"Jury-Rigged" design due to historical contraint and maybe yet unknown functions
-
http//www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jury-rigged.html
Peace,
There are many features even in the human body which could have been better such as no blind spot, but evolution and common descent have put a logical restraint on this. This also shows that humans were not created fom sratch but clearly are descendant from other mammalian(apelike) ancestors. This by no means mocks GOD in any way or suggests that GOD lacked intelligence here. Rather it is a delberate appraoch 1) showing all living things, including us, are related(common ancestry) which would be impossible otherwise as one could then always argue that a similar pattern merely means common design 2) perfection is a relative term. One may also claim then that why he/she hasnt been made into a superman who could fly around, have a bulletproof body, shoot lasers through his eyes, smash rocks with his bare hands, lift tons and tons of weight, etc. Well this is not the case, is it? The world is supposed to be a test with signs everywhere leading to the conclusion that theres only one GOD. But it all follows a sequence and 3) who knows maybe certain pseudogenes' functions would suddnly be reactivated in humans and other creatures causing great advantages all depeneding on what GOD has programmed into the whole system i.e. natural environment plus DNA. GOD Bless! -
peace.
And how does this extremely speculative post prove the theory of evolution?
Use of "poor design" as an excuse for justifying evolution is totally subjective. The latter part of your post suggests this as well!
-
peace God1
And how does this extremely speculative post prove the theory of evolution?
In science, a "theory" is a hypothesis that has been proven by evidence.
Use of "poor design" as an excuse for justifying evolution is totally subjective. The latter part of your post suggests this as well!
"poor design" makes perfect sense. If we are not descendents of other organisms, then why are we so alike? why do we share so many features?
See, the scientific community has given us a great explanation of this. If you do not think it is so great, then please give us an alternative. Tell us your version of creation. One that isn't dogmatic, and makes perfect sense logically and scientifically, and is supported by plenty of evidence (because if it isn't, you'd be guilty of the same thing you are accusing evolutionists of). So let's hear it, I'm all ears.p.s. Bmbmm has said several times that he doesn't think evolution is even possible. He is a microbiologists so I'm interested in what he has to say about that. I've also asked him a question about this several times and I guess he doesn't like to read replies to his posts. So I'll PM him about that, I guess. Anyway, Johny K, do you think you could find a scientist online that Bmbmm can have a debate with? what do you think of that?
-
Peace bro "phoenix1",
Anyway, Johny K, do you think you could find a scientist online that Bmbmm can have a debate with? what do you think of that?
JK- Aint it surpirsing that merely a couple of months ago i woulve been on the creationist side of such a debate? I believe there might be a couple of them at evcforum.com or talkorigins.org. I think such a debate would be very healthy and useful. But i must say if the creationist side wins we'll be getting closer to polytheism, quite ironic aint it? But it's true, evolution is what gives the being of One god only a much higher probabiliyty. Infact in this case if there is a god, and we can infer that from the fine tuning of this universe with exact constants where a bit off wldve lead to nothng, THEN HE MUST BE ONE ACCORDING TO EVOLUTION. So im definitely in favor of evolution even from that point of view besides it being a much more marvellous and exciting procedure than creationism. GOD Bless!
-
peace God1In science, a "theory" is a hypothesis that has been proven by evidence.
Not necessarily. As an example, String "theory" remains to be proven. The term theoretical is sometimes used to describe a result that is predicted by theory but has not yet been adequately tested by observation or experiment. It is not uncommon for a theory to produce predictions that are later confirmed by experiment.
Also, an existing theory may be replaced with a better theory as our knowledge of the universe increase. As an example. Ptolemys planetery model (Earth was at the center and the sun and the other planets revolve around it) was replaced by Copernicus's sun-centric model 1500 years later.
At the time of Darwin, a cell could not be seen from the inside and he erroneously assumed that a the building blocks of life were simple structures. Well as it turns out, cell is an extremely complex structure that could not have been formed by chance. Other cells such as the neurons go through a complex series of processes to generate an electric signal. Moreover, to perform simple tasks like seeing, many thousands/millions of cells have to act in unison for the combined sum total of the signal to have any meaning. Common sense dictates that an intelligent designer is behind these creations.
"poor design" makes perfect sense.
