NationStates Jolt Archive

I prefer this theory (http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2005/11/the_other_id.php) to the more well known "theory" that shares the same initials. Ahh, evolution never made more sense.

***

Don Wise, professor emeritus of geosciences at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, is the nation's foremost proponent of ID. No, Wise isn't getting ready to testify on behalf of the school board in Dover, PA. Rather, he advocates for a different version of the acronym: "incompetent design."

Wise cites serious flaws in the systems of the human body as evidence that design in the universe exhibits not an obvious source of, but a sore lack of, intelligence. Seed asked him to chat about his theory, reactions he's received to it, and the anthem he penned to rally people to his cause.

Regarding incompetent design, why is the creator not intelligent?
I didn't say that! We don't get into religion. The last thing we want to do is get into arguments of religion, a creator and so on. We're just: "Is there, or is there not, intelligence in the design?"
Advertisement

So is there intelligence in the design?
Yes! No, no there isn't. The thing that perhaps is closest to all of us is our own skeleton, and there are certainly all kinds of stupidity in our design. No self-respecting engineering student would make the kinds of dumb mistakes that are built into us.
All of our pelvises slope forward for convenient knuckle-dragging, like all the other great apes. And the only reason you stand erect is because of this incredible sharp bend at the base of your spine, which is either evolution's way of modifying something or else it's just a design that would flunk a first-year engineering student.
Look at the teeth in your mouth. Basically, most of us have too many teeth for the size of our mouth. Well, is this evolution flattening a mammalian muzzle and jamming it into a face or is it a design that couldn't count accurately above 20?
Look at the bones in your face. They're the same as the other mammals' but they're just squashed and contorted by jamming the jaw into a face with your brain expanding over it, so the potential drainage system in there is so convoluted that no plumber would admit to having done it!
So is this evolution or is this plain stupid design?

dentalxray.jpg Wise argues we have too many teeth for our mouth.

You must have received some serious criticism of your somewhat jestful theory?
Well, I got one, which I showed at the Geological Society of America (GSA) meetings.
An envelope postmarked Minneapolis, with monkeys all over it and inside it, with a great big blue ribbon, a note saying I had been awarded the "Moron of the Month" award, that I was a dork, an idiot, that only someone who thought their ancestors were monkeys would be dumb enough to say what I had, asking me if I wanted to debate it. It left an email address at "darwinistsaredumb@hotmail.com."
These are the kind of things you NEVER really answer, but I couldn't resist. So I used the H.L. Menken approach:

Dear Sir,
You should be aware that some idiot is writing absolute nonsense and signing your e-mail address to it. You should take action on this before your reputation is further sullied!

But most of the things I've gotten have been positive.

If you were to redesign things, how would you make design intelligent?
Well, for one thing I would put fewer teeth in our mouths. I would put fewer bones in our face, so that it could drain properly. I would straighten up the pelvis so we wouldn't have to have that bend. I would certainly take out the appendix so we don't have that problem and the tonsils, too.
And I did have one other. Some guy from Texas listed a number of things with this and he said, "Actually I would write more, but I have to go pee in Morse code, because some idiot designed my aging prostate."
Intelligent designers and, in fact, everybody from the creationists and so on back to the beginning of the last century used to talk about the wonderful design of the eye—which somehow has all your receptor cells behind a membrane curtain!
I mean, evolutionarily all of these things make sense but in terms of a reasonable, intelligent design? They're idiocy. So, the argument is there is no intelligence there in a lot of these things.

Some people argue that the system of evolution itself is some sort of intelligent design. Do you have any response to that?
Again, you're dealing with the supernatural, and this is something that's not science. Basically we operate with questions that are answerable by evidence. Once you get into the supernatural there is no evidence. Anything can go one way or the other. So, I think it is just kind of nonsense to suggest otherwise, that there is no way you can prove it one way or another.

The song you wrote is wonderful. (Download a video of the song here.)

(Here are the lyrics, sung to the tune of "The Battle Hymn of the Republic")
My bones proclaim a story of incompetent design.
My back still hurts, my sinus clogs, my teeth just won’t align.
If I had drawn the blueprint, I would cer-tain-ly resign.
Incompetent Design!
Evo-Evo-Evo-lution! Design is but a mere illusion.
Darwin sparked our revolution. Science SHALL prevail!

The singers were all perfectly off-key.
Oh, they're terrible!
But I still had an audience of about 300 singing that lustily at the end of the GSA meeting in, I would think, at least four different keys and out of sync. Oh, it was gloriously terrible.

While I'll agree humans are not perfect we suit our enviroment well. And try to get an engeneer to create something as complext as the human brain....

Not the best arguement IMO.

interesting article. on a side note, i have all my wisdom teeth. i had plenty of room for them. :D

I don't think any engineer could do better.
Sure, it's a bit shoddy work, but it functions quite admirably nonetheless.

i dont go with incompetent design. after all we do work after a fashion.

its more MEDIOCRE design as if we were created by a "C" student at "the universal creator's school of design"

I don't think any engineer could do better.
Sure, it's a bit shoddy work, but it functions quite admirably nonetheless.You expect shoddy work from God/Godlike aliens?

You expect shoddy work from God/Godlike aliens?Yes. As I said once before, life is much too complicated to design. So evolution, artificial or otherwise, is the only way to make something so complex. Somehow a single cell has to devellop into a completely functioning body which among other things has cells that can devellop into something similar to the whole again.
I can't imagine a good way to design something like that, every little change in the germ-cell may have a host of consequences in the develloped organism. It's an insane undertaking. Adding the expression of a few enzymes or chemicals is one thing, but how do you change the angle of a pelvis? Or the number of teeth?

