Intelligent Design

[painted wolf]

??? You are comparing the eye sight of a Nautilus to a human being? The nautilus which is a cephalopod does not have a lense becuase it lives underwater, it's called a pinhole eye, many other underwater species such as clams have this, these are fascinating creatures but you are comparing the eye of a clam to a human being? Human beings need eyesight, clams etc use eyes for photosynthesis, not like human beings do.

You do realise Nautilus live under 300m in the middle of the ocean so there is very little light? Your examples are dodging the real question.

No, I provided an example that shows that your claim that an eye with a single missing part doesn't work is bunk.

Look at the tarsier, a nocturnal animal which heavly relies on it's eyesight. You are claiming this animal had hardly any eyesight for 1000s of years? And it's eyes were going through transitional stages? Then how did it survive?

Do you understand the basic concepts of evolution at all?

Theres not a shred of evidence that complex structures are random and the result of a blind process of random mutation and natural selection over millions of years. Regarding the past and of the origin of structures, Creationists but a religious God in the gap, Darwinists but natural selection in the gap. No different really. Neither, not testable, observable or provable.

Natural Selection isn't random. Seriously, have you ever bothered to learn anything about evolution?

wa:do

 

[EarthAlive]

Natural Selection isn't random. Seriously, have you ever bothered to learn anything about evolution?

The idea of natural selection is random. Who is doing the selecting? Already explained natural selection has nothing to do with evolution. Mutation and ns cause no evolution, even creationists claim that they only cause variation within species, no mega or "macroevolution", this is why we must look elsewhere for other mechanisms.

 

[not nom]

The idea of natural selection is random. Who is doing the selecting?

the willingness and capability of life forms to mate and produce offspring.

why do people fall in love, and how do they go about doing it? you have so much to learn..

 

[painted wolf]

The idea of natural selection is random. Who is doing the selecting? Already explained natural selection has nothing to do with evolution. Mutation and ns cause no evolution, even creationists claim that they only cause variation within species, no mega or "macroevolution", this is why we must look elsewhere for other mechanisms.

So you really don't know about natural selection do you?

Lot's of factors are selectors:
1- Environment (for example deserts exert selective pressure to have proteins/enzymes that can withstand heat, while the tundra selects for proteins/enzymes that can withstand the cold.)
2- Predator/prey interaction (for example predation by snakes selects for higher toxicity in populations of salamanders, which in turn selects for higher levels of resistance in populations of of snakes)
3- Interspecific competition (for example Canada Warblers comepte with each other for prime hunting territory, those that are better at defending that territory will have more offspring than those with lessor territory)
4- Parasite/host interaction (for example Humans in places with Malaria are seeing the spread of genes that grant resistance to the parasite.)

Just to name a few ways selective pressure works.

wa:do

 

[Photonic]

Oh i see the difference now. Thanks!

Careful, admitting that you've changed your way of seeing something because of what someone else says here is borderline insanity.

Maybe I'm just sick of creationists.

 

[Alceste]

??? You are comparing the eyesight of a Nautilus to that of a human being? The nautilus, which is a cephalopod, does not have a lens because it lives underwater. It's called a pinhole eye. Many other underwater species, such as clams, have this. These are fascinating creatures, but you are comparing the eye of a clam to that of a human being? Human beings need eyesight, clams ... use eyes for photosynthesis, not like human beings do.

Just wondering, do you go to school at all?

You do realise Nautilus live under 300m in the middle of the ocean so there is very little light? Your examples are dodging the real question.

Look at the tarsier, a nocturnal animal which heavly relies on it's eyesight. You are claiming this animal had hardly any eyesight for 1000s of years? And it's eyes were going through transitional stages? Then how did it survive? Theres not a shred of evidence that complex structures are random and the result of a blind process of random mutation and natural selection over millions of years. Regarding the past and of the origin of structures, Creationists but a religious God in the gap, Darwinists but natural selection in the gap. No different really. Neither, not testable, observable or provable.

Are you prepared to learn something about evolution or not? Painted Wolf can teach you: she is studying to become a biologist. A real one, not like your pastor.

 

[Alceste]

The idea of natural selection is random. Who is doing the selecting? Already explained natural selection has nothing to do with evolution. Mutation and ns cause no evolution, even creationists claim that they only cause variation within species, no mega or "macroevolution", this is why we must look elsewhere for other mechanisms.

You're making the mistake of confusing the words we use to describe the theory of evolution with the theory itself. The mere use of the word "selection" does not indicate that somebody, somewhere, is doing the selecting. That is semantics, not science. For this tedious linguistic grievance of yours to be considered "science", you must devise a method of empirically measuring the influence of the "selecting" intelligence you propose. Most importantly, if you are unable to devise a method, or the your measurements fail to affirm your assumption of intelligence, you must change your mind.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Concerning Intelligent Design, I ask what is so intelligent about a rabbit's digestive system? Or making sperm only able to survive at temperatures lower than average body temperature, hence the need for the scrotum sack to keep the testicles slightly away from the body to keep them cooler. Why not just make the testicles an internal reproductive organ, similar to ovaries, especially since the testicles are very sensitive.
Of course if there is a creator we won't know the whys, but it seems there are many reasons to question the "intelligent" part of the design. I personally think the theory would have more credibility if it left it at a designer, giving it a reasonable degree of doubt as to why so many things just do not seem to be of an intelligent design at all.

 

[painted wolf]

Oh i see the difference now. Thanks!