If the design of Allah's creation were poor, these scientists would not be copying them!
http//www.gatech.edu/news-room/release.php?id=980
http//www.biomimicry.org
Remember we are talking about "intelligent" scientists who are using biological inspiration to create complex objects, which according to the theory of evolution came about through "chance" and "natural selection" (meaning no intelligence was involved).
If we are not descendents of other organisms, then why are we so alike? why do we share so many features?
You need to think through this. Is sharing features evidence of evolution? One could argue that a designer created all the species and chose to keep certain features similar. When you claim that the Theory of Evolution is based on scientific principles, you have to ask yourself, "Is the question I am posing be tested using scientific principles?"
Has anyone seen macroevolution at work? I will be convinced if you could show me a reptile lung changing to an avian lung. We both know you cannot. During the transitory phase, the organism must be able to demonstrate organs that can work in both situations. How can
this turn into this
| | ------------------------------
| | ---------------
| | ---------------
| | ---------------
/ \ -------------------------------
/ /\
/ / \
/ / \ \reptilian lung avian lung
through gradual modifications. That is why all the alleged "transitional forms" are really mosaics all having complete systems of their own and none of the systems is in a transitory phase.
See, the scientific community has given us a great explanation of this. If you do not think it is so great, then please give us an alternative. Tell us your version of creation. One that isn't dogmatic, and makes perfect sense logically and scientifically, and is supported by plenty of evidence (because if it isn't, you'd be guilty of the same thing you are accusing evolutionists of). So let's hear it, I'm all ears.
Above I have tried to explain to you why the explanation is'nt all that great if we look a little deeper. Once we get past the BS, one will quickly realize that evolution is really no science at all.
The evolutioists like to make the claim that we are 98% genetically similar to the chimps. OK. lets apply the BS detector to this claim. Physically speaking, it is clear we are not 98% similar or humans and chimps would be dating one another. So do you really understand what this % means. For ex. I can claim from the following 2 sentences
ABC said, "I do believe in one God"
XYZ said, "I do not believe in God"that since the 2 sentences have 17/18 letters in common, ABC and XYZ have similar beliefs. But we both know that they do not!
The truth of the matter is neither evolution nor creation can be called a "science". To know about the origin of life we can only draw inferences from the evidence that is available to us.
What information do we have that supports that an intelligent creator designed us
- Well there is the Cambrian explosion which suggests that life appeared suddenly without any transitional forms between them and the unicellular organisms, which were the only life forms on earth prior to them. They had complete systems that were extremely sophisticated. This happended 500 million years ago. The HOX gene argument does'nt make sense because then the evolutionists have to explain how did this gene develop in the first place.
When you read about the Cambrian explosion defence on evolutionist websites, make sure that you are able to link all pre-cambrian organisms to complex creatures like the Trilobite, which had a well developed vision system.
- We know that the DNA contains information about the cell, which it uses run its operations. A DNA strand in a human call can be as long as 3 metres containing immense amount of information.
Even if we are to believe that the from the primordial soup somehow a single cell evolved through chance (highly improbable), how can we can explain the DNA, for information implies presence of intelligence. Not only is intelligence required to put sensible information that is encoded in the DNA, but it is also required to decode it. How was/is the cell able to decipher the information contained in the DNA molecule?
Is a empty hard drive the same as one full of software?
All of the above is indirect evidence of an intelligent creator who has purposefully designed all the species.
to be continued .....
-
At the time of Darwin, a cell could not be seen from the inside and he erroneously assumed that a the building blocks of life were simple structures. Well as it turns out, cell is an extremely complex structure that could not have been formed by chance. Other cells such as the neurons go through a complex series of processes to generate an electric signal. Moreover, to perform simple tasks like seeing, many thousands/millions of cells have to act in unison for the combined sum total of the signal to have any meaning. Common sense dictates that an intelligent designer is behind these creations.
No thats called an argument from ignorance, brother. People have been falling into this trap throughout history.
If the design of Allah's creation were poor, these scientists would not be copying them!
We don't copy the poor "designs".
Remember we are talking about "intelligent" scientists who are using biological inspiration to create complex objects, which according to the theory of evolution came about through "chance" and "natural selection" (meaning no intelligence was involved).
You need to think through this. Is sharing features evidence of evolution? One could argue that a designer created all the species and chose to keep certain features similar. When you claim that the Theory of Evolution is based on scientific principles, you have to ask yourself, "Is the question I am posing be tested using scientific principles?"