When/If an artificial intelligence is developed such that the complexity of a human mind is a proper subset thereof, I very much hope to be around for it. That said, if the human mind was designed, I think the documentation should have been better...

Yes. As I said once before, life is much too complicated to design. So evolution, artificial or otherwise, is the only way to make something so complex. Somehow a single cell has to devellop into a completely functioning body which among other things has cells that can devellop into something similar to the whole again.
I can't imagine a good way to design something like that, every little change in the germ-cell may have a host of consequences in the develloped organism. It's an insane undertaking. Adding the expression of a few enzymes or chemicals is one thing, but how do you change the angle of a pelvis? Or the number of teeth?
Stick your noodly appendage in it & gently stir?

Stick your noodly appendage in it & gently stir?
My thoughts exactly.

Stick your noodly appendage in it & gently stir?

Wait, I thought that's how we made babies...and Jell-O.

And trail mix. And sweet love. And Neosporin. Caesar Salad, hash browns, snow angels...

Stick your noodly appendage in it & gently stir?Yep, and hope for the best. Select whatever comes closest, and try again. Rinse and repeat untill desired result is achieved, or you get tired of the process.

Yep, and hope for the best. Select whatever comes closest, and try again. Rinse and repeat untill desired result is achieved, or you get tired of the process.


...

Gee-Zus! This is all taking me back to the age of about 12, listening to some grown ups (average age: 16...) talking. I almost get what's being said, what the references and undertones and coded barbs are about, but not _quite_...

So far, all I got's a picture of a bloke with a small penis. Help me out guys, I'm flailing!

Elgesh']So far, all I got's a picture of a bloke with a small penis. Help me out guys, I'm flailing!The noodly appendage is that of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which is invisible and among other things influences scientific experiments via his noodly appendages in such a way that the results are consistent and he and his influence remains undetected.

Please get rid of farting and taking dumps while you are at it.

The noodly appendage is that of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which is invisible and among other things influences scientific experiments via his noodly appendages in such a way that the results are consistent and he and his influence remains undetected.

This may be changing. Several well-regarded, peer-reviewed scientific journals are beginning to include references to FSM, particularly in articles related to String Theory. My understanding is that a consortium of theoretical physicists are calling for a symposium in Prague next year, to determine whether recent findings merit the renaming of the theory to "Noodly Appendage Vibration Theory"...

Well, that view rules out any god (at least any of the all-powerful types, and if god is not all powerful, he isn't god). So aliens made us, if anyone. Thanks. :)The greek gods weren't all-powerfull.
I don't really see that as a requirement. Omnipotence should be limited anyway; God can't make a boulder he can't lift. 'Everything' can be too broad a term. So you can limited to 'everything logically possible', or 'everything physically possible', or even further.
It just doesn't seem like the smart way to do things, doing it in the most difficult way. Espescially not if you have all the time in the universe.

Should I delete this, since the post I respond to is gone?

Are you questioning the divine truth of the Flying Spaghetti monster? May you spend all eternity feeling the wrath of his noodly apppendage!

but what IF there was a purpose for all the apparently useless body parts? what if the appendix housed the soul? or if the paranasal sinuses' purpose of adding moisture to the air we breath and making us lighter were highly important? or maybe they're extra space for our brain to expand in future evolution? and perhaps, on the thought of souls, the wisdom teeth grow unhealthy as a way to discard of sins & evil we grow out of? maybe the tail bone is still there in order to protect the rectum:confused:

but what IF there was a purpose for all the apparently useless body parts? what if the appendix housed the soul? or if the paranasal sinuses' purpose of adding moisture to the air we breath and making us lighter were highly important? or maybe they're extra space for our brain to expand in future evolution? and perhaps, on the thought of souls, the wisdom teeth grow unhealthy as a way to discard of sins & evil we grow out of? maybe the tail bone is still there in order to protect the rectum:confused:

This is really good deadpan humour - you've got the sad, pseudo-mysti-science dead on! :D

Don Wise, professor emeritus of geosciences at the University of Massachusetts Amherst

That is my school! :D

How about the "Theory of Incompetent Spelling"?

More importantly is it gravity or intelligent falling?

My new favorite theory:

Southern California is Made of Ants: a New Theory on Plate Tectonics
Foster, Reyes et. al. Published in the Journal of Geophysical Research, v.72, pp. 892-904.

Abstract:
This paper presents a new theory, supported by evidence from my back yard, which postulates that the extremely active tectonic activity of Southern California is not, as has been previously assumed, due to a subsiding continental margin near our coast. Instead, as this paper will attempt to outline, the lithospheric plates themselves are supported on the backs of an innumerable biomass of ants, a small fraction of which compose my back yard and choose to inhabit my bathroom during rainstorms.

Elgesh']This is really good deadpan humour - you've got the sad, pseudo-mysti-science dead on! :D
no, dude, i'm serious!

While I'll agree humans are not perfect we suit our enviroment well. And try to get an engeneer to create something as complext as the human brain....

Not the best arguement IMO.
Just because some things ended up to a very high degree of ability does not mean it is flawless

Even the brain has its issues

Are you questioning the divine truth of the Flying Spaghetti monster? May you spend all eternity feeling the wrath of his noodly apppendage!

