Tuesday, March 8, 2011

Abby Hafer: Human Body Reveals Unintelligent Design

Last week Curry College anatomy and physiology professor Abby Hafer explained why evolution is the only genuinely scientific origins theory. In her lecture at the University of Connecticut, Hafer explained that our photoreceptor cells are backwards:

Another mechanical mishap is how the design of our eyes actually impedes our sight because the “wiring” of nerves is placed in front of the photoreceptors. These photoreceptors are crucial because they recognize light and discern the world around us. If other animals, such as the cuddle fish, can have the wiring in the back, why is ours in the front? It seems like a poor choice, unless “the creator,” as Hafer called it, which intelligent design points to, favors squids and octopi over humans.

Hafer added several other examples leaving no doubt about evolution’s scientific status. She pointed out the male reproductive system is “a very bad design” whereas frogs, for example, have no such liabilities. Or again, babies heads are too large, another poor design example.

Hafer also used the whale respiratory system to illustrate more Homo sapiens dysteleology. The whale has separate tubes for breathing and eating leaving no chance of food or drink going down the wrong pipe—another design flaw we are all familiar with.

The presentation was a tremendous educational event, helping the university’s young students to understand what real science is all about:

Students enjoyed her straightforward approach, and brother and sister Kevin and Kristina Breuninger, a 2nd-semester undecided major and an 8th-semester biology major, respectively, said they had “heard these points before, but she made them into simple scientific arguments.”

And there is no substitute for truly scientific arguments. Fortunately evolutionists such as Hafer are taking the time and effort to demonstrate true science in action.

123 comments:

  1. the design of our eyes actually impedes our sight because the “wiring” of nerves is placed in front of the photoreceptors.

    And yet, we have no problem seeing and recognizing objects around us. Arguing form ignorance seems to be common habit of evolutionists. Just because Hafer does not understand the design of the retina does not mean that it was not designed. What utter arrogance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Really?

      Our night vision is poor
      We have trouble tracking fast moving objects - the brain tries to interpolate the position of an object it can't track and is often wrong about its correct position
      Our reliance on fuzzy pattern recognition leads to many false positives - faces in the shadows
      We can't see properly under water
      We get things in our eyes often that we cannot remove
      Our eyes are connected to our sinuses which are often a source of irritation/infection/immune response problems
      We can be temporarily blinded by bright lights, which can also leave a trail in our vision leading to longer periods of vision impairment
      Our eyes deform over time leading to lost ability to focus
      The back of our eyes are sensitive to sunlight damage leading to macular degeneration

      And that's just what I could think of without using Google.

      Delete
  2. Yes, Cornelius, arguing from dysteleology is wrong if the designer is unknown.

    If the report is accurate, the problem is that she sees that your ilk is trying to push forward their religious beliefs, but she's not addressing the strongest form of your argument, which strategically strips away the theistic specifics. In a good discussion, participants should always address the strongest forms of the rival positions.

    That said, the argument is still strong for many ID sympathisers who embraced ID strategically and superficially, but deep down have a clear idea of how their god is and what it would do, as common in many protestant denominations.

    ReplyDelete
  3. What an oversight on the part of Hafer! How could she have neglected to mention the other two, equally valid possibilities: 1: There was an inept designer, or 2: There is an infinitely intelligent designer, but He decided to make suboptimal designs to err... test our faith in His abilities.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Derick Childress:

    ===
    What an oversight on the part of Hafer! How could she have neglected to mention the other two, equally valid possibilities: 1: There was an inept designer, or 2: There is an infinitely intelligent designer, but He decided to make suboptimal designs to err... test our faith in His abilities.
    ===

    Which explains why evolutionists such as Derick are, yes, evolutionists. Now there's nothing wrong with this of course, except when evolutionists turn around and claim their theory is about science.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Geoxus:

    ===
    If the report is accurate, the problem is that she sees that your ilk is trying to push forward their religious beliefs,
    ===

    These religious mandates for evolutionary thinking go back to the 17th c in modern science. More generally, they go back to antiquity. But of course you already knew that. So why play the games?

    ReplyDelete
  6. It is well known that feminists attack the church because the Bible teaches that a woman must obey her husband and that homosexuality is a sin. She is clever enough to attack faith indirectly, and that is all it is, a feminist attach on the church. Evolution is only the tool to achieve her social goals: abortion, high divorce rates, and lesbian marriage. If she wanted to prove evolution was true then she would have replicated evolution in the lab.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  7. Peter said...

    It is well known that feminists attack the church because the Bible teaches that a woman must obey her husband and that homosexuality is a sin. She is clever enough to attack faith indirectly, and that is all it is, a feminist attach on the church. Evolution is only the tool to achieve her social goals: abortion, high divorce rates, and lesbian marriage.


    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

    "Evolution is only the tool to achieve her social goals: abortion, high divorce rates, and lesbian marriage."

    See, that's exactly why I visit backwater IDCer blogs like this one. Some of the retarded spittle flying rants that come from the Fundy Cretos are just priceless.

    I hope you don't mind but I've got to submit that one to Fundies say the darndest things It ought to make the top 25, easy.

    If she wanted to prove evolution was true then she would have replicated evolution in the lab.

    Psst...hey grapehead...evolution isn't a physical object. Evolution is a process. And the process of evolution has been observed in the wild and recreated in the lab countless times.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Peter said: "If she wanted to prove evolution was true then she would have replicated evolution in the lab."

    If canyons were real, why haven't they been replicated in the lab?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Creationist: ...the reason that God gave gills to the whale shark and not the whale is simply because he wanted to.
    Scientist: That's not a very helpful explanation. Why would God-
    Creationist: HA! You said "God"! Not very "scientific" of you! You're making a religious argument!
    Scientist: I was just asking you to elaborate on your claim that-
    Creationist: I can't hear you! Metaphysics, Metaphysics, Metaphysics! Hey everyone, look at the evilutionist making such an unscientific argument!
    Scientist: I was just responding to your specific claim that-
    Creationist: Unscientific argument! Unscientific argument! Hey everybodeeee! Come an look!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Peter said: "It is well known that feminists attack the church because the Bible teaches that a woman must obey her husband and that homosexuality is a sin. She is clever enough to attack faith indirectly, and that is all it is, a feminist attach on the church. Evolution is only the tool to achieve her social goals: abortion, high divorce rates, and lesbian marriage. If she wanted to prove evolution was true then she would have replicated evolution in the lab."

    The thing I love about reading the comments of this blog is that I still can't decide if that that post was a genuine expression of his opinion or if he is trying to make fun of fundamentalists by parodying their views. If I were trying to emulate the stereotypical speech of an ignorant, mysogynistic, homophobic, and bigoted backwoods hick, I don't think I could top Peter, except to introduce a few spelling and grammatical errors.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Cornelius Hunter:
    ===
    GEOXUS:
    "If the report is accurate, the problem is that she sees that your ilk is trying to push forward their religious beliefs,"
    ===

    CORNELIUS HUNTER:
    "These religious mandates for evolutionary thinking go back to the 17th century in modern science. More generally, they go back to antiquity. But of course you already knew that. So why play the games?"
    ===

    Of course he knows this. He is also aware of why his church has it's own version of figurative holy crusades, jihads and academic blasphemy laws along with all it's professional punishment consequences.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah, actually, the Church actually burned blasphemers, heretics and witches at the stake. Religious crusades and jihads kill real human beings. "Figurative" is a pale substitute for the smell of burning human flesh.

      Delete
  12. Derick,

    Do you realize that you make Hunter's main point for him every time you write a comment on this blog?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Peter:

    "It is well known that feminists attack the church because the Bible teaches that a woman must obey her husband and that homosexuality is a sin."
    ===

    Careful, you'll strike a nerve with one of the most neanderthal posting resident lesbians in the nieghbourhood if you're not careful.
    ---

    Ms Thorton:

    "BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!"
    ===

    Oops, I spoke too soon.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Last week Curry College anatomy and physiology professor Abby Hafer..."

    I think its truly a tragedy in all respects to lack appreciation for how incredible and wonderful the human body is. Statements like this diminish all of us and are found wanting scientifically and logically.

    Add to this illogical argument some finch beaks and fruit flies and evolutionists feel evolution is beyond question. No wonder they start calling names when the majority of people don't really believe it.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Cornelius Hunter:

    "These religious mandates for evolutionary thinking go back to the 17th c in modern science."

