect. He has no reason to be imperfect.
6. Because we are humans, and not God. Besides why would he want the same thing to drive us.
7. God has freewill.

1. If we were immortal and didn't procreate, there'd be need to conserve energy/space.

2. See #1

3. The joy of creating. Beauty. Comraderie. The sheer adrenaline rush.

4. Why do his reasons not apply to us?

5. What happened to 5?

6. We are humans because we are humans. Mmm, okay. God wants less for us? That seems kinda jealous to me. Sounds like an abusive relationship to me.

7. Prove it.

It is impossible, that's because of a superior design that is also effecient, and space conserving.
"Urinary Tract Infection"

... No. It takes a while to get kidney injuries from it.
Priapisms.

1. If we were immortal and didn't procreate, there'd be need to conserve energy/space.

2. See #1

3. The joy of creating. Beauty. Comraderie. The sheer adrenaline rush.

4. Why do his reasons not apply to us?

5. What happened to 5?

6. We are humans because we are humans. Mmm, okay. God wants less for us? That seems kinda jealous to me. Sounds like an abusive relationship to me.

7. Prove it.

The energy cycle, you know object takes energy, transfers energy, and eventually the energy is returned back to the enviroment.

Spirits tend to have no adrenaline

Why would they

I numbered by sentences, so I skipped it when I was at a lose for an answer

I forgot what I wrote

He creates without being told.

the question you should really be asking is why would a perfect god create a universe at all?

the creation (the furthest in events theorists can theorize)

basically one day there was a singularity were everything we humans will most likely ever know was concentrated into a tiny dot this was a black hole now along came some foreign object which was right on the side of the black hole (a side which is infinite tiny) now after infinite time the dot reached the centre at which time the laws of physics were destroyed creating the big bang which means are God could be a tiny piece of dust that managed to destroy the (old laws?) of physics thus creating the big bang thus cells form over ? of years in a sulphur pit/rock pool/other were all the materials of life exist

now were that tiny speck of dust came from isn't really ever going to be worth thinking about as we will never solve it (though if we do find out were it came from we may well destroy everything and I mean everything!)

the question you should really be asking is why would a perfect god create a universe at all?
The generally accepted answer is a: he likes creating, and b: he needed someone to stroke his ego

the creation (the furthest in events theorists can theorize)

basically one day there was a singularity were everything we humans will most likely ever know was concentrated into a tiny dot this was a black hole
Pretty accurate.

now along came some foreign object which was right on the side of the black hole (a side which is infinite tiny)
Here your accuracy comes to a screeching halt. The universe was the size of the aforementioned tiny dot. That foreign object could not have existed, because there was nowhere for it to exist.

False: All the matter and energy in the universe were consentrated in a single point, which exploded--the Big Bang. Stuff is still flying out into the void from that explosion.

True: The universe, and all matter and energy therein, was infantesimally small. The Big Bang is the moment at which the universe, and all the matter and energy therein, expanded at an insanely high rate (for a short time, likely greater than c*). That expansion is continuing today.
*c is the boundary for how fast something can move. It is not a boundary on how fast the universe can expand.

now after infinite time the dot reached the centre at which time the laws of physics were destroyed creating the big bang which means are God could be a tiny piece of dust that managed to destroy the (old laws?) of physics thus creating the big bang thus cells form over ? of years in a sulphur pit/rock pool/other were all the materials of life exist
The laws of physics were neither created nor destroyed nor suspended at any time, including "before" the big bang.

now were that tiny speck of dust came from isn't really ever going to be worth thinking about as we will never solve it (though if we do find out were it came from we may well destroy everything and I mean everything!)
Um... a: no dust. b: ZOMG, TEH ILLEGAL KNOWLEDGE WILL DESTROY US ALL BECAUSE WE ARE NOT MEANT TO UNDERSTAND OUR UNIVERSE!! PHEAR!

if you don’t believe me look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_horizon

and the universe could end (in theory) if the laws of physics are proven wrong

I know what a singularity is, Call to Power. I also know the Big Bang Theory, unlike you.

As to laws of physics... the so-called "laws of physics" are humanities attempts to explain the basics of the universe's modus operandi: the basic traits that all matter and energy appear to follow.

The universe is always internally self-consistant. It follows rules. We do not know any of those rules; however, we can make up our own simplified/generalised conclusions that are completely repeatable and can be applied with near-certainty that they will hold correct. Some exampes of these rules we have made up are general and special relativity, universal gravitation, equivalence and conservation of matter and energy, the inverse squares law for expanding wavefronts, etc.

If we eventually prove one of those "wrong" it will be because a new option that is presented fits all the available data just a tiny bit better, like a key fitting minisculely more snugly in a lock. The old key worked just fine, but the new one is slightly more precise, or is precise in more places.

