The Neck of the Giraffe

@kellyjay said
No such thing as an example of "undesigned" creature, the notion of design or
accidental formation is the topic of debate/discussion. Seeing a creature living
doesn't mean it can used to prove one opinion over the other just by it being
there. If any deviation occurs within species anywhere large or small, they could
have a huge impact upon several key systems. The whole ...[text shortened]... ems at once, yet managed to keep everything in a fine tuned state
and all of that done haphazardly?

KellyJay, am I on your ignore list again?

Please could you somehow let em know.

@kellyjay said
No such thing as an example of "undesigned" creature, the notion of design or
accidental formation is the topic of debate/discussion. Seeing a creature living
doesn't mean it can used to prove one opinion over the other just by it being
there. If any deviation occurs within species anywhere large or small, they could
have a huge impact upon several key systems. The whole ...[text shortened]... ems at once, yet managed to keep everything in a fine tuned state
and all of that done haphazardly?

If the giraffe is designed then it was designed either
by a completely incompetent designer
or
by a very deceitful designer.

.... and I am not suggesting "giant leaps" ... that is the article Goad is referencing.

@chaney3 said
There's a quote out there that goes something like:

"Life originating from nothing is equivalent to a tornado passing through a junkyard and assembling a fully functioning jumbo jet when it has passed".

Life did not come from nothing.

Why are you telling me this?

@wolfgang59 said
If the giraffe is designed then it was designed either
by a completely incompetent designer
or
by a very deceitful designer.

.... and I am not suggesting "giant leaps" ... that is the article Goad is referencing.

Could you build one, or the writer of Goad's article? If not I say the incompetent
designer is a mote point. I'm not sure why anyone would think if a designer did
do the work, why would "deceitful" come into play? I hope they wouldn't say
that just because they didn't like the design! Granted even here for some, just
saying you are not in agreement with them, that is all it takes to be called
deceitful and lying.

I'm at a loss why they think that, even if they consider their views correct, it does
not mean anyone who holds onto a different view is somehow lying and is being
deceitful. If the design looks as if it would not come into reality for any known
good reason therefore it is at odds with the current views of natural selection, then
that would not be the design being deceitful, that would simply show the one
projecting their views on how and why it became a reality is in error for their stance.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
A friend here recently shared the following thoughts with me which I thought warranted a thread of its own. (He may appear to contribute, but won't name him in case he doesn't).

'The Neck of the Giraffe' (written by Francis Hitching) postulates that evolution of species has not and certainly has not always been a slow, gradual and incremental thing, but rather has ...[text shortened]... s.
It's an interesting theory, at least, and purports to explain huge gaps in the fossil record. '

It is certainly interesting. i thought that this was going to go somewhere else.

It reminds me vaguely of Bergson and his concept that there are forces within evolution that guide us; all life proceeds to resist against death, and this resistance to death is simply manifestign differently and in different ways in different species towards some ultimate goal.

This was influenced a bit by Schopenhauer as well.

This is not a field that I know that much about, though, so I cannot comment that extensively.

@kellyjay said
Could you build one, or the writer of Goad's article? If not I say the incompetent
designer is a mote point. I'm not sure why anyone would think if a designer did
do the work, why would "deceitful" come into play? I hope they wouldn't say
that just because they didn't like the design! Granted even here for some, just
saying you are not in agreement with them, that is all ...[text shortened]... how the one
projecting their views on how and why it became a reality is in error for their stance.

I can't make sense of this.
Try one point at a time.

@wolfgang59 said
I can't make sense of this.
Try one point at a time.

How or why would a designer be "incompetent" for its design, isn't it living, and
isn't reproducing over time? Shouldn't that be the standard of success not failure?

How or why would a designer be called "very deceitful", wouldn't it be a more
accurate description to call the on lookers misguided in their understanding? If
they don't know how to do it, how is that a charge to the designer for deceit?
If they misinterpret the necessary design elements or features, that isn't the
designer's fault they don't have a clue, its theirs.