    "Now there's nothing wrong with this of course, except when evolutionists turn around and claim their theory is about science."
    ===

    Here's probably the actual church Dr Abbey Hafer attends. In fact in the link below, notice as you scroll down on the church notes bulletin board that Dear Abbey will be a guest speaker on the very subject "Unintelligent Design".

    UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST CHURCH OF READING, MASSACHUSETTES

    ReplyDelete
  16. Derick Childress:

    ===
    Creationist: ...the reason that God gave gills to the whale shark and not the whale is simply because he wanted to.
    Scientist: That's not a very helpful explanation. Why would God-
    Creationist: HA! You said "God"! Not very "scientific" of you! You're making a religious argument!
    Scientist: I was just asking you to elaborate on your claim that-
    Creationist: I can't hear you! Metaphysics, Metaphysics, Metaphysics! Hey everyone, look at the evilutionist making such an unscientific argument!
    Scientist: I was just responding to your specific claim that-
    Creationist: Unscientific argument! Unscientific argument! Hey everybodeeee! Come an look!
    ===

    Just responding to my claim? My claim was that Prof. Hafer was misrepresenting religion as science.

    Or are you referring to some creationist's claim about our photoreceptor cells or the whale respiratory system? If so, which creationist?

    ReplyDelete
  17. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I love it when the blind Darwinists tell me the human body is badly designed.

    I answer, "Gee, I'll try to remember that next time I watch the Olympic games or the Shao Lin monks in action"

    They usually become conspicuously silent or change the subject after that. lol

    ReplyDelete
  19. Cornelius Hunter said...

    Just responding to my claim? My claim was that Prof. Hafer was misrepresenting religion as science.


    You make a lot of really stupid unsubstantiated claims CH. Why are you surprised people who do understand science make fun of them?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Gary said...

    I love it when the blind Darwinists tell me the human body is badly designed.

    I answer, "Gee, I'll try to remember that next time I watch the Olympic games or the Shao Lin monks in action"

    They usually become conspicuously silent or change the subject after that. lol


    Really little yap dog? You know of Olympic athletes and Shao Lin monks whose eyes don't have a blind spot? Please provide a reference for that amazing claim.

    Or were you talking out of your butt again?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Or were you talking out of your butt again?

    You're full of seething hate, aren't you Thornton? It doesn't take much for you to become unhinged, does it? I like that. LOL.

    ReplyDelete
  22. They usually become conspicuously silent or change the subject after that. lol

    It's called embarrassed silence. It's the same silence that follows a 40 year old who just admitted he still climbs into bed with his mom when he has a bad dream.

    ReplyDelete
  23. From the linked story at http://www.dailycampus.com:

    "Afterward there was time for a question-and-answer session where many of the questions focused around teaching creation theories in school, or the debate between intellectual design and evolution."

    ReplyDelete
  24. Derek said:

    "If canyons were real, why haven't they been replicated in the lab?"

    I guess nothing needs to be proven in science anymore. I never heard that. 1+1=3 if you are an evolutionist.

    How sad.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  25. Horton said:

    "See, that's exactly why I visit backwater IDCer blogs like this one. Some of the retarded spittle flying rants that come from the Fundy Cretos are just priceless."

    Nobody would miss you if you left since you contribute nothing of substance. However, you do have comic value because it is rare to see such a consistent display of ironic ignorance.

    "I hope you don't mind but I've got to submit that one to Fundies say the darndest things It ought to make the top 25, easy."

    Please do. If they are all like you they deserve to hear the truth every once and a while.


    "Psst...hey grapehead...evolution isn't a physical object. Evolution is a process. And the process of evolution has been observed in the wild and recreated in the lab countless times"

    Very impressive, complete delusion.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  26. Derek said:

    "The thing I love about reading the comments of this blog is that I still can't decide if that that post was a genuine expression of his opinion or if he is trying to make fun of fundamentalists by parodying their views. If I were trying to emulate the stereotypical speech of an ignorant, mysogynistic, homophobic, and bigoted backwoods hick, I don't think I could top Peter, except to introduce a few spelling and grammatical errors."

    What complete ignorance. Try reading a book on feminism. Every university textbook I have read in "woman's studies" advocates lesbianism. How typical of the delusional to react with lies when confronted with the truth.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  27. Peter:

    Try reading a book on feminism. Every university textbook I have read in "woman's studies" advocates lesbianism.

    I believe you and agree completely with whatever you say you've read.

    Evolution is only the tool to achieve her social goals: abortion, high divorce rates, and lesbian marriage.

    Evolution plus atheism plus impertinence.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Petra said...

    What complete ignorance. Try reading a book on feminism. Every university textbook I have read in "woman's studies" advocates lesbianism. How typical of the delusional to react with lies when confronted with the truth.


    LOL! Wouldn't surprise me at all if you've done extensive studies on how to be a woman. Go on, have the operation. It may help to reverse the extensive self-loathing that oozes from your every post.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Well, Peter that's some nice example of bigotry. Say hello to Fred Phelps from me next time you get out together to have some [heterosexual] fun.

    ReplyDelete
  30. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  31. These religious mandates for evolutionary thinking go back to the 17th c in modern science. More generally, they go back to antiquity. But of course you already knew that. So why play the games?

    No, I didn't know! But I guess you're right. With your special ideas about religion and evolution and your unique take on the history of science, how could you be wrong?

    I have some introspection to do now, perhaps I'll find out that deep down I'm a Zoroastrian!

    ReplyDelete
  32. Louis Savain said: "Do you realize that you make Hunter's main point for him every time you write a comment on this blog?"

    And what point would that be?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Geoxus to Hunter:

    But I guess you're right. With your special ideas about religion and evolution and your unique take on the history of science, how could you be wrong?

    Well, I, for one, have been skeptical of Hunter's claims about religious mandates going back to antiquity. Whenever he's been challenged about the relevance of those *alleged* mandates to current evolutionary research, he's been either inscrutable or has asserted that a religious presupposition is *implicit* in all of the primary literature. Even if that conjecture were supportable with evidence (which it is not), I don't see what difference would it make to the instrumentalism of evolutionary theory.

    Yeah, I said *instrumentalism*. Google it.

    ReplyDelete
  34. The bad design argument is the example of the inability of darwinists to follow logic. According to the ToE: Why the humans or the jiraffes are the way they are and not in another?
    Because they are selected by natural pressure. They are the best fitted for his ecosystem. Now, how the best fitted can be a bad design? If having the nerves behind the retina is better than ahead, why humans whith such arrengement were not selected. I having a long laringeal nerve is worst than a short why jiraffe mutants with shorter laringeal nerves were not selected?
    If anybody give me an answer for that and still think that it is bad design, needs to go study elementary logic.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Quotes from Blas:

    Because they are selected by natural pressure.

    No.

    Now, how the best fitted can be a bad design?

    You said the key word: best. That means better than any other actual alternative, not an absolute optimum.

    If having the nerves behind the retina is better than ahead, why humans whith such arrengement were not selected.

    Do you of any report of a inverted retine in humans? Please share. Variants are the first requisite for NS.

    I having a long laringeal nerve is worst than a short why jiraffe mutants with shorter laringeal [sic] nerves were not selected?

    Again, where are the mutants?

    ReplyDelete
  36. Cornelius: "Just responding to my claim? My claim was that Prof. Hafer was misrepresenting religion as science.

    Or are you referring to some creationist's claim about our photoreceptor cells or the whale respiratory system? If so, which creationist?"

    You seem to think that defending a scientific idea against a religiously or metaphysically motivated objection automatically makes said idea religious or metaphysical in nature. For instance, say Bob and Sue awoke to find their house in disarray, but all the doors locked and nothing missing. Sue has reason to think that an earthquake occurred during the night, as they live in an earthquake-prone area, neighbors have reported the same thing, and the contents of locked drawers had shifted as well. Bob thinks that a ghost burglar broke in and threw things around. If Sue were to start pointing out errors and inconsistencies in Bob's hypothesis, does that mean her hypothesis is predicated on metaphysical or supernatural claims? No! If Bob continues objecting, and Sue asks why the ghost burglar didn't take anything, does that mean that she is basing her earthquake hypothesis entirely on what a ghost would or would not do? Of course not.

    In that same way, evolution is supported and corroborated by multiple lines of consilient evidence from many different areas of scientific investigation. One extremely widespread claim by evolution-deniers is that the complexity of life we see can only be accounted for by invoking an Infinitely Intelligent Designer. When scientists simply prod this claim by pointing out odd design choices that not even a human would make, let alone an infinitely superior designer, the evolution deniers (such as yourself) try to make it seem that the only reason people accept evolution is because of 'metaphysical' arguments like that.

