If it was designed, was it really all that "intelligent"?

[Stevicus]

I've noticed while reading this section that a lot of arguments seem to be based in the idea that life on this planet is so complex and improbable that it is believed that the only logical conclusion is that it must have been created by some intelligent being.

But then I have to wonder about all the species which have gone extinct. Were these screw ups?

What about the dinosaurs? Did God at some point say "oops" and decide that all those dinosaurs gotta go?

If it's an "intelligent design," does it mean that it's more of an "experimental" design with a lot of trial and error? Even if we assume that the "designer" is actively interfering and micromanaging that process, wouldn't that still imply evolution on some level?

 

[Ouroboros]

Considering that the fossil record suggests that more than 99% of all species that every existed are all extinct. There's been at least 5 extinction events (now, they say there's been 6), where more than 50% of the species died out.

Another thing, the complexity we see in life suggest to me a trial-and-error process more than intentional design. The DNA is overcomplicated for what it's doing. Only a fraction of the genes are coding in our DNA. Most of the DNA is non-coding, i.e. not producing polypeptides (proteins), but are remnants from dormant genes or copy-errors. We also have many duplicated genes that produce the same proteins, and there's no need for it. It's like writing a software and having the same subroutine written multiple times instead of using the same one. It's a very wasteful design.

 

[DawudTalut]

........

What about the dinosaurs? Did God at some point say "oops" and decide that all those dinosaurs gotta go? ........

Peace be on you.
"......Under the changed environmental conditions it became progressively harder for them to survive. ......."

There was creation and evolution guided at each step.

The Essential Role of Clay and Photosynthesis in Evolution

 

[George-ananda]

Well here is how I best see it based on sources I respect. There are what might be called nature-spirits involved with creating and advancing life forms on earth. They are well beyond us in their type of intelligence but are not all-knowing. They learn also by trial and error; seeing what succeeds and what fails. Humans were not envisioned by them from the beginning.

Your argument is against the notion that the direct designer is God; the omnipotent, the omniscient. I don't think that notion is correct.

 

[Koldo]

Well here is how I best see it based on sources I respect. There are what might be called nature-spirits involved with creating and advancing life forms on earth. They are well beyond us in their type of intelligence but are not all-knowing. They learn also by trial and error; seeing what succeeds and what fails. Humans were not envisioned by them from the beginning.

Your argument is against the notion that the direct designer is God; the omnipotent, the omniscient. I don't think that notion is correct.

Why add nature-spirits to the mix ?
It is an unnecessary ingredient.

 

[psychoslice]

Who really knows, but one thing is that it wasn't a fairy god in the sky.

 

[Koldo]

I've noticed while reading this section that a lot of arguments seem to be based in the idea that life on this planet is so complex and improbable that it is believed that the only logical conclusion is that it must have been created by some intelligent being.

But then I have to wonder about all the species which have gone extinct. Were these screw ups?

What about the dinosaurs? Did God at some point say "oops" and decide that all those dinosaurs gotta go?

If it's an "intelligent design," does it mean that it's more of an "experimental" design with a lot of trial and error? Even if we assume that the "designer" is actively interfering and micromanaging that process, wouldn't that still imply evolution on some level?

In the bible you will see a moment where God destroys most life on Earth... just because. A change of mood, so to say. So yes, even massive extinctions are completely compatible with this designer.

 

[Riverwolf]

Why add nature-spirits to the mix ?
It is an unnecessary ingredient.

Only if you like food that's tasteless, colorless, and bland.

...granted that analogy is kinda broken because I generally prefer bland foods to heavily flavored ones, but still... then again I think that's my overall lack of Japanese food.

 

[philbo]

Considering that the fossil record suggests that more than 99% of all species that every existed are all extinct. There's been at least 5 extinction events (now, they say there's been 6), where more than 50% of the species died out.

Another thing, the complexity we see in life suggest to me a trial-and-error process more than intentional design. The DNA is overcomplicated for what it's doing. Only a fraction of the genes are coding in our DNA. Most of the DNA is non-coding, i.e. not producing polypeptides (proteins), but are remnants from dormant genes or copy-errors. We also have many duplicated genes that produce the same proteins, and there's no need for it. It's like writing a software and having the same subroutine written multiple times instead of using the same one. It's a very wasteful design.

My job at the moment is looking after an old bit of software. The main two programmers (and I use the word loosely) who initially wrote & developed the package didn't really know what they were doing, and basically threw more code at things that didn't work until they look like they're doing roughly the right thing. Some of the code base is tortuously complex, when it doesn't need to be; there's things that don't look like they're called from anywhere or do anything relevant but things stop working when they're removed. A lot of functionality is "wrong", but it's what the users have got used to, so I don't dare to correct it.