I said something like that, but I accidentally said "wrath of my noodly appendage"...and now they don't let me be alone with anyone. :(

Are you questioning the divine truth of the Flying Spaghetti monster? May you spend all eternity feeling the wrath of his noodly apppendage!

And may you never reach Heaven, with its glorious beer volcano and stripper factory!

but what IF there was a purpose for all the apparently useless body parts? what if the appendix housed the soul? or if the paranasal sinuses' purpose of adding moisture to the air we breath and making us lighter were highly important?

So, I don't have a soul?

Yet, it explains so much....

I don't think any engineer could do better.
Sure, it's a bit shoddy work, but it functions quite admirably nonetheless.
I could do better. Come on, our eyes are wired backwards. What kind of shit design is that?

I don't think any engineer could do better.
Sure, it's a bit shoddy work, but it functions quite admirably nonetheless.

Oh I don't know, I am sure I could come up with a few improvements with the spine, pelvis and knees.

When/If an artificial intelligence is developed such that the complexity of a human mind is a proper subset thereof, I very much hope to be around for it. That said, if the human mind was designed, I think the documentation should have been better...

True, there is apparently a lot of problems with the legacy code the hindbrain is still running.

Yes. As I said once before, life is much too complicated to design.
So you are saying God/godlike aliens, all-knowing, perhaps even all-powerful beings, can't make a properly proportioned, working body? A team of competent engineers could do a better job.

Mocking religion gets you no where.

All you are doing is making yourself feel smart by calling believers stupid.

Mocking is what this guy is doing.
"How the hell could there be a God? Humans have plenty of errors. If there is a God, he must be stupid!"

I'll bet he thinks he's real clever.

Mocking religion gets you no where.

All you are doing is making yourself feel smart by calling believers stupid.

Mocking is what this guy is doing.
"How the hell could there be a God? Humans have plenty of errors. If there is a God, he must be stupid!"

I'll bet he thinks he's real clever.
So basicaly you have no answer to the questions posed ... got it

Mocking religion gets you no where.

All you are doing is making yourself feel smart by calling believers stupid.

Mocking is what this guy is doing.
"How the hell could there be a God? Humans have plenty of errors. If there is a God, he must be stupid!"

I'll bet he thinks he's real clever.
It's damn funny when you consider how serious all these people running around proclaiming "intelligent design," aka religious creationism in a shitty disguise, are.

I don't think any engineer could do better.
Sure, it's a bit shoddy work, but it functions quite admirably nonetheless.

What kind of engineer runs a toxic waste pipeline through a recreational facility? The answer? A bad one.

Mocking religion gets you no where.

All you are doing is making yourself feel smart by calling believers stupid.

Mocking is what this guy is doing.
"How the hell could there be a God? Humans have plenty of errors. If there is a God, he must be stupid!"

I'll bet he thinks he's real clever.

If the religious don't want to be mocked, they shouldn't make themselves so easily mockable.

The issues raised are a rather strong ,valid point against an intelligent designer. The human body has a number of flaws- useless tonsoles and appendixes that become infected (and, in the latter case, can prove lethal), eyes designed bass-ackwards, throats designed so that the occasional choking incident is almost inevitable... It gets worse once you get involved in other species; for example, some species of whales have hip bones that are just sorta sitting there, suspended in the flesh, not attached to anything.

These things couldn't develop under 7-day creationism unless God was a supreme moron. They also don't make much sense in a world where God interferes with evolution enough to leave a scientifically-detectable impact. They could only have been the result of no God, a hands-off God, or a God that likes messing with humans' heads. The first two seem much more likely to me.

Mocking religion gets you no where.

All you are doing is making yourself feel smart by calling believers stupid.

Mocking is what this guy is doing.
"How the hell could there be a God? Humans have plenty of errors. If there is a God, he must be stupid!"

I'll bet he thinks he's real clever.
You missed the point. Statistically, there's a good chance the guy is religious. And he isn't bashing religion, not Christianity nor any other religion.

He is poking fun of ID proponents, much the same way you'd poke fun at flat-Earth'ers by turning on a GPS.

Nothing in that article says anything about God. If you read between the lines, the most you'd see is a guy who's fed up with braindead wankers claiming that God must be an incompetent arse since even we could design us better than He allegedly did. If anything, that's defence of Christianity - exactly the same as saying "Stop calling my God an incompetent moron!".

Mocking religion gets you no where.


Voltaire,
Erasmus,
Various other mockers of religion who are fairly well known today (partially) because they mocked religion.

While I'll agree humans are not perfect we suit our enviroment well. And try to get an engeneer to create something as complext as the human brain....

Not the best arguement IMO.
But that's the point! Why design a brain so well, and then do silly things like cross our air-way and digestion? Was it designed by a team of deities and a brilliant one got the brain, but a crappy one got the respiratory system? At least evolution has an explanation of these aparent blunders, while intelligent design doesn't, except, perhaps, for Maltheists.

But that's the point! Why design a brain so well, and then do silly things like cross our air-way and digestion? Was it designed by a team of deities and a brilliant one got the brain, but a crappy one got the respiratory system? At least evolution has an explanation of these aparent blunders, while intelligent design doesn't, except, perhaps, for Maltheists.
What's a Maltheist? Someone who believes in a wrong God, or someone who believes in an evil God?

How about the "Theory of Incompetent Spelling"?

distinguish between mere theory and undisputed fact, please.

What's a Maltheist? Someone who believes in a wrong God, or someone who believes in an evil God?
Evil God. They use the Bible as their text usually, but go on about how it shows god was cruel.

