Wonder how ID supporters deal with poor design...

[Arborealus]

So this morning I'm reading the species of a newly named Mosasaur (Dallasaurus turneri) This is an intergrade species between the terrestrial Mosasaurs and the later Mosasaurs with flippers. This species has very small limbs (next to useless for land propulsion or aquatic propulsion).

I wonder how the Intelligent design camp deals with this. So was God just having an off day when he designed this animal? Did he just hate it and design it to be useless? While I realize we don't have many or any ID proponents here...wouldn't it be fun to watch them squirm this explanation out?

Of course they might dismiss dinosaurs as not real animals...but there are plenty of animals around with bad design...Amphiumas and Glass Lizards have very similar limbs to this fossil. A good number of Boas have remnant pelvic girdle which is functionless. Any number of bad designs out there...

Maybe they will have to revise the theory to a Random Design Theory to account for the inconsistencies?...

Anyway it just occurred to me so y'all reap the benefits or pain.

[Animale]

All these seemingly contrary things were put there to test our faith.

Hehe.

Animale

[Arborealus]

All these seemingly contrary things were put there to test our faith.

Hehe.

It worked!

[miir]

Of course they might dismiss dinosaurs as not real animals...

Dinosaurs are fictional creatures like Buddah and Mohammed.

[Burke]

Dinosaurs aren't even in the Bible.

[Voronwë]

The devil made dinosaur bones and put them in the earth.

there never was a Mososaur Arb, and it is obvious the reason his bones were kind of poorly designed because Satan did it to insult the glorious creation of God.

[Lynks]

Its actually a plot conjured up by the International Museum Association. They invent new dinosaurs so jackasses like me pay a 100$ admittion to see it.

[masteen]

IT'S A CONSPIRICY BETWEEN THE JEWS AND TEH GAY ADGENDA!

[miir]

IT'S A CONSPIRICY BETWEEN THE JEWS AND TEH GAY ADGENDA!

Jews and gays are fictional creatures like dragons and unicorns.

[Adelrune Argenti]

Isn't this more of an issue of microevolutionary change instead of an entire species jump? If so, microevolutionary changes happen throughout lots of different species and are not really the arguing point. The big sticking point has to do with the whole inter-species jump I think.

[Jice Virago]

And we all know how much the fundies hate jumping between species!

Where are the white women at!

[Chidoro]

Isn't this more of an issue of microevolutionary change instead of an entire species jump? If so, microevolutionary changes happen throughout lots of different species and are not really the arguing point. The big sticking point has to do with the whole inter-species jump I think.

Ohh I'm sure a whole bunch of inter-species jumping occurs already

[cadalano]

Surely THE NOODLY MASTER creates all things with purpose. And indeed HE is an enigmatic and mysterious master, HIS ways beyond our fathoming. How can we, even as we have been touched by HIS noodly appendage, bring HIS methods to question? Are we not simply wading in the great existence that HE designed? Are we not blind to HIS true intentions from the thick marinara that lovingly wraps our very souls to HIM as his children?

Indeed sir, how dare you to question HIS ways? This confused creature may simply be a mistake to you, but it surely served a divine purpose, as we all do, in HIS saucy design.

RAmen.

[Xouqoa]

RAmen.

That is absolutely HIlarious if you imagine a congregation of parishoners saying it at the end of a hymn. "Raaaaaaaaaaamennnnnnnnnnn."

[Rekaar.]

So this morning I'm reading the species of a newly named Mosasaur (Dallasaurus turneri) This is an intergrade species between the terrestrial Mosasaurs and the later Mosasaurs with flippers. This species has very small limbs (next to useless for land propulsion or aquatic propulsion).

I wonder how the Intelligent design camp deals with this. So was God just having an off day when he designed this animal? Did he just hate it and design it to be useless? While I realize we don't have many or any ID proponents here...wouldn't it be fun to watch them squirm this explanation out?

