The Curious Case of the Designer's Bad Design

What this means is that ID proponents cannot use scientific discoveries about the functionality of “junk DNA” to support intelligent design while at the same time claiming that ID is not affected by the existence of suboptimal systems and structures in organisms.

A quibble, but wouldn't Luskin (and yes, I'm being rhetorical here) just say all design has function, even bad design? I mean, a dam that's poorly designed and doesn't actually hold back water was still technically designed with that function in mind. I'm pretty sure that both Luskin and Crowther can spin their apparent disagreement into a non-issue. Weasel words and all...

Okay, life was designed, but God is incompetent. But the Bible says He is perfect and omniscient, etc., so therefore the God of the Bible isn't the Designer. Must have been aliens.

What difference does "Intelligent Design" make?
Can anybody give an example of something which is not intelligently designed? Something for which it is less likely that it would be designed? The example need not be something real (after all, God created all things). Maybe something impossible, just an example so we can get some idea of what difference design accounts for.
I would offer this suggestion: A world of life as we know it, except for it not having common descent with modification (which would mean that so many of the features of life would just be extremely unlikely accidents).

First, apparently Adam and Eve were flawed from the beginning, right? So whichever designer made them, the design was flawed? Or acceptable? Doesn't say much for the designer.

Second, the churchies don't understand the argument presented, that's not the message that's passing through their heads, but only that there was a (supernatural) designer involved, and then they are placated.

To use a legal analogy, they don’t care about what actually happened, they care about getting their client off. If bamboozling the jury with “my client wasn’t there…besides which it was self-defense” will win the case, they’ll use it that defense - regardless of its impossibility.

I hate to say it, but this ain't exactly news. I recall having this very argument with some guy on talk.origins, more than 10 years ago. He kept insisting that intelligent design doesn't imply perfect design, and I kept asking: So exactly what does it imply? (No answer, of course). It's a rather obvious hole in Behe's first book: we either claim we know something about the designer(s), thus can make some predictions about his/her/its/their work, thus can potentially start doing ID-informed science; or we claim (as Behe does) that the designer's nature is unknowable, that ID might as well stand for "I Dunno" -- and of course the only place to go from there is back into tired old "Evolution can't produce X so I win!" arguments.

If pure ID, then Robert is correct and bad design is acceptable. But if it is “ID creationism”, a strain of ID that claims the Designer is an infallible, supernatural deity, Casey is correct and bad design is predicted to not occur at all.

Dembski has argued for both the positions espoused by Luskin and Crowther. I.e. he has claimed that ID can't make predictions AND that ID predicts the non-existence of junk DNA.

While this might be an interesting topic to consider I just don’t think its terribly productive at combating ID. It doesn’t matter if you come up with a valid criticism, the IDers are perfectly willing to give ground on this. They’re willing to give ground on common descent for that matter, even though Luskin and others take occasional pot-shots at it. Their core argument is that the evolution of living things without the intervention of a designer is fundamentally impossible. It doesn’t matter that their alternative is ill-defined or incoherent. If they really have found a fatal flaw with evolution that would be significant so this notion has to be attacked head-on. All the effective rebuttals I’ve seen have come from non-biologists (most biologists don’t have the background necessary in Info Theory, Physics, Math etc) but the rebuttals are too technical and long-winded for stand up debates.

DavidK said: First, apparently Adam and Eve were flawed from the beginning, right? So whichever designer made them, the design was flawed? Or acceptable? Doesn't say much for the designer. Second, the churchies don't understand the argument presented, that's not the message that's passing through their heads, but only that there was a (supernatural) designer involved, and then they are placated.

apokryltaros said:

DavidK said: First, apparently Adam and Eve were flawed from the beginning, right? So whichever designer made them, the design was flawed? Or acceptable? Doesn't say much for the designer. Second, the churchies don't understand the argument presented, that's not the message that's passing through their heads, but only that there was a (supernatural) designer involved, and then they are placated.

According to some "churchies," Adam and Eve weren't flawed, they sinned, therefore, caused God to corrupt everything into the "bad designs" we see today as punishment for these two incompetent ne'erdowells. Or something.

flimsy wings of flightless ratites, wouldn’t exist

Btw, any inference of "bad design" is not a valid argument for non-design. You do realize that some manufacturers deliberately do not make their products perfect or else the customer will never replace them? Imagine if all us lived till we were as old as Methuselah on average and never got sick? The planet's resources would rapidly be depleted.

Atheistoclast said: Btw, any inference of "bad design" is not a valid argument for non-design.

Speaking of the Discovery Institute and their blogging... is that all they do anymore? Are they still actively writing up model bills and pushing them onto legislators, or sabotaging school boards by feeding them nonsensical science standards?

-Wheels

TomS said:

Atheistoclast said: Btw, any inference of "bad design" is not a valid argument for non-design.

Of course. That is because there is nothing of substance to "intelligent design", and therefore there is nothing which is less likely to result if "intelligent design" is involved. Can anybody think of a counter-example to "intelligent design"?

ksplawn said: Speaking of the Discovery Institute and their blogging... is that all they do anymore? Are they still actively writing up model bills and pushing them onto legislators, or sabotaging school boards by feeding them nonsensical science standards? -Wheels

harold said: Of course it "could have been" the Flying Spaghetti Monster, magically creating everything last Thursday, but "making it look exactly like evolution", vestiges, redundancy, contingencies, and all. Of course I can't rule that out.

Carl Drews said:

harold said: Of course it "could have been" the Flying Spaghetti Monster, magically creating everything last Thursday, but "making it look exactly like evolution", vestiges, redundancy, contingencies, and all. Of course I can't rule that out.

Right. The design is not so much "bad", since these organisms can thrive, as it is misleading. The most obvious characteristic of the Incomprehensible Designer, from what we can observe in nature, is that he/she is trying to make it look like life evolved. I have no idea why the God of Israel would do this if He engaged in direct biological engineering. So - ID does not point very strongly to God, as Michael Behe stated at the University of Colorado on April 11, 2003. Intelligent Design is not a good position for a Bible-believing creationist to advocate. The heavens are supposed to be telling the glory of God (Psalm 19:1-4), not pointing in another direction.

Atheistoclast said: You do realize that some manufacturers deliberately do not make their products perfect or else the customer will never replace them?

Imagine if all us lived till we were as old as Methuselah on average and never got sick? The planet’s resources would rapidly be depleted.

I consider myself to be living proof of intelligent design and divine intervention in Nature.

Those with low self-esteem think they are poorly constructed makeshift nd jerry-rigged adaptations. I feel sorry for them…I really do.

Atheistoclast said: I consider myself to be living proof of intelligent design and divine intervention in Nature.

Atheistoclast said: Imagine if all us lived till we were as old as Methuselah on average and never got sick? The planet's resources would rapidly be depleted.

Atheistoclast said: Btw, any inference of "bad design" is not a valid argument for non-design.

Atheistoclast said: You do realize that some manufacturers deliberately do not make their products perfect or else the customer will never replace them? Imagine if all us lived till we were as old as Methuselah on average and never got sick? The planet's resources would rapidly be depleted.

The issue, whether it's "good" or "bad" "design" in life is that it's slavishly derivative "design." This extremely derivative nature of life is predicated by evolutionary processes, while it is unexpected, unlikely, and unintelligent, from any sort of competent agent.

A modern bird is "well designed" while Archaeopteryx is not. But it really doesn't matter much, they're both derived from dinosaurs, which explains their homologies.

Life does not have the pick-and-choose, or derivation from first principles, nature expected from design (if not always, at least sometimes). That's why the IDiots spend so much time trying to address anything but that fact.

Glen Davidson

John_S said: But it's certainly a good argument for the designer's incompetence. I don't think many people who support ID are looking for an argument for design by "God the Bumbler".

