Originally posted by EladarWhat if your child had a crooked nose? Would you fix that?
That's right. I wouldn't fix something that my child thought was important, but I didn't.
What about if your child had a limp? How about if s/he was color blind?
Would you fix those if you could magically do so?
Nemesio
Originally posted by EladarI'm not sure hubris is a sign of a 'God perspective.'
You don't see it do you? Your perspective is from the child. You have a child's perspective and you are asking another child if something should be fixed. Only when you have God's perspective will you be able to make a valid question.
If your defense of Creation/Intelligent Design is 'we're all children, so accept
it,' then thank you for your opinion. However, opinion is not science, and
while you remain unwilling to approach this in a scientific fashion, then you
have no valid stance upon which to assert that ID is a science.
Nemesio
1 edit
Sorry KellyJay, I thought Eladar was engaging in discussion. It turns out he
was only just expressing his unsupported opinion over and over. And so my
post to you doesn't get lost, I'm reposting it for you. It was in response
to your discussion that the inferior eye was the result of 'entropy':
Originally posted by Nemesio
The octopus' eye isn't more complicated than the human eye. They both have a nerve bundle,
they both have a retina, they both have nerve fibers.
Entropy doesn't drive nerve fibers from behind the retina to in front of it. Something had to drive
it.
So, now that that's settled, can you answer my question?
1) What explanation can you offer for why the eye underwent a physiological
change in which the retina moves behind the nerve fibers rather than remaining
in front of it and thus creating a blind spot?
2) What evidence can you offer for holding this position?
If you recant that the eye might have undergone a physiological change, then how do you explain
that the human eye was 'designed' with a blind spot when obviously the 'designer' could design
it without one?
Originally posted by NemesioYes I strive to give MY child every possible advantage ... but would an omniscient god also strive for that same goal in every individual subject?
My argument is a 'design' argument, not genetic manipulation. A 'designer'
has the capacity to design without implication.
But, on that note, don't you strive to give your child every possible advantage
(or at least in theory, if you do not have children)? Would you give them a
good diet or a poor one? Assuming all other factors were equal (cost, di ...[text shortened]... t, don't you strive to alleviate it? Why would blind spots
be any different?
Nemesio
Originally posted by flexmoreAgain, we're talking about the 'design' of humankind, not a specific individual.
Yes I strive to give MY child every possible advantage ... but would an omniscient god also strive for that same goal in every individual subject?
We're talking about the proto-human, and in this proto-human, we find an
inferior structure for an eye.
So, the 'designer' did not try to give its 'designed' every possible advantage.
Nemesio
Originally posted by KellyJaySo, since you have now changed your statement, can I take it that you are admitting that your original claim is false?
Yea, everything I see around me if left alone wears down, gets old,
can stop functioning, fade, die off, break, and the list goes on. You
have something that if it isn't acted upon does not wear down, and so
on that doesn't require preventive maintaince of sorts?
Kelly
Your original claim was that you had personally observed that on average things were wearing down. You did not put in any clause regarding maintenance.
Now, with your adjusted claim, what constitutes 'maintenance'? I have survived decades without wearing out yet, if anything, I am more sophisticated than when I was a child. Who is maintaining me?
If you are going to accept a system with internal built in maintenance like life has, then it destroys your whole argument, which was to claim that species probably wear down because it is your observation that things wear down. If natural selection is a form of maintenance, then your observation cannot be applied.
Originally posted by KellyJay… No one is selecting anything. ..…
"What do you mean? Natural selection selects those individuals best able to survive in their current environment -do you deny that this is what the theory of evolution says?"
No one is selecting anything, to select is an action of choosing, making
a choice, we have all agreed that isn't being done since that would
mean intelligence was at hand. What ...[text shortened]... ds to describe the events in life
unfolding for and against species making it or not.
Kelly
Who said there was?
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJay… Mutations are not a once in a life time thing they could come and go
"Any mutations that remove the beneficial mutations in individuals would be gradually and continually selected out of existence from the population in favour for the original beneficial mutations that other individuals within the same population still have. "
Mutations are not a once in a life time thing they could come and go
there is no plan, purpose, lifeform they are in by running together to
build up systems that all work together?
Kelly
there is no plan, purpose, or design behind each mutation, why do
you seem to think that once a good one is found it will always stay, or
not get balanced off the books so to speak with a bad mutation? . ..…
I have already clearly answered that twice -natural selection continually weeds-out the bad ones while continually selecting the good ones.
… mutations do not care if
they are good or bad there isn't any plan, purpose, or design to their
showing up,.…
Correct -well almost -there is “design“ but it isn’t “intelligent design“. A snowflake clearly has a complex design under a microscope but it isn’t an “intelligent design“ thus demonstrating nature can “design“ without “intelligence“. No “plan“ nor “purpose” is part of the theory of evolution and nobody is suggesting otherwise.
…so why is there a belief that the good ones not only stay
they stay and build up the lifeform they are in by running together to
build up systems that all work together? . . ….
I don’t know what your point is here -natural selection may select for one mutation so that all individuals of a population eventually have it and then natural selection may select for yet another one mutation that builds on top of the earlier one and then natural selection may select for yet another one mutation that builds on top of the two earlier ones and so on -so what is your point?
Originally posted by EladarSo you (a god) would think it ok if a child was born with no legs and your decision would be tough shyte, thats the way it is, accept it because YOU PIZZ ME OFF.
That's right. I wouldn't fix something that my child thought was important, but I didn't. Even if all the other kids thought it should be fixed.
That's right, in your scenerio we're all kids.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI think Kelly is claiming that some mutations are only beneficial when in conjunction with other mutations and he cannot conceive of any mechanism by which the could arise.
I don’t know what your point is here -natural selection may select for one mutation so that all individuals of a population eventually have it and then natural selection may select for yet another one mutation that builds on top of the earlier one and then natural selection may select for yet another one mutation that builds on top of the two earlier ones and so on -so what is your point?
Actually it is not unusual for genes to be selected for as a group or mutually beneficial genes in a kind of symbiotic relationship. It is even possible for two or more mutations that would only be beneficial when together to appear almost simultaneously and then be selected for.
We must also realize that many mutations are not particularly harmful and may sit idle in an organism for many generations before another mutation make the first mutation a useful one.
Having said that, most of the major mutations that concern Kelly probably were infact beneficial individually or in a particular sequence but he simply does not realize that.