Consider kinetic energy's replacement from KE=1/2mv^2 to KE=mc^2 *(1/sqrt[1-(v^2/c^2)] - 1). The "laws of physics" were "disproven". The universe is fine.

So how do all of these flaws as being products of natural selection produce advantages in the human species?

If thes flaws are a hinderance, shouldnt they have gone the way of the do-do? :p

EDIT: I actually believe natural selection is sound science but that doesn't negate the existence of a designer. Just because one group says a designer would make perfect species everytime doesn't make it so. How can anyone claim to know the intentions or even the nature of it's creator? Looking at programming, I am not so sure there are any perfect programs that can't be designed better. How many incarnations of Windows are there? Maybe the designer thinks that there could be improvement in the old systems but it's too much work and if it ain't broke theres no reason to fix it or the fixes are to come out in a later model.

Because new traits don't develop unless there is a gradually rewarded path of progress from one state to the other. Evolving a tube that goes half way from the navel to the lungs doesn't help, and so gradually longer tubes that eventually make breathing through the nose and mouth don't evolve. More efficient lungs that use more of the oxegen available will only evolve if the oxegen content of the air decreases. That's why so many birds and reptiles have more efficient lungs. They evolved when their ancestors lived in our prehistoric low oxegen atmosphere.

Just like flight. If you're an animal that falls out of trees a lot then your species might produce children that get better at it by evolving a lighter body frame, like a cat. Then it might become better at jumping from one tree to the ground and then scampering up another tree before the slathering predators at the bottom can catch up with you, again, like a cat. Eventually, your decendants may go from having a light semi-parachuted frame, like a cat's, to one actually suited to gliding, like a flying squirrel's. Then you're well on your way to flight. Elephants will never evolve flight however, because there is nothing to reward an elephant mutant with a pair of vestigial wings that would lead to more offspring with stronger and stronger, but still useless wings, until one day you get an elephant that has wings strong enough to lift tons of fat, bone, muscle, and water.

Because new traits don't develop unless there is a gradually rewarded path of progress from one state to the other. Evolving a tube that goes half way from the navel to the lungs doesn't help, and so gradually longer tubes that eventually make breathing through the nose and mouth don't evolve. More efficient lungs that use more of the oxegen available will only evolve if the oxegen content of the air decreases. That's why so many birds and reptiles have more efficient lungs. They evolved when their ancestors lived in our prehistoric low oxegen atmosphere.

Just like flight. If you're an animal that falls out of trees a lot then your species might produce children that get better at it by evolving a lighter body frame, like a cat. Then it might become better at jumping from one tree to the ground and then scampering up another tree before the slathering predators at the bottom can catch up with you, again, like a cat. Eventually, your decendants may go from having a light semi-parachuted frame, like a cat's, to one actually suited to gliding, like a flying squirrel's. Then you're well on your way to flight. Elephants will never evolve flight however, because there is nothing to reward an elephant mutant with a pair of vestigial wings that would lead to more offspring with stronger and stronger, but still useless wings, until one day you get an elephant that has wings strong enough to lift tons of fat, bone, muscle, and water.

Why would an animal that falls out of a tree a lot develop a lighter body at random? Or are you saying it was by some sort of design? How did the flying squirrel figure out that it could fly as soon as it gained the semi-parachute frame and then figure out how to use it to it's advantage? How did it know how to spread its arms and legs correctly to use the new body design and that that was the reason it was gliding rather than just the way gravity works? Did it do tests from different heights until it knew the heights it could jump and glide from safely? If large creatures could never develop wings then how did the teradactyl do it? When the first birds started developing wings that were useless nubs, how did that become an advantage for them when they couldn't even fly with them?

*/devils advocate*

Why would an animal that falls out of a tree a lot develop a lighter body at random? Or are you saying it was by some sort of design? How did the flying squirrel figure out that it could fly as soon as it gained the semi-parachute frame and then figure out how to use it to it's advantage? How did it know how to spread its arms and legs correctly to use the new body design and that that was the reason it was gliding rather than just the way gravity works? Did it do tests from different heights until it knew the heights it could jump and glide from safely? If large creatures could never develop wings then how did the teradactyl do it? When the first birds started developing wings that were useless nubs, how did that become an advantage for them when they couldn't even fly with them?

*/devils advocate*

A random modification occurs. If it is beneficial, it is more likely to be passed on to it's descentandts. For example, squirrels naturally jump from branch to branch. A little extra skin under it's arms helps those jumps to be more stable. That gets passed on. Eventually the flap of skin gets larger. The squirrel can jump a little farther. That gets passed on and so on for millions of years. Meanwhile, millions of non-beneficial modifications, or modifications that were simply unlucky, disappear.