There's a lot more evidence for bad design in life beyond the mere existence of mortality. Manufacturers may deliberately make a product that falls apart in a year, but they don't usually make one that's missing a key part and force you to machine it yourself.

Atheistoclast was designed all right.
Here is the whole story:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolling_motor

harold said: Traditional Christianity does, in fact, teach that humans are wretched, sinful, and worthless unless the humbly accept salvation from Jesus Christ. Historically, although plenty of humanists have also been religious, humanistic thought has often been condemned by the traditionally Christian as giving too much credit to wretched, sinful human beings.

Atheistoclast said: We are sinners and we have a sinful nature.

phhht said:

Atheistoclast said: We are sinners and we have a sinful nature.

Not me, Theistoclast. I have never sinned and never will. To sin, there must be gods and punishment and that whole delusional complex, and there are no gods. Or have you come up with some empirical evidence for your delusions?

Atheistoclast said:

phhht said:

Atheistoclast said: We are sinners and we have a sinful nature.

Not me, Theistoclast. I have never sinned and never will. To sin, there must be gods and punishment and that whole delusional complex, and there are no gods. Or have you come up with some empirical evidence for your delusions?

You are sinful and liable to err by nature. You can redeem yourself only be rejecting evolution and embracing your divine origin. Who created you in your mother's womb? Was it evolution? I don't think so.

Atheistoclast said: I don't know about you, but I have all my parts in tact.

phhht said:

Atheistoclast said: You are sinful and liable to err by nature.

Nope, sorry, not sinful. There aren't any gods, so there is no sin. Of course, you could always destroy my atheism, as you have promised to do so many times, Theistoclast. All you need is evidence.

Thanks for posting on this! I had just posted a reflection on the argument for an incompetent designer in relation to Hume and not long after, your post appeared in my reader.

I think your point gets at a heart of the inconsistency in design arguments which Hume identified back in the 18th century. If one claims to detect design, then one has to posit that what is seen in nature is akin to what humans design, and that the designer is thhus analogous to humans. To then complain about where that leads and resist going there by claiming that the designer is superior and inscrutible is to backtrack on the analogy that is the basis for the design argument in the first place.

According to some “churchies,” Adam and Eve weren’t flawed, they sinned, therefore, caused God to corrupt everything into the “bad designs” we see today as punishment for these two incompetent ne’erdowells.

I'll add here that god kicked the humans out of the garden because he was afraid of them.

There was another tree in the garden, the Tree of Life. Whoever eats from both trees become like gods. This scared the sky monster silly.

If good design and bad design are both compatible with ID, it doesn't predict anything. Which means it isn't a good theory or good science.

Really? Do you have a working gene for synthesizing vitamin C? I don’t think so. Most other mammals do. So you can hardly claim that God made an engineering trade-off with humans

Bringing up the junk DNA argument, when the search for the functions of repetitive DNA is regarded as cutting-edge research in molecular biology, is pretty low - even by the Panda’s standards.

Surely the Lord Intelligent Designer is not limited to designing living things--the Lord can also design rocks, and water, and lumps of stuff or ice cream, or mag wheels, right? Some of those things have no discernible function; how does speaking of an Intelligent Designer add to our understanding of these things?

I used to work in quality control at a Ford Pinto assembly line. I don't think Pintos were designed by the same Intelligent Designer as the Hindenburg. Many segments of the assembly line had repairmen. Does the Lord Intelligent Designer hire repairmen? How come I never see them, or the Intelligent Designer, or the Design plans? (Some folks claim the plans consist of DNA, but I think DNA is an essential part of the functioning organism.)

raven said: I'll add here that god kicked the humans out of the garden because he was afraid of them. There was another tree in the garden, the Tree of Life. Whoever eats from both trees become like gods. This scared the sky monster silly. If good design and bad design are both compatible with ID, it doesn't predict anything. Which means it isn't a good theory or good science.

Atheistoclast said: Btw, any inference of "bad design" is not a valid argument for non-design. You do realize that some manufacturers deliberately do not make their products perfect or else the customer will never replace them? Imagine if all us lived till we were as old as Methuselah on average and never got sick? The planet's resources would rapidly be depleted.

Atheistoclast said: ... "Science wants to know how something has emerged and who by. They haven't discovered this and so they have no theory of their own.

Atheistoclast said: You are sinful and liable to err by nature. You can redeem yourself only be rejecting evolution and embracing your divine origin. Who created you in your mother's womb? Was it evolution? I don't think so.

The philosopher is Porphyry, of ocurse.

Atheistoclast said: Btw, any inference of "bad design" is not a valid argument for non-design. You do realize that some manufacturers deliberately do not make their products perfect or else the customer will never replace them? Imagine if all us lived till we were as old as Methuselah on average and never got sick? The planet's resources would rapidly be depleted.

DavidK said:

Atheistoclast said: ... "Science wants to know how something has emerged and who by. They haven't discovered this and so they have no theory of their own.

Sorry, I'm not aware that science is seeking a "... who by." That's the puzzle for you creationists, i.e., can you distinguish between Jehovah, the FSM, Allah, Buddha, et. al? If so, how?

I can't see how the so called "pure I.D" position is immune from the bad design argument. The argument shouldn’t be stated as a dichotomy between bad design and no design, rather it should be between an intelligent watch maker and a blind watch maker. Poor design is better explained and more likely on natural selection, and natural selection is still a form of design.

As one who regularly visits UD, and reads, in slackjawed amazement 'the breath taking inaninty' of Denise and BA77, it hardly registers on my radar the ravings of 'the evangelist', a-clast. He is here to save you, as 'dog' instructed. Hey, a-clast, what's it like to live in Plato's Cave?

Btw, any inference of "bad design" is not a valid argument for non-design. You do realize that some manufacturers deliberately do not make their products perfect or else the customer will never replace them? Imagine if all us lived till we were as old as Methuselah on average and never got sick? The planet's resources would rapidly be depleted.

the apparently growing intelligent design (ID) movement that is threatening science education in the US and across the globe.

Helena Constantine said: Scientists understand every step in the formation of a new animal from fertilization through gestation to birth/hatching. At what point do you think god intervenes in the process and what does she do? Why aren't the scientists that study the process aware of what god does? Could scientists intervene and prevent this divine intervention, or reverse it and therefore see what a human is like with divine intervention? Presumably such a person would be unfallen, since at least part of the undetected interference must be god propagating the effects of the fall on each individual, so why aren't the DI types actively researching in this area?

A Masked Panda (S-dM) said: Surely the Lord Intelligent Designer is not limited to designing living things--the Lord can also design rocks, and water, and lumps of stuff or ice cream, or mag wheels, right? Some of those things have no discernible function; how does speaking of an Intelligent Designer add to our understanding of these things?

"Begone, Satan, you think as men think not as God thinks." Mark 8:33

You are trying to divine the mind of the Creator who is infinitely more intelligent than you.

The bad design argument is only useful for tweeking the creationists about their infallible intelligent designer. They can't stand the argument because it forces them to lie about what they believe about their intelligent designer. The designer has to be able to screw up, or they aren't talking about their designer.

Other than that it isn't a good argument against design in nature. Some god or space aliens could be just as incompetent humans.

Atheistoclast said: the mind of the Creator...

To any reasonable person, bad design should at least rule out GOD as the designer, or are we playing the "designer works in mysterious ways" card?

harold said: However, I can say with certainty that, based on the assumptions that my senses accurately detect a universe, that logic is valid, and that other humans have similar senses and similar ability to use logic, that the available evidence strongly supports the theory of evolution, and that biomedical science has no need for explanations based on magical claims, certainly nor for morphogenesis, nor for anything else.