Of course they might dismiss dinosaurs as not real animals...but there are plenty of animals around with bad design...Amphiumas and Glass Lizards have very similar limbs to this fossil. A good number of Boas have remnant pelvic girdle which is functionless. Any number of bad designs out there...

Maybe they will have to revise the theory to a Random Design Theory to account for the inconsistencies?...

Anyway it just occurred to me so y'all reap the benefits or pain.

Do you even know what the theory of Intelligent Design is? As a hint, it's not the same thing as a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible. Maybe you should rephrase your bait, although I doubt anyone that it applies to will ever see your message.

It's like you're trying to insult Jews by bashing the Pope.

[Noysyrump]

Damn jews, i hope there pope dies.

[Sueven]

Isn't this more of an issue of microevolutionary change instead of an entire species jump? If so, microevolutionary changes happen throughout lots of different species and are not really the arguing point. The big sticking point has to do with the whole inter-species jump I think.

The micro/macro distinction reflects a fundamental misunderstanding about evolution and biology. There is no distinction, an accumulation of microevolutionary changes is equivelant to macroevolution.

Do you even know what the theory of Intelligent Design is? As a hint, it's not the same thing as a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible. Maybe you should rephrase your bait, although I doubt anyone that it applies to will ever see your message.

The theory of intelligent design states that things are so complex that they must have been designed by an intelligent creator. The clear implication is that they are designed intelligently. This is not designed intelligently. It is designed stupidly.

Dinosaurs aren't even in the Bible.

There are actually Christians who believe that Dinosaurs must still exist because there is no such thing as species extinction (or something) who regularly send Dinosaur-hunting expeditions into the Congo and whatnot.

[Arborealus]

Do you even know what the theory of Intelligent Design is? As a hint, it's not the same thing as a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible. Maybe you should rephrase your bait, although I doubt anyone that it applies to will ever see your message.

It's like you're trying to insult Jews by bashing the Pope.

If you understand science, my post is a fairly incisive criticism of ID based on it's own merits albeit a bit tongue and cheek.

Nevertheless my poke was at stupid people who fail to understand science. I don't want to limit that exclusively to fundamentalist christians, I scoff at all idiots equally, and in point of fact I didn't even mention them.

[Arborealus]

Isn't this more of an issue of microevolutionary change instead of an entire species jump? If so, microevolutionary changes happen throughout lots of different species and are not really the arguing point. The big sticking point has to do with the whole inter-species jump I think.

This is in fact a species change, but accrued microevolutionary change is macroevolution the distinction is moot theoretically...it's a continuum.

Actually it is a genus change in this case but I doubt that is based entirely on one bit of gross morphology.

[Dregor Thule]

I have no fukcing cluue what you just said, but I vote Arb. VOTE ARB 2005!

[Arborealus]

I have no fukcing cluue what you just said, but I vote Arb. VOTE ARB 2005!

Wheee now if I can just take the newf vote I win Canada

[Dregor Thule]

Nah, you'd need the French vote to solidify your victory. The newfs, sadly, are a fairly inconsequential minority! So just say more poutine and Roch Voisine for everyone, and you've got the French vote.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

Not everyone who believes in ID thinks there has to be a reason for everything. I mean hell.....what use do the French have? It is possible that much like the functions of the cow, that those dinosaurs were nothing more than a low spot on the food chain.

And since you brought it up, just because one believes in God and ID, it does not mean they do not believe that species can evolve or adapt to better function in their environment.

[Arborealus]

Not everyone who believes in ID thinks there has to be a reason for everything. I mean hell.....what use do the French have? It is possible that much like the functions of the cow, that those dinosaurs were nothing more than a low spot on the food chain.

And since you brought it up, just because one believes in God and ID, it does not mean they do not believe that species can evolve or adapt to better function in their environment.

You are correct ID theorists do not think there has to be a reason for everything...Scientists do think there has to be a reason for everything.