People who can't grasp evolution are simply unable to grasp how long, biologically, millions or tens of millions of years are.

I have, after looking at the world around me, concluded that any designer that might exist (as opposed to natural selection, which will generate species with an advantage, not perfect species) must be mindlessly stupid. Although there is a plethora of evidence all over the place, I will stick to the human body for simplicity's sake.

1: Wiring is too long and complicated. Rather than connecting directly to the brain, the optic nerve crosses to the other side of the face, then connects, thus increasing the cost of the pruduction through excessive wiring and increasing chances of a malfunction in one part spreading to the other, since the wiring crosses.

2: Useless/superfulous parts. Examples: tail bone (all it does is break easily), appendix (potenially lethal design flaw with no purpose whatsoever), wisdom teeth (have to be pulled on most individuals lest they force the teeth into the wrong positions). These add to the cost of production while serving no purpose and reducing, rather than increasing, the effectiveness of the product.

3: Lack of redundancy in essential systems. What sort of moronic engineer would make the fule intake and the air intake share the same entrance tube, especially when the types of fuel needed have a distinct possibility of clogging said tube for a longer period of time than the product can survive without air? Why is there only one tendon per direction of movement for each moving part, when everyone who has looked at a cutaway of an airplane can tell that having a redundant tendon is a very slight increase in production cost, and lends a disproporionately high degree of durability?

4: Inefficiency of certain subsystems, especially compared to existing better models with no copyright on them. The lungs consume only a fraction of the available oxygen; the eyes of the "human" are much less effective than eyes on birds of prey and other animals, the human musculature and propultion system is notably inferior in design and capability to that of the chimpanzee or gorrilla. Data storage and retrieval is highly inefficient and number-processing speeds are dismally low compared to those that could be attained with software built into the design. Birth is difficult, takes a very long time, and, without sophisticated medical techniques, often fatal, whereas birth for most animals is simple and easy.

5: Insufficient control surfaces. The rate of release of hormones, signals to the muscles to grow, singnals to the body to store or expend fat, control over heart rate, digestive rate, et cetera, are insufficiently controlled by the operator. There are no kill swiches for pain, no activation systems for erections or ovations, no adrenalyn injection rate control. The operator lacks vital controls that would be highly useful and often life-saving for the product.

6: Lack of use of the best available design. Some variants designed are notably superior to others in one or more areas. Yet only a miniscule fraction of products are smart, strong, quick, and good-looking. When a half-decent engineer sees something that works, he should adapt it and build it into his model, especially if it isn't copyrighted.


Grant you, all these things make a good amount of sence if one uses the evolutionary model. All an organism needs to out-evolve its competition and eventually speciate away from its ancestors is a slight, miniscule edge for a tiny fraction of history in a particular environment, and flaws don't matter as long as they do not take away that edge.

But if one uses the design model, it is neccessary that we assume we were designed by a fool.


the human knee is an engineering disaster, and don't get me started on the fact that the prostate, which is incredibly prone to swelling, is wrapped around our urethra. :mad:

A random modification occurs. If it is beneficial, it is more likely to be passed on to it's descentandts. For example, squirrels naturally jump from branch to branch. A little extra skin under it's arms helps those jumps to be more stable. That gets passed on. Eventually the flap of skin gets larger. The squirrel can jump a little farther. That gets passed on and so on for millions of years. Meanwhile, millions of non-beneficial modifications, or modifications that were simply unlucky, disappear.

People who can't grasp evolution are simply unable to grasp how long, biologically, millions or tens of millions of years are.

Why does the flap of skin get larger? If it was just a random mutation why would it happen again and again (that doesnt seem so random to me) until the squirrel could glide long distances? When beneficial mutations happen again and again for all species even over the course of millions of years, until a creature can do amazing things such as fly, it is easy to see that it could very well be by design (although it could also very well be billions and billions of lucky random mutations in the countless number of species on earth). Just because I don't swallow everything I have heard or read about evolution (or anything for that matter) doesn't mean I can't understand it. Try to show a little respect and not be so condescending just because I am asking questions. :fluffle:

SB, imageine that we have a thousand squirrels.

They all try to jump out of trees. Now, every generation, their wingflaps grow or shrink by 2 mm or 1mm or less. equal chance of all three. 1 generation = 1 year for the sake of simplicity.

