Evolution is wack;God is the only way that makes sense!

[wynn]

Why? Because no design would include things deleterious to the organism.

That will depend on the purpose the organism has to fulfill.

If you believe that the purpose of an organism is to live with the same body forever, but it has a body that is subject to aging, illness and death, then the body of the organism clearly doesn't serve that purpose.

If the purpose of the organism is something else, then its body may not need to be resistant to aging, ilness and death.

 

[wynn]

Again, this is simply your illogical escape hatch from any point made against your argument. You demand an answer, and say this when one is given. So it comes to your ignorance of how evolution works, your ignorance of the flaws in ID, and your desire for their to be a skydaddy. I don't see the point of you continuing this conversation.

You're just trolling. Nothing more, nothing less.

Heaven forbid you would look into what are your values, beliefs, expectations!

 

[Balerion]

Heaven forbid you would look into what are your values, beliefs, expectations!

I am a very introspective person. I know what my own values and beliefs are. I also know that they are completely irrelevant to this discussion, because your premise (this discussion can't be had without reference to your own beliefs) is false.

String was right. You need to educate yourself. Instead of assuming you already know everything, why don't you actually go out and study evolutionary biology? At least try to obtain something like a cursory understanding of it, which would be better than what you have now.

Until then you're just spinning your wheels.

 

[AlexG]

Trying to hold a rational discussion with wynn is difficult.

That will depend on the purpose the organism has to fulfill.

So then it's your position that the body was designed to rot, suffer and die.

In that case, your designer is an idiot.

 

[wynn]

So then it's your position that the body was designed to rot, suffer and die.

Sure. But this is not all that it was designed for.

The body is a fallible vessel with whose help we can accomplish things, and one of those things is to realize higher truths.

 

[AlexG]

and one of those things is to realize higher truths

Right here we once again leave rational disucssion for religious woo.

 

[wynn]

Right here we once again leave rational disucssion for religious woo.

Actually, it's a typically humanist position.

 

[wynn]

I am a very introspective person. I know what my own values and beliefs are. I also know that they are completely irrelevant to this discussion, because your premise (this discussion can't be had without reference to your own beliefs) is false.

String was right. You need to educate yourself. Instead of assuming you already know everything, why don't you actually go out and study evolutionary biology? At least try to obtain something like a cursory understanding of it, which would be better than what you have now.

Until then you're just spinning your wheels.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

You, however, want me to accept it without entertaining it.

 

[AlexG]

Wynn, you've demonstrated in the past that you don't have any idea whan Humanism is about. You just raise it as a strawman.

 

[Neverfly]

I'm not asking anyone to prove me wrong.

I am asking for others to reveal more about their position.

Which you are quite reluctant to do.

B.S.
You're stringing any poster along who will respond to you.

You are the one that needs to reveal your position.

And I'm not reluctant- I have revealed my position. I even offered for you to address it which you have ignored and refused to do.

I really think eveyone in this thread needs to stop pandering to your little game and <cough> ...Allow you the opportunity to make a stand- tell what you think, support your conclusions.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Design is a process whereby things are made fit for purpose. The concept of a perfect design is idealistic rather than realistic, but the intention of design, implicitly, is to approach perfection.

Yes, we see how human designers plan in advance the construction of a building or a machine of some kind, or even software, where the intent is to fit the purpose, as you say. In large projects where many people are sharing the task there is a great deal of collaboration just to assure that the purpose is completely understood in fine detail, that cross-purposes (cost vs quality, etc.) are worked out, and that all the risks to faulty design are mitigated.

Perfection to do what?

To fit the purpose Hipparchia said. What is spina bifida good for, muscular dystrophy, cerebral palsy, leukemia, and a thousand more defects.

The examples of non-perfect design cited by others above are so gross in their ineffectiveness that one could really only continue to assert conscious design by conceding that the designer was incompetent, or warped.

Yes, a warped designer can represented by the fictional mad scientist who sabotages the design of a space weapon in order to deliberately cause mayhem. More plausible, but rare, is the gross incompetence to exercise due diligence checking the design, such as the collapse of the bridge in Minnesota. More practical are the companies who design for obsolescence in order to force the client to return for a repair or upgrade. (Microsoft had this reputation.) But in all cases these implicate the designer for failing to strive for that ideal perfection.

