Intelligent Design failures

[Pah]

In the study of abiogenisus (abiogenesis), the two leading avenues for establishing a theory of the life from non-living material are evoultion and Intelligent Design. Evolution has been proved as a biological process; Intelligent Design has no accomplishements. In fact, Intelligent Design has tremendous hurdles to overcome in explaining all known facts.

Not only will the supernatural designer never be proven but it does not account for inconsistencies in creation's design. In the animal world, there are "designs" that have no function or are poor ways of performing a function.

A list to begin with:

• Wings on flightless birds. The known function of providing balance while running is a poor design
• Hind leg bones in whales
• Erector pili and body hair in humans
• The human tailbone (coccyx)
• Wisdom teeth in humans
• The stamen and pistil in the asexual dandelion
• Sexual mating behavior in the asexual genus Cnemidophorus
• Male Breast Tissue and Nipples
• The Human Appendix -Shown in a later post to have a function but as a further post shows not necessarily an original function
• Eye development in he Blind Fish Astyanax Mexicanus

 

[Ceridwen018]

Oh, snap!

 

[michel]

Oh, snap!

You took the words right out of my mouth; it must'ave been while you........:jiggy:

 

[Yerda]

You took the words right out of my mouth; it must'ave been while you........:jiggy:

Were kissing me?

It would be nice if a proponent of ID would answer Pah's poser. It seems that only evolution has to provide solutions.

 

[LISA63]

What is the function of the human appendix? Did it once have a purpose that has since been lost? Ross Rowland Great Falls, Va.

Loren G. Martin, professor of physiology at Oklahoma State University, replies: "For years, the appendix was credited with very little physiological function. We now know, however, that the appendix serves an important role in the fetus and in young adults. Endocrine cells appear in the appendix of the human fetus at around the 11th week of development. These endocrine cells of the fetal appendix have been shown to produce various biogenic amines and peptide hormones, compounds that assist with various biological control (homeostatic) mechanisms. There had been little prior evidence of this or any other role of the appendix in animal research, because the appendix does not exist in domestic mammals.

"Among adult humans, the appendix is now thought to be involved primarily in immune functions. Lymphoid tissue begins to accumulate in the appendix shortly after birth and reaches a peak between the second and third decades of life, decreasing rapidly thereafter and practically disappearing after the age of 60. During the early years of development, however, the appendix has been shown to function as a lymphoid organ, assisting with the maturation of B lymphocytes (one variety of white blood cell) and in the production of the class of antibodies known as immunoglobulin A (IgA) antibodies. Researchers have also shown that the appendix is involved in the production of molecules that help to direct the movement of lymphocytes to various other locations in the body. "In this context, the function of the appendix appears to be to expose white blood cells to the wide variety of antigens, or foreign substances, present in the gastrointestinal tract. Thus, the appendix probably helps to suppress potentially destructive humoral (blood- and lymph-borne) antibody responses while promoting local immunity. The appendix--like the tiny structures called Peyer's patches in other areas of the gastrointestinal tract--takes up antigens from the contents of the intestines and reacts to these contents. This local immune system plays a vital role in the physiological immune response and in the control of food, drug, microbial or viral antigens. The connection between these local immune reactions and inflammatory bowel diseases, as well as autoimmune reactions in which the individual's own tissues are attacked by the immune system, is currently under investigation.

"In the past, the appendix was often routinely removed and discarded during other abdominal surgeries to prevent any possibility of a later attack of appendicitis; the appendix is now spared in case it is needed later for reconstructive surgery if the urinary bladder is removed. In such surgery, a section of the intestine is formed into a replacement bladder, and the appendix is used to re-create a 'sphincter muscle' so that the patient remains continent (able to retain urine). In addition, the appendix has been successfully fashioned into a makeshift replacement for a diseased ureter, allowing urine to flow from the kidneys to the bladder. As a result, the appendix, once regarded as a nonfunctional tissue, is now regarded as an important 'back-up' that can be used in a variety of reconstructive surgical techniques. It is no longer routinely removed and discarded if it is healthy.

Answer posted on October 21, 1999

http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=000CAE56-7201-1C71-9EB7809EC588F2D7http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=000CAE56-7201-1C71-9EB7809EC588F2D7

Strangly enough this answer has existed for quite awhile and just goes to show that assertions without evidence abound in the athiest mind. I won't even bother with the rest of the assertions made.
Your entire post is a non sequitur.

 

[painted wolf]

You won't bother because?