    CH: "Which explains why evolutionists such as Derick are, yes, evolutionists. Now there's nothing wrong with this of course, except when evolutionists turn around and claim their theory is about science."

    Pointing out bad, suboptimal, or inexplicable designs in response to claims that life was designed by an infinitely intelligent and competent designer does not magically turn evolution into a metaphysical view, especially when it is supported by mountains of convergent lines of evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  37. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  38. If we can find a good design reason for something that appears suboptimal, then that removes the argument from suboptimal design. We might find a reason for the inverted retina tomorrow. Here's an attempt now:

    http://spie.org/x42206.xml?ArticleID=x42206

    So the argument from suboptimal design is really an evolution-of-the-gaps argument.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Again, it seems Cornelius never gets around to substantiating the title of his post.

    What was that the quote again?

    Hafer: "Another mechanical mishap is how the design of our eyes actually impedes our sight because the “wiring” of nerves is placed in front of the photoreceptors. These photoreceptors are crucial because they recognize light and discern the world around us. If other animals, such as the cuddle fish, can have the wiring in the back, why is ours in the front?

    This is the question evolutionary theory is asking. This is in contrast to some question theists might want to answer, such as how all life we observe in nature fits into their particular theodicy.

    That's just what the designer must have wanted.

    Hafer: It seems like a poor choice, unless “the creator,” as Hafer called it, which intelligent design points to, favors squids and octopi over humans."

    Not only are we still missing a claim of of unintelligent design, but she notes that the designer could be intelligent - its just hat he favors squids and octopi.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Geo said,

    "Well, Peter that's some nice example of bigotry. Say hello to Fred Phelps from me next time you get out together to have some [heterosexual] fun."

    Finally, we are getting to the real motivation for these theophobics. This shows that the evolutionists views have nothing to do with science. I never made a value judgement on lesbianism and the "evolutionists" start calling me names. I just stated the obvious fact, which everyone knows: feminism promotes lesbian lifestyles. This is not a news flash. But apparently 'evolutionists' don't like the truth to be spoken. At least they are consistent. World take notice. Evolutionists have to run from the truth.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  41. Evolutionists have a horrible track record over the last 150 years of identifying so called biological mishaps only to be proven wrong when knowledge of the feature is better understood.

    Let's talk about a fairly recent evolutionary mishap.. "junk dna". Wow. Everyday it becomes more apparent that they completely missed the boat on that one. They'll be a lot of backtracking on that one for sure... like redefining the word "is" and "junk". LOL

    It was and is an absolute boondoggle that is playing out in our lifetime. Based on this flawed concept of evolutionary "mishaps" it wrongly accessed 98% of DNA. 98%!

    An absolute boondoggle.

    Let's hold them accountable. Intelligent design theorists got this one right. Hello?

    ReplyDelete
  42. This “problem” with the mammalian eye is kind of interesting because some IDlers have argued that the construction of the mammalian eye might actually be superior. But that would not solve the problem. Because that would immediately raise the question why the poor octopus ended up with the bad design.

    Additionally dolphins have mammalian eyes and also live under water. So even if at least under water both kinds of eyes were equally good then why did the designer go into the trouble of constructing two different kind of eyes? Why didn't he make use of the possibility that even human designers have to reuse working design?

    ReplyDelete
  43. @ Neal Tedford

    "Intelligent design theorists got this one right."

    That's something I always wanted to know. How do design theorists know that the designer would not design junk DNA?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Peter said...

    Finally, we are getting to the real motivation for these theophobics. This shows that the evolutionists views have nothing to do with science. I never made a value judgement on lesbianism and the "evolutionists" start calling me names.


    You made a big value judgment on a professional scientist you don't even know when you claimed she's using evolution as a means to achieve her social goals, remember? Here are your exact words

    Peter: "Evolution is only the tool to achieve her social goals: abortion, high divorce rates, and lesbian marriage."

    You made the stupid claim, now you're trying to do damage control. Truth is, you come across as the stereotypical middle-aged white Christian Fundy - homophobic, misogynistic, ignorant as a box of rocks. But Jeebus is on your side so to you that gives you the right to judge everybody and everything.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Blas said...

    The bad design argument is the example of the inability of darwinists to follow logic. According to the ToE: Why the humans or the jiraffes are the way they are and not in another?
    Because they are selected by natural pressure. They are the best fitted for his ecosystem. Now, how the best fitted can be a bad design? If having the nerves behind the retina is better than ahead, why humans whith such arrengement were not selected. I having a long laringeal nerve is worst than a short why jiraffe mutants with shorter laringeal nerves were not selected?
    If anybody give me an answer for that and still think that it is bad design, needs to go study elementary logic.


    Er...no Blas. Evolution can only work by modifying what is already there. It doesn't create optimum designs. It creates kludged-together out of whatever is handy designs that are *just good enough* to get by.

    An omnipotent designed is under no such constraints. An omnipotent designer starting from scratch has no logical reason to make kludged-together barely good enough features. But just good enough kludges are exactly what we find all the time in nature.

    The giraffe's long laryngeal nerve is a modification of the much shorter one in its early mammalian ancestors, which accounts for its bizarre routing. There's no logical reason for a from-scratch version to follow the path it does.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Derick Childress:

    ===
    You seem to think that defending a scientific idea against a religiously or metaphysically motivated objection automatically makes said idea religious or metaphysical in nature.
    ===

    I don't know what you are referring to here. To what "religiously or metaphysically motivated objection" do you think Hafer is responding? Hafer is making a religious or metaphysical claim here, why does that not count? More below ...


    ===
    For instance, say Bob and Sue awoke to find their house in disarray, but all the doors locked and nothing missing. Sue has reason to think that an earthquake occurred during the night, as they live in an earthquake-prone area, neighbors have reported the same thing, and the contents of locked drawers had shifted as well. Bob thinks that a ghost burglar broke in and threw things around. If Sue were to start pointing out errors and inconsistencies in Bob's hypothesis, does that mean her hypothesis is predicated on metaphysical or supernatural claims? No! If Bob continues objecting, and Sue asks why the ghost burglar didn't take anything, does that mean that she is basing her earthquake hypothesis entirely on what a ghost would or would not do? Of course not.
    ===

    The problem is your analogy doesn't relate to the real evolutionary claims.


    ===
    In that same way, evolution is supported and corroborated by multiple lines of consilient evidence from many different areas of scientific investigation.
    ===

    No, that is false. Yes, there is various evidences for evolution just as there is for a flat earth, but the evidence (from various fields) reveal problems for evolution.


    ===
    One extremely widespread claim by evolution-deniers is that the complexity of life we see can only be accounted for by invoking an Infinitely Intelligent Designer.
    ===

    Can you provide a few examples of leading or important "deniers" who make this claim. I'm not saying no such people are out there, I'm just unaware of who/what you are referring to.


    continued ...

    ReplyDelete
  47. Derick Childress:

    ===
    When scientists simply prod this claim by pointing out odd design choices that not even a human would make, let alone an infinitely superior designer, the evolution deniers (such as yourself) try to make it seem that the only reason people accept evolution is because of 'metaphysical' arguments like that.
    ===

    How do scientists know what "an infinitely superior designer" would design or create? For instance, how does Hafer know that our PRCs would not be backwards and, similarly, that our retinas would not have a blindspot? Your response that "she doesn't, she is merely testing a claim" is problematic because that would say nothing about evolution. Hafer and evolutionists use these claims about bad design as arguments for evolution. That means they (ie, evolutionists) believe these claims.


    ===
    CH: "Which explains why evolutionists such as Derick are, yes, evolutionists. Now there's nothing wrong with this of course, except when evolutionists turn around and claim their theory is about science."

    Pointing out bad, suboptimal, or inexplicable designs in response to claims that life was designed by an infinitely intelligent and competent designer does not magically turn evolution into a metaphysical view, especially when it is supported by mountains of convergent lines of evidence.
    ===

    No Derick. In typical fasion you responded to the OP with the claim that without evolution we are left with either an inept designer / creator or a deceitful designer / creator. You wrote:

    ###
    What an oversight on the part of Hafer! How could she have neglected to mention the other two, equally valid possibilities: 1: There was an inept designer, or 2: There is an infinitely intelligent designer, but He decided to make suboptimal designs to err... test our faith in His abilities.
    ###

    Given that those are your options, then of course you are an evolutionist. You cannot make religious claims that support evolution, and then back pedal out of it by claiming you were merely testing someone else's claim. If that were true, then it would have no implications for evolution--it merely would falsify that other person's claim. But Derick, I think you actually believe these things. Certainly this is the case throughout the apologetic literature, going back to the beginning of modern science. From Malebranche to Coyne, evolutionists make metaphysical claims that leave evolution as the only choice.