Gross in their ineffectiveness to do what?

Again, to fit the purpose. The pupose of the red blood cell is to transport gases of respiration, not to rupture, sending the hemphiliac into crisis. The purpose of the pancreas is to regulate glucose, not to allow acidosis eat away at the retinas, appendages and kidneys. The purpose of the brain is to coordinate the body and provide the seat of conscious interaction with the world, not to dissolve reality into hallucinations and terror. In fact, you can redirect this question to every parent who had a child die in their arms, and to every hospital worker whose livelihood exists merely to clean up after the mess of this "ineffectiveness".

If you wish to assert unconscious design that's fine. I believe we call that evolution by natural selection.

And that's not an admission, since we know that creatures migrate into and attempt to exploit habitats by chance - such as the seed blown by the wind. Whether or not they will thrive there is probabilistic. Conscious control over this would negate randomness. Therefore it cannot be conscious.

The complaints against the idea of intelligent design are based on an idealistic, vague notion of what something is supposed to be like. But so far, nobody has explained why things should be that way.

There's nothing vague about the purpose of lactation. It's not carcinoma. The machinery of the body is supposed to work. That is not only self-evident, it's evident in the formulating the ID hypothesis. ID says chance is removed from the picture - the random processes of mutation and natural selection. If they say chance is out, then they have to explain the return of chance for the cases of disease.

For example, why should humans not have an appendix? What exactly is wrong with having an appendix? Because it can get inflamed and be fatal?
And why is that bad? Can you explain?

The appendix is a vestigial organ, a consequence of evolution and the random way that vestigial organs did not cause problems in enough trials to be selected out. So in the first place it's one of several pieces of physical evidence that humans evolved from lower forms. The ID-ist would need to explain first of all why this organ was left to randomly cause sepsis if chance has been removed from mutation and natural selection. Second, they would need to explain why this deception was planted - that it only appears to be inherited from lower forms - as a way to throw off biologists in our era? The absurdity makes the whole issue moot.

 

[Aqueous Id]

So then it's your position that the body was designed to rot, suffer and die.

Sure.

Designed to rot. No, it's not designed to rot. This is why an immune system is provided, among other things. Clearly it was not designed to rot, or the purpose of the immune system would be to promote rot.

But this is not all that it was designed for. The body is a fallible vessel with whose help we can accomplish things, and one of those things is to realize higher truths.

Not when born with an open cranium, or living in a vegetative state, or any of countless other ways that life is made conditional, that contemplation is made conditional, based upon a complex set of random processes.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Why? Because no design would include things deleterious to the organism.

That will depend on the purpose the organism has to fulfill.

This assumes fulfillment of a purpose not established. The evident purpose is survival. To say otherwise is to overrule the evidence. It's another fallacy of ID, the one that selectively admits or denies evidence in order to fulfill its own survival puposes.

If you believe that the purpose of an organism is to live with the same body forever, but it has a body that is subject to aging, illness and death, then the body of the organism clearly doesn't serve that purpose.

No one believes that. Why even suggest it?

If the purpose of the organism is something else, then its body may not need to be resistant to aging, ilness and death.

This ignores biology. There are physical limitations to every material in nature. Living material must be replenished. The entire schema for nutrition, metabolic processes, synthesis, and a host of complex functions, has evolved to provide for that replenishment. A maintenance cycle is programmed in the DNA, to kill off cells and replace them with young healthy ones, to mitigate the consequences (akin to the senile driver posing a threat). Even the host body fulfills its purpose once it has produced enough offspring to compensate for all the senseless slaughter of the litter. At that point it's hard to say if death of the individual is perferred or unimportant to the purpose (survival of the DNA), since the surviving offspring are able to propagate the species on their own under the same circumstances. It could be argued that death is preferred after ample opportunity to replenish the herd, so that greater genetic diversity can continue to offer the herd better opportunities to adapt and evolve as changing circumstances may require.