The post is not non-sequitur, it is valid. If design is intelegent then why are there so many mistakes?

to quote an oft asked question "my do my feet hurt so much?"

wa:do

 

[Pah]

Strangly enough this answer has existed for quite awhile and just goes to show that assertions without evidence abound in the athiest mind. I won't even bother with the rest of the assertions made.
Your entire post is a non sequitur.

I have made the correction in the opening post and thanks for giving us that.

One down - nine to go. If you abandon the nine, and any others presented, you will not have shown the unstated conclusion to the opening post (That Inteligent Design is faulty) to be false. The unstated premise was that Intelligent Design has no answer for abiogenisus and that will carry the day.

P.S. This atheist mind understands epistemology!!!

 

[michel]

I have made the correction in the opening post and thanks for giving us that

P.S. This atheist mind understands epistemology!!!

P.S I didn' like to say, but I couldn't find the meaning of 'abiogenisus'; that is why I skirted around the question in the trhead; could you please define the word ?
The caecum: a specialized herbivorous organ

Our appendix is a developmental derivative and evolutionary vestige of the end of the much larger herbivorous caecum found in our primate ancestors (Condon and Telford 1991; Williams and Myers 1994, p. 9). The word "caecum" actually means "blind" in Latin, reflecting the fact that the bottom of the caecum is a blind pouch (a dead-end or cul-de-sac).

In most vertebrates, the caecum is a large, complex gastrointestinal organ, enriched in mucosal lymphatic tissue (Berry 1900), and specialized for digestion of plants (see Figure 2; Kardong 2002, pp. 510-515). The caecum varies in size among species, but in general the size of the caecum is proportional to the amount of plant matter in a given organism's diet. It is largest in obligate herbivores, animals whose diets consist entirely of plant matter. In many herbivorous mammals the caecum is as large as the rest of the intestines, and it may even be coiled and longer than the length of the entire organism (as in the koala). In herbivorous mammals, the caecum is essential for digestion of cellulose, a common plant molecule. The caecum houses specialized, symbiotic bacteria that secrete cellulase, an enzyme that digests cellulose. Otherwise cellulose is impossible for mammals to digest.


My mum always told me that the appendix was a legacy of our vegetarian ancestors- I don't know how this fits in..............

 

[Pah]

P.S I didn' like to say, but I couldn't find the meaning of 'abiogenisus'; that is why I skirted around the question in the trhead; could you please define the word ?

Well , no wonder! Pah (it's pah when I'm wrong) spelled it wrong - abiogenesis would be the correct spelling

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

According to their Greek derivation these two terms refer to the origin of life. Biogenesis is the theory that life originates only from pre-existing life; while the theory of abiogenesis implies that life may also spring from inorganic matter as such.

It seems I have been using the term wrongly as well - it is not an all encompassing theory of beginning life. But it was useful in distinguishing evolution which is not in doubt for a continuence of life.

 

[michel]

Well , no wonder! Pah (it's pah when I'm wrong) spelled it wrong - abiogenesis would be the correct spelling

I'm so pleased it's not me; I even tried a few letter changing variations, but of course did not come up with the correct one! Hey, you are still Pah to me, even if you make mistakes. Show me a man who makes no mistakes, and I'll show you a very lazy liar.
To be wrong shows you to be human; hold your P up with the rest of us.
P.s Thank you for the meaning

 

[Halcyon]

I hate to be a nit-picker (well not really, its kinda fun ), but since this is pretty much my field of study there's a couple of things i have to say to stop the itching in my brain :areyoucra.

Evolution has been proved as a biological process

Actually evolution is just a theory, like the big bang or hyperdimensional membranes. There is good evidence to back it up, fossils and genetic change in organisms over time, but evolution of new and dramatically different species' over millions of years cannot be tested in the lab and thus technically can never be proven. The only way to prove it would be to set up a video camera and record a population of organisms evolve into a noticably different species.

Wisdom teeth in humans

This is usually only a problem in Carcasoid humans (and maybe Mongoloid?) who, for some reason, have jaw bones too small for all there teeth, i believe in Negroid humans who have slightly larger jaw bones, wisdom teeth are less often a problem.

Not really big issues, but meh...

Male Breast Tissue and Nipples

This i find very interesting, it's because the fetus starts off essentially female and only later gains male sexual attributes. Basically males are modified females, women only have one X chromosome active per cell whereas we need the extra Y genes plus the X working in every cell (except sperm) to modify the design. So really they should re-write genesis 2 with adam coming from eve.