Since at first, they have no flaps, the second generation (assume they doubled their population at birth) will have 600 2mmers, 600 1mmers, and 800 no flaps. Since the no flaps would have a disadvantage, the 1000 members that survive to breed will mostly consist of the larger flaps. This then continues (2000 births each gneration)

3rd Generation: 240 4mmer, 440 3mmers, 440 2mmers, 440 1mm, 440 0mm
fourth: 48 6mmer, 136 5mmer, 200 4mmer, 200 3mmers, 200 2mmers, 152 1mmer, 64 0mmer
So, the flaps keep getting larger and larger, giving more and more of an advantage to the larger flaps.

quit explaining natural selection to me

I am asking why the flaps get larger and larger. if its a random mutation. why would it keep happening in each successive generation?

quit explaining natural selection to me

I am asking why the flaps get larger and larger. if its a random mutation. why would it keep happening in each successive generation?

It's not that the flaps get larger and larger, it that those rare ones that do get larger are more beneficial, and since the sample size is so large (millions of critters over millions of years,) the odds of that random mutation happening in one of the squirrels is high. Trillion to one odds are not hard when one has a trillion chances to hit it.

Say, for example, you had a poker hand that had only one in a million chance of improving. If you play a million hands, odds are that you're gonna improve. Winning hand = survival.

Why does the flap of skin get larger? If it was just a random mutation why would it happen again and again (that doesnt seem so random to me) until the squirrel could glide long distances? When beneficial mutations happen again and again for all species even over the course of millions of years, until a creature can do amazing things such as fly, it is easy to see that it could very well be by design (although it could also very well be billions and billions of lucky random mutations in the countless number of species on earth). Just because I don't swallow everything I have heard or read about evolution (or anything for that matter) doesn't mean I can't understand it. Try to show a little respect and not be so condescending just because I am asking questions. :fluffle:

Okay...

Sample Generation 1:
10,000 squirrils are born in population X. 5,000 of them have less than average extra skin between their front and back legs, and 5,000 of them have more than average. 1,000 of them have very slight amounts of extra skin, and 1,000 have a very large amount. Just like half the human population has slightly longer arms than the other half, and a few have very long or very short arms.

Here is a bell curve to show what I mean.
http://img313.imageshack.us/img313/6263/bellcurve6nq.th.jpg (http://img313.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bellcurve6nq.jpg)

I'm going to talk about the middle population for the moment; I'll come back to the outliers in a minute.

The 8,000 in between the two extremes stay in the current habitat, jumping spread-eagle through the trees (a fairly obvious behavioral adaptation, so simple that it could be re-learned each generation by trial and error). The ones with slightly more extra skin can jump slightly farther, and therefore can exploit a larger environment for more food, can escape more predators, and can look more strong and manly when competing for chicks. For this reason, the ones with more extra skin will have more babies before dying than their less-skin siblings did. This will result in the next generation having slightly more skin than the former, as a whole.

HOWEVER! The same degree of deviation from average will still occur. This is the linchpin of evolution. There will still be 50% of the population with less than average amount of extra skin and 50% with more, but that is only "average" relative to the other squirrils. Relative to the original population, almost all the squirrils have more than the original average. The average has moved, because the half on the right side of the bell curve reproduced more. (bear in mind that the second generation would actually be much larger than the first, given the rate at which rodents reproduce; the second bell curve should have greater area, which I did not include because I thought it would be confusing)

So, for the next generation, we move the bell curve.
http://img313.imageshack.us/img313/6011/bellcurve26rz.th.jpg (http://img313.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bellcurve26rz.jpg)

See, the deviation from average is the same. What is different, is that the average line has moved! The number of squirrils in the second generation with what was, before, considdered a slightly below normal amount of extra skin are now the bottom of the barrel, the nerds of the squirril high school. They are not as capable of getting food and escaping predators, or at getting chicks. They are an evolutionary dead end.

This will keep going on, every generation, until they have reached the proper level of extra skin for their environment. The incriments of change we are talking about here are really quite slight, maybe a milimeter on average per two or three generations. Maybe in a hundred thousand years, they will develop wide flaps, unless the environment changes in the mean while, and being able to run faster on long limbs without extra skin tripping you up becomes an advantage and reverses the process, or something of the sort.

---

Now, on to those 1000 and 1000 I talked about earlier.

Say 1000 of the original population had very slight extra skin..

So slight, in fact, that they were really quite bad at jumping. They just couldn't keep up with their fellows on the upper branches.

However, they could run significantly faster. Some of them noticed that there were a lot of nuts on the forest floor, and dared descend from the trees to forrage. (Though most of the population still stayed up in the trees and interbred as well as it could with the more-extra-skin variety) Since they were fast on their feet, they could escape to the trees when trouble came, unlike their more skin-heavy cousins.

Of those that decided to go down, not up, the ones that learned to exploit the forest floor were more capable of surviving long enough to reproduce, and therefore in successive generations the bell curve moved to favor traits on the squirrels that were favorable to getting stuff from the ground, picking it up, and running away from predators on the ground. Unable to survive uplevels, but thriving down below, the descendants of the ones of the original 1000 that stayed below, stayed on the ground and interbred with others that had stayed, not interbreeding with the upper-levels ones.

