"Intelligent Design"

darwin is a nimrod

>Putting the tube you need to breathe through
>Right next to the tube you need to swallow through
G*d is a moron.

He's a great hunter?

The human spine's S shape.

Not exactly poor design but why are there fish that live in the anal cavities of sea cucumbers, gnawing on their internal organs?
Why was that necessary, useful, good, or otherwise worth doing at all?

Keep in mind that they don't plague all (or even most) sea cucumbers, that sea cucumbers already have a ton of parasites like most animals, and that most of that fish's cousin species live in regular cavities in rocks or in the sand.

forgot pics
youtu.be/K2Eyup8Jk3w?t=51

Symbiotic relationship, maybe? Why such a pairing came about is beyond me.

If it's so bad then why it hasn't dissapeared?

Because is not a serious threat. See

Oh, I understand now.
Is there any "mechanism" to remove those useless parts which aren't a serious threat?

the most abundant enzyme on this planet

>rubisco

it's found in all organisms that undergo photosynthesis

itss job is to capture CO2 from the atmosphere, and fix it into sugar
rubisco is so bad at this that about every 4 attempt it it captures O2 instead
this is due to the fact that plants evolved during high CO2 atmospheric concentration and coincidentally the enzyme also developed an affinity for O2 as well

Try to be a little more open minded. The intelligent design argument really finds its strength in the fine-tuning of the constants of nature.

In the biological realm, perhaps God uses evolution as a method to obtain his goals. Think about it. If you let the machine left to its own devices run its course, it does the job on its own. Evolution is a highly reliable method for producing intended designs, like the eye for example, which evolved independently over 50 times.

Female Hyenas have a fake penis that they have to give birth through. But before they can give birth they have to split the "penis" in half so the baby can fit. This means getting pregnant a first time and killing the baby as you painfully force its dead body through your mangled bleeding genitals.

That's pretty metal

Life is adapted to the constants of nature, not vice versa dumbass. That's like saying it's a miracle that lawns are adapted to lawnmowers.

Oh, yes how could I be so foolish. Clearly, life would adapt to a universe with minute traces of Carbon, or where stars don't burn hydrogen. Maybe even a blackhole.

>is
He's also apparently the Wandering Jew.

>Is there any "mechanism" to remove those useless parts which aren't a serious threat?
Not any natural one, no.

>The intelligent design argument really finds its strength in the fine-tuning of the constants of nature.
Which are just one set of solutions to the mathematical understructure of the universe.

>life cannot consist of cellular-like permutations of space-time
Dude you have like no imagination.

>can't think outside narrow 18th century anthropocentric box
>"how could I be so foolish"
How indeed.

Flat earthers

Metal as fuck

Damn that's so metal

I bet he and Mozart are probably friends by now

Hey! An educated person!

youtube.com/watch?v=Slro9bEoz2Q

This is a terrible argument. Poor design would be an integral feature of the world if embodiment and the entity that made it so were Evil.

Are you telling us that this "odd" phenomena is a reason why evolution is false? Becuase if you are you need to seriously get fucking a clue.

Evolution has no purpose. In this case it is most likely a host/parasite relationship. The evolution would likely be what is known as the arms race model.

Eating and breathing by the same pipe. Making it possible to choke to death with food. Why don't we have a separate blowhole like dolphins? Maybe not on top of head tough.

While I know that there's countless physical evidence for evolution, studying cell biology, you can't help but feel it was designed. Everything works so perfectly, with all the different parts so beautifully in sync. An intelligent, highly educated human being couldn't design even a simple, single celled organism, is everything we see around us really just the result of random mutations and natural selection?

Kek

>really just the result of random mutations and natural selection
Yes you fucktard.

>everything works so perfectly in sync
You're serious? I don't think you've studied cell biology at all.

>Are you telling us that this "odd" phenomena is a reason why evolution is false?
It's the opposite obviously. I'm asking why the supremely intelligent designer made that sort of thing.

>gnaw on their internal organs
No. Most species of sea cucumbers developed teeth on their anal orifices to keep pearlfish and other large parasites out too.

lesswrong.com/lw/kr/an_alien_god/

Humans have lots of poor features
>shit tier sense of smell compared to dogs and most other animals
>awful night vision compared to most predators
>spinal cord layout (if it gets severed everything below the spot it is severed is paralyzed)
>body hair isn't harmful but it is useless, unless you're hairy enough to be a circus freak you don't grow enough to help keep you warm
>not nearly as physically strong as our closest relatives (monkeys and gorillas)

lots of tradeoffs for vast intelligence and the spinal cord thing is pretty ubiquitous among chordates
our vision is actually fucking great, maybe not our night vision and we have to best endurance of any land animal

>>awful night vision compared to most predators
Don't we have the best color vision of all mammals or something?

our vision is a good balance of motion detection and color differentiation, predators (like dogs for example) are often more colorblind as a trade off so they detect motion more easily which is good for hunting
this isn't true for raptors though because they need both

I'm not completely certain but I think primates have color vision too. Most birds and fish also have color vision. Not sure what mammals besides primates have color vision.

In the evolution of mammals, segments of color vision were lost, then for a few species of primates, regained by gene duplication. Eutherian mammals other than primates (for example, dogs, mammalian farm animals) generally have less-effective two-receptor (dichromatic) color perception systems, which distinguish blue, green, and yellow—but cannot distinguish oranges and reds. There is some evidence that a few mammals, such as cats, have redeveloped the ability to distinguish longer wavelength colors, in at least a limited way, via one-amino-acid mutations in opsin genes.[38] The adaptation to see reds is particularly important for primate mammals, since it leads to identification of fruits, and also newly sprouting reddish leaves, which are particularly nutritious.