    What is remarkable is that you and evolutionists in general issue a steady stream of metaphysical claims and then literally turn right around and claim you have done no such thing.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Tedford:

    Let's talk about a fairly recent evolutionary mishap.. "junk dna". Wow. Everyday it becomes more apparent that they completely missed the boat on that one. They'll be a lot of backtracking on that one for sure... like redefining the word "is" and "junk". LOL

    It was and is an absolute boondoggle that is playing out in our lifetime. Based on this flawed concept of evolutionary "mishaps" it wrongly accessed 98% of DNA. 98%!


    Actually, when you look at the evidence, most of the human genome is still junk. Look at the numbers:

    The fruit fly genome size is 180 million bases; the fruit fly genome encodes ~17,000 genes.

    The human genome size is 3000 million bases. That's ~17 times as large. Does the human genome encode 17*17,000 = 290,000 genes? No, it contains only ~23,000 genes.

    Putting it another way, only 1% of the human genome is transcribed into protein-coding messenger RNA (mRNA) and non–protein-coding RNA (ncRNA), and DNA elements that control the expression of genes occupy another ∼0.5%. At most, only 5% of the human and other mammalian genomes us under evolutionary constraint*, suggesting that biological functions reside there. That leaves 95% of the human genome unaccounted for.

    And there are plenty of organisms with even larger genomes than humans. Mucho junko out there in the biosphere.

    *Evolutionary constraint. Choke on it.

    ReplyDelete
  49. I'd also add that the term Junk DNA was never a claim of universal non-funciton. Instead, it was a claim that it was-non coding. This has been made clear time and time again, yet we still hear the same complaint.

    It's as if theists merely find the term offensive. God doesn't make junk!

    ReplyDelete
  50. The junk DNA denial seems to me to be the most blatant non sequitur of ID. Why wouldn't the designer add biologically superfluous features? Why so suddenly you know him so well?

    Maybe the designer has an artistic temperament. Maybe he likes his biology baroque. Or maybe he's sloppy and uninterested. I don't know. Funny thing is, you don't know either!

    Yet this is one of ID "predictions":

    http://www.researchintelligentdesign.org/wiki/Predictions_of_Intelligent_Design#Function

    ReplyDelete
  51. natschuster:

    If we can find a good design reason for something that appears suboptimal, then that removes the argument from suboptimal design.

    Yes, but why is suboptimal design incompatible with ID? More interestingly, what are the designs for? To evaluate optimality you must have an optimum in mind, a goal. How do you know that the purpose of organisms is to survive and reproduce?

    We might find a reason for the inverted retina tomorrow. Here's an attempt now: [URL]

    I heard about that. Sounds good. ITOH, you could attain the same optical effect putting something else before the photoreceptors to prevent scattering and keeping the neurons arranged in the coleoid fashion. That would make the blind spot completely unnecessary.

    Also, it would be interesting to make a similar simulation for coleoid eyes, keeping in mind that they detect light polarisation, not wavelength IIRC.

    ReplyDelete
  52. It's quite simple, see? Good design is evidence for ID because we know that an intelligent designer would use good design as much as possible because that's what intelligence entails. Bad design isn't evidence for or against anything because we can't possibly know what an intelligent designer would or would not do or why.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Scott:

    It's as if theists merely find the term offensive. God doesn't make junk!

    Wow. What a lame and gutless way to try to excuse yourself after you have been caught with your hands in the cookie jar. The real truth is that Darwinian evolution theory predicted that junk DNA should be all over the place. You can't deny this because it's all over the place. History condemns you.

    Now that your dumb prediction has been found to be a total sack of BS, you're turning it around to make it look like that junk DNA never meant what its name implies (why did you morons choose to name it thus, in that case?). Now you are telling us with a straight face that it's ID's fault that your stupid crap is revealed in the open for everyone to see because IDers happen to believe in a God that does not make mistakes. So what? There are theists who believe that the designers can and did make mistakes. How does that exonerate your Junk DNA BS?

    Cornelius is so right about all of you. This religious stuff is an addiction with you people.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Louis Savain said...

    blah blah blah


    For a blowhard who's already announced four time he wasn't going to post here anymore, you sure post here a lot.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Thorton,

    I changed my mind. You got a problem with that? That junk DNA crap is getting on your nerves maybe?

    ReplyDelete
  56. Louis,

    I am answering not because you deserve an answer, but because others might get something from this answer. (I couldn't care less if you care or not.)

    The real truth is that Darwinian evolution theory predicted that junk DNA should be all over the place.

    The "real truth" is that you get your information from the wrong sources, and that you don't understand the science at all. Junk DNA, which indeed exists, is not a "prediction of Darwinian evolution." Evolution explains its existence, rather than predict it. What evolution would "predict" is that remnants of things that are not used any more, but that betray common history/ancestry, should exist. We certainly see that, and not only in junk DNA. Whether that would be or not compatible with an "Intelligent Designer-Creationism" stance, is another story that I don't care about, because ID is not science.

    You can't deny this because it's all over the place. History condemns you.

    Nope, your ignorance condemns you. The proper understanding of what evolution is, and how it works, would help you figure out why Bacteria have little selfish and junk DNA compared to us, or why organisms with high metabolic rates tend to have a lower proportion than organisms with low metabolic rates, and so on. The thing is, junk and selfish DNA demonstrate evolution to extreme points when analyzed beyond "it exists." Even better, a prediction from the existence of a lot of junk and selfish DNA is that they might acquire sometimes a function, such as that of regulatory sequences (it is right there in one of the first articles on selfish DNA). Yet, it is the confirmation of this prediction that creationists bring to the table in their complete and utter ignorance of both evolutionary processes, and the concepts of junk and of selfish DNA. I doubt you see this: a prediction from the existence of loads of junk and selfish DNA is the evolution or some of it into regulatory elements. Scientists are finding examples of such thing, and creationists think that a confirmation of what should happen given such background is evidence against evolution. Isn't that interesting?

    ReplyDelete
  57. NE:

    The "real truth" is that you get your information from the wrong sources, and that you don't understand the science at all.

    I don't know which is worse about evolutionists, their insufferable pomposity or their blatant dishonesty.

    [The rest of your moronic BS deleted for sanity's sake]

    ReplyDelete
  58. Louis Savain said...

    I changed my mind. You got a problem with that? That junk DNA crap is getting on your nerves maybe?


    Not at all. It's a woman's prerogative to change her mind.

    Since your computer science training makes you an expert on ID, maybe you could answer a few questions:

    What are the mechanisms by which non-natural “intelligently designed” features were actually manufactured?

    What raw materials were used, and what forces or techniques were employed to assemble the materials into the final product?

    Was the designer also the manufacturer, or did he contract out the job?

    How many initial units were produced, and where was the work done?

    When did this design / manufacture take place? Was it instantaneous, or did it take thousands or millions of years?

    Was there one designer or a committee? (insert joke here) Were there multiple designers working at cross purposes, creating predator/prey relationships?

    I'm really looking forward to learning all about ID from an expert like yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Thorton said:"Evolution can only work by modifying what is already there. It doesn't create optimum designs. It creates kludged-together out of whatever is handy designs that are *just good enough* to get by."

    Ok, then RM+NS make an animal similar to a rat became a bat with all his sonar system, and in the mean time couldn´t get rid of a "bad" designed laryngeal nerve in a jiraffe.
    And if Evolution only can do "just good enough" systems how the proteins of the electron trasport system could evolve?

    Evolution can do just whatever evolutionist want.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Thorton:

    Not at all. It's a woman's prerogative to change her mind.

    Oh, now you are calling me a woman as a way to insult me? So being a woman is supposed to be something to be ashamed of? A little sexist, aren't you, Thorton?

    [blah, blah, crap deleted]

    ReplyDelete
  61. Blas said...

    Thorton said:"Evolution can only work by modifying what is already there. It doesn't create optimum designs. It creates kludged-together out of whatever is handy designs that are *just good enough* to get by."

    Ok, then RM+NS make an animal similar to a rat became a bat with all his sonar system, and in the mean time couldn´t get rid of a "bad" designed laryngeal nerve in a jiraffe.


    There was insufficient evolutionary pressure to get rid of the kludged together giraffe's laryngeal nerve. The modified one there now, while not optimal, is still good enough to get by. And that's all evolution requires, getting by long enough to reproduce.