So Darwin's theory works just fine some times, for some things but not for others? So DNA doesn't always function the same? Perhaps you'd like to rewrite Mendel's laws and the laws of chemistry and physics to fit that model.

Mosasaurs were carnivores by the way not particularly low on the food chain.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

Your initial post actually points to exactly what I was saying. You are referring to a creature that was in the middle of adapting. For whatever reason the species was migrating to the water and had not developed fully. Humans have done the same thing over the last 2500 years. The appendix at some point will no longer even be an organ that exists in humans.

[Arborealus]

Your initial post actually points to exactly what I was saying. You are referring to a creature that was in the middle of adapting. For whatever reason the species was migrating to the water and had not developed fully. Humans have done the same thing over the last 2500 years. The appendix at some point will no longer even be an organ that exists in humans.

Ermmm the Mosasaur in question was a different species from the earlier terrestrial species and the later fully aquatic species. Adaptation occurs within one species.

[Noysyrump]

Your initial post actually points to exactly what I was saying. You are referring to a creature that was in the middle of adapting. For whatever reason the species was migrating to the water and had not developed fully. Humans have done the same thing over the last 2500 years. The appendix at some point will no longer even be an organ that exists in humans.

Ermmm the Mosasaur in question was a different species from the earlier terrestrial species and the later fully aquatic species. Adaptation occurs within one species.

it was a different species because of its adaptation.... the red squirrel and grey squirrel are both different species yet one adapted to living in a colder environment with different food sources and different predetory animals, not so long ago, they were the same damn squirrel.

[Arborealus]

Your initial post actually points to exactly what I was saying. You are referring to a creature that was in the middle of adapting. For whatever reason the species was migrating to the water and had not developed fully. Humans have done the same thing over the last 2500 years. The appendix at some point will no longer even be an organ that exists in humans.

Ermmm the Mosasaur in question was a different species from the earlier terrestrial species and the later fully aquatic species. Adaptation occurs within one species.

it was a different species because of its adaptation.... the red squirrel and grey squirrel are both different species yet one adapted to living in a colder environment with different food sources and different predetory animals, not so long ago, they were the same damn squirrel.

That's evolution

[Voronwë]

not so long ago there the strain of E. coli that gives you Montezuma's revenge was easily killable with Ciprofloxin. Now you have to tune it up to Levaquin (a similar antibiotic) to reliably kill it.

I know this because up until a day or so ago i had been shitting my brains out non stop.

That's evolution (drug resistence in bacteria, not shitting), real time.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

And since you brought it up, just because one believes in God and ID, it does not mean they do not believe that species can evolve or adapt to better function in their environment.

I thought I said this already

[Rekaar.]

Do you even know what the theory of Intelligent Design is? As a hint, it's not the same thing as a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible. Maybe you should rephrase your bait, although I doubt anyone that it applies to will ever see your message.

It's like you're trying to insult Jews by bashing the Pope.

If you understand science, my post is a fairly incisive criticism of ID based on it's own merits albeit a bit tongue and cheek.

Nevertheless my poke was at stupid people who fail to understand science. I don't want to limit that exclusively to fundamentalist christians, I scoff at all idiots equally, and in point of fact I didn't even mention them.

I see. You just said a bunch of nothing and shrouded it in your universal contempt for non secular beliefs. That's a nice label you throw out there too -- stupid. People who believe in ID are stupid by default?

Here's a kicker, what do you call critics of ID that don't even understand its basic tenets, let alone their merits?

[Forthe]

Newfs have evolved a hardy constitution in order to cope with the high levels of alchohol in our environment. Newfs have also evolved a similarly hardy sense of humor so we can laugh about the stupid shit we did last night while on the beer.

Therefore I believe a Newf was responsible for the design of Dallasaurus turneri. I will call this theory the theory of Unintelligent Shit-faced Design. Yes bye.

Vote Arb!!!