Evil God. They use the Bible as their text usually, but go on about how it shows god was cruel.
Can't rightly blame them, with all the genocides, baby killing, plagues, human sacrifice and all that.. I mean, look at the idea of hell. Who really deserves such a thing? Ok Hitler & Stalin maybe.. But hardly the countless billions who'll end up there (if they haven't already).

I can't really see how the Bible supports the idea of a benevolent & loving God. Sure, it says He is, but the actions it attributes to Him doesn't really do anything to back that up.

Bah, I came up with this theory at least a year back. My main argument cited the crossing of the oesophagus and windpipe, resulting in consistent choking, which could easily be remedied by greating an extra orifice where all that useless forehead is.

Intelligent design ? In rebuttal, I present ... the penis !

As an owner-operator I am happy with some of it's features ... but come on !It looks like some weird thing made from left over playdough.

Intelligent design ? In rebuttal, I present ... the penis !

As an owner-operator I am happy with some of it's features ... but come on !It looks like some weird thing made from left over playdough.
Hairy _toes_... why god, why?

Elgesh']Hairy _toes_... why god, why?
I have hair on my nose... If anyone's entitled to an answer, I think it's me :(

And try to get an engeneer to create something as complext as the human brain....

By and large, that's the entire point. Engineers don't create things as complex as they can, they create things as simple and robust as they can. This excessive complexity we see in nature is therefore not a sign of design.

Intelligent design ? In rebuttal, I present ... the penis !

As an owner-operator I am happy with some of it's features ... but come on !It looks like some weird thing made from left over playdough.

Yeah, heh. 'Course, playdough becomes hard when you DON'T play with it.

I'm very sorry...

By and large, that's the entire point. Engineers don't create things as complex as they can, they create things as simple and robust as they can. This excessive complexity we see in nature is therefore not a sign of design.
Very good point, the KISS principal

By and large, that's the entire point. Engineers don't create things as complex as they can, they create things as simple and robust as they can. This excessive complexity we see in nature is therefore not a sign of design.

I dunno...those guys at Saab seem to make things harder than they need to be...or maybe I'm thinking Audi.

I have hair on my nose... If anyone's entitled to an answer, I think it's me :(

If there is an entity behin all these design faults, we should start a class action suit...

I dunno...those guys at Saab seem to make things harder than they need to be...or maybe I'm thinking Audi.
They normaly are shooting for feture ritch

Even so the fetures individualy should be incorporated as simpily as possible to acheeve the goals

If one of the goals is to have power locks then you acheve that as simply and robustly as possible

Problem with the body is it does not appear to take the simplest path to the function it actualy performs

Elgesh']If there is an entity behin all these design faults, we should start a class action suit...
Yeah force a manufacturer recall!

Elgesh']If there is an entity behin all these design faults, we should start a class action suit...No need. If the designer would simply fix me, and possibly reroute the energy used to grow those rediculous hairs on my nose, to a slightly optimised brain, I'd be more than happy.

I'd like a couple of new knees as well. And a new foot.

No need. If the designer would simply fix me, and possibly reroute the energy used to grow those rediculous hairs on my nose, to a slightly optimised brain, I'd be more than happy.

I'd like a couple of new knees as well. And a new foot.

Wait, additional knees, or just replacements for the ones you've got?

4 knees...

Wait, additional knees, or just replacements for the ones you've got?

4 knees...Hmm... 4 knees would be brilliant! .. But my girlfriend might have a hard time adjusting.. At least, I'd probably loose interest if she had 4 knees..

Damn.

But I'd still like some replacements. Old footy injury.

If one of the goals is to have power locks then you acheve that as simply and robustly as possible



Robust as its used here...meaning effective? Reliably? Able to overcome resistence and crappy conditions? Help me with Robust.

I use it to describe libidos and salad-dressing, but I like the idea of using it to describe a desirable style of engineering, so help me get it.

Hmm... 4 knees would be brilliant! .. But my girlfriend might have a hard time adjusting.. At least, I'd probably loose interest if she had 4 knees..

Damn.

But I'd still like some replacements. Old footy injury.
Maybe just make them modular and do standerdize parts

So you would not have to have all 4 at once
You could just swap out for a new pair when the ones you have wore out

And try to get an engeneer to create something as complext as the human brain....

Don't go there. There are plenty of stupid people that you wouldn't want to emulate in software.

Robust as its used here...meaning effective? Reliably? Able to overcome resistence and crappy conditions? Help me with Robust.

I use it to describe libidos and salad-dressing, but I like the idea of using it to describe a desirable style of engineering, so help me get it.
Usually in engineering we use it as Reliability in the envelope of expected situation
Your performance is where you set that "envelope"

Yeah force a manufacturer recall!

I'm in for that.

And since you brought up the issues of the human brain, there are issues there that would probably embarass even microstupid.

Don't go there. There are plenty of stupid people that you wouldn't want to emulate in software.

Be cool to see the sourcecode on some folks though...or at least the documentation.

Hmm... 4 knees would be brilliant! .. But my girlfriend might have a hard time adjusting.. At least, I'd probably loose interest if she had 4 knees..

Damn.

But I'd still like some replacements. Old footy injury.

I'll just opt for increased brain power please. Supposedly some old theory has it that the brain is capable of doing a lot more but just isn't routing the power to do it.

Be cool to see the sourcecode on some folks though...or at least the documentation.