    And if Evolution only can do "just good enough" systems how the proteins of the electron trasport system could evolve?

    By RM+NS, same as every other feature

    Evolution can do just whatever evolutionist want.

    Scientists don't 'want' evolution to do anything. The simple observed fact is that evolution did produce the diversity of life we see.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Hey Louis, you forgot to answer the questions on ID. Here they are again:

    What are the mechanisms by which non-natural “intelligently designed” features were actually manufactured?

    What raw materials were used, and what forces or techniques were employed to assemble the materials into the final product?

    Was the designer also the manufacturer, or did he contract out the job?

    How many initial units were produced, and where was the work done?

    When did this design / manufacture take place? Was it instantaneous, or did it take thousands or millions of years?

    Was there one designer or a committee? (insert joke here) Were there multiple designers working at cross purposes, creating predator/prey relationships?


    I thought you were an expert on the subject. Are you saying now you were just BSing us? What a disappointment you are.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Louis: You can't deny this because it's all over the place. History condemns you.

    Evolutionary theorists can't deny offending theists by using the term Junk-DNA as a category for non-coding DNA?

    Louis: Now that your dumb prediction has been found to be a total sack of BS, you're turning it around to make it look like that junk DNA never meant what its name implies (why did you morons choose to name it thus, in that case?).

    I have a number of items I keep for sentimental reasons would fit the definition of "junk." This is because most other people would have discarded them by now. Some of these items still function, but I don't actually use them anymore as they're outdated and incompatible. Some stopped working, so they're used for decoration or some other unrelated purpose. They're junk despite not being universally non-functional.

    In either case, I'm not at all offended by use of the term because I realize they actually fit the definition of junk should you actually bother to look it up.

    Louis: Cornelius is so right about all of you. This religious stuff is an addiction with you people.

    Since you're new here, I'll extend the invitation to you as well. Please point out a paper or reference a quote that suggests DNA classified as Junk is universally non-functional, rather than non-coding. We keep asking for such references, yet none are produced.

    But, sooner or later, the very same people make the same complaint without backing it up their claim. We again ask for references and none are provided, etc. ad nauseum.

    What other other conclusion should we reach other than these continually repeated, yet never substantiated, complaints reflect offense to calling anything they perceive as being made by God "junk"?

    If you have a better explanation, by all means, we're listening.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Thorton and Scott:

    [blah, blah]

    You two bore me.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Louis Savain said...

    Thorton and Scott:

    [blah, blah]

    You two bore me.


    But you entertain me! I love laughing at pompous IDiots who get called on their bluster and fail miserably!

    ReplyDelete
  66. Sexist Thorton:

    But you entertain me! I love laughing at pompous IDiots who get called on their bluster and fail miserably!

    Sometimes I get tired of answering habitual liars and @ssholes. If I can do a simple search on Google to find out what evolutionists have said about junk DNA in the past, others can too. Those who truly seek truth will find it without either my help or your lies.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Louise Savain said...

    Sometimes I get tired of answering habitual liars and @ssholes.


    We'll never know because you don't have the 'nads or the goods to answer here.

    If I can do a simple search on Google to find out what evolutionists have said about junk DNA in the past, others can too.

    Too bad you can't do a simple Google search and learn that most designs don't require hierarchies. But I imagine staying ignorant is a lot less threatening to your religious beliefs.

    If you ever learn anything about ID, you be sure to come back and share it, OK?

    Those who truly seek truth will find it without either my help or your lies.

    LOL! Man, you Fundies sure get surly when your called on your blustering nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  68. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  69. [The rest of your moronic BS deleted for sanity's sake]

    Just as I thought. It flew way above your head even though it was written at kindergarten level. Typical ignorant, full-of-yourself, who can't go beyond puppet shows, while in your puny mind you wonder how dare we question your wisdom. Good thing that it was not written for your sake.

    If I can do a simple search on Google to find out what evolutionists have said about junk DNA in the past, others can too.

    Sure, but for some mysterious reason you keep looking at creationist quackery. Then maybe barely at little notes for a general public that don't explain the science too deeply. That has to be the "way to find truth." Loony-creationist method of discourse (I hope this word will not overwork your brain): yell, yell, yell. Pretend disinterest at the point where you would have to actually use your mind. Careful Louis. Your brain might burn out. Just go to sleep. Glass of milk?

    ReplyDelete
  70. CH: ""These religious mandates for evolutionary thinking go back to the 17th c in modern science.""


    Two questions:

    1) I find it interesting that CH is quick to accuse evolutionist of metaphysical thinking, but why do the creationists seem to get a pass? Surely, their metaphysical motivations and beliefs are even more blatant? Yet, I cannot recall CH criticizing the links of Kent Hovind or Ken Ham for their blatant metaphysical beliefs? Why the inconsistency CH?

    2) In your article "Survey of failed evolutionary predictions" CH states

    One way to evaluate a theory is to compare it to alternative explanations. There are, however, potential pitfalls to this approach. First, any such comparison will crucially depend on what alternative explanations are used in the comparison. If care is not taken good alternatives can be misrepresented or even omitted altogether. And of course there may be alternatives not yet conceive

    This gives us some clue as to why when prompted CH usually does not think an alternative is necessary to overthrow evolution. But has a scientific revolution ever happened in science without a proper alternative? Isn't it always the case that a new paradigm is only introduced when a better set of hypotheses/theories are introduced? Think of the major scientific revolutions - how many of them occurred simply by removing a current theory?


    Look at this partial list of scientific revolutions:

    The replacement of the Earth as center of the universe by the Sun as the center of the solar system
    The replacement of the Aristotelian theory that matter was continuous and made up of the elements Earth, Water, Air, Fire, and Aether by rival ideas that matter was atomistic or corpuscular[7] or that its chemical composition was even more complex[8]
    The replacement of the Aristotelian idea that heavy bodies, by their nature, moved straight down toward their natural places; that light bodies, by their nature, moved straight up toward their natural place; and that ethereal bodies, by their nature, moved in unchanging circular motions[9] with the idea that all bodies are heavy and move according to the same physical laws
    The replacement of the Impetus theory that all motions require the continued action of a cause by the concept of inertia: that motion is a state that, once started, continues indefinitely without further cause[10]
    The replacement of Galen's treatment of the venous and arterial systems as two separate systems with William Harvey's concept that blood circulated from the arteries to the veins "impelled in a circle, and is in a state of ceaseless motion"[11]


    What's the key word here? Replacement!

    So the question for CH is why does he think evolution can be overthrown without a replacement when there appears to be absolutely no precedent for this in the history of science? (other than his own wishful thinking?)

    ReplyDelete
  71. NE:

    Just as I thought. It flew way above your head even though it was written at kindergarten level. Typical ignorant, full-of-yourself, who can't go beyond puppet shows, while in your puny mind you wonder how dare we question your wisdom. Good thing that it was not written for your sake.

    As usual, you people just cannot keep your insufferable pomposity under control. It must be a disease or something, for which, I'm sure, a cure will be found in the not too distant future.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Janfeld:

    ===
    Two questions:

    1) I find it interesting that CH is quick to accuse evolutionist of metaphysical thinking, but why do the creationists seem to get a pass? Surely, their metaphysical motivations and beliefs are even more blatant? Yet, I cannot recall CH criticizing the links of Kent Hovind or Ken Ham for their blatant metaphysical beliefs? Why the inconsistency CH?
    ===

    Sure, like evolutionists, creationists are religiously / metaphysically driven. But I don't criticize them for that just as I don't criticize evolutionists for that. I don't see a problem with it. I do see a problem with lying about it though. And that's the difference. Creationists make religious claims, and then they turn right around and *acknowledge* it, rather than lie about it. I would disagree with them on things, but I don't think they misrepresent their position.


    ===
    2) In your article "Survey of failed evolutionary predictions" CH states

    One way to evaluate a theory is to compare it to alternative explanations. There are, however, potential pitfalls to this approach. First, any such comparison will crucially depend on what alternative explanations are used in the comparison. If care is not taken good alternatives can be misrepresented or even omitted altogether. And of course there may be alternatives not yet conceive

    This gives us some clue as to why when prompted CH usually does not think an alternative is necessary to overthrow evolution. But has a scientific revolution ever happened in science without a proper alternative? Isn't it always the case that a new paradigm is only introduced when a better set of hypotheses/theories are introduced? Think of the major scientific revolutions - how many of them occurred simply by removing a current theory?

    [...]


    What's the key word here? Replacement!

