|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Animals with bad design. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Aaron writes:
So the concept of Intelligent Design won't work unless the design is flawed. The next question is: Does it take an "intelligent" designer to balance all of those flaws or just an incompetent boob? When it comes to creating a complex interdependent ecosystem, vulnerability is necessary to keep the whole thing going. "I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Theodoric writes:
Ever hear of salt water? Have you ever seen 0 degree water. It is a chunk of ice. I don't think a Whale can swim through 0 degree water. "I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Theodoric writes:
I think Aaron was just a bit careless with the scales. We've had the metric system in Canada for more than thirty years and people of my generation still use Fahrenheit and Celsius in the same sentence. I assumed he meant 0 Celsius. I still want to see a Whale swim in 0 F water. "I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Theodoric writes:
I don't think he was suggesting that whales can swim in ice. There's no need to assume duplicity when simple carelessness is more likely. He needs to learn that fundie sites lie or are just plain wrong. "I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Aaron writes:
It would also be unintelligent to fit tiny wheels on a submarine. It would be unintelligent to fit killer whales and sperm whales with the same size pelvis bone. Vestigial wheels would suggest that the submarine had evolved from a land vehicle. "I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Aaron writes:
But why put the echolocation option in only some of the animals that need it? That's like putting headlights on certain models of cars but not on others. And I wouldn't argue that river dolphins "evolved" from marine dolphins who already possessed echolocation. It was probably this ability that helped them hunt and survive in muddy rivers with poor visibility. Evolution suggests that organisms with a "special ability" move into niches where they can exploit that ability. When Henry Ford saw that compact cars with headlights were useful for pizza delivery, he realized that four-door sedans with headlights would also be useful as taxis. A good salesman might try to sell you one car for daytime and one for night but a good designer would provide an option for both. Edited by ringo, : Spellind and minor changes in order word. Edited by ringo, : Added clever subtitle. "I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Aaron writes:
I specifically said "tiny" wheels, analogous to a whale's tiny legs. To follow the analogy through, the wheels would be entirely inside the submarine. It doesn't matter whether they're useful for a hatrack. No intelligent designer would do such a thing. He'd make a proper hatrack. Unless the submarine also cruises along the ocean floor - then the wheels would be useful. No whale structure we've been discussing is useless. You can have brevity and clarify, or you can have accuracy and detail, but you can't easily have both. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
dennis780 writes:
That's what I said. In order for the system to work, each individual part of that system has to have a flaw, a weakness, an imperfection that forces it to pass on its energy to another part of the sytem. ringo writes:
No, the arguement is, what we see as a flaw, actually isn't. It's a requirement for life to continue. If every animal uses energy to survive, but each was perfectly able to defend against all attacks, no energy could be consumed, and every animal dies. It is the interdependence of organisms on each other that makes the animal kingdom on earth successful. Exploiting an organisms' weaknesses is crutial to another's survival. So the concept of Intelligent Design won't work unless the design is flawed. The question is: How do you tell a system that was designed to be flawed in "perfect balance" from one that evolved haphazardly? The fact of extinctions seems to answer that question.
dennis780 writes:
If it was designed by a perfect being, it ought to be perfect. Again, the designer you're describing seems to be no improvement on the messy results that we'd expect from evolution. If he exists, so what? No system, even designed ones are perfect correct? You can have brevity and clarify, or you can have accuracy and detail, but you can't easily have both. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Aaron writes:
That's what makes it good science. The inability of DNA to replicate perfectly, along with the natural selection of "improvements" over "mistakes", makes diversity inevitable. I'm about to get on a little tangent - but I see a difference between the ToE explaining differences and expecting differences. The design hypothesis, on the other hand, only allows for the possibility of diversity. It can't predict anything. Design advocates can never know why the designer gave bats, humans and whales the same hands for very different environments. The theory of evolution predicts that descendants of a common ancestor will branch out to fill environmental niches, which explains the hands nicely.
Aaron writes:
Sure you would. You'd predict that, given the appropriate conditions, atoms would react to form anything that is made of atoms. You wouldn't predict that molecules would independently form the first replicating cell. You can have brevity and clarify, or you can have accuracy and detail, but you can't easily have both. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Kaichos Man writes:
That isn't intelligent design; it's malicious design. A perfect booby-trap may refute the "bad design" thesis but it isn't something I'd brag about. He built degenerative mechanisms into all his inventions. You can have brevity and clarify, or you can have accuracy and detail, but you can't easily have both. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Kaichos Man writes:
Yes, that's what we'd expect from evolution - different, not necessarily additional. But we wouldn't expect a competent designer to build in "devolution". ... and the form or function is "new" only in the sense of being different, and not additional to. You can have brevity and clarify, or you can have accuracy and detail, but you can't easily have both. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Kaichos Man writes:
Then how do you explain all of the extinct species? They failed to adapt to their environment. Exquisite design, way beyond the reach of dumb, blind copying mistakes. "Inbuilt reducing versatility" can only account for different species moving into different niches. It can't account for adaptation to changes in those niches. If species evolved naturally, we'd expect a lot of the "accidental" changes to fail, which is exactly what we see. If they were designed to fail, that's bad design. If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Kaichos Man writes:
I don't know why that keeps coming up. It isn't a "loss" of information; it's a change of information. You don't need new words to write a different book. You just have to arrange the existing words in a different order. The cheetah evolved from the leopard through a simple loss of genetic information. Edited by ringo, : Removed shopworn subtitle. If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024