Over time, the downlevels descendants began to walk the bell curve further and further towards downlevel life. Ones with eyes with better periferal vision could see enemies approaching easier, and binocular vision was not terribly important. Ones with lighter tails, for speed, were prefered. Ones with fur tones that matched the earth more than the others fur were prefered. Over hundreds of thousands of years, the species slowly changed.

Some time, maybe 100,000 generations after the first generation we looked at, one of the distant descendants of the ones that came down from the tree had changed so much in one direction, while the descendants of those that had stayed in the trees had moved in their own direction, that the downlevels squirrels were unable to breed with the uplevels squirrils and produce, on a regular basis, sexually potent offspring.

Speciation had occurred. There were now officially two species of squirrel. One that dwelt in the trees, had big flaps of skin, and lept from treetop to treetop, and one that dwelt on the ground and only came up into the lower llevels of the trees for shelter, being unable to jump the long distances in the upper forest canopy.


I would be happy to explain further, or answer any other questions.

How did I do?

Oh.. and :fluffle: to you too. : )

EDIT: removed a couple comments (ie- "See?" and "Got it") for fear that they might be interpreted as being condesending, which was not my intent.

See, mutations, whether beneficial or detrimental, almost always creep into DNA. And it's not like the same mutation happens over and over, but similar mutations overlap and reinforce themselves and when that has a positive survival effect it it more likely to become seated in the genes of the following generation. Even the most beneficial of mutations tends to get mixed back into the genetic pool and are lost, and sometimes through luck, a mutation that has nothing to do with survivability takes a foothold.

Let me make another poker analogy:

Say you're in a tournament with 1,000,000 people. The odds of you winning, even if you play flawlessly, are remote. Someone still has to win. If you followed that one person, their path to victory would seem to be a long, ridiculous string of improbabilities. And yet they did it. The improbability of the event does not cancel out the certainty of it having happened. Actually, it was inevitable that someone would win, no matter how unlikely it was to be a particular individual.

The same is true of evolution. Change will happen, no matter how unlikely the end result.

...<Super sniparoo!>...

How did I do?

Oh.. and :fluffle: to you too. : )

EDIT: removed a couple comments (ie- "See?" and "Got it") for fear that they might be interpreted as being condesending, which was not my intent.


Yes, thanks, you did a great job of explaining natural selection to me. I'm not disputing that that is scientifically sound (I never was), in fact I agree with the theory of natural selection deciding which variations will thrive and which will die off. It makes huge amounts of sense.

I am suggesting that it seems kind of improbable to me that such specific changes to the structure of a species are completely random. I have suggested before that perhaps our genetic structure may change purposfully according to the personal needs of individual creatures. It could be possible that a designer is urging changes in different directions as tests to see what might happen. Or perhaps there is intelligence withing the genetic code that is able to decide what changes it might try next depending on the environment the creature it is a part of and maybe the wishes of the creature itself. It seems to me that it would be possible seeing as how knowledge of how to hunt, procreate and whatnot can be passed on genetically. I am not suggesting I know how any of it is done, or even that it is impossible for it to be completely random lucky mistakes or mutations in the genetic code. I just go with what I find to be most probable in my mind.

I'm sure you do the same, and I respect that. I think for me it is probably because I believe I have had many direct spiritual experiences with an eternal universal presence. I can't explain them and it could have possibly all been in my head although I don't think so. I don't subscribe to ANY religion, I just have an open mind to many different possibilities. I'm a logical kind of guy really, I'm a programmer and I have an I.Q. of 135 (I'm not bragging, it's not like thats a super high I.Q, I'm just saying I'm not a complete idiot) so I think about things in depth when I put my mind to it. My eariler comments may have sounded naieve and I'm williing to admit that many of my posts were probably not written well enough to put forth my ideas in a coherent fashion, but I'm at work and I have a thing for trying to put my ideas across in as breif a statement as I can. <- hows that for a long ass poorly written sentence? Plus I'm just not the most adept writer and I have a poor memory that gets worse as I age :( .

I mainly take issue though with the idea that any life form has a "mindlessly stupid design". I think the designs are so amazing in the way that our bodeis different parts work together so well (like a symphony) and different species work with each other and the environment so well (which is why I suggested that you build a better more efficient and successful cell, or even just a living cell). And earlier I guess I was also railing against the ideas presented that there can only be one or two views of a possible creator (omnicient, omnipotent, makes us in it's image or whatever ) or that it's even possible to know the nature or intentions of said creator (even by those of us who think we may have had contact with it).