Whether that evidence is valid and there is no god, that evidence is valid and there is also a god, or that evidence was created by a god who directly intervened with magic but perfectly mimicked evolution for some inscrutable reason, I can't say. I strongly slant toward the first explanation (no relevant or significant god) for parsimony. A fair number of scientists prefer the second; it seems to me that they usually end up with the arbitrary version of god that their own cultural upbringing happened to endorse, but that's their business. A fair number of scientists also accept some version of dharmic religion or philosophy, which may not comfortably fit these categories.

Creationists demand that their god behave in a certain way, and are constantly frustrated that this doesn't seem to happen.

Atheistoclast said: What to you and many scientists is "magic" may indeed by a non-physical reality such as the elusive "dark energy" that mysteriously accounts for the expansion of the universe. I suspect that our understanding of reality is pretty poor and that many unknown forces are at work in Nature that cannot be explained in terms of atoms and molecules.

Atheistoclast said:

Creationists demand that their god behave in a certain way, and are constantly frustrated that this doesn't seem to happen.

Like I say, who am I to know how God should act and what his motives are?

You are trying to divine the mind of the Creator who is infinitely more intelligent than you.

But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. 6 The LORD said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them.

What to you and many scientists is “magic” may indeed by a non-physical reality such as the elusive “dark energy” that mysteriously accounts for the expansion of the universe.

The Hindenberg, incidentally, is not "stupid" design. It was actually a very clever design. The initial plans called for using Helium. Hydrogen was substituted because Helium was not available (Germany had no helium reserves of its own, and the primary world producer at that time, the US, had embargoed the gas). The design was altered to incorporate several, very clever, safety features intended to mitigate against the flammability of hydrogen gas. One of these was a reflective outer paint designed to prevent overheating of the hydrogen bladders in the sun. Unfortunately, the designers did not know, since the relevant technology was still decades in the future, that the specific mixture of chemicals in the paint would also act, when in combination, essentially as a rocket fuel.

The Hindenberg was a limited design, the limitations of which inform us about the limitations faced by its limited designers.

In any intellectually honest design theory, there is a mechanistic connection between design and designer, such that aspects of the designer can be inferred from features of the design. Bad design informs us, in the specific manner of its "badness", about the specific limitations of the designer.

Bad design in nature does not disprove the idea of a Designer, but what it does, when all the examples of bad design in nature are examined together and compared, is render a picture of a Designer that is internally inconsistent, bizarre, and ridiculous, turning design theory into an incoherent, shambled, mess.

Atheistoclast said: Er...no they don't. Morphogenesis is the greatest of all mysteries in biology. [blah blah blah] why things form as they do.

Atheistoclast said: What to you and many scientists is "magic" may indeed by a non-physical reality such as the elusive "dark energy" that mysteriously accounts for the expansion of the universe. I suspect that our understanding of reality is pretty poor and that many unknown forces are at work in Nature that cannot be explained in terms of atoms and molecules.

phhht said: You're a man of science, Theistoclast. You understand what constitutes unequivocal, empirical evidence, and what does not. You can probably cite such evidence for everything from amperes to zygotes off the top of your head. Yet you cannot give such evidence for the existence of your gods. You're a published scientist, Theistoclast. You know very well that no scientific, technical, engineering, or mathematical thinking invokes gods. You understand that this is because gods are not necessary to explain and understand the world. Yet you, an intelligent, published scientist, refuse to face the implications of that fact. How do you manage it?

Well, this is because you are unaware of the data and the problems of modern biology in explaining important things like morphogenesis.

Anyone who thinks the subject is even close to being solved is being disingenuous or is ignorant.

There is a special edition on the subject of morphogenesis coming out next year in the journal, Biosystems (I know because I have been invited to contribute). I advise you to order a copy and read up on the field.

What to you and many scientists is “magic” may indeed by a non-physical reality

such as the elusive “dark energy” that mysteriously accounts for the expansion of the universe.

I suspect that our understanding of reality is pretty poor and that many unknown forces are at work in Nature that cannot be explained in terms of atoms and molecules.

Like I say, who am I to know how God should act and what his motives are?

Atheistoclast said: What to you and many scientists is "magic" may indeed by a non-physical reality such as the elusive "dark energy" that mysteriously accounts for the expansion of the universe. I suspect that our understanding of reality is pretty poor and that many unknown forces are at work in Nature that cannot be explained in terms of atoms and molecules.

amphiox said:

Really? Do you have a working gene for synthesizing vitamin C? I don’t think so. Most other mammals do. So you can hardly claim that God made an engineering trade-off with humans

Even if he did, you'd think he'd have the foresight and consideration to excise the gene out entirely, instead of leaving its broken, functionless corpse dangling in our genome, mocking us....

Atheistoclast said: Yadda, yadda. Amen.

phhht said: What is a "non-physical reality"? Is it one which can be detected by empirical, unambiguous investigation of real-world evidence (like dark energy)?

harold said: If they've invited a lay person with two extremely low impact mainstream publications, neither related to morphogenesis, and one creationist publication, to comment on a field in which there are dozens of available experts with large numbers of relevant publications, there must be something fishy going on.

amphiox said: There is nothing non-physical about dark energy. We may not yet know precisely what it is, but we can measure it's physical effects. That is, indeed, how we know it is there.

Dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy that permeates space and exerts a negative pressure, which would have gravitational effects to account for the differences between the theoretical and observational results of gravitational effects on visible matter. Dark energy is not directly observed, but rather inferred from observations of gravitational interactions between astronomical objects, along with dark matter.

I don't think being a hypothetical form of energy means dark energy is not a real, physical phenomenon. No one has ever observed gravity, but gravity is accepted as quite real, based on observations of interactions between matter. Why feel compelled to believe gravity is a real, physical phenomenon but dark energy is not? We have much more physics-based reason to accept the reality of dark energy than we have for accepting the universe was created by some intelligent entity outside of it.

Atheistoclast said:

amphiox said: There is nothing non-physical about dark energy. We may not yet know precisely what it is, but we can measure it's physical effects. That is, indeed, how we know it is there.

Well, what is it? It certainly can affect physical things, but it has no mass, space, volume or anything that we could call "material" or "physical". Here is the standard definition of it:

Dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy that permeates space and exerts a negative pressure, which would have gravitational effects to account for the differences between the theoretical and observational results of gravitational effects on visible matter. Dark energy is not directly observed, but rather inferred from observations of gravitational interactions between astronomical objects, along with dark matter.

In other words, it is a mysterious,"magical" or indeed "supernatural" force. Who knows? Maybe it refers to God gently pushing the universe along with his big and holy hand.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlr-OwiHfZpiLbKDjY3p3_JFFvZY1tS-dM said: I don't think being a hypothetical form of energy means dark energy is not a real, physical phenomenon. No one has ever observed gravity, but gravity is accepted as quite real, based on observations of interactions between matter. Why feel compelled to believe gravity is a real, physical phenomenon but dark energy is not? We have much more physics-based reason to accept the reality of dark energy than we have for accepting the universe was created by some intelligent entity outside of it.

Well, what is it? It certainly can affect physical things, but it has no mass, space, volume or anything that we could call “material” or “physical”

And of course Atheistoclast cannot, physically or mentally, accept the fact that science has for hundreds of years tested for the presence of his particular god and come up empty. Joe simply cannot understand reality and must rely on fantasy to stay alive. Literally. All of his hatred and bigotry relies on his supernatural being's existence. Talk about your tortucan trap of gigantic proportions.

amphiox said:

Well, what is it? It certainly can affect physical things, but it has no mass, space, volume or anything that we could call “material” or “physical”

In your next quote you give the answer, it is a "hypothetical form of energy". Energy does not have mass, space, or volume. Energy is physical. And since you obviously know this, as you quote it, your previous statement of "no mass, space, volume" is deliberate intellectually dishonest manipulation of definitions, and your "or anything that we would call "material" or "physical"" is an outright, bald-faced lie. It might turn out not to be energy, in the end, of course. It might be something else, such as a fundamental property of space-time. This too would have no mass, space, or volume. This too, would be physical.

