15 Aug 10
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonWell I'm just wondering why this is even a issue. Are the giraffe's complaining or going on strike or starving or being eaten by everything in sight? I'm just wondering what the problem is?
What possible advantage could it have taking the longer route? There could only be disadvantage in the unnecessarily longer route (disadvantages which are explained in my previous post )
“…where you think that nerve should be…”
Where I think it “should” be if it didn’t evolve but rather was put there by a super-intelligent designer is where it would take the shortest route from the brain to the larynx.
15 Aug 10
Originally posted by galveston75"I would just like to know how on earth creationists in this forum would explain this particular example of evolution’s blunders: why would an intelligent designer make the laryngeal nerve of the giraffe go from its brain and all the way down the neck to then go around some arteries only to circle back all the way back up to the larynx?" (quoted from the first posting)
Well I'm just wondering why this is even a issue. Are the giraffe's complaining or going on strike or starving or being eaten by everything in sight? I'm just wondering what the problem is?
This is the problem, if I may repeat. The problem is not the giraffe's, the problem is not the evolutionist's. The problem is of every creationist or follower of the intelligent design hypothesis. When a design is not intelligent, then the designer cannot be intelligent. And if the creator, i.e. god, is not intelligent, then why is it so important to believe in the existance of such an entity?
The giraffe anomaly is only one example of an anomaly in biology. There are more. Many more.
I see the big problem with ID is their followers, the IDers. They try to use science to show there is an ID. And they try to show the evolution theory is not science. This shows two things: (1) They don't know what science really is. And (2) They try to mix science with religion.
15 Aug 10
2 edits
Originally posted by Rajk999“…I find it hilarious that humans can criticize how a perfectly functioning animal is designed….”
I find it hilarious that humans can criticize how a perfectly functioning animal is designed. Kinda like a bunch of cavemen criticizing a motherboard design.
What we are “criticising” here is NOT the functionality of the animal but its design.
“…Kinda like a bunch of cavemen criticizing a motherboard design….”
If that motherboard had a connection that took a totally unnecessary extra-long route then, although that motherboard may still have at least near-perfect functionality, those cavemen would be correct in criticizing its design. Note again, it is the DESIGN and NOT the functionality that is being criticised here. Those cavemen could then, on the bases of that observation of that design flaw, conclude that what created that motherboard could not be a flawless all-knowing intelligence incapable of making mistakes ( i.e. a "God" ) –and they would be correct!
15 Aug 10
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonHow can any intelligent design criticism come from the mouth of a caveman when he has no clue whats going on on the motherboard?
“…I find it hilarious that humans can criticize how a perfectly functioning animal is designed….”
What we are “criticising” here is NOT the functionality of the animal but its design.
“…Kinda like a bunch of cavemen criticizing a motherboard design….”
If that motherboard had a connection that took a totally unnecessary extra-long route then, ...[text shortened]... knowing intelligence incapable of making mistakes ( i.e. a "God" ) –and they would be correct!
15 Aug 10
Originally posted by Rajk999Put simply, it's a crap design.
How can any intelligent design criticism come from the mouth of a caveman when he has no clue whats going on on the motherboard?
But when looked at through the prism of evolution ie. the branchial arches of our fish like ancestors, it then makes sense.
15 Aug 10
Originally posted by Rajk999It wouldn’t.
How can any intelligent design criticism come from the mouth of a caveman when he has no clue whats going on on the motherboard?
But what if they DID have a clue of what was going on on the motherboard just like we have a clue of what is going on in a giraffe’s neck? Then they could notice an obvious flaw. A modern biologist can say a lot about what goes on in an animal.
15 Aug 10
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonCreationists will then argue that there is a purpose of this "flaw" but we do not understand what this purpose is.
It wouldn’t.
But what if they DID have a clue of what was going on on the motherboard just like we have a clue of what is going on in a giraffe’s neck? Then they could notice an obvious flaw. A modern biologist can say a lot about what goes on in an animal.
However, Occam's Razor would strip this away and suggest that it is much more likely to be evolution than intelligent design. Evolution is what fits based on what has been observed.
15 Aug 10
Originally posted by lauseyQuite so. But it doesn't constitute proof. All it is is very good evidence. But then thats all we ever really have.
However, Occam's Razor would strip this away and suggest that it is much more likely to be evolution than intelligent design. Evolution is what fits based on what has been observed.
21 Aug 10
Originally posted by daniel58Why do you have to find 'the missing link'? Especially considering that we both agree that no such thing exists.
Ok this is how I see it, evolution can never be proved because you have to find the "missing link" and you can never find the "missing link" because there is none!
21 Aug 10
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYou are suggesting a design flaw, yet how many creatures have you designed
“…These do not seem to be arguments applied to all new features that evolution
gets credit for, so why apply them now?...”
I point out the fact that there are biological costs in having an unnecessary organ/bit of organ now because this example of a nerve taking an unnecessary long route is an example of that and it shows a flaw in the design.
...[text shortened]... ng in that post.
Oddly, you make the point for me –unless I have misunderstood what you mean?
that have a neck as long as a Giraffe that live and procreate? I don't mind
listening to AMD bad mouth Intel or Intel bad mouth AMD, because they both
design CPU, but what living system have you put together that has lived over
time?
Kelly
21 Aug 10
Originally posted by KellyJaySo are you saying that only someone who has designed something can criticize a similar design?
You are suggesting a design flaw, yet how many creatures have you designed
that have a neck as long as a Giraffe that live and procreate? I don't mind
listening to AMD bad mouth Intel or Intel bad mouth AMD, because they both
design CPU, but what living system have you put together that has lived over
time?
Kelly
Can we not criticize the design of the walls that were supposed to hold back the water from New Orleans, or the design of the oil pipes that ruptured in the gulf?
Sometimes design flaws are obvious even to a layman.
I think I am even well within my rights to badmouth Intel or AMD if I recognize a design flaw in their CPUs.
21 Aug 10
Originally posted by daniel58Creation by an intelligent being cannot ever be proved unless you prove the existance of such an entity.
Ok this is how I see it, evolution can never be proved because you have to find the "missing link" and you can never find the "missing link" because there is none!
You don't know much about evolution. Who are you to discuss evolution until you learn something about it? Galve admits his ignorance, why don't you?
21 Aug 10
Originally posted by daniel58Whether there exists missing links depends on what you mean by “missing links”; if all you mean is an intermediate stage as opposed to a stage that has each and all the characteristics being EXACTLY between two stages ( an occasional misconception of what “missing link” means ) then, sure, there has existed missing links and here is just one tiny bit of the significant body of evidence of this:
Ok this is how I see it, evolution can never be proved because you have to find the "missing link" and you can never find the "missing link" because there is none!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
“…the discovery of more and more transitional fossils continues to add to knowledge of evolutionary transitions,[3][8] making many of the "missing links" missing no more…”
I could give you many more websites showing yet more evidence of this.
-not that it is a requirement to proove the existance of missing links to proove evolution!
And how would you explain the numerous examples of animals that live today that are LIVING "missing links." By that I mean animals that are "caught" in the middle of possible adaptation. An example would be seals. They are mammals that could be thought of as a living example of an "intermediate" between cetaceans and other mammals
21 Aug 10
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasI can't prove what I can't show, it's calls for Faith which is something you obviously don't have
Creation by an intelligent being cannot ever be proved unless you prove the existance of such an entity.
You don't know much about evolution. Who are you to discuss evolution until you learn something about it? Galve admits his ignorance, why don't you?