I hope I got my point across this time :) Oh and I wouldn't have taken those remarks as condescending because you took the time to explain your ideas to me, suggesting that you did believe I could understand what you were saying. I really appreciate your effort and consideration. My remark about that was not to you but fluffles are always good! :fluffle:

See, mutations, whether beneficial or detrimental, almost always creep into DNA. And it's not like the same mutation happens over and over, but similar mutations overlap and reinforce themselves and when that has a positive survival effect it it more likely to become seated in the genes of the following generation. Even the most beneficial of mutations tends to get mixed back into the genetic pool and are lost, and sometimes through luck, a mutation that has nothing to do with survivability takes a foothold.

Let me make another poker analogy:

Say you're in a tournament with 1,000,000 people. The odds of you winning, even if you play flawlessly, are remote. Someone still has to win. If you followed that one person, their path to victory would seem to be a long, ridiculous string of improbabilities. And yet they did it. The improbability of the event does not cancel out the certainty of it having happened. Actually, it was inevitable that someone would win, no matter how unlikely it was to be a particular individual.

The same is true of evolution. Change will happen, no matter how unlikely the end result.

Whomever wins that poker tournament isn't going to win without using intelligence. There is a strategy and changes (how many cards to pick and which cards to keep or throw away) don't come randomly. So your analogy seems to work against your argument.

Whomever wins that poker tournament isn't going to win without using intelligence. There is a strategy and changes (how many cards to pick and which cards to keep or throw away) don't come randomly. So your analogy seems to work against your argument.

False analogy, it would seem. If there were intelligence guiding the game in the way that you claim intelligence is guiding the development of species, the intelligence would be stacking the deck to give players of its choosing cards of its choosing.

The strategy of poker is more like a behavioral adaptation of a society (for instance, caring for young). The societies that have that adaptation (and the good poker players) will clean everybody else out over the first dozen or so rounds (generations), leaving only societies with the favorable behavior (good poker players) behind to intercompete. This intercompetition will become, once again, based on randomised luck of the draw.

False analogy, it would seem. If there were intelligence guiding the game in the way that you claim intelligence is guiding the development of species, the intelligence would be stacking the deck to give players of its choosing cards of its choosing.

True... good point. Still it would seem that getting rid of certain cards and keeping others would still somewhat fit into what I was saying about guiding the direction consciously with hopes of a certain outcome, but yes what you are given back is still random (luck of the draw) although the probabilities of what outcomes can be had are much narrower because you got to keep certain traits and get rid of others. Sometimes you are given back axactly what you gave away though. :p Damn the luck!

The strategy of poker is more like a behavioral adaptation of a society (for instance, caring for young). The societies that have that adaptation (and the good poker players) will clean everybody else out over the first dozen or so rounds (generations), leaving only societies with the favorable behavior (good poker players) behind to intercompete. This intercompetition will become, once again, based on randomised luck of the draw.


Also a good point and the analogy makes much more sense when it's put like that.

/snip/
I am suggesting that it seems kind of improbable to me that such specific changes to the structure of a species are completely random.
It seems we are at an impasse. I can't comprehend how you can believe such without difinitive evidence, and think that I could probably refute any piece of evidence you proposed (given sufficient time and research, and given that it did not rely on a knowledge of math greater than that which I understand (quantum mechanics falls into this; though I know the "poet's version"--ie, the basic ideas of what is going on, I don't know much if any of the math that governs what is going on)).

I have suggested before that perhaps our genetic structure may change purposfully according to the personal needs of individual creatures.
You are quite incorrect here... changes in the genetic code come as a result of mutations that arrive at conception (generally; viral infections are a deviation from this, because they modify the genetic code of an organism or microorganism in specific; viruses, however, are not what most people term "god"). Deviations from the original organism's code occur in the earliest stages of the offspring's existance, and almost always fall within the usual range of deviation (my squirrels above, for instance).

It could be possible that a designer is urging changes in different directions as tests to see what might happen. Or perhaps there is intelligence withing the genetic code that is able to decide what changes it might try next depending on the environment the creature it is a part of and maybe the wishes of the creature itself.
Occam's razor applies here.

-Fact: Mutations occur in "different directions" and some are prefered more than others; these prefered mutations procreate more.

-Theory one: These mutations occur at random as a result of recombinations of DNA
-Theory two: These mutations appear to occur at random, but they are the result of tampering by an unknown factor by undetectable means.

The theory with the least relyance on overly complicated or insufficiently explainable factors, in the instance that both match the facts, is prefered.