If there was design, seems to me more like it's hack coding than "intelligent" design

And every so often, there's been a "this isn't working, let's reboot" sort of event

 

[Valjean]

So because, to the untrained eye, it's not immediately apparent how such complex life forms developed, magic poofing by an invisible sky spirit seems the only reasonable explanation?

 

[Kuzcotopia]

If this was design, the designer was a sadistic madman.

 

[Nietzsche]

Considering that the fossil record suggests that more than 99% of all species that every existed are all extinct. There's been at least 5 extinction events (now, they say there's been 6), where more than 50% of the species died out.

Another thing, the complexity we see in life suggest to me a trial-and-error process more than intentional design. The DNA is overcomplicated for what it's doing. Only a fraction of the genes are coding in our DNA. Most of the DNA is non-coding, i.e. not producing polypeptides (proteins), but are remnants from dormant genes or copy-errors. We also have many duplicated genes that produce the same proteins, and there's no need for it. It's like writing a software and having the same subroutine written multiple times instead of using the same one. It's a very wasteful design.

It's worse than that. It's like manually writing out the same subroutine and introducing a random but non-fatal error into it each time.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Design flaws everywhere. Look at the female sexual reproductive system and the female orgasm as part of an intended design for procreation in hetero mating. If that REALLY was the case, one could argue that the phallus ideally should have been placed on the chin.

Come on now, deity. It's a simple fix.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

Design flaws everywhere. Look at the female sexual reproductive system and the female orgasm as part of an intended design for procreation in hetero mating. If that REALLY was the case, one could argue that the phallus ideally should have been placed on the chin.

Come on now, deity. It's a simple fix.

Humans have had to develop so many technological fixes for poor design.

I mean, consider. . .

 

[Thief]

I've noticed while reading this section that a lot of arguments seem to be based in the idea that life on this planet is so complex and improbable that it is believed that the only logical conclusion is that it must have been created by some intelligent being.

But then I have to wonder about all the species which have gone extinct. Were these screw ups?

What about the dinosaurs? Did God at some point say "oops" and decide that all those dinosaurs gotta go?

If it's an "intelligent design," does it mean that it's more of an "experimental" design with a lot of trial and error? Even if we assume that the "designer" is actively interfering and micromanaging that process, wouldn't that still imply evolution on some level?

Chemistry has rules.
Break the rules and the reality you have created is not .....a reality.

So, you started with a planet that has the proportions of elements but the 'puddle' is not refined.
You have to let it cool.
Then mix the air, water and land...(severe weather)
Start life as simple molecules to combine the elements.
Let the first batch run it's course and then something more complex.
The air was poisonous at start....then more suited to higher forms.
The first land creatures were too simple....
so on...and so on....

Then comes that well known manipulation.
A chosen specimen.
Ideal living conditions.
Anesthesia, surgery, cloning, genetic alteration......(Adam and Eve)
Release into the environment.

What's so hard about that?
It just took a while.

 

[Marisa]

If we are designed, the designer is anything but intelligent.

 

[Thief]

Why add nature-spirits to the mix ?
It is an unnecessary ingredient.

If you could do so.....split yourself in two.
You would then be in two places at one time.
Dealing with one copy is identical to the other.

Conversation between the two copies would be you....talking to yourself.

Now consider....you have the rest of eternity.

Being the First in mind and heart is a unique situation.
Being in two places at once is no comfort.
You would be alone speaking only to your Echo.

Substance is then the only alternative.
You would find a way to place a spirit.....in a body.
and each occasion....is unique.

 

[George-ananda]

Why add nature-spirits to the mix ?
It is an unnecessary ingredient.

Because I believe they exist from the psychic insight of many individuals who I have come to respect. It is not a concept I am inventing myself.

 

[Ouroboros]

My job at the moment is looking after an old bit of software. The main two programmers (and I use the word loosely) who initially wrote & developed the package didn't really know what they were doing, and basically threw more code at things that didn't work until they look like they're doing roughly the right thing. Some of the code base is tortuously complex, when it doesn't need to be; there's things that don't look like they're called from anywhere or do anything relevant but things stop working when they're removed. A lot of functionality is "wrong", but it's what the users have got used to, so I don't dare to correct it.

If there was design, seems to me more like it's hack coding than "intelligent" design

And every so often, there's been a "this isn't working, let's reboot" sort of event

Yes, it's examples of bad design. This kind of spaghetti code can be seen in nature, so it really reminds more of spaghetti code or trial-and-error or hack coding (mickey-mouse code) or whatever we want to call it more than intelligent.

 

[Ouroboros]

It's worse than that. It's like manually writing out the same subroutine and introducing a random but non-fatal error into it each time.

True. Small minor changes that are unnecessary, like synonymous codons. What's the reason to change a single codon to only produce the exactly same peptide? It's like philbo called it, hack code.