A simple case for intelligent design

[BilliardsBall]

Otters catch fish.

Great! Now explain how the animal that became our modern otter caught fish and didn't starve while:

1) reducing its time in the water so significantly (land time)
2) had its "paws" changed to adapt to land use
3) changed its physiognomy to adapt to land use
4) 18 other things YOU could think of if you care or tried

The complexity is way beyond your just so story, it's like you're saying, "Apollo 11 and jet plane both have combustion engines, so it was an easy matter, not requiring thousands of intelligent designers, engineers, technicians, testers, etc. to get to the Moon."

 

[BilliardsBall]

This issue didn't seem to pose a problem to Origen in 200AD.

What does that have to do with the price of Chinese tea?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Look at any penguin, otter, or sea lion. How do they do it?

/E: Note that bears are land animals that catch fish perfectly well. This really isn't a difficult thing to figure out.

See my reply to another just-so storyteller.

 

[BilliardsBall]

This is a rather vague demand. All species are transitional. We know that they were successful since they left behind fossil evidence. Can you be more specific?

Oh, how interesting! ALL SPECIES ARE TRANSITIONAL. Please list all new transitions we can see now, among the millions of extant modern species:

 

[BilliardsBall]

Yes, by constant evolution over hundreds of millions of years. When a speciation event occurs, and we see those all of the time, the daughter species can each evolve in their own way. Your demands are poorly formed today which only tells us that you do not understand what you are arguing against.

Explain how a speciation event(s) can change animals between families? For example, the dozens of complete, working systems, which must be in place for animals to transition between land and sea or vice versa.

After all, changing a car to a boat or the manufacturing process of a car plant to a boat plant is incredibly complex. Now we are dealing with multiple organic systems.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Genesis is a myth as all creations stories and as a type of recreation Noah's ark is a myth. The rest of the bible is a mixture of real characters with mythical events. Earlier events with greater proportion of myth and newer components having more historic factual basis. The same in all religions. As in the story of Sky woman we see other aspects of the history including characters of Nanabozoho, Deganawida, Hiawatha from Native Americans around the great lakes are of North America that are myth yet we cannot say if there whether of not there was not some actual historical figure created into myth. In the case of Deganawida he was the figure who united the tribes into a confederacy to bring peace among the tribes. He planted the tree of peace to bury their weapons creating peace between them.
I mention this mythological history because I am familiar with it (Not Native American myself but grew up on the stories at one point thinking that Deganawida was Jesus who came to the Iroquois since one version stated he could walk on water- very young at that time.). Within the myths there is probably some truth since the Iroquois federation formed. I used this as a comparison for your question. Thus with all creation myths and myths that follow there is probably some actual historic events. It does not matter since the myth is a powerful teacher of the values to the people who believe in them.
As for the bible. Much is myth with probable real characters within the myths. Does it matter? Not if you learn what is important from the myth. Mentioned this before but it is like someone asking about the moon and another points to it. Do you take the pointing finger to be the moon or as a way to look for the moon?

How do you know which parts of the Bible are a myth, was the question.

How do you know which parts of the Bible that aren't creation stories are myth? Do you simply bring an anti-supernatural bias to your critical reading? Is that how you "know"?

 

[Polymath257]

Great! Now explain how the animal that became our modern otter caught fish and didn't starve while:

1) reducing its time in the water so significantly (land time)
2) had its "paws" changed to adapt to land use
3) changed its physiognomy to adapt to land use
4) 18 other things YOU could think of if you care or tried

The complexity is way beyond your just so story, it's like you're saying, "Apollo 11 and jet plane both have combustion engines, so it was an easy matter, not requiring thousands of intelligent designers, engineers, technicians, testers, etc. to get to the Moon."

Huh? You got it exactly backwards. Otters are land animals and their immediate ancestors were also land animals. But they now spend a lot of time in the water catching fish. They have adapted to life in the *water*.

And that transition really isn't difficult, is it? A land animal can learn to swim. That allows it to catch some fish. That makes it so that adaptation to water is encouraged. That means some will have webbed feet or other simple water adaptations. The physiology does have to change much, especially at first.

Otters aren't in the process of transitioning to land. They are in the process of transitioning to water. As are sea lions. As are penguins.

 

[Polymath257]

Explain how a speciation event(s) can change animals between families? For example, the dozens of complete, working systems, which must be in place for animals to transition between land and sea or vice versa.