Maybe they took the classic approach to documentation.

"Documents? We don't need no steeeenking documents."

Would explain the utter randomness if they didn't have a standard template for the OS programming.

So you are saying God/godlike aliens, all-knowing, perhaps even all-powerful beings, can't make a properly proportioned, working body? A team of competent engineers could do a better job.Sure they can make a properly proportioned, working body. But not a selfreproducing one that doesn't need an assembly plant..
You can't just change a few genes and have the pelvis tilt a few degrees. That's not how it works.

If engineers are so great, why haven't they created life yet?

If engineers are so great, why haven't they created life yet?

That's not the point. The point is, if we evaluate nature as the product of a divine engineer, and apply due dilligence to our comparisons with how real engineers operate [robustness, multiple failsafes, simplicity, well-tested designs] compared to how nature operates [fragility, no or minimal failsafes, complexity, jury-rigged designs], we quickly find that any divine engineer must have been utterly, unforgivably incompetant, deliberately perverse, or non-existant [as in God did not actively interfere with evolution at all once setting it in motion].

If engineers are so great, why haven't they created life yet?
Functional bodies and life can be mutually exclusive.

And you also skirt the question at hand. If the creator of all things was a bloody genius, he sure did some crappy work for a genius.

I'm sure there's a more effective alternative to the endocrine system. It just seems kind of wastefull to pump out a bunch of hormones into the circulatory system so that they'll eventually reach the place that they actually need to go.

I don't know what the alternative would be, but it seems like something that could be improved upon.

I'm sure there's a more effective alternative to the endocrine system. It just seems kind of wastefull to pump out a bunch of hormones into the circulatory system so that they'll eventually reach the place that they actually need to go.

I don't know what the alternative would be, but it seems like something that could be improved upon.Nervous system.

If engineers are so great, why haven't they created life yet?

They're working on it. Or more accurately, the biochemists have been working on it for quite some time.

The Miller-Urey experiments that synthesised amino acids were done as far back as 1953.
(And their hypothesis seems to have come back into fashion in some circles: http://news-info.wustl.edu/news/page/normal/5513.html)

Given that life on Earth had quite a bit longer to evolve naturally, you may want to give the boffins a bit of lee way on their time scale.

Also, it depemds on the problem of the exact deinition of life, as well.

That's not the point. The point is, if we evaluate nature as the product of a divine engineer, and apply due dilligence to our comparisons with how real engineers operate [robustness, multiple failsafes, simplicity, well-tested designs] compared to how nature operates [fragility, no or minimal failsafes, complexity, jury-rigged designs], we quickly find that any divine engineer must have been utterly, unforgivably incompetant, deliberately perverse, or non-existant [as in God did not actively interfere with evolution at all once setting it in motion].Unless, conflicting requirements make it impossible to achieve better.
Good 'design' and selfreproduction from a genomic base can conflict in just such a manner.

Functional bodies and life can be mutually exclusive.

And you also skirt the question at hand. If the creator of all things was a bloody genius, he sure did some crappy work for a genius.Hey, he created life didn't he? (Assuming he exists and in fact did so) And if life and functionality are mutually exclusive, I'd say it was at least an ok job.

Hey, he created life didn't he? (Assuming he exists and in fact did so) And if life and functionality are mutually exclusive, I'd say it was at least an ok job.
But is just OK good enough from a suposedly omni-everything deity?

Specialy when us meere humans can see his fuckups

But is just OK good enough from a suposedly omni-everything deity?

Specialy when us meere humans can see his fuckups

Maybe there should be an alternative theory - Theory of Humorous Design.

Now get a mental picture of two really fat people having sex. Perhaps you'll see it as proof.

Maybe there should be an alternative theory - Theory of Humorous Design.

Now get a mental picture of two really fat people having sex. Perhaps you'll see it as proof.Shouldn't it be called The Theory of Vomit Inducing Design then?

Maybe there should be an alternative theory - Theory of Humorous Design.

Now get a mental picture of two really fat people having sex. Perhaps you'll see it as proof.

'...but scientists and religous leaders later dismissed this theory as 'depressing'" :p

Shouldn't it be called The Theory of Vomit Inducing Design then?
No, that's why sex is against God's will, unless you're fabulously good looking and really good at it. Or unless it's done in private where no one can see.

Obviously, using a web cam is a big sin.

God wants everything to be humorous and good looking - anything that is not funny and is ugly or sickening is our fault.

Maybe there should be an alternative theory - Theory of Humorous Design.

Now get a mental picture of two really fat people having sex. Perhaps you'll see it as proof.

I live in that picture...

A fat girl is like a mo-ped. You wouldn't want your friends to see you on one, but they're fun to ride.

Functional bodies and life can be mutually exclusive.

And you also skirt the question at hand. If the creator of all things was a bloody genius, he sure did some crappy work for a genius.

Actually, the design of the human body is incredibly beautiful and complex. No engineer understands the whole thing. No doctor, no biochemist, no engineer can design better.

Interesting that people who are against Intelligent Design resort to denigrating the incredibly complex designs found in nature, and to disregarding the science showing how wonderful the human body is, and fall back to the eighteenth century notions that cells are just amorphous blobs of jelly.

Anti-ID people must ignore the functionality of all the thousands of parts of the cell, must ignore how they all work together, how the whole is far greater than the sum of its DNA (there is not enough DNA in a human cell to code for all the parts and functions of anyone reading this post, yet there you are!).