It seems to me that it would be possible seeing as how knowledge of how to hunt, procreate and whatnot can be passed on genetically.
Behavioral evolution is almost always the result of mimicry of other members of the species. (Hence if you raise a dog with cats, it will behave much more like a cat than a dog that has not been raised with cats, etc.) In the instances that an apparent behavior is passed on genetically, it is probably in truth a pre-programmed response to stimuli with obvious advantages to survival or reproduction--turning to look at light, for instance, or becoming sexually aroused.

I am not suggesting I know how any of it is done, or even that it is impossible for it to be completely random lucky mistakes or mutations in the genetic code. I just go with what I find to be most probable in my mind.
If you can neither show evidence of a mechanism nor predict an outcome, your theory desintegrates.

It becomes no more viable than any of myriad proposals that cannot do the above, and any theory that can show evidence of a mechanism--random variations in the genetic code combined with natural selection--and predict an outcome--species found will be best adapted for the environmental conditions they evolved in--which can be tested, is prefered.

Truth by emotion is faulty, also. Logic and science are tools for determining truth. What feels right is a tool for determining which candy bar or lover or video game to choose. When the two intermingle, the pursuit for truth is marginalised and we tend to find what we want to find.



/snip/

I mainly take issue though with the idea that any life form has a "mindlessly stupid design". I think the designs are so amazing in the way that our bodeis different parts work together so well (like a symphony) and different species work with each other and the environment so well (which is why I suggested that you build a better more efficient and successful cell, or even just a living cell).
(To which I pointed out that inability to duplicate is not the same as inability to criticise; for instance, one can tell that a skyscraper should have a stairway, whether or not one is a civil engineer who knows how to design a skyscraper.)

And earlier I guess I was also railing against the ideas presented that there can only be one or two views of a possible creator (omnicient, omnipotent, makes us in it's image or whatever ) or that it's even possible to know the nature or intentions of said creator (even by those of us who think we may have had contact with it).
Mm. An agnostic IDer. Interesting.... (All free thinkers, unite under my banner and we will crush all opposition to our holy worldview! Er...)

I hope I got my point across this time :) Oh and I wouldn't have taken those remarks as condescending because you took the time to explain your ideas to me, suggesting that you did believe I could understand what you were saying. I really appreciate your effort and consideration. My remark about that was not to you but fluffles are always good! :fluffle:
You're welome. I think...

bumped, because I don't want this to drift off into the abyss while I am waiting for a reply.

If the original product was flawless, who'd want the upgraded version?

God must be in marketing.

My point was that the outcome seems unlikely until you grasp the sample size involved. It's very easy to say that it is preposterous that squirrels developed gliding ability just by chance.

Try this. If I flip a coin 10 times, the odds are 2 to the tenth power against the exact outcome I just flipped. Does that mean I didn't just flip the coin 10 times?

Of course not. Anything that is the result of a long series of random events is higly unlikely.

As far as my poker analogy goes, I was thinking of the "intelligence" that guides the poker player's "hand" (genetics) as the environmental factors that influnece selection. I agree that the "strategy" could also be interpreted as behavioral aspects to survival.

Anyway, as someone who plays online poker recreationally, I resign myself to fact that I see no guiding hand of intelligence there either. :p

bumped, because I don't want this to drift off into the abyss while I am waiting for a reply.


No no no.. you were right, we are at an impass.
I don't care to continue to go in circles.

Despite my attempts to show that you that I believe that you have valid arguments and attempts to leave it at "I'll believe what I think makes most sense and you will believe what you think makes the most sense", it seems you wish to refute my opinion and want me to continue explaining why I feel the way I do because it just isn't adequate enough to change your mind (which I was never trying to do). I will just say you win. Your argument is flawless and the world will resonate in godless scientfic perfection. You shall crush all opposition to your irrefutable fact that there is no intelligent designer. My arguments (the argument that we don't really know everything - my apparent attempts to "crush all oppostiion to my holy worldview") have been wholly refuted. I bow to you - oh master of biology and all that is logical.

Why would an animal that falls out of a tree a lot develop a lighter body at random? Or are you saying it was by some sort of design? How did the flying squirrel figure out that it could fly as soon as it gained the semi-parachute frame and then figure out how to use it to it's advantage? How did it know how to spread its arms and legs correctly to use the new body design and that that was the reason it was gliding rather than just the way gravity works? Did it do tests from different heights until it knew the heights it could jump and glide from safely?

It isn't random. Animals that fall out of trees will, from time to time, break their necks and die. Those that do it least often will have the most children. This might be accomplished by having strong, heavy, durable bones, like a chimp, or light agile bodies like a cat. In any given population, some members will already demonstrate these traits more than others. An animal that was already inclined to survive by agility, if at all, will give rise to more agile children, if any. We don't discuss those that aren't quite agile enough, because they won't be anyone's ancestors.