 

[Ceridwen018]

Actually evolution is just a theory, like the big bang or hyperdimensional membranes. There is good evidence to back it up, fossils and genetic change in organisms over time, but evolution of new and dramatically different species' over millions of years cannot be tested in the lab and thus technically can never be proven. The only way to prove it would be to set up a video camera and record a population of organisms evolve into a noticably different species.

Actually, it can be proven through the fossil record.

There has been much talk of the appendix, etc. This one example may fall through, however the point still stands. There are many vestigial organs out there--in all kinds of other animals as well as humans.

 

[meogi]

Every now and then I miss my appendix, but then I remember that it almost killed me. Maybe that's what it was designed for... makes as much sense as a backup bladder.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Pah, you have phrased this topic as though intelligent design and evolution are not compatible. I agree with both.

The Bible is not a lesson in micro-biology or geology. If it were, it would be powerless to deliver its intended message.

 

[Pah]

Actually evolution is just a theory, like the big bang or hyperdimensional membranes. There is good evidence to back it up, fossils and genetic change in organisms over time, but evolution of new and dramatically different species' over millions of years cannot be tested in the lab and thus technically can never be proven. The only way to prove it would be to set up a video camera and record a population of organisms evolve into a noticably different species.

I have used the word "theory" as a body of scientific knowledge that accounts for all known facts relevent to the subject.

I wonder if complete understanding of DNA mapping in related species would be an indirect proof of species differentiation due to evolution.

My point in the thread was to say that Intelligent Design has not (and can not) approached the level of a theory

 

[Halcyon]

This feels strange, because i'm not really arguing against evolution, i've studied it for three years as part of my degree, i believe it is the way life reached the stage it is at now.

However, scientifically it can never be proven, it is a hypothesis - a very sound and probable hyposthesis, but an untestable one. That's what science is all about, testing hypotheses, and unless you can evolve a species in the lab or go back in time and record evolution taking place it will never be more than a good idea. Adaptation/natural selection is the driving force of evolution, thus bacteria becoming immune to antibiotics is good evidence of natural selection, adaptation and so evolution, but again it is not proof because it is on such a small scale, the bacteria did not evolve - it became a resistant bacteria, not a eukaryotic cell.

Fossils are unfortunately not proof, they are evidence, but then a creationist can argue that the fossils were placed there by god as a test of faith , because of the uncertainty principle nothing is impossible.

My point in the thread was to say that Intelligent Design has not (and can not) approached the level of a theory

Intelligent design is a theory, an alternative theory. There is no real evidence to support it, it cannot be proved, but it is still a possibility, again nothing is impossible.

The Bible is not a lesson in micro-biology or geology. If it were, it would be powerless to deliver its intended message.

I agree, the bible is a tool to understand god. But science is the tool to understand nature, thus the bible has no place nor need to explain nature. Taking an ancient Sumerian creation myth literally (especially two contradictory versions of the same story!) is, i feel, somewhat foolish in an age when we have a far better theory of the creation of life, the ancients did the best they could with the tools and knowledge avaliable to them, today IMHO we have done significantly better.

 

[Ceridwen018]

However, scientifically it can never be proven, it is a hypothesis - a very sound and probable hyposthesis, but an untestable one. That's what science is all about, testing hypotheses, and unless you can evolve a species in the lab or go back in time and record evolution taking place it will never be more than a good idea.

You don't seem to understand the ways that science goes about doing things, Halcyon. The truth is that fossils present a very telling and accurate record of what has occurred in the past, and scientists HAVE evolved different species in controlled settings. Evolution is visible in every species of plant and animal.

Adaptation/natural selection is the driving force of evolution, thus bacteria becoming immune to antibiotics is good evidence of natural selection, adaptation and so evolution, but again it is not proof because it is on such a small scale, the bacteria did not evolve - it became a resistant bacteria, not a eukaryotic cell.

Again, scientists can explain how prokaryotes can form into eukaryotes and eventually a larger organism.

Fossils are unfortunately not proof, they are evidence, but then a creationist can argue that the fossils were placed there by god as a test of faith, because of the uncertainty principle nothing is impossible.

In science, it is folly to ever depend on something 100%. Technically, nothing can ever be proven. However, we can counter this uncertainty principle with the principle of probability. One can be uncertain of the idea that the sun will rise tomorrow all they want, but the theory of probability states that because the sun has risen everyday for the past billion or so years, and because nothing odd has happened that would logically lead one to believe that the sun might not rise, it is folly to believe otherwise.

Intelligent design is a theory, an alternative theory. There is no real evidence to support it, it cannot be proved, but it is still a possibility, again nothing is impossible.

There is a HUGE difference between a speculative possibility and a scientific theory. ID is most certainly NOT a valid scientific theory for that reason that you mentioned--there is no real evidence to support it.