    So the question for CH is why does he think evolution can be overthrown without a replacement when there appears to be absolutely no precedent for this in the history of science? (other than his own wishful thinking?)
    ===

    I don't disagree with you that people like theories rather than "we don't know." But in the meantime I am absolutely convinced that we should have truth in advertising in science. I once gave a talk to a group of public school science teachers, recommending an accurate teaching of evolution rather than the "evolution is an obvious, compelling truth" mythology. One of the teachers responded to me that her students needed to have certainty in the teachings, not questions, open issues, etc. I think this is the wrong way to go. I really think we need to stop the misrepresentations and myths we tell ourselves. In fact, it is probably a prerequisite to having that replacement theory.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Louis Savant-to-Common English phraseology dictionary, first entry:

    Luis S:
    "Insufferable pomposity."

    C. English:
    "I have no clue what you said."

    ReplyDelete
  74. NE:

    "I have no clue what you said."

    I understand perfectly what you said. I just don't care to debate anything with you. You can go fly a kite for all I care.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Hunter:

    Creationists make religious claims, and then they turn right around and *acknowledge* it, rather than lie about it. I would disagree with them on things, but I don't think they misrepresent their position.

    Really?

    The creationists in the Dover School District lied under oath.

    Intelligent Design is a duplicitous form of that classic oxymoron, Creation Science.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Thorton: "You know of Olympic athletes and Shao Lin monks whose eyes don't have a blind spot? Please provide a reference for that amazing claim."

    Thorton, thorton. Question: When was the last time your blind spot impeded you in doing anything. Just name it.

    Lets see, couldn't drive cuz of ma blind spot. couldn't read cuz of ma blind spot. couldnt type on my ipad cuz of ma blind spot. couldn't see the numbers on my beer tab cuz of ma blind spot. couldn't learn about the design of the human eye cuz of ma.....BLIND SPOT!

    Damned, that blind spot. It's killing me.

    Anyway, just one serious problem caused by your blind spot. Just one.

    Here comes sparky!

    ReplyDelete
  77. Thorton:"There was insufficient evolutionary pressure to get rid of the kludged together giraffe's laryngeal nerve. The modified one there now, while not optimal, is still good enough to get by. And that's all evolution requires, getting by long enough to reproduce."

    Sorry, but when evolutionist found a highly conserved DNA sequence, or a very common trait, don`t you said that it is because was under high selective pressure then the trait couldn`t change? Why the laryngeal nerve path conserved trough all the vertebrates do not change?

    "By RM+NS, same as every other feature"

    So RM+NS can do both good enough and perfect. RM+NS seems a greek tragedy god.

    "Scientists don't 'want' evolution to do anything. The simple observed fact is that evolution did produce the diversity of life we see."

    No , darwinist assume evolution is a fact so any fact Shoul be explained by evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Thorton

    ol' buddy.

    I've been on UD for a while. You'll laugh when I tell you I'm in moderation on UD. Go figure.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Thorton,

    "You made the stupid claim, now you're trying to do damage control."

    I am not backtracking one mm. You have supplied no proof that my statements are false. Is Hafer really a fundy? I think not.

    "Truth is, you come across as the stereotypical middle-aged white Christian Fundy - homophobic, misogynistic, ignorant as a box of rocks. But Jeebus is on your side so to you that gives you the right to judge everybody and everything."

    Your hypocrisy is blatant. You are exhibiting the typical mindset of a gay rights activist. Hide in the darkness and achieve your goals through the back door. Try as you like, you can not suppress the truth with your ad hominens.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  80. Cornelius Hunter said...

    Sure, like evolutionists, creationists are religiously / metaphysically driven. But I don't criticize them for that just as I don't criticize evolutionists for that. I don't see a problem with it. I do see a problem with lying about it though. And that's the difference. Creationists make religious claims, and then they turn right around and *acknowledge* it, rather than lie about it. I would disagree with them on things, but I don't think they misrepresent their position.


    (cough cough)

    cdesign proponentist


    .

    ReplyDelete
  81. Louis Savain said...

    NE: "I have no clue what you said."

    I understand perfectly what you said. I just don't care to debate anything with you. You can go fly a kite for all I care.


    We know. Most creationists and crackpots turn and run rather than face the battleship sized holes in their arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Blas said...

    So RM+NS can do both good enough and perfect. RM+NS seems a greek tragedy god


    I don't know of any place where RM+NS has done 'perfect'. Examples please, along with the evidence for perfection rather than just'good'.

    ReplyDelete
  83. The tree of life is an artifact of some early scientific studies that aren't really holding up. There is not a tree of life.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Pedant:

    ===
    The creationists in the Dover School District lied under oath.

    Intelligent Design is a duplicitous form of that classic oxymoron, Creation Science.
    ===

    Need to have specifics Pedant. What creationist lied and what was the lie? Was he from AIG, or ICR, or ???. How did he misrepresent creationism?

    Intelligent Design, how is it "duplicitious"? What specifically is the lie about ID theory? Who said it? Vague accusations about lies are unfortunately common amongst evolutionists. I'm not saying you don't have some valid examples, but need specifics.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Thorton: "I don't know of any place where RM+NS has done 'perfect'. Examples please, along with the evidence for perfection rather than just'good'."

    Perfection and bad design are both non scientific expression. Both are impossible to test or to prove. But that do not overcame the darwinian contraditions.
    Why there conserved traits since the UCLA? If they are good enough why they do not have changed? are they impossible to improve? So they are not "good enough" they are the "best fitted".
    So RM+NS can do both "good enough" or "best fitted", something that can be improoved (and may be will be) or something that cannot. In wich category we have to put the laringeal nerve path?
    Usually darwinism assume something that you found in many fila is "conserved" and then not "good enough" but close to "best fit" or difficult to improve. Shouldn´t be the case of the laryngeal nerve path?

    ReplyDelete
  86. Blas said...

    Thorton: "I don't know of any place where RM+NS has done 'perfect'. Examples please, along with the evidence for perfection rather than just'good'."

    Perfection and bad design are both non scientific expression. Both are impossible to test or to prove.


    Wrong. Perfection as you claim is impossible to test or prove. Less than optimum (but still 'good enough') design is easy to demonstrate as the case with the unnecessary length and circuitous routing of the giraffe's laryngeal nerve.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Thorton: "Wrong. Perfection as you claim is impossible to test or prove. Less than optimum (but still 'good enough') design is easy to demonstrate as the case with the unnecessary length and circuitous routing of the giraffe's laryngeal nerve. "

    If it is so easy, show the demostration.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Blas said...

    Thorton: "Wrong. Perfection as you claim is impossible to test or prove. Less than optimum (but still 'good enough') design is easy to demonstrate as the case with the unnecessary length and circuitous routing of the giraffe's laryngeal nerve. "

    If it is so easy, show the demostration.


    In mammals the laryngeal nerve runs from the cranium down under the aortic arch and back to the larynx.

    In giraffes due to their elongated necks the nerve has to travel up to 20' to cover an actual straight line distance of only 2'.

    A much shorter 'designed' nerve running straight from the brain to the larynx would have the advantages of

    1. faster muscle response time as the nerve impulses have much less distance to travel
    2. less chance of serious nerve damage due to blows to the neck.
    3. less biological material used = lower energy cost for the animal

    While the actual nerve still works for the giraffe, it is not an optimum design.

    Q.E.D.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Thorton:
    While the actual nerve still works for the giraffe, it is not an optimum design.

    I agree but you know that an ID advocate will simply say that the length and route of the nerve may have some as yet unknown "purpose". In fact they can make the same argument for any supposed example of less than optimum design. That's the great thing about not knowing the intents or abilities of the designer. It's really just an extension of the religious view that, when things are great, God is good, and when things aren't so good, well then God works in mysterious ways.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Norm:

    I've gotten the answer "We hope to have an answer for you someday" for various questions about origins from many evolutionists. And "we'll find all those transitional fossils any day now" as well. So if this is an acceptable response for an evolutionist, why isn't it acceptable for an ID proponent?

    ReplyDelete
  91. natschuster said...

    I've gotten the answer "We hope to have an answer for you someday" for various questions about origins from many evolutionists. And "we'll find all those transitional fossils any day now" as well. So if this is an acceptable response for an evolutionist, why isn't it acceptable for an ID proponent?


    You get 'we don't know yet' on origins because origins are still being investigated. And not having fossils of every transitional series doesn't mean we don't have any. There are hundreds of transitional sequences are known to science.

    ID's behavior is not acceptable because ID says 'we don't know yet' to every last question asked of it. Not just on origins but on mechanisms, on timeline, on materials, on processes, on the designer's identity. ID can't provide a single answer yet the IDiots pushers still keep trying to sneak it into public schools.