John_S said:

Atheistoclast said: I don't know about you, but I have all my parts in tact.

Really? Do you have a working gene for synthesizing vitamin C? I don't think so. Most other mammals do. So you can hardly claim that God made an engineering trade-off with humans - as opposed to the family dog - balancing one thing against another, without delving deep into "making up excuses" territory.

Atheistoclast said: I am, however, missing a tail.

Atheistoclast said: I don't know about you, but I have all my parts in tact. I am, however, missing a tail. I blame evolution for that...so does the Manx cat.

Atheistoclast said:

amphiox said:

Well, what is it? It certainly can affect physical things, but it has no mass, space, volume or anything that we could call “material” or “physical”

In your next quote you give the answer, it is a "hypothetical form of energy". Energy does not have mass, space, or volume. Energy is physical. And since you obviously know this, as you quote it, your previous statement of "no mass, space, volume" is deliberate intellectually dishonest manipulation of definitions, and your "or anything that we would call "material" or "physical"" is an outright, bald-faced lie. It might turn out not to be energy, in the end, of course. It might be something else, such as a fundamental property of space-time. This too would have no mass, space, or volume. This too, would be physical.

If you mean by "physical" that something is "natural" then fields would be physical. However, if you mean by physical that something is "material" than fields cannot possibly be since they have no mass, space or volume. They just permeate matter.

bigdakine said: For the record, energy fields have relativistic mass, permeate space and interact with matter.

Scott F said:

Atheistoclast said: I am, however, missing a tail.

Really? I have a tail. Just like some whales have hind legs. It's just not a very good tail. It hurts a lot when I land on it wrong.

Crowther: All a response…this [bad design argument] really requires is to post a few photos of clearly designed items that have had amazing, spectacularly bad problems. (The Hindenberg for instance. Or any Toyota apparently.) How stupid, yes I said stupid, do you have to be to equate bad design with no design?

Jack Scanlon: Intelligent design is compatible with a spectrum of the Designer’s possible competence, so pointing out a biological system that has flaws does not constitute evidence that the system was not designed.

Scott F said:

Atheistoclast said: I am, however, missing a tail.

Really? I have a tail. Just like some whales have hind legs. It's just not a very good tail. It hurts a lot when I land on it wrong.

"It has no mass space volume" So saeth the A-Clast. But then of course when real scientists whom do stuff discover that the 'graviton' does indeed exist, or that dark matter does indeed have mass, what hole will a-clast crawl into then? What we don't know now is vastly interesting to those of us who don't know all the answers. Halfwits like A-Clast know the answer to all questions- Jesus- thus negating their curiosity gene, I suppose it has been junked.

Again, it never fails to amaze me how, this supposed scientist still doesn't present data and his own position, just attacking the prevalent position.

Why, instead of attacking evolution, don't you present the alternative, with evidence?

I just don't get it...

ogremk5 said: Again, it never fails to amaze me how, this supposed scientist still doesn't present data and his own position, just attacking the prevalent position. Why, instead of attacking evolution, don't you present the alternative, with evidence? I just don't get it...

What possible evidence could there be for "neo-vitalism"? It's just some vague suggestion that there is something unknowable involved in everything that is really complicated. Oh well, at least it means you don't have to understand all of that complicated evo devo stuff.

Atheistoclast said: I don't know about you, but I have all my parts in tact sic.

Atheistoclast said: I don't know about you, but I have all my parts in tact sic.

This whole issue has been discussed before. My favorite report on suboptimal design was written by Robert C. Newman for the Biblical Research Institute of the Biblical Theological Seminary and presented online somewhere in 2005 (I've written about it here).

Newman's contention is that only God could design perfectly; less-than-perfect designs were done by less perfect beings, namely, angels. Some are even malevolent designs, for which demons are responsible.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlr-OwiHfZpiLbKDjY3p3_JFFvZY1tS-dM said: This whole issue has been discussed before. My favorite report on suboptimal design was written by Robert C. Newman for the Biblical Research Institute of the Biblical Theological Seminary and presented online somewhere in 2005 (I've written about it here). Newman's contention is that only God could design perfectly; less-than-perfect designs were done by less perfect beings, namely, angels. Some are even malevolent designs, for which demons are responsible.

To judge the quality of a design, wouldn't one have to know something about the goals of the one who did the designing?

Henry J said: To judge the quality of a design, wouldn't one have to know something about the goals of the one who did the designing?

nonsensemachine said: Okay, life was designed, but God is incompetent. But the Bible says He is perfect and omniscient, etc., so therefore the God of the Bible isn't the Designer. Must have been aliens.

Henry J said: To judge the quality of a design, wouldn't one have to know something about the goals of the one who did the designing?

Steve DeHaven said:

Henry J said: To judge the quality of a design, wouldn't one have to know something about the goals of the one who did the designing?

No. The recurrent laryngeal nerve in the giraffe starts in its head, goes all the way down the neck to loop around the aorta, then goes all the way back up the neck to the larynx, which is also in its head. In other words, it travels about 15 feet in order to go a few inches. This 15-foot journey mirrors the path that the nerve takes in short-necked vertebrates, which in turn mirrors the path the nerve takes in reptiles, amphibians, and neckless fish. This nerve, not just in the giraffe but in the continuum of all animals that possess it, makes perfect sense as an evolved feature that changed little by little, but makes no sense at all, regardless of goals, if those animals were designed by something intelligent. The only "goal" one could surmise for a designer would be the "goal" of making things look as if they had NOT been intelligently designed. You keep having to invent more and more excuses for your presumed designer. Wouldn't it be much simpler to admit that ID is a make-believe attempt at science, DESIGNED to be a wedge, whereby Christians can introduce their religion into taxpayer-funded schools? After all, THAT was proven in Kitzmiller.

SteveP. said: IANS, you misunderstand length as lacking efficiency. Obviously, since the RLN is multi-functional, its length exhibits high ROI (return of investment). Good design.

apokryltaros said:

SteveP. said: IANS, you misunderstand length as lacking efficiency. Obviously, since the RLN is multi-functional, its length exhibits high ROI (return of investment). Good design.

The only problem in your rant, SteveP, is that you fail to explain to us why the recurrent laryngeal nerve is a "good design," in tetrapod vertebrates. So, why is it a good design to have a nerve in a giraffe travel 15 feet when it needs to send an impulse that's only a few inches away? Oh, wait, I already know what you're going to say: you're going to insult me, imply that I'm a moron for daring to doubt your holy proclamations, then handwave a non-answer of "Because JESUS, that's why," then continue trolling.

This 15-foot journey mirrors the path that the nerve takes in short-necked vertebrates, which in turn mirrors the path the nerve takes in reptiles, amphibians, and neckless fish.

Just Bob said: A foreskin?

SteveP. said:

apokryltaros said:

SteveP. said: IANS, you misunderstand length as lacking efficiency. Obviously, since the RLN is multi-functional, its length exhibits high ROI (return of investment). Good design.

The only problem in your rant, SteveP, is that you fail to explain to us why the recurrent laryngeal nerve is a "good design," in tetrapod vertebrates. So, why is it a good design to have a nerve in a giraffe travel 15 feet when it needs to send an impulse that's only a few inches away? Oh, wait, I already know what you're going to say: you're going to insult me, imply that I'm a moron for daring to doubt your holy proclamations, then handwave a non-answer of "Because JESUS, that's why," then continue trolling.

Rant? OK. Folks, my last comment is the newest exhibit of what ranting is like. Take note. Er, but you seemed to have missed the word multi-functional in there. Yes, its there. You may have to look a bit harder but its there. Apo, breath in slowly and deeply. Exhale quickly and fully. Do not inhale for at least 30 seconds. Repeat. Continue for 30 minutes. Note the exhilarating effects. Calmness of mood, clarity of Mind. See you in 30.