A cat survives falls partly by being agile enough to land on its feet, but also by having a shape that slows its fall with a slight pair of skin flaps between their front and rear legs. This is a similar, though milder analogue of the membrane that flying squirels have. There is no "figuring out" between one stage and another. Each animal grows into its own balance of aerodynamics and muscle power. Given the right environmental pressures there could well arise a cat that relies more on its aerodynamics than muscle power.


If large creatures could never develop wings then how did the teradactyl do it?

I didn't say that large animals can't, I said that elephants can't. Not without evolving into smaller and smaller animals that eventually begin climbing trees and having to jump from one of them to another. As far as an elephant is concerned there is no environmental pressure that can't be solved by being just a little bit bigger, or having no tusks.

When the first birds started developing wings that were useless nubs, how did that become an advantage for them when they couldn't even fly with them?

*/devils advocate*

What I was saying is that there were no birds who developed useless nubs that became wings in their great great grandchildren. The same transition I mentioned from "cat like creature" to "flying squirrel like creature" probably took place with a lizard like creature. There is a lizard that glides from tree to tree with little flaps of skin on its sides. The ancestor of modern birds probably did the same and arose the same way I describe flying squirrels as arising.

Also, remember how cats, and even flying squirrels need strong legs to get from tree to tree? Well, once the aerodynamics get good enough, strong legs and front claws aren't neccesary. You start out with something that has good legs for running and jumping, go through a stage of awkward running, but great jumping, and then you don't even need the jumping.

the human knee is an engineering disaster, and don't get me started on the fact that the prostate, which is incredibly prone to swelling, is wrapped around our urethra. :mad:

An evoloutionary adaptation to prevent the deformed sperm of 90 year old millionaires from creating children that will compete with his poolboy's children. ;)

An evoloutionary adaptation to prevent the deformed sperm of 90 year old millionaires from creating children that will compete with his poolboy's children. ;)

Hey, if I'm still chasing skirts in my 90's, I'll take it as proof that my genetic stock is superior.

One day, I hope to be a dirty old man...

the universe is vast and grand but it will change and will reciale the materel from wich it came perfetion is non existend so the for enporfetion is perfetione.and i am going ferthere not only that but the universe is stell expanding and affter that it will come in on it's self so that being sayed the universe is not endless so that livese space that is so there is a likelyhoud that these are other universe out there.now no humens are not perfect.that is fact.so there for humen suciety is not as will.so over the pered of time i have thout on these verey thing the thing that coud have the power to ceraet a god or gods is the humen mind but even that has a treger and it is called hope.i know i am geting deep.so waht is war tregerd by greed i want that these is also waht tense to terger the humen idaei of value.so we run aftter butty will not isnt that pontless these will decay and pass away.so to put is frankly the humen speshes is a little better than a ape but not much.and yes we are verey fragel one hit in the wrong place and you are die.

the universe is vast and grand but it will change and will reciale the materel from wich it came perfetion is non existend so the for enporfetion is perfetione.and i am going ferthere not only that but the universe is stell expanding and affter that it will come in on it's self so that being sayed the universe is not endless so that livese space that is so there is a likelyhoud that these are other universe out there.now no humens are not perfect.that is fact.so there for humen suciety is not as will.so over the pered of time i have thout on these verey thing the thing that coud have the power to ceraet a god or gods is the humen mind but even that has a treger and it is called hope.i know i am geting deep.so waht is war tregerd by greed i want that these is also waht tense to terger the humen idaei of value.so we run aftter butty will not isnt that pontless these will decay and pass away.so to put is frankly the humen speshes is a little better than a ape but not much.and yes we are verey fragel one hit in the wrong place and you are die.
Translation:


The universe is vast ang grand, but it will change, and will recycle the material from which it came: perfection is non-existant; so, the neccessary factor for imperfection is perfection. I am going further: not only that, but the universe is still expanding, and after it finishes expanding, it will come in on itsself. For this reason, there is a likelyhood that there are other universes out there.

Now I know that humans are not perfect--that is fact. Therefore, human society is imperfect awell. So over the period of time that I have thought on this very thing--the thing that could have the power to create a god or gods--I have come to a conclusion: it is the human mind. Even that has a trigger--it is hope. I know I am getting deep...

So what if war is triggered by greed! I believe that this is also what tends to triggers the human idea of value. So we run after booty--well, that is pointless: these will decay and pass away. So, to put it frankly, the human species is only a little better than apes. Indeed, we are very fragile aswell. One hit in the wrong place, and you are dead.


My brain hurts.

A bit of advice to the original author... third grade was very important, punctuation matters, grammar is essential, and a spellcheck is your friend.

The only way a human was designed is if it was done by a committee.

Oh sure, blame everything on a committee, it's alwyas their fault, never the consumer's fault.