    Saying 'I don't know' for some things is not wrong. Saying 'I don't know' as an excuse for every question then still claiming your idea is valid is very wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  92. natschuster:

    Because "we hope to have an answer" is equivalent to saying "we don't know but we're working on it", which is just fine. However, if I point to the laryngeal nerve in a giraffe and cite that as a less than optimal design, an ID supporter will not say "we don't know but we're working on it" because of course, they're not working on it because there is nothing to work on because they don't have a mechanism.

    Evolutionists are busy working to fill in gaps in our knowledge whereas IDists only wish to create them.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Thorton: “In giraffes due to their elongated necks the nerve has to travel up to 20' to cover an actual straight line distance of only 2'.
    A much shorter 'designed' nerve running straight from the brain to the larynx would have the advantages of
    1. faster muscle response time as the nerve impulses have much less distance to travel
    2. less chance of serious nerve damage due to blows to the neck.
    3. less biological material used = lower energy cost for the animal
    While the actual nerve still works for the giraffe, it is not an optimum design.”

    According to you, this is a scientific demostration. Now I understand what drwinist mean by the evolution is a fact.
    Lets try an hipotetical demostration:
    Materials and Methods: Wild jiraffes obtained from a local zoo were cloned in order to obtain the shorter laryngeal nerve possible. Four couples of homocigotes were growed in captivity until be able for mating. Then were translated to a wild park in Africa, free of jiraffes. Other four couples of wild type jiraffes from zoos were released in the same park.
    All the springs of the each next generation of jiraffes were sampled for DNA studies and at the dead of each jiraffe was autopsied in order to relate the genotype nd the phenotype for the laryngeal nerve path.
    Results: Possibility 1) After a number of generations the recombinant genotype and phenotype is clerly in reggression. Long laryngeal nerve pathway is predominant.
    Results: Possibility 2) After a number of generations the recombinant genotype and phenotype is clerly in dominant. Long laryngeal nerve pathway is probably going to disappear

    Which result predict the ToE?.

    ReplyDelete
  94. natschuster

    I've gotten the answer "We hope to have an answer for you someday" for various questions about origins from many evolutionists. And "we'll find all those transitional fossils any day now" as well. So if this is an acceptable response for an evolutionist, why isn't it acceptable for an ID proponent?

    But here is the question again: Why do you think optimum design is a prediction of ID? How can ID evaluate how good a design is?

    Norm said:

    ...it's really just an extension of the religious view that, when things are great, God is good, and when things aren't so good, well then God works in mysterious ways.

    Is that the answer to my first question?

    ReplyDelete
  95. Hunter:

    Need to have specifics Pedant. What creationist lied and what was the lie? Was he from AIG, or ICR, or ???. How did he misrepresent creationism?

    How disingenuous. The overarching lie on the part of the defendants in the Dover case was to portray their religious views as objective science in order to sneak them into public school classrooms in violation of the Establishment Clause. In your critical reading of the Kitzmiller transcript and attendant reportage, how could you have missed that?

    Specific lies under oath that I was referring to were by Bonsell and Buckingham concerning the source of funding for Of Pandas and People.

    Intelligent Design, how is it "duplicitious"? What specifically is the lie about ID theory? Who said it? Vague accusations about lies are unfortunately common amongst evolutionists. I'm not saying you don't have some valid examples, but need specifics.

    See Thorton's post above, linking to cdesign proponentist.

    You recklessly toss off blanket, nonspecific accusations of lying on the part of '"evolutionists" and then have the chutzpah to talk about "vague accusations about lies [that] are unfortunately common amongst [sic] evolutionists."

    If you have any interest in credibility, you might specify the "lying" to which you were referring when you said:

    Sure, like evolutionists, creationists are religiously / metaphysically driven. But I don't criticize them for that just as I don't criticize evolutionists for that. I don't see a problem with it. I do see a problem with lying about it though. And that's the difference.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Blas said...

    According to you, this is a scientific demostration. Now I understand what drwinist mean by the evolution is a fact.


    So according to you, if I asked you to scientifically demonstrate that you have a brain, the only way you could do it by having someone cut your head in two with a chainsaw. Is that right? Sheeesh....

    The rest of your word salad makes absolutely no sense at all.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Thorton: "So according to you, if I asked you to scientifically demonstrate that you have a brain, the only way you could do it by having someone cut your head in two with a chainsaw. Is that right? "

    No, in this time we have many other tools to see my brain without open my skul. But if we shoukd have any we have many eviddence that a man without a brain doesn´t work. So is good guess that I have a brain no matter nobody could see it. That far different from three advantage not proved. And advantage proved means, measured in a controlled enviroment. If not are only guesses

    Don´t be chicken which is the result of my hipotetycal experiment if ToE is a fact? Darwinians predict everything only after the result?

    ReplyDelete
  98. Pedant:

    ===
    Specific lies under oath that I was referring to were by Bonsell and Buckingham concerning the source of funding for Of Pandas and People.
    ===

    A couple of school board members? You've got to be kidding. How is this possibly comparable to leading evolution apologists--media savvy professors at major universities, authors, etc--who routinely and repeatedly claim evolution is an undeniable scientific fact, and entailing no metaphysics? Even when these lies are pointed out they refuse to correct them.

    ===
    You recklessly toss off blanket, nonspecific accusations of lying on the part of '"evolutionists"
    ===

    Reckless nonspecific accusations? A few examples of specific accusations:

    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/12/evolutionists-and-giraffes-recurrent.html
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/11/abusing-science.html
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/07/web-weavers.html
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/07/junk-religion.html
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/06/why-coyne-is-false.html
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/06/jerry-coyne-human-embryo-has-gill-slits.html
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/06/arguing-with-evolutionists-or-how-i.html
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/05/his-own-judge.html
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/02/coyne-evolutionary-arguments-not.html

    ReplyDelete
  99. Oh goody.

    Cornelius is asked to support his claims of scientists lying and instead he provides a list of links to his unsupported claims of them lying.

    You're pretty unclear on this whole 'supporting evidence' concept, aren't you CH?

    Here's a clue for you CH, since you desperately need one: Someone presenting scientific evidence that contradicts your narrow religious beliefs isn't considered lying.

    ReplyDelete
  100. That far different from three advantage not proved. And advantage proved means, measured in a controlled enviroment. If not are only guesses

    Nope. The speed of nerve impulse transmission has been empirically measured to be between 2m/sec 100m/sec, depending on the nerve type.

    Take two nerves of identical material, one 0.5m long and the other 5.0m long. What is the relative time it will take a nerve impulse to traverse each one? Which one gets the signal to the brain quicker?

    I can't comment on the rest of your goofy 'experiment' because it still makes no sense.

    ReplyDelete
  101. CH: "I don't disagree with you that people like theories rather than "we don't know." But in the meantime I am absolutely convinced that we should have truth in advertising in science. I once gave a talk to a group of public school science teachers, recommending an accurate teaching of evolution rather than the "evolution is an obvious, compelling truth" mythology. One of the teachers responded to me that her students needed to have certainty in the teachings, not questions, open issues, etc. I think this is the wrong way to go. I really think we need to stop the misrepresentations and myths we tell ourselves. In fact, it is probably a prerequisite to having that replacement theory."

    On the face of it this all sounds very noble. But again is there a precedent to this? Does CH think that the world is suddenly going to give up on evolutionary theory and just say "what now"? Especially since interestingly enough CH does indeed have an alternative explanation - one that he has shared with us. He believes it, he accepts it. He just knows that it won't fly as science. Perhaps he's just hoping we'll all become born-again then we won't have to worry about any of this stuff anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Thorton "Take two nerves of identical material, one 0.5m long and the other 5.0m long. What is the relative time it will take a nerve impulse to traverse each one? Which one gets the signal to the brain quicker?"
    And get the signal to the brain quicker is and advantage? Then why the jiraffe developed that long neck? The shorter the best ¿no?

    Off course my experiment has no sense! Nothing in biology has sense in the light of the evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Blas said...

    Off course my experiment has no sense! Nothing in biology has sense in the light of the evolution.


    OK, fine, I'll do your experiment, but you have to provide the giraffes. Please scientifically demonstrate the viability of ID by designing and manufacturing a new species of giraffes from scratch.

    Let me know when they are ready to ship.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Hunter:

    A couple of school board members? You've got to be kidding. How is this possibly comparable to leading evolution apologists--media savvy professors at major universities, authors, etc--who routinely and repeatedly claim evolution is an undeniable scientific fact, and entailing no metaphysics?