Keeping in mind that the Creator created not only the design for the body, but also designed the water molecule, decided its properties, decided its constituents, decided on the mass, the charge, the spin of every particle and how each particle would interact with every other particle, from the quantum level to the cosmic level, and how to integrate life into that continuum, while simultaneously planning the history of trillions of stars, planets, bits of dust and gas, could any human being really say they could have done better?

Not without an ungodly amount of hubris...:rolleyes:

Actually, the design of the human body is incredibly beautiful and complex. No engineer understands the whole thing. No doctor, no biochemist, no engineer can design better.

Design the whole package ? No. Admit that many parts are wonderfully complex and not fully understood ? Definately.
But some of the parts that *are* understood are really quite shoddy... if one assumes design.

could any human being really say they could have done better?
But humans do not claim omnicience and omnipotence ;)

there is not enough DNA in a human cell to code for all the parts and functions of anyone reading this post, yet there you are!

Yes, there most certainly is. In fact, most of our DNA goes unused.

Actually, the design of the human body is incredibly beautiful and complex. No engineer understands the whole thing. No doctor, no biochemist, no engineer can design better. While noone understand the whole thing, that isn't the point. The point is that the bits we do understand really are shoddy for the most part.Interesting that people who are against Intelligent Design resort to denigrating the incredibly complex designs found in nature, and to disregarding the science showing how wonderful the human body is, and fall back to the eighteenth century notions that cells are just amorphous blobs of jelly. Eh.. The point is that while various bio-constructs might be highly complex, the very complexity is often a very bad thing, because it makes the construct less efficient.Anti-ID people must ignore the functionality of all the thousands of parts of the cell, must ignore how they all work together, how the whole is far greater than the sum of its DNA (there is not enough DNA in a human cell to code for all the parts and functions of anyone reading this post, yet there you are!). I think you need to double check your 'facts'.Keeping in mind that the Creator created not only the design for the body, but also designed the water molecule, decided its properties, decided its constituents, decided on the mass, the charge, the spin of every particle and how each particle would interact with every other particle, from the quantum level to the cosmic level, and how to integrate life into that continuum, while simultaneously planning the history of trillions of stars, planets, bits of dust and gas, could any human being really say they could have done better? Noone's saying anything about humans doing a better job of creating the entire cosmos. Just that some of the things in it really doesn't indicate intelligence, but rather the lack of it.Not without an ungodly amount of hubris...:rolleyes:Blah

Yes, there most certainly is. In fact, most of our DNA goes unused.

Not understood=|=unused!

So far, every "vestigial" "unused" part of DNA, cells, human body, etc. that has been fully investigated has been found to be quite useful.

The problem is, we are nowhere near saying that we understand it all.

We do not understand the entire human genome.

We do not know the function of all the coding in the DNA.

Anyone who says otherwise is trying to appear smarter than they are...

Or trying to get headlines so they can secure more funding for their research.

Everything that scientists have not yet discovered about life is called "unused"---and when they find out what it's used for, they say "wow---we didn't know that!"

Hubris...:rolleyes:

We do not understand the entire human genome.


Point of fact.

Whenever an organism begins to grow from the original gametes, not all of the genes are expressed - although many are carried.

We don't use most of our genes - most of them are not expressed in our lifetime.

If we carry them for a reason, we carry them for the time when we reproduce and pass those genes on.

But it is a scientific fact that most of the genes we carry in our DNA are NEVER expressed and NEVER used.

But is just OK good enough from a suposedly omni-everything deity?

Specialy when us meere humans can see his fuckupsUntill we know they can be fixed, we can't be sure they are fuck-ups. They may simply be trade-offs.

So far, every "vestigial" "unused" part of DNA, cells, human body, etc. that has been fully investigated has been found to be quite useful.


Bullshit care to show us some info on this "fact":rolleyes:

Bullshit care to show us some info on this "fact":rolleyes:

Hey, I read on NS \General that the soul was in the appendix - how useful.

Untill we know they can be fixed, we can't be sure they are fuck-ups. They may simply be trade-offs.
You sound like the people failing my computer engneering class ... just calling them "un-intended features" does not make them so

There are always compromises one thing for another I understand that ... but some of it is needless complication
Again a mark of a bad designer

Elgesh']Hey, I read on NS \General that the soul was in the appendix - how useful.
COOL! Ill have to remember that:p

You sound like the people failing my computer engneering class ... just calling them "un-intended features" does not make them so

There are always compromises one thing for another I understand that ... but some of it is needless complication
Again a mark of a bad designer

Oh, the consultant who adds months to the project because they feel compelled to wrap something in an additional layer of abstraction. Our company has those problems...

But it is a scientific fact that most of the genes we carry in our DNA are NEVER expressed and NEVER used.Wrong. They needn't be expressed to have an effect.
Bits of 'unused' DNA influence expressed genes, and in fact can affect whether or not viable genes are expressed or not. They can also serve as anchoring points for enzymes and proteins etc.

Oh, the consultant who adds months to the project because they feel compelled to wrap something in an additional layer of abstraction. Our company has those problems...
Exactly, a good designer /consultant is one who finds a good balance between complexity and simplicity to make the product both robust and have the performance fetures that are required

Vary too far on either side and you either loose robustness or loose performance/fetures for the product

Thoes that are able to balance that will go far

You sound like the people failing my computer engneering class ... just calling them "un-intended features" does not make them soThe opposite isn't necessarily true either.