I had once heard the argument from a OEC or YEC (I do not know which) which went along the lines of... the process of the creation of the Earth made things appear to be entirely "condensed" in any attempt to carbon date it because of the amount of fire used in creation. It was simply an issue of not having equipment that could accurately assess what was going on.

It was intriguing to me.

I do not believe it... but the ability to account for these sorts of things has kind of blown my mind.

I take people more seriously now, regardless of their background or the popularly perceived absurdity of what they are saying.

@kellyjay said
How or why would a designer be "incompetent" for its design, isn't it living, and
isn't reproducing over time? Shouldn't that be the standard of success not failure?

The giraffe is successful in that it survives and out-competes any similar animals.

That does not mean it has been designed well!
It is just the most successful accident.

@kellyjay said
How or why would a designer be called "very deceitful", wouldn't it be a more
accurate description to call the on lookers misguided in their understanding?

To every biologist the giraffe is "badly designed".
Conclusion:
1. It is NOT designed.
2. The Designer is incompetent.
3. The Designer wants us to think he is incompetent or non-existent.

No other options.

@wolfgang59 said
The giraffe is successful in that it survives and out-competes any similar animals.

That does not mean it has been designed well!
It is just the most successful accident.

Again, you are measuring success by personal preference, or the success of the
living creature in question? Even if we were to look at life without design, isn't
the measure of good, the fact it doesn't die off as soon as it arrives, and instead
thrives and continues on? Calling it a successful accident implies you know how it
got here, you don't. Personally the very fact you think it wasn't designed well and
it still successful means in my opinion you cannot tell the difference.

@wolfgang59 said
To every biologist the giraffe is "badly designed".
Conclusion:
1. It is NOT designed.
2. The Designer is incompetent.
3. The Designer wants us to think he is incompetent or non-existent.

No other options.

If every biologist calls a lifeform that is alive and well, not well-designed, means
they have no frigging clue what they are talking about, or what a successful
lifeform means! Can every biologist, or any group of them create a creature
similar? I think not, so what do they know about the design of them? They are
more like a sports car enthusiast who loves specific cars, calling one a better
model then another only because they like some features over others. They have
no clue how to build one to know what is well made and isn’t. Features on a car
might seem better, but if they are not well built, they more than likely will not last,
so those that do last a long time we call well made, not just those that only
preform as we like off the assembly line.

Implying your dislike for the model you then jump into the designer is trying to
imply incompetence, and, or deception is quite the leap in motivational
interpretation don't you think?

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Yes, that's the usual understanding, but I quite like the notion that, 'cataclysmic geological events may have been responsible, which have caused mass extinctions, and have 'shocked' the collective gene pool into producing offspring which don't resemble their parents.' I also rather like the term 'hopeful monsters.'

Have added that book to my reading list. (Especially now that I know it irritates Becker).

Since I do believe in a Creator God, I support the scientifically supported idea of evolution as being just one tool in the Creator's toolbox. This theory you put forth follows my own view of evolution, which supports occasional 'tweaks' from the hand of a Creator to keep things moving towards His goal.

@suzianne said
Since I do believe in a Creator God, I support the scientifically supported idea of evolution as being just one tool in the Creator's toolbox. This theory you put forth follows my own view of evolution, which supports occasional 'tweaks' from the hand of a Creator to keep things moving towards His goal.

Many Christians view evolution as a threat to 'creation' but it actually does lend more to a devoted deity, where creation wasn't just a one-off event but an ongoing process. In their pursuit to protect (the clearly analogous) idea of Adam and Eve they miss the far more significant possibility that God created humans through the long and attentive process of evolution.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Many Christians view evolution as a threat to 'creation' but it actually does lend more to a devoted deity, where creation wasn't just a one-off event but an ongoing process. In their pursuit to protect (the clearly analogous) idea of Adam and Eve they miss the far more significant possibility that God created humans through the long and attentive process of evolution.

Was the first human created a man, or an infant?

Because an infant would have died on its own.