What ID does is that it ignores biology right off the bat. It inserts its purpose as the purpose of everything, which is a purpose created out of thin air. Every purpose established by evidence is then overruled by the thin-air purpose. Only because of this are you even in a position to say "If the purpose of the organism is something else...etc." This premise is hinged on the arbitrary dismissal of all the evidence. This is why evolution poses such a threat to ID, because once the evidence is back on the table, the arbitrary nature of their general doctrines is exposed.

 

[Grumpy]

wynn

Again: The only way we can talk about any kind of defects is precisely in relation to particular standards or expectations.

More barnyard fertilizer. Evaluating the functionality or problems with functionality needs no preconceived notions of what to expect, no criteria that we think it should meet(as you said in your post), it just requires examining how the trait in question serves the need of the organism(or not), what problems it causes. We don't expect design(with good reason)so why would we develop criteria of how we would have designed it, perfection does not exist in Nature(perfection is a goal of design)but adequate to the need does. The eye spot like that on a Paramecium would be useless to us(our sense of touch tells us when we are too exposed to the sun), but so would an eyeball be useless to the Paramecium(sight is a function of the brain, something it doesn't have enough of). Defects are evaluated on the problems the particular trait or structure causes the organism in question, not by comparison with what we would think is good design.

in our eyes the retina is backwards, which causes all sorts of unnecessary problems ”

On the grounds of what do you say that those problems are unnecessary?

They are unnecessary problems because Nature has produced eyes that don't have inverted retinas and they do not have those problems, if our eye's retina was not inverted, neither would we, thus unnecessary. Now you explain why the octopus got better eyes(better as in having fewer such problems)than man? I don't care about motives, just the results that we got far more inferiorly "designed" eyes, comparatively. But neither of those eyes are designed, and the last common ancestor between us and them had no eyes at all(else they could not have turned out so differently), both types developed from much simpler forms, each stuck with the structure it had to work with. The inversion was cooked in early and Nature did the best it could given the material at hand. Not design, just bad luck early in our evolution. A very small leakage in any of the myriad blood vessels in our eye can cause instant and often permanent blindness in that eye, extremely bad if it is a design that a minor flaw can cause catastrophic failure of.

Grumpy

 

[Grumpy]

wynn

That will depend on the purpose the organism has to fulfill.

The ONLY objective purpose that a lifeform has is to reproduce, everything else is gravy. Organisms evolve ONLY for the purpose of reproduction. Reproduction is the ONLY criteria that sucess is measured by in Nature, those that suceed, live. Those who fail are removed from the gene pool. All other traits, structures and abilities are used to fulfill that purpose, no matter how amazing or strange they may be. You are a means by which your DNA is spread(or not, if you fail). And it is the competition for reproductive success in the environment that drives the development of every wonderful development by eliminating those that don't have the advantages that pick the winners(IE Natural Selection).

If you believe that the purpose of an organism is to live with the same body forever

Why would we think that was a purpose? Once you reproduce and protect your progeny until they can do the same you are pretty well useless to Nature and possibly a dead weight, eating scarce food, etc. better left to those still reproducing. Besides, things wear out, they die defending the herd, they have accidents or catch diseases. Even mountains don't exist forever.

Grumpy

 

[garbonzo]

I think the question is wynn, what do you think our purpose is and how does the design defects the others pointed out work toward that purpose (therefore making them not design defects)?

If you assert something, you have to back it up and explain why.

 

[Sarkus]

The ONLY objective purpose that a lifeform has is to reproduce, everything else is gravy. Organisms evolve ONLY for the purpose of reproduction. Reproduction is the ONLY criteria that sucess is measured by in Nature, those that suceed, live. Those who fail are removed from the gene pool. All other traits, structures and abilities are used to fulfill that purpose, no matter how amazing or strange they may be.

I would still question that reproduction is our purpose, rather than merely a trait that allows our species to continue beyond a single generation, and also to evolve.

But there is no-one looking over us to gauge whether we are "successful"... nature couldn't give a proverbial whether we died out or not... or whether anything ever lived or not. Nature has no measure of success in this regard.

As such I do not even consider reproduction to be an objective purpose.

Organisms evolve ONLY for the purpose of reproduction.

Evolution is not process with a goal in mind.
Evolution is a process that exists because life reproduces. But I wouldn't call it a purpose of evolution.

Evolution is a natural, dumb process that exists by default where you have reproducing lifeforms that introduce genetic changes/abnormalities between generations, and a changing environment.

There is no purpose behind evolution. No purpose behind life.
One could argue that reproduction (a defining quality of "life) has a purpose... to maintain the genes... and thus "life" has a purpose.
But I would argue that life is merely capable of reproduction... it doesn't have to do so.

You are a means by which your DNA is spread(or not, if you fail).

See - this is one of the issues I have with reproduction as a purpose - the idea of failure should one choose not to reproduce.
Ultimately, who cares about the human race, or about life at all? Who is judging success or failure other than ourselves? As such I still see reproduction as a self-given purpose.
We have evolved to want to reproduce... but I still don't see it as a purpose... more just something we have a tendency to do, because of evolution.

 

[Neverfly]

I would still question that reproduction is our purpose, rather than merely a trait that allows our species to continue beyond a single generation, and also to evolve.

The trait being a driving need to. I know a few guys that would do a rattlesnake if someone was kind enough to hold it's head.

But there is no-one looking over us to gauge whether we are "successful"... nature couldn't give a proverbial whether we died out or not... or whether anything ever lived or not. Nature has no measure of success in this regard.

As such I do not even consider reproduction to be an objective purpose.

Evolution is not process with a goal in mind.
Evolution is a process that exists because life reproduces. But I wouldn't call it a purpose of evolution.

Evolution is a natural, dumb process that exists by default where you have reproducing lifeforms that introduce genetic changes/abnormalities between generations, and a changing environment.

There is no purpose behind evolution. No purpose behind life.
One could argue that reproduction (a defining quality of "life) has a purpose... to maintain the genes... and thus "life" has a purpose.
But I would argue that life is merely capable of reproduction... it doesn't have to do so.

This is where the understatement of the Year comes into play...:

Trying to hold a rational discussion with wynn is difficult.

The method of teaching is important.
In a conversation such as this one, it's important to sometimes remember that people have a different level of tolerance.
With some people, you must be gentle. You can't just ejaculate information and hope it gets in. You have to really take your time and gently coax them over to your side.
I mean, if you just start pounding it in, some people will resist.
You have to get them to come, first... To the realization that gaining knowledge is actually quite enjoyable. Try to stay abreast of topics. And be sure to use your oral skills: A good speaker, makes a good listener.
Now, it is true that sometimes teaching requires a Firm Hand.
It can be really hard. Knowing when to be firm and when to be gentle, I mean.
Personally, I think it comes with experience. But once you've gotten past the initial impulses, you can really penetrate deeper tissues... I mean issues and teach someone a good hard lesson.

See - this is one of the issues I have with reproduction as a purpose - the idea of failure should one choose not to reproduce.
Ultimately, who cares about the human race, or about life at all? Who is judging success or failure other than ourselves? As such I still see reproduction as a self-given purpose.
We have evolved to want to reproduce... but I still don't see it as a purpose... more just something we have a tendency to do, because of evolution.

An issue to which the opponent in this debate would take serious exception.

Pounding it into his head, may be in order.

 

[wynn]

Pounding it into his head, may be in order.

Which is why you are, by your own admission, a miserable guy.

Sooo convincing!

 

[wynn]

B.S.
You're stringing any poster along who will respond to you.

You are the one that needs to reveal your position.

And I'm not reluctant- I have revealed my position. I even offered for you to address it which you have ignored and refused to do.

I really think eveyone in this thread needs to stop pandering to your little game and <cough> ...Allow you the opportunity to make a stand- tell what you think, support your conclusions.

I think the question is wynn, what do you think our purpose is and how does the design defects the others pointed out work toward that purpose (therefore making them not design defects)?

If you assert something, you have to back it up and explain why.

Since it is your camp that is asserting to have the superior position,
I am merely probing how much scrutiny that position can stand.


Your camp is not coming forward with a tentative "Well, to the best of our insight, this seems to be the case, and we are willing to discuss it."

Instead, you come forward with a blunt "We are right and everyone who disagrees with us is wrong and stupid and needs to be corrected to our view of things!"


Given your attitude, I really am not going to be nice and meek in return.