Glad to help!

wa:do

 

[NeedingGnosisNow]

Or making sperm only able to survive at temperatures lower than average body temperature, hence the need for the scrotum sack to keep the testicles slightly away from the body to keep them cooler. Why not just make the testicles an internal reproductive organ, similar to ovaries, especially since the testicles are very sensitive

I agree the testicles are poorly designed. I mean if someone tries to kick you the legs act a guide rails! lol

 

[johnhanks]

... Or making sperm only able to survive at temperatures lower than average body temperature, hence the need for the scrotum sack to keep the testicles slightly away from the body to keep them cooler. Why not just make the testicles an internal reproductive organ, similar to ovaries, especially since the testicles are very sensitive.

I've always thought there's a strong case for cause and effect being the other way round here - that sperm production being optimised at a lower temperature is a consequence of the descent of the testes, not its cause. Fully descended testicles may have been one of the signals of sexual maturity in early human males, like facial hair and a deeper voice: reduction of the optimum temperature for spermatogenesis may have followed this.

Too may 'may haves', I know, but it's as plausible as the opposite hypothesis.

 

[johnhanks]

... Or making sperm only able to survive at temperatures lower than average body temperature, hence the need for the scrotum sack to keep the testicles slightly away from the body to keep them cooler. Why not just make the testicles an internal reproductive organ, similar to ovaries, especially since the testicles are very sensitive.

I've always thought there's a strong case for cause and effect being the other way round here - that sperm production being optimised at a lower temperature is a consequence of the descent of the testes, not its cause. Fully descended testicles may have been one of the signals of sexual maturity in early human males, like facial hair and a deeper voice: reduction of the optimum temperature for spermatogenesis may have followed this.

Too may 'may haves', I know, but it's as plausible as the opposite hypothesis.


(Oops, double post - forum was down when I first tried, but what I thought was a failed post must have stuck. Apologies.)

 

[painted wolf]

I've always thought there's a strong case for cause and effect being the other way round here - that sperm production being optimised at a lower temperature is a consequence of the descent of the testes, not its cause. Fully descended testicles may have been one of the signals of sexual maturity in early human males, like facial hair and a deeper voice: reduction of the optimum temperature for spermatogenesis may have followed this.

Too may 'may haves', I know, but it's as plausible as the opposite hypothesis.

Not really when you look at all the animals that produce plenty of sperm that don't have descended testicles. Because their bodies keep the testes at the lower temperature already.

Decent of the testes went along with higher body temperatures... Which is why you see decent in relation to core body temperature... and ambient temperatures as well.

The only exception to this is birds... but birds do something mammals don't. They actually grow and shrink their testes as needed, so sperm isn't kept at body temperature long enough to do much damage. Humans keep sperm around constantly, making them more prone to damage.

wa:do

 

[EarthAlive]

The mere use of the word "selection" does not indicate that somebody, somewhere, is doing the selecting.

Then it's not selection is it?

Not only is natural selection said to have produced everything, but the entire process is said to be entirely RANDOM! Therefore it is not "selection," for nothing was selected! Just whatever happened next is what happened. Random variations and chance accidents are said to have produced all the wonders around us. The theory should be called "natural randomness," not "natural selection."

(Source the Evolution Handbook by Vance Ferrell)

Common folk would say something like this: “Now, really, we
want an answer that makes sense. It is obvious that nothing makes​

itself. How did plants and animals first come into existence?”

Well, to start with, everybody knows that something has to be

needed before it is put together, or made. To say it another way, the
first step in getting something new made—is realizing that it needs
to exist. In addition, it has to be planned ahead of time.
But right here, natural selection drops out of the picture—for​

​

​

​

unthinking randomness never feels the need for anything.​

The reason that phrase, “natural selection,” sounds so able to do the job—is because it has a little word, “selection,” tacked on as part of its name. Although that was a very clever thing to do, it makes “natural selection” a built-in lie. For nothing mindless can select! This is because it cannot think.​

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I dont pretend to know like some fanatic fundamentalist

How about just a regular fundamentalist:areyoucra?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

What if people didn't evolve to incorrectly ascribe agency?

 

[Viker]

Then it's not selection is it?



(Source the Evolution Handbook by Vance Ferrell)

Common folk would say something like this: “Now, really, we
want an answer that makes sense. It is obvious that nothing makes​

itself. How did plants and animals first come into existence?”

Well, to start with, everybody knows that something has to be

needed before it is put together, or made. To say it another way, the
first step in getting something new made—is realizing that it needs
to exist. In addition, it has to be planned ahead of time.
But right here, natural selection drops out of the picture—for​

​

​

​

unthinking randomness never feels the need for anything.​

The reason that phrase, “natural selection,” sounds so able to do the job—is because it has a little word, “selection,” tacked on as part of its name. Although that was a very clever thing to do, it makes “natural selection” a built-in lie. For nothing mindless can select! This is because it cannot think.​

Man, this misses the boat with natural selection.

Let's go about it another way, if we could for just a moment. How would somebody explain stratification? It's almost if water and stuff chooses where it's going ain't it?

 

[painted wolf]

EarthAlive... I suggest you get your definition of Natural Selection from scientist who understand it rather than Creationist tracts. It's no wonder you don't seem to understand how it works.

Heck, Wikipedia would be a better source... Natural selection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Natural selection is the nonrandom process by which biologic traits become more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution.

wa:do

 

[EarthAlive]

The theory should be called "natural randomness," not "natural selection." There needs to be a mind present if any "selecting" is being done, yet you do not admit this, so your theory of natural selection is random.

 

[outhouse]

The theory should be called "natural randomness," not "natural selection." There needs to be a mind present if any "selecting" is being done, yet you do not admit this, so your theory of natural selection is random.

you dont have the education to name any aspect of science

you dont show the most basic understanding of the science you fail miserably at mocking


:troll:


besides trolling your spamming as well