[Arborealus]

Do you even know what the theory of Intelligent Design is? As a hint, it's not the same thing as a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible. Maybe you should rephrase your bait, although I doubt anyone that it applies to will ever see your message.

It's like you're trying to insult Jews by bashing the Pope.

If you understand science, my post is a fairly incisive criticism of ID based on it's own merits albeit a bit tongue and cheek.

Nevertheless my poke was at stupid people who fail to understand science. I don't want to limit that exclusively to fundamentalist christians, I scoff at all idiots equally, and in point of fact I didn't even mention them.

I see. You just said a bunch of nothing and shrouded it in your universal contempt for non secular beliefs. That's a nice label you throw out there too -- stupid. People who believe in ID are stupid by default?

Here's a kicker, what do you call critics of ID that don't even understand its basic tenets, let alone their merits?

Ermmmm I didn't say "nothing," that's just how much of what I said that you understood.

And yes people who believe in ID are stupid in my estimation.

Critics of ID who know nothing about its tenets I would call correct.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

Ah.....stupid. Much like believing bits of carbon just miraculously evolved into beings capable of independant thought on this rock. Why has all this science never figured out how or why? Why did it not happen on other pieces of rock with the same molecular build as this one? Why are the planets surrounding us not teeming with life? Wouldn't your theory of evolution dictate that over the billions of years the planets have been here, that life would evolve and adapt to each host planet?

[Zaelath]

Ah.....stupid. Much like believing bits of carbon just miraculously evolved into beings capable of independant thought on this rock. Why has all this science never figured out how or why? Why did it not happen on other pieces of rock with the same molecular build as this one? Why are the planets surrounding us not teeming with life? Wouldn't your theory of evolution dictate that over the billions of years the planets have been here, that life would evolve and adapt to each host planet?

Apart from the general stupidity that you claim all planets can support life according to evolutionary theory (which says nothing of the sort), lets move back to your first misguided claim that random chance couldn't be responsible for the existance of complex multi-cellular beings capable of arguing about where they came from and why they collect so much belly button lint.

Fact: Stephen Hawking is way smarter than you or I, and in all likelihood, anyone else on this messageboard.

"We see the universe the way it is because we exist." 130

According to this theory [strong anthropic principle], there are either many different universes or many different regions of a single universe, each with its own initial configuration and, perhaps, with its own set of laws of science. In most of these universes the conditions would not be right for the development of complicated organisms; only in the few universes that are like ours would intelligent beings develop and ask the question: "Why is the universe the way we see it?" The answer is then simple: If it had been different, we would not be here! 131

There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle parts. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.

Given you have a starting pool of 1x10^80 particles in the observable universe, the odds that some of them would get together in the right order, under the right conditions, to form some form of life is pretty decent.

Perhaps you could go and read up some on the other side of an issue before blathering like a retard, there's most if not all of Stephen's book at http://www.generationterrorists.com/quo ... otswh.html and while you'll probably find it pretty heavy going, it's written in about the simplest terms possible.

[Arborealus]

Why has all this science never figured out how or why?

Science hasn't answered all the questions it wants to yet. Basically we understand very little about what happened 5 billion years ago because we can't directly observe it. We have to observe what is here now and make inferences based on natural processes we see at work. We have a very very limited amount of the universe we can observe in any detail with any regularity. Hell we can't observe the bulk of this planet very well yet. And the planet, being dynamic tends to erase the past relatively quickly.

Why did it not happen on other pieces of rock with the same molecular build as this one?

It may have happened on every one but, given what we can observe about life here, it can only exist within a very small range of conditions relative to the range of possible conditions in the universe as a whole, so maybe it is very rare. Not even knowing what the process was here makes it hard to speculate what the probability of its development elsewhere is.

Then there is the possibility that it might occur in other ways other places, but we really need to be in those other places to begin to understand that, and there is no place in the immediate solar system that will support, for any length of time, our requirements for life given our current technology. Travel beyond our immediate solar system is not even close to a reality yet.