After all, changing a car to a boat or the manufacturing process of a car plant to a boat plant is incredibly complex. Now we are dealing with multiple organic systems.

These transitions don't happen all at once. There is always a 'complete working system' throughout the transition. The changes really aren't as dramatic as you seem to think.

For example, bears are land animals that catch fish regularly. They eat both on land and in water. So no issue with starving.

Otters eat both on land and in the water. Again, they are primarily land animals that have some adaptations to living in water. No issue with starving here either.

Sea lions are more adapted to water than are otters. They still spend a fair amount of time on land, but eat primarily in the water. They find it more awkward to move around on land.

The stages you seem to be concerned about are readily seen in *existing* animals. The transitions from one stage to the next aren't so large as you seem to think.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh, how interesting! ALL SPECIES ARE TRANSITIONAL. Please list all new transitions we can see now, among the millions of extant modern species:

Evolution is an ongoing process. Unless a species goes extinct it is transitional.

Your demand only tells us that you can't even understand a simple sentence.

Instead of trying to refute that which you do not understand, a near impossible task, why not try to learn first?

 

[Subduction Zone]

How do you know which parts of the Bible are a myth, was the question.

How do you know which parts of the Bible that aren't creation stories are myth? Do you simply bring an anti-supernatural bias to your critical reading? Is that how you "know"?

Because if certain events described in the Bible we would see clear evidence of that event. For example if there was a worldwide flood we would see physical evidence of it. There is none. We would see a universal genetic bottleneck beyond that which the cheetahs went through. Tell me, can you get a kidney transplant from any random stranger? If your answer is no then there was no Flood of Noah.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Explain how a speciation event(s) can change animals between families? For example, the dozens of complete, working systems, which must be in place for animals to transition between land and sea or vice versa.

After all, changing a car to a boat or the manufacturing process of a car plant to a boat plant is incredibly complex. Now we are dealing with multiple organic systems.

Changes occur slowly in existing systems. For example we can observe the change in the position of the nostrils to a blow hole in the fossil record. Why do you think that slow gradual change cannot answer this problem?

And your claim that traits must be in place is simply false. It is a lie told to you be creationists and you eat it up. Many of them do know better. You do not, but you don't have a very good excuse. You really should try to learn what you are arguing against.

 

[exchemist]

Great! Now explain how the animal that became our modern otter caught fish and didn't starve while:

1) reducing its time in the water so significantly (land time)
2) had its "paws" changed to adapt to land use
3) changed its physiognomy to adapt to land use
4) 18 other things YOU could think of if you care or tried

The complexity is way beyond your just so story, it's like you're saying, "Apollo 11 and jet plane both have combustion engines, so it was an easy matter, not requiring thousands of intelligent designers, engineers, technicians, testers, etc. to get to the Moon."

Eh? The otter is a member of the mustelid family, which includes weasels etc. It evolved from a land animal, to have adaptations suited to swimming. As it did so its diet came to include fish, water voles and frogs etc, rather than mice and rabbits or whatever.

So the issue of it "starving", which is the question you posed, clearly never arose.

Your questions 1-4 only make sense if one thinks, absurdly, that the otter evolved directly from a fully aquatic ancestor.

 

[exchemist]

What does that have to do with the price of Chinese tea?

I thought that perhaps you might know, or be interested to find out, how Origen was able to do it, a mere 200 years after the foundation of Christianity. It is not exactly a new issue.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Oh, how interesting! ALL SPECIES ARE TRANSITIONAL. Please list all new transitions we can see now, among the millions of extant modern species:

Your question doesn't make sense.

 

[Bear Wild]

How do you know which parts of the Bible are a myth, was the question.

How do you know which parts of the Bible that aren't creation stories are myth? Do you simply bring an anti-supernatural bias to your critical reading? Is that how you "know"?

You do not know how much of the bible is primarily myth vs partly myth. It is very difficult to tell how much myth with actual events. I pointed this out in the case of the example of the myths from Native Americans. It does not stop those following that tradition from accepting the myth as important to their beliefs. It does not matter how much is actual fact vs myth since it is the message the words are telling you that matters giving a direction for your belief. Actually much of human history is distorted by varying degrees by those who write it from their own viewpoint. Myth is important in teaching the beliefs of that faith and that is what matters.