Has anyone seen macroevolution at work? I will be convinced if you could show me a reptile lung changing to an avian lung. We both know you cannot. During the transitory phase, the organism must be able to demonstrate organs that can work in both situations. How can
Please, have you ever seen new any new continents or mountain ranges form within your lifetime? Evolution of the scale you're referring takes huge spans of time, just like it takes long spans of time for geological features such as mountain ranges to form. But we can witness the slow process in the here and now, we can measure the slow movement of the tectonic plate and similarly we can observe microevolution. Simple induction then follows.
this turn into this
| | ------------------------------
| | ---------------
| | ---------------
| | ---------------
/ \ -------------------------------
/ /\
/ / \
/ / \ \reptilian lung avian lung
through gradual modifications. That is why all the alleged "transitional forms" are really mosaics all having complete systems of their own and none of the systems is in a transitory phase.
You make the mistake of thinking that transitionary organisms are somehow incomplete, they're not. They're fully formed in every sense.
Above I have tried to explain to you why the explanation is'nt all that great if we look a little deeper. Once we get past the BS, one will quickly realize that evolution is really no science at all.
Well, those biologists must be real stupid to be duped into accepting this evolution for the past century.
The evolutioists like to make the claim that we are 98% genetically similar to the chimps. OK. lets apply the BS detector to this claim. Physically speaking, it is clear we are not 98% similar or humans and chimps would be dating one another.
Er.. how are you measuring this physical similarity? Have you tried applying your BS detector on yourself? Its clear that compared to the rest of the animal kingdom, we're extremely similar to apes.
So do you really understand what this % means. For ex. I can claim from the following 2 sentences
I've already mentioned this in another thread but in light of the degeneracy of the genetic code (http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_code#Degeneracy_of_the_genetic_code), common ancestry is the only rational explanation for the gentic similarities, for example, between humans and chimpanzees. If you've got an alternate explanation I'm all ears.
ABC said, "I do believe in one God"
XYZ said, "I do not believe in God"that since the 2 sentences have 17/18 letters in common, ABC and XYZ have similar beliefs. But we both know that they do not!
Right.....
The truth of the matter is neither evolution nor creation can be called a "science". To know about the origin of life we can only draw inferences from the evidence that is available to us.
What information do we have that supports that an intelligent creator designed us
- Well there is the Cambrian explosion which suggests that life appeared suddenly without any transitional forms between them and the unicellular organisms, which were the only life forms on earth prior to them.
5-10 Million years is not suddenly (some estimated go up 40 mill). You also do realise that birds, mammals, reptiles, spiders and even flowering plants wern't formed during the cambrian explosion? They came much later.
They had complete systems that were extremely sophisticated. This happended 500 million years ago. The HOX gene argument does'nt make sense because then the evolutionists have to explain how did this gene develop in the first place.
Er.. through a gradual process of natural selection?
When you read about the Cambrian explosion defence on evolutionist websites, make sure that you are able to link all pre-cambrian organisms to complex creatures like the Trilobite, which had a well developed vision system.
Your argument is essentially this We don't know how exactly this happened, so God must have directly intervened to make it so. This is a historic logical fallacy known as the argument from ignorance. Your only "evidence" is an appeal to ignorance.
- We know that the DNA contains information about the cell, which it uses run its operations. A DNA strand in a human call can be as long as 3 metres containing immense amount of information.
Even if we are to believe that the from the primordial soup somehow a single cell evolved through chance (highly improbable),
Two problems with these creationists stats, they assume a modern type cell of the type in existence today, and secondly they assume that organic chemistry is random, it isn't. It all falls down once you realise this.
how can we can explain the DNA, for information implies presence of intelligence. Not only is intelligence required to put sensible information that is encoded in the DNA,
Unsupported assertion. DNA is simply an organic polymer, its not a language. Also define information for us.
but it is also required to decode it. How was/is the cell able to decipher the information contained in the DNA molecule?
You've already assumed your conclusion, making your whole argument circular. You're also arguing from ignorance. Please stop engaging in these argumentative fallacies.
Is a empty hard drive the same as one full of software?
False analogy.
All of the above is indirect evidence of an intelligent creator who has purposefully designed all the species.
Its not evidence at all. You're using our lack of knowledge in certain areas as "evidence".
Here http//skepdic.com/ignorance.html
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance