INTELLIGENT DESIGN: An Engineer’s Approach

The only posters doing such a thing are the creationists, because it benefits them. If its a binary option, then all creationists have to do to prove their point is negate evolution. Consider these other options. We were put here by extraterrestrials. We were programmed by robots. We are still programmed by robots (seen the matrix?). Of course you might ask the question, where did the robots and aliens come from, but the same question can be asked about your designer. Abliogenesis is a biochemical question. Evolution is a (you guessed it) evolutionary biology question. Evolution says assuming you have a living, reproducing life-form, you can generate the variety of life seen today through natural selection. In fact, evolution concerns itself with showing the "big jump from fly to man" rather then the "squirming and reproducing worm" forming from nothing. Your problem is with abliogenesis, not Evolution. Get your facts straight.

---

You hear evolutionist says we are descedant from apes and monkees. Sure, but that's not the point. All of life is related, not just human's with monkees. If you hug a tree, you're hugging a relative, a very distant relative, but a relative nonetheless." Dr. Joan Roughgarden in Evolution and Christian Faith

Can you move a mountain with your faith?We can't create a self sustaining fusion reaction so does that mean the sun is powered by coal? We can't create a diamond (yet) in the lab does that mean diamonds don't exist.

This is wrong.Stock Quotes, Business News and Data from Stock Markets | MSN Money Lab Created Diamonds

Poor creationists. You all can't even agree on what it would take to prove evolution.Here you are, saying that humans designing life would disprove intelligent design. Randman, over there in the Showcase, on the other hand, tells us that humans designing life proves intelligent design (because humans are intelligent), and disproves evolution.Which is it? You and your creationist peers need to figure that out amongst yourselves, I think. (Personally, I think it's pretty obvious that it has absolutely nothing to do with evolution either way.) So, what you're saying is this - the failure of X to achieve a certain goal is proof that you need even more X to do it.Are you related to George W Bush, by any chance?

Ya I should have google'd that first.I also suspect that within a decade or so humans will have achieved sustained fusion.

Fusion is the energy source of the future and always will be! --Percy

Fusion will come to earth.We may just have to wait for the sun to reach it's dying red stage to get it ...but this is offtopicwe should wait for some response from limbosis eh?Edited by RAZD, : .ot

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Actually, there are several ways to relate the animal kingdom to design principles. Take muscle tissue, for instance. Skeletal muscle is an actuator. It is used throughout kingdom to perform or maintain the necessities of life itself. It could be considered a basic building block. It is used differently among different animals for the same purpose. Yet, if you could get the calf of a frog to work in a human finger, it would provide the same utility. For skeletal muscles, mechanical leverage is the basic operating principle. They would be analagous to solenoids, a motorized rack and pinion, etc, and inversely anologous to pistons. It is a means for translation, that is normally contained”or at least protected to operate--entirely within the physical envelope of the vessel.Now, we see that mechanism in just about every single species of animal we know of, and it uses bones and cartilage as linkages. In fact, you could say that its what defines animals. You’ll notice that skeletal muscle tissue is roughly a homogenous material, with an allowance for signal input and a means for delivering fuel and physical maintenance. The elemental unit would then be the striated muscle cell. This is biology. We know all this.Another mechanism is protection from the elements. That structure is skin. Another mechanism is converting chemical energy into heat energy or electric potential energy, and so on. All these things have a counterpart in automobiles. Could you design a car to make its own fuel? Probably not. But you could make one that found its own fuels, and engaged them to the point of consumption. Now, the programming it would take to do that would be monstrositous. But, it would be completely possible.We could also break down the human body into all the separate systems required for it to exist. And if you do that you would see an arrangement of systems with which you could apply to all animals, in terms of their intended purpose here, and their ability to serve that purpose. It’s not rocket science. What you would then see is that some animals eat plants and some animals eat other animals. But, in the utilitarian sense, you could treat them both the same way because they both control populations.So, then the question becomes: Is there another purpose to some or all animals. I’ll start with humans. What do humans do in their free time for work? Well, many things. They mine gold, silver, diamonds, and maybe other raw materials which are not used for their relatively unique physical properties, and greatest utility. They create a wide array of gases, which are harmful to them. From a distance, they provide the appearance of intelligent occupation and control, at least on the surface (of the earth). They emit methane, ammonia and other potentially useful compounds. They also drive the production of other animals that emit the same things. They produce an enormous quantity of heat. And they appear to be gradually reducing the amount of total oxygen in the atmosphere. We can make more oxygen. But, converted solar energy is required in the process. Those steps unfortunately produce more heat and more carbon dioxide, while reducing the ability of the earth’s surface to produce oxygen naturally.It should be clear that this earth is absorbing more and more of the Sun’s energy all the time. The earth is like one giant battery. There is no future for humans, even if we do cut back on the resources we use. Global warming cannot be reversed by us, unless we can reflect all of the Sun’s light. This place has been absorbing energy long before we even GOT here.So, in the same utilitarian sense, our final question seems to boil down to this: Why would we allow our intelligence to accelerate our own demise. The answer is that we would not. Then, there should be a couple more questions for somebody else . Who WOULD do that? And why?By the way, I checked out some stuff by H.P. Lovecraft. I particularly liked a graphic novel that I found titled Call of Cthulhu. I also liked History of the Necronomicon, and an audio of At the Mountains of Madness . interesting theories.

This is nonsense stemming from biological ignorance. Less than 5 percent of living animal species possess the calciferous skeleton and striated muscle tissue you refer to, here. Solar power? I think your problem here is that you simply don't think things through before you post about them - hence these obvious and embarassing errors.

And, a natural history of things would be a worthwhile subject, as it is. In that sense, our zoology would represent a living record, a bookmark, of all the changes that appear to have taken place, and may take place in the future.There is no question that the work encompassed by evolutionary biology has thoroughly documented those changes, if not the order that they occured in, as well. At the very least, it is a catalog of some of the things that have lived. That's a pretty good start, if you think of all the trillions upon trillions of species that must have lived between the ones we know of, if the theory of evolution was correct.

Jar, I've already stipulated to intelligent, but...Inadept? I wouldn't say that.
Inept? At diplomacy, I would say hell yes.
Incompetent? From an overall perspetive, no doubt about it.
Inefficient? Don't know that yet.
Inexpert? I don't think that word exists.
Incapable? of seeing the trees for the forest.
Inappropriate? Entirely.
Infelicitous? Don't know that, either.
Ill-timed? When is now a good time for corruption?
Inelegant? Probably uglier than a two-headed monkey with one chin, Jar.
Inexpert? You said that twice, Jar, and I believe it still doesn't exist. In fact, I don't know that is has ever existed.
Inexperienced? The jury is still out.You forgot:Insensitive.
Inconceivably stupid.
Incontheivable!
Incompatible.
Incontinent.
Insatiable?
Insipid.
Indiscrete.
Indiscreet.

That's right. And, how do we know that it's not being mistaken as speciation? As platypus so eloquently pointed out earlier, a Chihuahua is apparentually sexually isolated from I think it was a Great Dane. Yet, as we know, all we need is a little artificial insemination to make some Greatchihuahuas.Furthermore, do we know for a fact that whenever a new strain gets "far" enough away from its species of origin so as to become sexually isolated, that speciation has taken place? You should probably know as well as I do, that scientifically speaking, the answer is no. All you need is a competing explanation to rule out that certainty.Here, let me just make one up for you (as if it's difficult at all).Let's say there's a feature that's coded into the very syllables of genetic sequencing that eliminates the possibility of taking a line of "aggressive" hybridization too far away from its original species. Maybe there's a particular series of codons, or a second-order marker of some kind, that expresses sterility as an offspring genotype, if it is not matched closely enough by the mate. Does science know enough yet, to rule that out? Please let me know if it does, because the whole idea of "speciation" hinges on this, regardless of whether the creationists concede to it or not.Speaking of that, I'm going to arbitrarily concede to the shot-in-the-dark known as "speciation" myself, in the interest of advancing my own idea. The core of my theory doesn't rely on the absence of speciation, anyway. But, this should help to clear out some of the riff-raff on this thread.It's not that I could be convinced of speciation in the least bit, in favor of the type grouping we see in domestic dogs and cats. Keep in mind that we could easily domesticate any animal, and start making some positively twisted breeds, like we did with dogs. I mean do that with monkeys, sharks, bears, birds, lizards, you name it. Forget fruit flies. Let's go to town!

I'd appreciate it if you could address message 144. This is just more nonsense based on your ignorance of biology.1) Genetic "sequencing" doesn't have "syllables."
2) You can't "express... as a genotype." Genotypes are expressed as phenotype.
3) It's not in the least bit clear about what you mean about "taking a line of "aggressive" hybridization too far away from its original species", or how that's revelant to the current situation. How would punishing hybridization prevent speciation? Preventing hybridization would cause speciation to occur faster, in less generations.
4) What is a "second-order marker" supposed to be?
5) Genetic sterility that isn't caused by chromosome count mismatches is almost always a recessive genetic trait, which means that your putative "sterility gene" would only be expressed in offspring when the parents were most similar, not less. Does science know enough to know that you're writing nonsense? Yes, it does, I assure you.

Simple- if the two groups of organism would not naturally interbreed in the wild, speciation has occured. It does not matter if they are unable to breed because of genitalia size differences, offspring sterility, positive assortive mating, or because of the wierd kinship chemical receptor that you kinda described. If any of these mechanisms are in place, then no interbreeding will occur- the two groups will evolve separately. Their gene pools are effectively isolated. If a mutation occurs in one group, it cannot be tranferred to the other group. This effective separation is the important consequence of speciation. There is no "mistaken as speciation." If they don't interbreed in the wild, it doesn't matter if we could achieve artificial insemination in the lab, they are effectively isolated: speciation has occurred.

If that is the case then it is also fair to ask how did your process of Evolution evolve? The process itself evolved from a more primitve process from a more primitive process from a even more primitive process from and even MORE primitive process, on and on in infinite regression?So if the question "Where did the Designer Come From?" (in the case of an uncreated divine Designer) is ligitimate, then why not "So where did Evolution evolve from?"Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.