 

[exchemist]

Oh, how interesting! ALL SPECIES ARE TRANSITIONAL. Please list all new transitions we can see now, among the millions of extant modern species:

No, look, what this means is that any animal you care to name is merely the current product of a continuous process of adaptation which can be expected to continue in the future, just as it has in the past. Admittedly there is evidence that the change process goes faster at some times (i.e. when there is greater evolutionary pressure) than at others, but in principle it never stops - hence the comment that everything is transitional.

 

[gnostic]

Great! Now explain how the animal that became our modern otter caught fish and didn't starve while:

1) reducing its time in the water so significantly (land time)
2) had its "paws" changed to adapt to land use
3) changed its physiognomy to adapt to land use
4) 18 other things YOU could think of if you care or tried

The complexity is way beyond your just so story, it's like you're saying, "Apollo 11 and jet plane both have combustion engines, so it was an easy matter, not requiring thousands of intelligent designers, engineers, technicians, testers, etc. to get to the Moon."

Why do creationists in comparing animals with man-made or manufactured machines?

The comparisons leads to faulty thinking...unrealistic expectations...and worse still, dishonest tactics. Although, I shouldn’t be surprise.

If you want to talk to talk about design, engineering and construction or manufacturing of man-made thing, then start a new and different thread.

If you want to talk about nature and the mechanisms of nature, then don’t compare with constructed objects, like cars, computers, bridges or architecture.

It certainly doesn’t help you understand any better of nature.

What people design and create are not alive. For another these designers, engineers, technicians and testers that you have brought up, are not invisible beings, because you can talk to them, touch them, see them, they may live at certain certain addresses, have parents, may or may not be married themselves, and may have or may not children, etc.

Perhaps, I should rephrase the first sentence of the above paragraph. Humans can create life. The normal way people create life, is through reproduction, having babies, but that’s not what ID believers are talking about, is it?

ID adherents preferred the unrealistic and supernatural “Designer”, which evangelist Christians called “God”.

The Intelligent Design that some people believed in, the so-called “Designer” is not visible, said to have designed and created everything, including the universe or life, is most likely not real, like illusions or your personal delusions, just like your belief in your god.

Humans and the Designer are not the same things, because to date, not one single ID follower have showed that the Designer existed in this reality.

Perhaps it does exist in your imagination, fantasy or delusion, but that’s really beside the point. The “Designer” from the ID concept isn’t real.

But getting back to my point, you cannot make human designers and engineers as being the same thing as your deluded ID Designer.

 

[gnostic]

The problem, BilliardsBall, is that you have a misconception of what "transitional" mean, as they are defined and USED in biology.

Polymath257, Subduction Zone and exchemist have already explained to you what it mean, and they have already given some examples, repeatedly, but you are still not grasping it.

My guess, is that you continues to use the mangled creationist sources, which deliberately misdirect people, and most of the times, these creationist authors have no or very little backgrounds in biology, let alone science in general.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Huh? You got it exactly backwards. Otters are land animals and their immediate ancestors were also land animals. But they now spend a lot of time in the water catching fish. They have adapted to life in the *water*.

And that transition really isn't difficult, is it? A land animal can learn to swim. That allows it to catch some fish. That makes it so that adaptation to water is encouraged. That means some will have webbed feet or other simple water adaptations. The physiology does have to change much, especially at first.

Otters aren't in the process of transitioning to land. They are in the process of transitioning to water. As are sea lions. As are penguins.

You are goalpost shifting again--the change in families or kinds has to do with full land to sea or vice versa. This is alarming:

"And that transition really isn't difficult, is it? A land animal can learn to swim. That allows it to catch some fish. That makes it so that adaptation to water is encouraged. That means some will have webbed feet or other simple water adaptations. The physiology does have to change much, especially at first."

It is VERY difficult, for example:

*reproduction undersea or on land
*prey that walk instead of swim
*mating
*respiratory/circulatory

Do you not understand "gradual changes over time" don't explain adaptations like moving from the sea, where the temperature changes one degree in 24 hours, to land, where the temperature can change 50 degrees overnight, involve multiple systems?

The same for change in families where lower moves to higher complexity. The circulatory and respiratory systems have to evolve simultaneously, unless the animal has two of each system!

 

[BilliardsBall]

Evolution is an ongoing process. Unless a species goes extinct it is transitional.

Your demand only tells us that you can't even understand a simple sentence.

Instead of trying to refute that which you do not understand, a near impossible task, why not try to learn first?

I ask again for proof that the transition/change/speciation is presently occurring.