SteveP. said: Er, but you seemed to have missed the word multi-functional in there. Yes, its there. You may have to look a bit harder but its there.

SteveP. said: Yet, according to your very own sophist(icated) neo-darwinian reasoning, a poor design gets culled but a good design gets replicated.

More so, it was such a good design that since the RLN occurs in so many disparate lineages, that the RLN had to have come about very early on, correct?. So it has evident staying power. No better configuration has come along to replace it.

apokryltaros said: In other words, you're only saying that I'm an idiot in order to hide the fact that you can not think of a good reason why a giraffe would need a 15 foot long nerve in its neck to send an impulse a few inches from its target.

apokryltaros said:

SteveP. said:

apokryltaros said:

SteveP. said: IANS, you misunderstand length as lacking efficiency. Obviously, since the RLN is multi-functional, its length exhibits high ROI (return of investment). Good design.

The only problem in your rant, SteveP, is that you fail to explain to us why the recurrent laryngeal nerve is a "good design," in tetrapod vertebrates. So, why is it a good design to have a nerve in a giraffe travel 15 feet when it needs to send an impulse that's only a few inches away? Oh, wait, I already know what you're going to say: you're going to insult me, imply that I'm a moron for daring to doubt your holy proclamations, then handwave a non-answer of "Because JESUS, that's why," then continue trolling.

Rant? OK. Folks, my last comment is the newest exhibit of what ranting is like. Take note. Er, but you seemed to have missed the word multi-functional in there. Yes, its there. You may have to look a bit harder but its there. Apo, breath in slowly and deeply. Exhale quickly and fully. Do not inhale for at least 30 seconds. Repeat. Continue for 30 minutes. Note the exhilarating effects. Calmness of mood, clarity of Mind. See you in 30.

Don't patronize me, idiot. That's all you do, insult me, insult everyone who doesn't mindlessly agree with your inane holy proclamations. You do that because you're trying to distract everyone from the fact that you can not, will not support your inane statements. In other words, you're only saying that I'm an idiot in order to hide the fact that you can not think of a good reason why a giraffe would need a 15 foot long nerve in its neck to send an impulse a few inches from its target.

apokryltaros said:

SteveP. said: Er, but you seemed to have missed the word multi-functional in there. Yes, its there. You may have to look a bit harder but its there.

There was nothing to miss. You did not list a single other function what this 15 foot long nerve had beyond sending an impulse a few inches away from its origin. All your post was you pontifying how darwinists are so stupid for daring to doubt the wonderful wonderfulness of Intelligent Design.

Steve P., I don't think you understood why the RLN is evidence of evolution. And the fact that you immediately lauched into a profanity-laced tirade tells me that you're far too emotional to discuss this rationally. Nevertheless, let me try to put it into terms everyone can understand.

Suppose you have a series of packages to pick up and bring home. Each package is in a different location. Let's label the locations A through F, with A closest to you and F farthest away. You leave your house and walk PAST location A, and go on to location B. After B, you go to C, D, E, and F, picking up the packages at each location. Now you take a different route from F to A, and pick up the A package. Having done that, you retrace your entire route, passing back by F, then E, D, C, B, by A again, and return to your house. Do you see how that is inefficient? You could have cut your trip in half by stopping at A first, then B through F, then directly back home along the same path.

That's what the RLN does. The reason it does this is because in fish, where the organs are in different locations, it's more efficient to travel that route. But in other animals, the organs served by that nerve are in different locations. But evolution doesn't permit "starting from scratch." Evolution has to work with what it has. What it had in the case of the RLN was a nerve that took a certain path. That path is relatively easy to elongate a little at a time, but to completely reroute it would take a major leap of the type that evolution does not take.

So we can observe the "inefficiency" of this nerve in its current configuration, and we can surmise that it evolved this path through a series of many small steps, none of which required a major overhaul of the entire organism, but which left us with a giraffe's nerve that went twice as far as necessary to achieve its function.

I'm sorry I can't give you the several-pages long full explanation of this observation, but I've tried to give you a condensed version. Please, if you're truly interested in this, take a look at Dawkins' explanation (he is a biologist, after all) in "The Greatest Show on Earth."

Scott F said:

SteveP. said: Yet, according to your very own sophist(icated) neo-darwinian reasoning, a poor design gets culled but a good design gets replicated.

False. That is not what evolution predicts. Evolution predicts that pre-existing features will be used and/or co-opted to build new functions. On the other hand, creationism predicts... whatever you want it to.

Scott F said:

More so, it was such a good design that since the RLN occurs in so many disparate lineages, that the RLN had to have come about very early on, correct?. So it has evident staying power. No better configuration has come along to replace it.

False. The RLN isn't "good" design. It is simply "adequate" design. It gets the job done, even though it does it poorly. Evolution predicts that "adequate" designs will be retained and reused. (More precisely, evolution predicts that new designs will be constrained by pre-existing designs, no matter how poorly fitted they are to the new task at hand. Evolution predicts that long necks will look a lot like short necks, including all of the stupid plumbing that is more suited to no neck at all.) On the other had, creationism predicts... whatever you want it to. Hey, when the basis of your creationist "theory" is predicated on miracles (repeated miracles, at that), then you can invoke whatever miracles strike your fancy at the moment. You can even invoke sloppy, poorly designed miracles, though that tends to reflect poorly on your chosen miracle maker. Unlike creationism, evolution doesn't rely on miracles. It relies on "good enough".

Steve Dehaven,

You are assuming that the RLN is only engaged in grocery shopping. But if on the way home , it stops by to see that Granma is OK, and that the kid down the block got home from school on time and that the lawn at no. 356 has not been cut so better make a note, and sis down the road is pregnant so better make a quick stop, then I would say that the RLN route is a productive and efficient one.

Loennig does a nice take down of Dawkin's argument here: http://www.weloennig.de/LaryngealNerve.pdf

As for the profanity, its just Pandaspeak. But tirade?

SteveP. said: There is no quality guide from a neo-darwinian standpoint. What survives = good. What dies = bad. There is no middle 'adequate' ground.

SteveP. said: There is no quality guide from a neo-darwinian standpoint. What survives = good. What dies = bad. There is no middle 'adequate' ground.

SteveP. said:

apokryltaros said:

SteveP. said: Er, but you seemed to have missed the word multi-functional in there. Yes, its there. You may have to look a bit harder but its there.

There was nothing to miss. You did not list a single other function what this 15 foot long nerve had beyond sending an impulse a few inches away from its origin. All your post was you pontifying how darwinists are so stupid for daring to doubt the wonderful wonderfulness of Intelligent Design.

The information is a click away.

SteveP. said:

Scott F said:

SteveP. said: Yet, according to your very own sophist(icated) neo-darwinian reasoning, a poor design gets culled but a good design gets replicated.

False. That is not what evolution predicts. Evolution predicts that pre-existing features will be used and/or co-opted to build new functions. On the other hand, creationism predicts... whatever you want it to.

Scott F, AFAIK, I was not making a statement about what evolution predicts. I was stating what evolution does (according to evolutionists).

stevaroni said:

SteveP. said: There is no quality guide from a neo-darwinian standpoint. What survives = good. What dies = bad. There is no middle 'adequate' ground.

Solutions that live long enough to get laid are good. That is pretty much all evolution cares about. Fortunately, that is enough.

Contrast design of a giraffe with design of an automobile. Over a few years, each new model design is tweaked somewhat--tailfins get a little bigger, wheelbase gets a little longer, and other incremental changes. Then one year the designer goes "poof" and suddenly the car has fuel injection. The giraffe still has a carburetor, although a bigger one than the original.

pianoguy said:

nonsensemachine said: Okay, life was designed, but God is incompetent. But the Bible says He is perfect and omniscient, etc., so therefore the God of the Bible isn't the Designer. Must have been aliens.

According to some strains of early Christian Gnosticism, the god of the Old Testament was actually an insane demigod who thought he was god. It presents theological challenges, of course, but it nicely explains the world's imperfection.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlr-OwiHfZpiLbKDjY3p3_JFFvZY1tS-dM said: Contrast design of a giraffe with design of an automobile. Over a few years, each new model design is tweaked somewhat--tailfins get a little bigger, wheelbase gets a little longer, and other incremental changes. Then one year the designer goes "poof" and suddenly the car has fuel injection. The giraffe still has a carburetor, although a bigger one than the original.

The giraffe still has a carburetor, although a bigger one than the original.

SteveP. said: What is more striking is that you see the RLN taking the same path in many different types of organisms like mammals, reptiles, fish, amphibians, and still wish to characterize it as being of poor design.

I think what everyone is trying to say is that evolutionary principles offer a very good explanation for the design* of the nerve. Why is the nerve like that? Because it comes from a homologous nerve in fish and has been modified along with the vertebrae and other tissues into necks.

On, the other hand, the competing hypothesis, that of a designer, can offer no good explanation. Why is the nerve like that? "The Designer can do anything." or "We just can't understand the designer."

Which explanation actually makes sense, leads to further testable questions, and predicts the results of future observations? Hint, its not the creationist one.

___________
* yes I said, 'the design' of the nerve. It was designed... by natural selection. If a non-existence deity can be a designer, why can't non-guided processes?

ogremk5 said: I think what everyone is trying to say is that evolutionary principles offer a very good explanation for the design* of the nerve. Why is the nerve like that? Because it comes from a homologous nerve in fish and has been modified along with the vertebrae and other tissues into necks. On, the other hand, the competing hypothesis, that of a designer, can offer no good explanation. Why is the nerve like that? "The Designer can do anything." or "We just can't understand the designer." Which explanation actually makes sense, leads to further testable questions, and predicts the results of future observations? Hint, its not the creationist one. ___________ * yes I said, 'the design' of the nerve. It was designed... by natural selection. If a non-existence deity can be a designer, why can't non-guided processes?

SteveP. said:

ogremk5 said: I think what everyone is trying to say is that evolutionary principles offer a very good explanation for the design* of the nerve. Why is the nerve like that? Because it comes from a homologous nerve in fish and has been modified along with the vertebrae and other tissues into necks. On, the other hand, the competing hypothesis, that of a designer, can offer no good explanation. Why is the nerve like that? "The Designer can do anything." or "We just can't understand the designer." Which explanation actually makes sense, leads to further testable questions, and predicts the results of future observations? Hint, its not the creationist one. ___________ * yes I said, 'the design' of the nerve. It was designed... by natural selection. If a non-existence deity can be a designer, why can't non-guided processes?

Actually Ogre, you're committing the usual Panda fallacy of no alternative. 'We are not sure' is a more prudent and honest reply that 'it has to be small, incremental change due to imperfect replication'. To be sure, ID says that it was designed but we have not yet figured out the mechanism. We know its designed because we compare it to what we do and its is not only uncannily like what we do but light-years more impressive. It is now ID's task to figure out just what are the tools of that design. ID has proposed information as the key source of material constraint. I will readily admit that this model of information as design driver it is not complete (and yes, it is derived from a theistic concept of an immaterial yet living reality). However, that should not stop us from pursuing this line of inquiry. Theistic concepts have been instrumental in developing science over the past 5 centuries so why not continue a successful trend? On the other hand, by insisting that since no other detailed model has arisen, we should stick to an explanation that we know is increasingly less capable of explaining what we observe is simply unwise and unproductive.

SteveP. said:

ogremk5 said: I think what everyone is trying to say is that evolutionary principles offer a very good explanation for the design* of the nerve. Why is the nerve like that? Because it comes from a homologous nerve in fish and has been modified along with the vertebrae and other tissues into necks. On, the other hand, the competing hypothesis, that of a designer, can offer no good explanation. Why is the nerve like that? "The Designer can do anything." or "We just can't understand the designer." Which explanation actually makes sense, leads to further testable questions, and predicts the results of future observations? Hint, its not the creationist one. ___________ * yes I said, 'the design' of the nerve. It was designed... by natural selection. If a non-existence deity can be a designer, why can't non-guided processes?

Actually Ogre, you're committing the usual Panda fallacy of no alternative. 'We are not sure' is a more prudent and honest reply that 'it has to be small, incremental change due to imperfect replication'. To be sure, ID says that it was designed but we have not yet figured out the mechanism. We know its designed because we compare it to what we do and its is not only uncannily like what we do but light-years more impressive. It is now ID's task to figure out just what are the tools of that design. ID has proposed information as the key source of material constraint. I will readily admit that this model of information as design driver it is not complete (and yes, it is derived from a theistic concept of an immaterial yet living reality). However, that should not stop us from pursuing this line of inquiry. Theistic concepts have been instrumental in developing science over the past 5 centuries so why not continue a successful trend? On the other hand, by insisting that since no other detailed model has arisen, we should stick to an explanation that we know is increasingly less capable of explaining what we observe is simply unwise and unproductive.

DS said: Exactly backwards. Evolution explains many biological phenomena, ID explains none. When you do have some ideas about who the designer is. what she did, when, where and why, you might have something testable. Until then, it cannot be considered a default explanation for anything, period.

SteveP. said: Yet, according to your very own sophist(icated) neo-darwinian reasoning, a poor design gets culled but a good design gets replicated.

Scott F said: False. That is not what evolution predicts. Evolution predicts that pre-existing features will be used and/or co-opted to build new functions. On the other hand, creationism predicts... whatever you want it to.

Scott F, AFAIK, I was not making a statement about what evolution predicts. I was stating what evolution does (according to evolutionists).

Your statement is false. That is not what evolution predicts does. Evolution predicts that uses pre-existing features will be used and/or co-opted to build new functions. On the other hand, creationism predicts does... whatever miracles you want it to.

SteveP. said: There is no quality guide from a neo-darwinian standpoint. What survives = good enough. What dies = bad not good enough. There is no Everything is a middle 'adequate' ground.

SteveP. said: To be sure, ID says that it was designed but we have not yet figured out the mechanism. We know its designed because we say it's designed. When wecompare it to what we do and its is not only uncannily nothing like what we do but light-years more impressive stupid.

The author of this thread has a point with ID people.
They are not able to answer how a intelligent being could make a bad design.
The BEING abilities quotient on designing can't be so flexible as the great complexity of nature is the big point for design.

YEC has no problem as we see a drastic change in biology at the fall.
We can explain anything away as part of cause and effect for being put in a state decay.
Before the fall we had no defence against disease. So we changed radically in our genes. this would change lots of stuff.

Whale legs and flightless birds however are not a case for anything.

The birds are simply adjusted creatures to isolation.

I insist marine mammals are indeed first landlovers.
Yet they are a rare case in biology.
In fact they make case against evolution since they should be the MEAN but instead are a extreme example.
One can't prove evolution on a few creatures vestigial pieces if all of biology living/fossil DON't have like features.
Marine mammals are bad news to evolution using a closer analysis.

In fact i strive to prove to creationists whales have remnant legs but am told they are in fact for copulation.
i have to say there is no reason they wouldn't be reused this way since they are needed for creatures unnaturally newly situated in a marine world.
The sex had to adjust.
they say the female does not have such bones. i'm not sure.

Robert Byers said: YEC has no problem as we see a drastic change in biology at the fall. We can explain anything away as part of cause and effect for being put in a state decay.

Robert wrote:

"We can explain anything away..."

And then he proceeds to do just that, in the most incoherent manner possible. Thanks for displaying the moral and intellectual failings of creationism once again Robert. Keep up the good work. I'm sure that only the male whales have the SINE insertions that they need to copulate also.

apokryltaros said: So, what good is a 15-foot long fuel injector, and how does that explain why a 15 long recurrent laryngeal nerve that sends impulses a few inches away from its origin is "good design"?

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlr-OwiHfZpiLbKDjY3p3_JFFvZY1tS-dM said: ...So we're right back to the question of whether a design is good, bad, or indifferent and how does Intelligent Design Creationism explain anything? What is scientific about that?

SteveP. said:

ogremk5 said: snip

Actually Ogre, you're committing the usual Panda fallacy of no alternative. 'We are not sure' is a more prudent and honest reply that 'it has to be small, incremental change due to imperfect replication'.

To be sure, ID says that it was designed but we have not yet figured out the mechanism. We know its designed because we compare it to what we do and its is not only uncannily like what we do but light-years more impressive.

It is now ID's task to figure out just what are the tools of that design. ID has proposed information as the key source of material constraint. I will readily admit that this model of information as design driver it is not complete (and yes, it is derived from a theistic concept of an immaterial yet living reality). However, that should not stop us from pursuing this line of inquiry. Theistic concepts have been instrumental in developing science over the past 5 centuries so why not continue a successful trend?

On the other hand, by insisting that since no other detailed model has arisen, we should stick to an explanation that we know is increasingly less capable of explaining what we observe is simply unwise and unproductive.

ogremk5 said: What has ID done. Name one thing that ID has accomplished. One tool or process that ID has generated in the last 150 years. And don't say SETI, forensics, or anthropology. Those are most definitely not about ID.

Nicely dissected. I take it that bad design is only valid as an argument against those ID proponents who secretly believe in a perfect God to be the designer. Hence there may be some ID proponents agaist whom the argument does not work and I shall not use it again. But the ID argument really falls apart, for me, when the process of human design or invention is analysed. It always turns out to involve some sort of trial and error or variation and selection. For me, that means design is evolutionary not the vice verse.

joe (http://historiesofecology.blogspot.com/)

SteveP. said: We know its designed because we compare it to what we do and its is not only uncannily like what we do but light-years more impressive.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlr-OwiHfZpiLbKDjY3p3_JFFvZY1tS-dM said:

apokryltaros said: So, what good is a 15-foot long fuel injector, and how does that explain why a 15 long recurrent laryngeal nerve that sends impulses a few inches away from its origin is "good design"?

Eh? The point is, a designer can instantaneously make a substantial change (replacing an inefficient part with a new part of completely different, efficient design), whereas incremental change is more likely to result in a modification of the original part, although it may be less efficient. Evolution is dependent upon contingency. The real problem with my argument is that evolution explains changes over time, whereas design implies the 4004 BC model does not change in succeeding model years. So we're right back to the question of whether a design is good, bad, or indifferent and how does Intelligent Design Creationism explain anything? What is scientific about that?

To be sure, ID says that it was designed but we have not yet figured out the mechanism. We know its designed because we compare it to what we do and its is not only uncannily like what we do but light-years more impressive.

It is now ID’s task to figure out just what are the tools of that design.

ID has proposed information as the key source of material constraint.

I will readily admit that this model of information as design driver it is not complete

(and yes, it is derived from a theistic concept of an immaterial yet living reality).

However, that should not stop us from pursuing this line of inquiry.

Theistic concepts have been instrumental in developing science over the past 5 centuries

Oops, I meant to say: "Uh, yeah, see it’s not only uncannily like what we do, it is quite unlike what we do."

Glen Davidson

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlr-OwiHfZpiLbKDjY3p3_JFFvZY1tS-dM said: Eh? The point is, a designer can instantaneously make a substantial change (replacing an inefficient part with a new part of completely different, efficient design), whereas incremental change is more likely to result in a modification of the original part, although it may be less efficient. Evolution is dependent upon contingency.

SteveP. said: To be sure, ID says that it was designed but we have not yet figured out the mechanism. We know its designed because we compare it to what we do and its is not only uncannily like what we do but light-years more impressive.

ID has proposed information as the key source of material constraint.

W. H. Heydt said: Perhaps a better analogy would be the comparison between British and German solutions to the problem of putting a fighter aircraft abruptly into a dive without cutting off the fuel supply to the engine. The Germans used fuel injection. The British, in response after seeing the results in WW2 combat, invented the floatless carburetor. The formal being the kind of "design change" that--as has been noted--evolution can't do. The later is the sort of incremental change that one would expect as an evolutionary change (more or less, anyway...no analogy is perfect). --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

Somebody wondered,"Tell me, what is the current state of research into the mechanism of ID?"

Leading Intelligent Design researcher Michael Behe has reported on this. His answer: "poof".

He must be correct, because if the designer-builder was an alien being, it would have used tools not too dissimilar to those that would be used by human designer-builders. But some wise guy would ask who designed and built the aliens, until we are forced to go back to a supernatural entity, for which there is no evidence and no theoretical underpinnings. Plus, we would still be hearing "But it's still a horse" and "Anatomical changes were extremely rapid after the flood and the dinosaurs left the Ark."

It seems Vincent Torley was right.

I linked to a paper from Loennig on the RLN and everyone just skated right by. Seems you are all doing just what you accuse IDers of doing, not bothering to read linked papers. Oh, well.

Anyway, Loennig shows that you(pl)(in quintessential Panda parlance) lie. What are those lies?:

Lie No. 1. The giraffe's RLN is 15 foot long. It's less than half that length once you concede the first half is in fact the Vegus.

Lie No. 2. The RLN has only one function. Not only does the RLN innervate the larynx, it also does so for the esophagus and the trachea. Further, it sends multiple connections to the cardiac plexus.

Lie No. 3. The RLN can only be (or is best) explained in terms of inherited incremental change. The better explanation is that the RLN elongates during embryonic development to ensure developing organs continue to function as their respective spacial distances increase. Nothing to do with cobbled solutions.

Loennig emphatically demonstrates that the RLN is in fact good design as opposed to un-forsighted, cobbled together, good-enough design.

SteveP. said: It seems Vincent Torley was right. I linked to a paper from Loennig on the RLN and everyone just skated right by. Seems you are all doing just what you accuse IDers of doing, not bothering to read linked papers. Oh, well. Anyway, Loennig shows that you(pl)(in quintessential Panda parlance) lie. What are those lies?: Lie No. 1. The giraffe's RLN is 15 foot long. It's less than half that length once you concede the first half is in fact the Vegus. Lie No. 2. The RLN has only one function. Not only does the RLN innervate the larynx, it also does so for the esophagus and the trachea. Further, it sends multiple connections to the cardiac plexus. Lie No. 3. The RLN can only be (or is best) explained in terms of inherited incremental change. The better explanation is that the RLN elongates during embryonic development to ensure developing organs continue to function as their respective spacial distances increase. Nothing to do with cobbled solutions. Loennig emphatically demonstrates that the RLN is in fact good design as opposed to un-forsighted, cobbled together, good-enough design.

SteveP. said: The better explanation is that the RLN elongates during embryonic development to ensure [reply's emphasis] developing organs continue to function as their respective spacial distances increase.

DS said:

SteveP. said: It seems Vincent Torley was right. I linked to a paper from Loennig on the RLN and everyone just skated right by. Seems you are all doing just what you accuse IDers of doing, not bothering to read linked papers. Oh, well. Anyway, Loennig shows that you(pl)(in quintessential Panda parlance) lie. What are those lies?: Lie No. 1. The giraffe's RLN is 15 foot long. It's less than half that length once you concede the first half is in fact the Vegus. Lie No. 2. The RLN has only one function. Not only does the RLN innervate the larynx, it also does so for the esophagus and the trachea. Further, it sends multiple connections to the cardiac plexus. Lie No. 3. The RLN can only be (or is best) explained in terms of inherited incremental change. The better explanation is that the RLN elongates during embryonic development to ensure developing organs continue to function as their respective spacial distances increase. Nothing to do with cobbled solutions. Loennig emphatically demonstrates that the RLN is in fact good design as opposed to un-forsighted, cobbled together, good-enough design.