There are always compromises one thing for another I understand that ... but some of it is needless complication
Again a mark of a bad designerThe point is, can this be designed in a better way than an iterative improvement algorithm? If not, you get all the crap for free if you want to accomplish anything.

Elgesh']Hey, I read on NS \General that the soul was in the appendix - how useful.

And here I thought it was hiding in the hair... Samson losing his strength when he lost his. Various religions telling people to cover it and not to shave.

Silly me ;)

The opposite isn't necessarily true either.
But it does make them un tested and un reliable
Un-intended fetures means you failed

Usefull or not there is a reason you fail the assingment


The point is, can this be designed in a better way than an iterative improvement algorithm? If not, you get all the crap for free if you want to accomplish anything.
Im not sure where you were going with this ... maybe I am just burnt trying to prepare for class

Anyways time to go teach ... later

Im not sure where you were going with this ... maybe I am just burnt trying to prepare for classWhat I'm getting at is that the re may not be another way to design something as complicated as intelligent life, other than using evolution (or a similar design concept). So you have little control over side effects.
You can't change a few base pairs in the genome and flip the wiring of the eyes.

What I'm getting at is that the only way to design something as complicated as intelligent life, cannot be done in another way than evolution (or a similar design concept). So you have little control over side effects.
You can't change a few base pairs in the genome and flip the wiring of the eyes.

Indeed. Why, one might almost say that the complexity you speak of precludes the possibility of any long-term design.

Elgesh']Indeed. Why, one might almost say that the complexity you speak of precludes the possibility of any long-term design.Yep, there's broadly two ways I'd see it go. Either just let evolution run free, or guide it for a few million/billion years (and hope you don't mess things up badly by cutting off necessary evolutionary paths).
If I were god I'd just hope for the best and check back in a million years.

Yep, there's broadly two ways I'd see it go. Either just let evolution run free, or guide it for a few million/billion years (and hope you don't mess things up badly by cutting off necessary evolutionary paths).
If I were god I'd just hope for the best and check back in a million years.

You do realise that you are now saying the designer wasn't the Christian God - since He is considered omnipotent and -scient ?

Hmm.. good angle actually. "Do not teach ID in high schools - since it contradicts Christianity" *grin*

Yep, there's broadly two ways I'd see it go. Either just let evolution run free, or guide it for a few million/billion years (and hope you don't mess things up badly by cutting off necessary evolutionary paths).
If I were god I'd just hope for the best and check back in a million years.

If I were God, I'd be _really_ disappointed. I might even uninstall the software, and take it all back to where I bought it, with proof of purchase.

Elgesh']Hey, I read on NS \General that the soul was in the appendix - how useful.

from a weak source: (http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0029853.html)

The appendix secretes antibodies into the gut and so plays a role in the body's immune system, though it is not a vital one, as patients survive perfectly well following removal of the appendix.

of course, it is not "vital" to have two kidneys, as one can survive perfectly well with only one...

stronger support for my contention: (http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/System/1866/appendix.htm)

(this is from a two page article, of which I only copy the opening and closing paragraphs)

Due to the high probability of its rupturing, the appendix has often been seen more as a nuisance rather than an important part of the human anatomy. Due to this misconception, a significant portion of the worlds population had undergone, if not, are already considering, the process of appendectomy. However, this surgery is now being treated as a last resort especially for those who suffer from the pain of appendicitis. This is due to the fact that modern research now proves that this small organ found at the tip of the intestines (on the cecum to be more specific) actually performs several important functions in the human body.

...

In conclusion, early misconceptions have led to the indiscriminate removal of the appendix from the body. And due to early scientists’ presumptions, the importance of this organ had been overlooked and had not been discovered until recent times. Nonetheless, it is now quite proven (although some people still mistakenly say otherwise) that the appendix has a variety of important occupations within the human anatomy. As stated above, this structure helps in the proper movement and removal of waste matter in the digestive system, it also contains lymphatic vessels that regulate pathogens, and lastly, it might even produce early defenses that prevent the contraction of deadly diseases. Therefore, through these evidences, it is hence quite obvious that the appendix is not at all a remnant of a once important organ but is itself an integral structure within the human body.

and another source: (http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=000CAE56-7201-1C71-9EB7809EC588F2D7&catID=3)

Loren G. Martin, professor of physiology at Oklahoma State University, replies:

"For years, the appendix was credited with very little physiological function. We now know, however, that the appendix serves an important role in the fetus and in young adults. ...(goes on for one and one-half pages)"

When I get more time, I will show how the eye is actually an ingenious design, with its structure created to maintain sight for a lifetime, in spite of its lense focussing heat and UV on its delicate innards...;)

Elgesh']If I were God, I'd be _really_ disappointed. I might even uninstall the software, and take it all back to where I bought it, with proof of purchase.


"And God said: 'Lines Aleph Zero to Aleph One - Delete.'
And the Universe ceased to exist.
Then She pondered for several aeons, and sighed.
'Cancel Programme GENESIS,' She ordered.
It never had existed."
- 'siseneG', Arthur C. Clark

You do realise that you are now saying the designer wasn't the Christian God - since He is considered omnipotent and -scient ?Well, I've had enough problems with how people conceptualize him, so I don't really mind ;)
I take another view to "omni-" though; if God exists, he can do everything that is possible to do, but not break the rules of logic for example (so no making stones he can't lift).

Elgesh']If I were God, I'd be _really_ disappointed. I might even uninstall the software, and take it all back to where I bought it, with proof of purchase.Meh.. If I were God, I'd probably like the anime enough to put up with the rest ;)

stronger support for my contention: (http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/System/1866/appendix.htm)

A geocities page from someone without CV is not that strong either - even if it is 2 pages long ;)

and another source: (http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=000CAE56-7201-1C71-9EB7809EC588F2D7&catID=3)

Loren G. Martin, professor of physiology at Oklahoma State University, replies:


This on the other hand seems promising.

Elgesh']If I were God, I'd be _really_ disappointed. I might even uninstall the software, and take it all back to where I bought it, with proof of purchase.

Humans come with viruses - they fuck up the system if you install them.

What I'm getting at is that the re may not be another way to design something as complicated as intelligent life, other than using evolution (or a similar design concept). So you have little control over side effects.
You can't change a few base pairs in the genome and flip the wiring of the eyes.
No but ID depends on the theory that someone powerfull enough and expansive enough to initialy create life itself would not have the ability to controll the outcome better else choose a different manufacturing method

And in the realm of creationism it makes even less sense

You do realise that you are now saying the designer wasn't the Christian God - since He is considered omnipotent and -scient ?

Hmm.. good angle actually. "Do not teach ID in high schools - since it contradicts Christianity" *grin*
To be compleatly fair I was arguing from the omni-potent deity stance
But to be fair the thread origionaly is about ID which does not require explicitly omni-everything

BUT implicitly it sort of does ... they have to at least have the ability to exist outside of time (being around to create first life ... besides itself that is) but have the power to interact with the universe as well

Either way a pretty powerfull logicaly faulty dude

Well, since ID/Crea excludes the possibility of speciation, it/they really aren't compatible with the ToE.

Again, if someone deliberately designed something like, for example, me, then why the hell did the someone design my knees this way? I could do a better job of it, and I'm no damn engineer.

Well, since ID/Crea excludes the possibility of speciation, it/they really aren't compatible with the ToE.

Again, if someone deliberately designed something like, for example, me, then why the hell did the someone design my knees this way? I could do a better job of it, and I'm no damn engineer.
I think the Books of Bokonon put it better than any other religious text:

In the beginning, God created the earth, and he looked upon it in His cosmic loneliness.

And God said, "Let Us make living creatures out of mud, so the mud can see what We have done." And God created every living creature that now moveth, and one was man. Mud as man alone could speak. God leaned close as mud as man sat up, looked around, and spoke. Man blinked. "What is the purpose of all this?" he asked politely.

"Everything must have a purpose?" asked God.

"Certainly," said man.

"Then I leave it to you to think of one for all this," said God.

And He went away.

Actually, the design of the human body is incredibly beautiful and complex. No engineer understands the whole thing. No doctor, no biochemist, no engineer can design better.

Actually, they could. You seem to think all the ridiculous complexity in the human body is a good thing, but, as I've said twice already, it's not. Pointless complexity isn't what a real engineer strives for, simplicity and robustness is.

And you should take the example of a single human engineer who knows all of physics, all of chemistry, and all of biology, and who can arbitarily create whatever he likes: in other words, if an engineer was put in God's position with God's supposed powers and knowledge, could he do better? I have no doubts that such an engineer would be more than able to put together something less fantastically incompetantly designed than our bodies.

Showing something is marvellous isn't the same as showing it's well designed. Should I point out in advance that the light sensors in the eye point inwards on humans but don't on cepholpods, meaning the optic nerve has to penetrate the eye to to link to them? This degrades our eyesight for no reason and gives us an entirely avoidable blind spot. Why would an engineer who had already incorporated the most efficient solution in one product line continue to use a shoddy, half-assed solution in others?

And you should take the example of a single human engineer who knows all of physics, all of chemistry, and all of biology, and who can arbitarily create whatever he likes: in other words, if an engineer was put in God's position with God's supposed powers and knowledge, could he do better? I have no doubts that such an engineer would be more than able to put together something less fantastically incompetantly designed than our bodies.

Maybe such an engineer would be able to put together what he/she thinks is better, but then maybe we don't really understand what makes a "good" human. Maybe we're supposed to have all of these "problems" that would be easily avoided if some engineer were to design us. :rolleyes:

Maybe such an engineer would be able to put together what he/she thinks is better, but then maybe we don't really understand what makes a "good" human. Maybe we're supposed to have all of these "problems" that would be easily avoided if some engineer were to design us. :rolleyes:There's a saying that goes something like this "Against willful ignorance, even the Gods rage in vain".. Oddly apropriate I think.

Incompetant Design? So that's what they are calling Evolution these days? Thanks!

Maybe such an engineer would be able to put together what he/she thinks is better, but then maybe we don't really understand what makes a "good" human. Maybe we're supposed to have all of these "problems" that would be easily avoided if some engineer were to design us. :rolleyes:

Meaning God deliberately designed us badly and therefore is worthy of only our contempt? I don't see many people being willing to worship such a perverse creature.

Meaning God deliberately designed us badly and therefore is worthy of only our contempt? I don't see many people being willing to worship such a perverse creature.

Heh. Maybe they're actually using this worship business as a petition.

"Tell you what god. You made me such an inefficient critter, so I'll worship you so that you can make me much better."

Some people just like pain I guess.

I think the Books of Bokonon put it better than any other religious text:
I <3 you

Incompetant Design? So that's what they are calling Evolution these days? Thanks!
Nice attempt:rolleyes: evolution is not "Design"

I supose you thought your quip was funny though:rolleyes: mores the pitty