    Let’s hoist another one for old time’s sake:

    No facts are undeniable.

    Provide quotes of such claims of undeniability and the names of the persons who committed them and we in the scientific community will shun them.

    Even when these lies are pointed out they refuse to correct them.

    I’ll bet they don’t read your blog or your books. It’s high time to submit that manuscript to Nature.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Janfeld:

    But has a scientific revolution ever happened in science without a proper alternative? Isn't it always the case that a new paradigm is only introduced when a better set of hypotheses/theories are introduced? Think of the major scientific revolutions - how many of them occurred simply by removing a current theory?
    .....
    So the question for CH is why does he think evolution can be overthrown without a replacement when there appears to be absolutely no precedent for this in the history of science? (other than his own wishful thinking?)


    To which Hunter replied:

    I really think we need to stop the misrepresentations and myths we tell ourselves. In fact, it is probably a prerequisite to having that replacement theory.

    Hunter claims that he has identified those misrepresentations and myths, so he has his prerequisites in hand. What is his next step going to be?

    ReplyDelete
  106. Thorton:"Let me know when they are ready to ship."

    Sorry, you do not understand is an hipotetical experiment. Like guess the speed and the orbit of planets in an hipotetical system given the masses of the star and the planets.

    Just wich of both results are predicted by ToE?

    1
    2
    both
    None

    ReplyDelete
  107. Blas said...

    Thorton:"Let me know when they are ready to ship."

    Sorry, you do not understand is an hipotetical experiment.


    Sorry Blas, I don't want "hipotetical" experiments. Your answer would just be guessing.

    I want to see an actual scientific demonstration of ID. So demonstrate to me it's possible to design and manufacture giraffes from scratch.

    When can we expect your results?

    ReplyDelete
  108. Sorry I´m not an ID supporter.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Blas said...

    Sorry I´m not an ID supporter.


    OK then, how did the giraffe get its elongated and strangely routed laryngeal nerve?

    ReplyDelete
  110. Thorton: "OK then, how did the giraffe get its elongated and strangely routed laryngeal nerve?"

    We were discussing if it is scientific say that it is bad designed. How the giraffe get it nobody knows. But if the giraffe get it by evolution there are two possibilities: it is not bad designed or evolution is not only RM+NS, is RM+NS+restriccions.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Blas said...

    Thorton: "OK then, how did the giraffe get its elongated and strangely routed laryngeal nerve?"

    We were discussing if it is scientific say that it is bad designed.


    No, we were discussing if it was an optimal design. It isn't, as I already showed you.

    How the giraffe get it nobody knows.

    Wrong. Science knows with a very high degree of certainty.

    But if the giraffe get it by evolution there are two possibilities: it is not bad designed or evolution is not only RM+NS, is RM+NS+restriccions.

    We already covered that too. Evolution is certainly 'restricted' by only being able to modify what is already there. In this case the short-necked mammalian ancestors to the modern giraffe already had their laryngeal nerve routed under the aortic arch as all mammals do. Then when the longer necked giraffe evolved it was not possible to 'reroute' the nerve just with small evolutionary changes. Evolution had to just modify (in this case lengthen) what was already there. That's what the evidence shows - a still working but not optimal routing.

    A Designer starting from scratch has no such constraints. There is no logical reason for a Designer to deliberately make such a sub-optimal design when it would have been trivial to do the hook up better.

    ReplyDelete
  112. Thorton:"We already covered that too. Evolution is certainly 'restricted' by only being able to modify what is already there. In this case the short-necked mammalian ancestors to the modern giraffe already had their laryngeal nerve routed under the aortic arch as all mammals do. Then when the longer necked giraffe evolved it was not possible to 'reroute' the nerve just with small evolutionary changes. Evolution had to just modify (in this case lengthen) what was already there. That's what the evidence shows - a still working but not optimal routing"

    I´m glad a darwinist accept that evolution has restriccións. This change a lot the view of evolution. Until we know which are this restrictions and how they work we have to at least propose that the evolution has an end. There is point that life can not go trought. And that is supported by two observations: 1)There are living fossils, animals that never changed in hundred millions years 2) The content of DNA per cell. And if evolution has and end, it is a closed process may be we are already at the end, nothing shows species evolving. Then maybe the man is the end of evolution, so you close the door to ID but open it to teleology.
    But still evolution is weird process with very strange restriccións:
    Giraffe could change: The nuber of cervical vertebrae, the circulatory system (heart, arteries and veins) in orther to support more pressure but couldn`t change the laryngeal nerve.
    By the way, why the the giraffe started evolving his neck longer before rearrange the laringeal nerve path? Why the evolution of long neck didn´t started in a mammal with the laringeal nerve path modified? Can you show the evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Blas said...

    I´m glad a darwinist accept that evolution has restriccións. This change a lot the view of evolution.


    Maybe to you, but not to science which has know about the restrictions for 150+ years.

    There is point that life can not go trought. And that is supported by two observations: 1)There are living fossils, animals that never changed in hundred millions years

    Wrong. "Living fossils" are animals that have changed their exterior morphology very little over time from their ancestors, which is to be expected if the environmental selection pressures on them didn't change. We have no idea how much their DNA changed in the same period.

    2) The content of DNA per cell. And if evolution has and end, it is a closed process may be we are already at the end, nothing shows species evolving.

    Wrong again. There are hundreds of examples of the ongoing speciation process we can observe today. Look up 'ring species'.

    Then maybe the man is the end of evolution, so you close the door to ID but open it to teleology.

    Teleology is ID. I though you said you didn't support ID?

    But still evolution is weird process with very strange restriccións:
    Giraffe could change: The nuber of cervical vertebrae,


    Wrong. Giraffe have the same number of cervical vertebrae as humans and most mammals. They are just elongated.

    the circulatory system (heart, arteries and veins) in orther to support more pressure

    Wrong. The heart, arteries and veins changed in size only, not in their basic layout.

    but couldn`t change the laryngeal nerve.

    The nerve did change - it got lots longer - but like all the other pieces there was no path for it to change its basic routing

    By the way, why the the giraffe started evolving his neck longer before rearrange the laringeal nerve path? Why the evolution of long neck didn´t started in a mammal with the laringeal nerve path modified?

    Because the evolutionary pressure for a longer neck happened hundreds of millions of years after the basic routing of the nerve was established.

    Can you show the evidence.

    Yes, I can.

    Girraffe evolution

    ReplyDelete
  114. Thorton, you are very sure and have all the evidence, but your knwoledge of the giraffe is similar to the knowledge of Darwin about the cell.

    ReplyDelete
  115. Blas said...

    Thorton, you are very sure and have all the evidence, but your knwoledge of the giraffe is similar to the knowledge of Darwin about the cell.


    I don't claim to have complete knowledge of the giraffe or the cell. But I have enough to put together a well-supported account of its evolutionary history. Not knowing every detail doesn't mean not knowing anything.

    I'm still waiting for you to tell me how the giraffe got here, if it didn't evolve and isn't designed as you say.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Thorton"I'm still waiting for you to tell me how the giraffe got here, if it didn't evolve and isn't designed as you say."

    Why are you waiting for that? If no matter you have a limited kwoledge of what a giraffe is are sure and have the evidence that I`m wrong?
    Why are you waiting for what I think if the evolution of the giraffe is a fact?

    ReplyDelete
  117. Blas said...

    Thorton"I'm still waiting for you to tell me how the giraffe got here, if it didn't evolve and isn't designed as you say."

    Why are you waiting for that? If no matter you have a limited kwoledge of what a giraffe is are sure and have the evidence that I`m wrong?
    Why are you waiting for what I think if the evolution of the giraffe is a fact?


    I'm curious. You said you don't accept evolution or ID.

    I want to hear your third option of how giraffes got here.

    Why do you hesitate? Are you embarrassed?

    ReplyDelete
  118. Thorton:"Why do you hesitate? Are you embarrassed? "

    Because I know what you think.

    "The rest of your word salad makes absolutely no sense at all."

    You do not deserve a debate.

    ReplyDelete
  119. OK, I go with 'Blas is too embarrassed to admit he said he doesn't accept evolution or ID'.

    Either that or you were lying when you said this:

    Blas: "Sorry I´m not an ID supporter."

    Were you lying?

    ReplyDelete
  120. Oh dear, looks like Blas has decided to flounce out rather than explain his bizarre claim.

    That's one standard IDCer response we're all familiar with.

    ReplyDelete