Sorry I missed that reference. What was it again? It was from a peer reviewed journal wasn't it? It wasn't just another creationist pile of crap was it? You aren't just finding amateurs who agree with you and citing them are you? Heavens forbid.

Scott F said:

DS said:

SteveP. said: It seems Vincent Torley was right. I linked to a paper from Loennig on the RLN and everyone just skated right by. Seems you are all doing just what you accuse IDers of doing, not bothering to read linked papers. Oh, well. Anyway, Loennig shows that you(pl)(in quintessential Panda parlance) lie. What are those lies?: Lie No. 1. The giraffe's RLN is 15 foot long. It's less than half that length once you concede the first half is in fact the Vegus. Lie No. 2. The RLN has only one function. Not only does the RLN innervate the larynx, it also does so for the esophagus and the trachea. Further, it sends multiple connections to the cardiac plexus. Lie No. 3. The RLN can only be (or is best) explained in terms of inherited incremental change. The better explanation is that the RLN elongates during embryonic development to ensure developing organs continue to function as their respective spacial distances increase. Nothing to do with cobbled solutions. Loennig emphatically demonstrates that the RLN is in fact good design as opposed to un-forsighted, cobbled together, good-enough design.

Sorry I missed that reference. What was it again? It was from a peer reviewed journal wasn't it? It wasn't just another creationist pile of crap was it? You aren't just finding amateurs who agree with you and citing them are you? Heavens forbid.

The reference appears to be here. I'm no biologist, so I can't make any definitive comments, or follow all the latin-based references. But from what I can tell, all of Lonnig's (he appears to spell his name both ways) observations appear to be far better explained by contingent evolution and co-option of existing features. He quotes both Casey Luskin and Galen as resources, so even as a computer scientist I'm not very impressed with his research. He quotes "Nobel laureate Francois Jacob" (1965) a couple of times for his philosophical view points on evolution. I'm not impressed.

SteveP. said: It seems Vincent Torley was right. I linked to a paper from Loennig on the RLN and everyone just skated right by. Seems you are all doing just what you accuse IDers of doing, not bothering to read linked papers. Oh, well. Anyway, Loennig shows that you(pl)(in quintessential Panda parlance) lie. What are those lies?: Lie No. 1. The giraffe's RLN is 15 foot long. It's less than half that length once you concede the first half is in fact the Vegus. Lie No. 2. The RLN has only one function. Not only does the RLN innervate the larynx, it also does so for the esophagus and the trachea. Further, it sends multiple connections to the cardiac plexus. Lie No. 3. The RLN can only be (or is best) explained in terms of inherited incremental change. The better explanation is that the RLN elongates during embryonic development to ensure developing organs continue to function as their respective spacial distances increase. Nothing to do with cobbled solutions. Loennig emphatically demonstrates that the RLN is in fact good design as opposed to un-forsighted, cobbled together, good-enough design.

raven said:

According to some “churchies,” Adam and Eve weren’t flawed, they sinned, therefore, caused God to corrupt everything into the “bad designs” we see today as punishment for these two incompetent ne’erdowells.

The god of Genesis does seem pretty dumb. He left two naive humans in a garden with the Tree of Knowledge and a walking, talking smartass snake. Since they hadn't eaten the apple yet, they didn't even know it was wrong to eat from the tree or disobey god. Things immediately started to unravel. God blames his creations for his own faults and curses the entire biosphere forever. He could have put the Tree of Life on some planet 30,000 light years away or in Australia for that matter. And being omniscient, he should have know that the snake was going to cause problems. He could have made it less intelligent or mute. Why does a snake need to talk anyway? This contradicts the claim that god is Perfect, All Powerful, and Omniscient. But the bible is so filled with contradictions that one more hardly matters.

Henry said: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die

Just Bob said:

Henry said: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die

And that, in fact, turned out to be a LIE by God! Unless, of course, the word "day", in the early chapters of Genesis, doesn't literally mean a 24-hour day. How about it, Henry? Is God a liar, or might "day" not be intended literally? By the way, the snake told the TRUTH about what would happen when they ate the fruit.

Henry said: Actually, they did died, just not physically yet. Their relationship with God was broken. They were dead in their trespasses and sins.

Ah, how interesting. So the death of Adam and Eve in the day that they fell wasn't a physical death, eh? Well, obviously not. They lived on, in a physical sense. So it was a metaphorical death that they suffered at the Fall.

So when Paul says, at Romans 5:12, "it was through one man that sin entered the world and through sin death", he means this metaphorical death, the death of the soul, which entered the world because of the Fall. Which is to imply that physical death was there all along.

So all the song and dance about how Scripture says that evolution isn't possible because Paul says death only entered the world at the fall, and hence natural selection isn't real, all that's a pile of fetid dingos' kidneys, eh? Nice to know.

Henry said: Actually, they did die, just not physically yet. Their relationship with God was broken. They were dead in their trespasses and sins.

dalehusband said:

Henry said: Actually, they did die, just not physically yet. Their relationship with God was broken. They were dead in their trespasses and sins.

Yeah, and Pandora died when she opened that box releasing evil into the world, according to Greek myths. Same issue!

Henry said:

Just Bob said:

Henry said: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die

And that, in fact, turned out to be a LIE by God! Unless, of course, the word "day", in the early chapters of Genesis, doesn't literally mean a 24-hour day. How about it, Henry? Is God a liar, or might "day" not be intended literally? By the way, the snake told the TRUTH about what would happen when they ate the fruit.

Actually, they did died, just not physically yet. Their relationship with God was broken. They were dead in their trespasses and sins.

stevaroni said:

Henry said: Actually, they did died, just not physically yet. Their relationship with God was broken. They were dead in their trespasses and sins.

Well, if "to die" is more predicated upon one's relationship to God than it is to their relatioship with actual metabolism, then all that anguished stuff about Jesus "dying for our sins" is worthless hair-rending. As Jesus' relationship with God did not change as a result of being crucified (he was, after all, equally one of the triumvirate aspects of God before, during and after the rather annoying and tedious events of the weekend in question) he did not, by your standards, die. At least not in any really important way. He just stopped breathing for an inconveniently long period, but that's apparently not terribly important to Ephesians.

Henry said: Paul was writing to the Ephesians, whom he pointed out were once dead in trespasses and sins, but now alive in Christ.

He wasn't writing to physically dead people

but he pointed out that they were once dead in trespasses and sins. Obviously, he had another definition of death in mind

Perfect. An absolutely definitive demonstration of concept-blindness. Worse than blindness. What do you call it when the very existence of a concept can't be detected by any means at all?

Anything that doesn't fit into the extremely narrow space between Henry's ears - or, more properly, into one of the even narrower and rigidly iron-clad compartments that he has installed therein - simply doesn't exist for him. It's not that he can't read, it's not that he can't understand. It's that he can't detect any fact whatsoever unless that fact accords with his beliefs.

This is your mind on fundamentalist religion.

stevaroni said:

Henry said: Paul was writing to the Ephesians, whom he pointed out were once dead in trespasses and sins, but now alive in Christ.

Well, if you're going to be dead somewhere, dead in trespass probably beats dead in the ground.

He wasn't writing to physically dead people

Good, that's probably a better editorial choice, seeing as writing for the dead probably limits your paying readership quite significantly.

but he pointed out that they were once dead in trespasses and sins. Obviously, he had another definition of death in mind

Ahhh, I get it. So he was speaking metaphorically and hyperbolicly for effect. But everywhere else in the Bible words are always mean exactly what they literally say. Now I get it.