It is possible that gnomes come and steal my underpants every night, and then replace them in my room before I wake up every morning, but there is no real evidence to support this idea, and I would invariably be laughed out of town if I tried to push it as a theory of any kind.

I agree, the bible is a tool to understand god. But science is the tool to understand nature, thus the bible has no place nor need to explain nature. Taking an ancient Sumerian creation myth literally (especially two contradictory versions of the same story!) is, i feel, somewhat foolish in an age when we have a far better theory of the creation of life, the ancients did the best they could with the tools and knowledge avaliable to them, today IMHO we have done significantly better.

So Halcyon, you are agreeing that the biblical creation myth should not be taken literally?

 

[Halcyon]

You don't seem to understand the ways that science goes about doing things, Halcyon.

Yes, i do. I'm a degree qualified Zoologist.

The truth is that fossils present a very telling and accurate record of what has occurred in the past, and scientists HAVE evolved different species in controlled settings

The truth is that the fossil record is incomplete, only a very, very small number of organisms are ever fossilised. There are also fakes out there, some of which have been the source of some interesting papers and plausible theories, only to cause upset and embarrassment upon their revealing as fake.
Fossils are evidence of extinct life forms, they are however not the result of experimental evidence. You see, you cannot actually do an experiment on past evolution to prove to people that fish became amphibians and amphibians became reptiles. Thus it can only ever be theoretical that it occured in that way.

The controlled evolution experiments you mention, are you talking about selective breeding, hybridisation, forced mutation, observed gene flow, adaptation? If so these are not new evolved species, they are the same species (or hybrids) that have been slightly altered genetically, they are changed but they are not something radically new and different, like the differences between a worm and a snail. It is not enough evidence to convince creationists. If however you know of more radical experiments please post me a link, i'd be very interested and happily slap myself for my ignorance.

Evolution is visible in every species of plant and animal.

The results of evolution are, you cannot observe large scale evolution, hence why it is theroetical.

Again, scientists can explain how prokaryotes can form into eukaryotes and eventually a larger organism

This is actually a subject still under debate, but yes we can theorise how a prokaryote could become a eukaryote, but again we can't do it in a lab so for now its still only theory.

ID is most certainly NOT a valid scientific theory for that reason that you mentioned--there is no real evidence to support it.

True, but i didn't say it was a scientific theory.

So Halcyon, you are agreeing that the biblical creation myth should not be taken literally?

Of course. I'm not a creationist.

Please keep in mind that what i am arguing is that there is no way to prove that life on earth has evolved to what we see now, we can only make an educated guess at how it happened. Creationists want proof of grand scale evolution from bacteria to worm to reptile to human, we cannot give them that. We can give them evidence of animals (especially fish e.g. cichlids and guppies) rapidly adapting to new environmental conditions, but we cannot show them a population of fishes crawling out onto land and breathing air.

 

[Yerda]

However, scientifically it can never be proven, it is a hypothesis - a very sound and probable hyposthesis, but an untestable one. That's what science is all about, testing hypotheses, and unless you can evolve a species in the lab or go back in time and record evolution taking place it will never be more than a good idea.

I agree, it is probable. What makes you say it is untestable?

 

[painted wolf]

Evolution has been observed in many species, most notabley in island populations.
Recently for instance snakes have been in competition with the recently introduced cane toad have begun to develop larger heads to prey on them. This change is not found in snakes of other species who do not feed on toads nor is it found in members of the same species that live in places free from cane toads.
Evolution has also been seen in lizards living on an islands in the Caribbean. The exprament has been in effect since the 80's.
The same goes for another such study of Galapagos finches also starting in the 80's that tracks the rate of change in the finch species in relation to thier environmental pressures. The study has documented that the finches change quite rapidly in relaition to the environment and food avalable. The study tracked two morphs of finches and documented the evolution of a third morph over a 17 year period.

Also we can show them a population of fishes crawling out onto land. The lungfish and walking catfish for example.

And remember that there are many 'theories' out there, the 'germ theory of disease' for example or the 'theory of gravity'
In science little is absolute, it is all theory just in case something shows up to prove it wrong.
Thus far nothing has shown up that can significantly challange the 'theory' of evolution.

It can be a tricky line to walk... the line between being a scientist and a believer. I can not support any 'theory of ID' because I do not see any evidence for it. I personally agree with the quote: "I believe in inteligent design with a lower case id... not inteligent design with a capitol ID." I feel that there is a creator out there but I do not agree with the ID 'theory'.

wa:do