Why are the planets surrounding us not teeming with life?

Well we don't know that they aren't with any certainty. We are still dicovering new life forms on this planet and we have been here thousands of years. The conditions that life as it exists here require, appear to be rare in this solar system. Nevertheless the evolution of life on 1 planet in 9 may be freakishly high in the universe as a whole, then again it might be freakishly low.

Wouldn't your theory of evolution dictate that over the billions of years the planets have been here, that life would evolve and adapt to each host planet?

The theory of evolution does not speak to the origin of life at all, so no it wouldn't.

As far as science can tell currently, life as we know it seems to be pretty improbable at least in the immediate solar system. Only a very few places have conditions that remotely mimic those that life requires here on earth. 10 Billion years is a very small number in the probability mechanics of infinity.

So I suppose the best scientific answer to all your questions, except the last is we don't know yet.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

So.....you are saying everything that you believe in so strongly is based on unproven theories and you really don't know? And you call anyone who doesn't believe in those unproven theories stupid......does the word hypocrite come to mind?


And Zaeleth......as soon as your started your Hawking argument with the words "according to this theory", it made your argument less factual than the Bible.

[Zaelath]

So.....you are saying everything that you believe in so strongly is based on unproven theories and you really don't know? And you call anyone who doesn't believe in those unproven theories stupid......does the word hypocrite come to mind?


And Zaeleth......as soon as your started your Hawking argument with the words "according to this theory", it made your argument less factual than the Bible.

I really, really should know better than to try and argue logic w/ a creationist (or whatever you're calling yourselves this week)

[Animale]

The scientist always should say "We don't know, but the data best fits this theory." The main disconnect between the scientific community and the layperson community is that the layperson sees this as an admission of defeat, or that the scientist believes what he believes based upon some kind of scientific "faith". If one was to translate science-speak into real person speak, the above phrase would be "this theory answers our questions, and predicts future events to test it, which is as good as knowing."

Science doesn't have faith, except in that it is always willing to accept new facts and fit the theories around the facts... not the other way around. Sometimes it doesn't happen right away (scientists are still people), but eventually the scientific community will realize that their old ideas were wrong and adopt the new ones. This changing "truth" of science also confuses the layperson, as they see this as being a (to borrow a term from the last election) "flip-flopper." The "science used to think that, now it thinks this... they can't even make up their minds on what is right" argument is definitely heard a lot, and anyone who does that obviously doesn't understand the scientific process.

Unfortunately as we move forward the scientist needs to find a way to communicate the discoveries and theories to the layperson, otherwise funding, support, etc. will trickle away. It is definitely a struggle, and I worry about it more and more as we move forward in this current environment of religious dogma and fundamentalism in the world and the U.S. There is just so much to lose by not fully supporting science, at ALL levels (including the basic research into how the Universe and man came to be) and I see it slowly slipping away because of those in power who just don't understand how its done and why its important.

Oh, and Kilmoll... you should go read the fucking book first. It has arguments in it to attempt to prove those theories - and unlike religious believers Hawking is very willing to admit when he is wrong (he just payed off a bet he had with a Harvard scientist about a particular nature of black-holes). THAT is the nature of science, speculation followed by evidence to either prove or disprove that idea. If you don't think that kind of thing is a good idea, then you need to go take a good hard look at your car, your TV, your clothes... and decide whether you really think all scientific inquiry is a bad idea.

Animale

[Arborealus]

So.....you are saying everything that you believe in so strongly is based on unproven theories and you really don't know?

No, I was addressing one basic issue the origin of life and how probable it is that it occurs elsewhere.

The only thing I "believe" about the origin of life is that eventually we will arrive scientifically at a reasonable explanation based upon natural processes which is in principle independently verifiable.

And you call anyone who doesn't believe in those unproven theories stupid......does the word hypocrite come to mind?

No, I call anyone who believes that the "Intelligent Design" is in any way scientific stupid.

I would incidentally also call anyone who said they "know" how life originated, "stupid", unless they provided substantial scientific evidence to support the claim.

[Rekaar.]

Like always, when you can't defend yourself with logic of substance you resort to name calling. Just shows your true colors, and your fundamental contempt for those with a different perspective. Typical hypocrisy. Quit trying to force your opinions on everyone else, why can't we just get along? You have nothing but theories and neither do I...you can't prove me wrong and I can't prove you right. Yet you feel perfectly justified calling me stupid.

Careful, your character is slipping.

Is it scientific to rule out and disdain alternatives you can neither prove nor disprove?

[Zaelath]

Like always, when you can't defend yourself with logic of substance you resort to name calling. Just shows your true colors, and your fundamental contempt for those with a different perspective. Typical hypocrisy. Quit trying to force your opinions on everyone else, why can't we just get along? You have nothing but theories and neither do I...you can't prove me wrong and I can't prove you right. Yet you feel perfectly justified calling me stupid.

Careful, your character is slipping.

Is it scientific to rule out and disdain alternatives you can neither prove nor disprove?

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html

Though the principle may seem rather trivial, it is essential for model building because of what is known as the "underdetermination of theories by data". For a given set of observations or data, there is always an infinite number of possible models explaining those same data. This is because a model normally represents an infinite number of possible cases, of which the observed cases are only a finite subset. The non-observed cases are inferred by postulating general rules covering both actual and potential observations.

By your evidentiary rule, I assume you also support teaching Flying Spaghetti Monsterism in schools?

[Nick]

Wow, props to Arb and Zealath for even giving the retards a chance to learn.

[Arborealus]

Is it scientific to rule out and disdain alternatives you can neither prove nor disprove?

Yes, if a theory is untestable it is unscientific. That is the one of the fundamental rules of scientific inquiry.


Here is a pretty decent overview of the rules of science.

[Voronwë]

the following is going to sound like i'm being a bit dismissive, which i truly don't mean to be.

My opinion is that a lot of people don't understand - on a fundamental level - what objectivity is. They literally cannot differentiate their personal beliefs and interpretation OF a set of facts, from that set of facts. Meaning the view the attributes of their beliefs as attributes of the data points from which it arises.

An example.

It is a fact that the Bible is a book.

Many BELIEVE that the Bible was a book that was written by God.

Many of those who believe that will tell you it is a FACT that the Bible was written by God.

It is completely unverifiable (and a peculiar conclusion from the actual documentary evidence) to say that the Bible was "in fact" written by God. Yet people who believe this are inclined to hold that as a fact.

don't get hung up on whether the Bible was or wasn't written by God. It matters not. My point is that people ascribe articles of faith to the data points as if they were the data points.

They often are incapable of sober, parsimonious analysis of their own views. That isn't an indictment of them as stupid or foolish, it is more of a statement that it takes a fair amount of training and willingness to challenge yourself to develope that skillset. Just like any other skillset, bench pressing 200 pounds or whatever.

[Cartalas]

"Many BELIEVE that the Bible was a book that was written by God. "

The Bible was written by men, but inspired by god.

[Arborealus]

"Many BELIEVE that the Bible was a book that was written by God. "

The Bible was written by men, but inspired by god.

LOL, Raise your hand if you saw that coming...

[Cartalas]

"Many BELIEVE that the Bible was a book that was written by God. "

The Bible was written by men, but inspired by god.

LOL, Raise your hand if you saw that coming...

/raise

[masteen]

"Many BELIEVE that the Bible was a book that was written by God. "

The Bible was written by men, but inspired by god.

Prove it

[Zaelath]

The Bible was written by men, but inspired by god.

That's hardly the Christian dogma I was brought up with; every reading was finished "This is the word of the lord" and the congregation would reply "Amen".

In fact, it was these cultish aspects of the church that led me away from it. The basic tenets of Christianity are wonderful, but "the Church" has twisted it into something Jesus would protest against.