However, even among primates, full color vision differs between New World and Old World monkeys. Old World primates, including monkeys and all apes, have vision similar to humans. New World monkeys may or may not have color sensitivity at this level: in most species, males are dichromats, and about 60% of females are trichromats, but the owl monkeys are cone monochromats, and both sexes of howler monkeys are trichromats.[39][40][41][42] Visual sensitivity differences between males and females in a single species is due to the gene for yellow-green sensitive opsin protein (which confers ability to differentiate red from green) residing on the X sex chromosome.

Several marsupials such as the fat-tailed dunnart (Sminthopsis crassicaudata) have been shown to have trichromatic color vision.[43]

Marine mammals, adapted for low-light vision, have only a single cone type and are thus monochromats.[citation needed]

color vision is useful to herbivores
motion vision is useful to predators (and herbivores trying to escape from predators)
we have both, i know there's a theory that says our ancestors were all colorblind but as we started foraging we evolved the ability to see color
I'm pretty sure three cone color vision is rare, most animals that see color only see red and green but we see red, green and blue

Given that plants produced most of that oxygen well.....
>pic related

The point is that it's really shit at its job.

In fact we're currently researching how to improve it:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RuBisCO#Genetic_engineering

You have a rather poor understanding of the time scales involved with this topic that you have such strong opinions on
You greatly underestimate... Nvm I don't think you actually take the time to think before you repeat what you are told.

for some feature to persist in life for as long as rubisco and be as commonly used it needs to have some advantage over alternatives or it would have changed by now

or all alternatives died out and none managed to spring up in all that time
or the alternatives are better but the process of evolving to the alternative is too detrimental

>what is cyanobacteria

Rubisco sounds like a sandwich.
Like a greasy, slippery corned beef on rye.

Who says that God actually designed every detail in our universe?
Imagine God as a programmer. He wrote the laws of physics, and a kind of machine learning algorithm that allows the universe to expand and create things on its own. But in the end, he is not the one designing the details. We are just the result of poor programming.
He's probably ditched us because we were the Alpha version, and he has a successful parallel universe where every single human is Super Chad

He wouldn't even care about us, He probably looks at neutrino rates or some weird shit and life is just a bug He has to put up with.

mfw charles darwin says you don't need organs in your body because they don;t know what they do, so you believe that and his evolution theory.

Charles Darwin says we're monkeys and therefore we should climb trees and eat bananas.
If you wanna be a loser monkey then be one. But I'm a human being because I can do science

>provides 25 valid arguments against evolution
>tries to trivialize them in a bingo game to avoid actual discussion of these arguments
>being this dogmatically attached to a failed theory, rather than the pursuit of understanding all possibilities.

>applies several no true scotsman fallacies to evolution and abiogenesis , when the former cannot exist without the latter and vice vera.

when both are nonsensical without unobservably vast scales of time and have not once been recorded or observed in nature therefore hold no foothold in reality.

explanations over observations

intelligent design is obvious to the intelligent.

There are ancient structures people are literally not intelligent enough to determine are not just rock mountians, and will believe authorities when they tell them pyramids are just hills.

what do you get out of this? is there money? is Jesus gonna suck your dick?

fucking with science is just fuck shit up dude
science cures cancer and takes us to the moon

>fucking with science is just fuck shit up dude
>science cures cancer and takes us to the moon

This is scientism dude, you use science as an ideological paradigm construct rather than a tool similar to logic or geometry.

you have faith in science and think you can do and learn all things through science. this is not true.

science still collects billions a year in revenue for "cancer research" so either they cured cancer or they didn't, Im gonna say they didn't

we definitely didn't go to the moon. you can look into that yourself.

>is Jesus gonna suck your dick?
No , Darwin will.

Can you explain your 'IDiot Bingo' if you're so smart?

No that's not what I believe at all.
You can't learn everything through science but you can learn about the natural world which is what science is for. We need to know about the natural world if we're going to do anything with it, it's also just good to know.

evolution is definitely real
creationism definitely is not

Ocean sunfish. If there is an intelligent creator he really fucking hates those fish for some reason. Scientists are seriously confused as to how there are even any alive due to how bad they suck at life.

>science cures cancer
and
>takes us to the moon

wow great

pray for me in church tomorrow, I'm a non-believer

science takes you to a barren rock.
Religion take you to heaven and gives you a reason to live.
How about that?

science is the reason to live

>Most species of sea cucumbers developed teeth on their anal orifices to keep pearlfish and other large parasites out too

God I love nature sometimes, this shit's beyond hilarious

thing is, if God is that fallible
why call it God?
If it discarded us, then it obviously does not demand or even desire worship, nor does it actively intervene in the details of creation (aka every action and event that affects us).

In the end it doesn't matter if the first domino was pushed or fell out of it's own accord if nobody touches the other stones.

>25 valid arguments against evolution
I just want to point out that the middle (free) space is literally "Therefore, God did it." and you are calling that a valid argument.
okay dawg.

>several no true scotsman fallacies
...you don't actually know what No True Scotsman is, do you?
>evolution and abiogenesis , when the former cannot exist without the latter and vice vera
it's perfectly possible to have one without the other. life COULD have been specially created and then evolved. and life COULD have arisen from inorganic material but then never actually changed. it's just that neither of those is true of our particular reality.
>evolution is nonsensical over human lifespans and has never been recorded or observed
the timespans necessary can be circumvented by using fast-breeding model organisms such as microbes or insects. the Lenski E. coli experiment is one example of evolution being observed, and the curious case of Biston betularia is another.

>science still collects billions a year in revenue for "cancer research" so either they cured cancer or they didn't, Im gonna say they didn't
science HAS cured some types of cancer. there's now a vaccine that provides 100% protection against cervical cancer, a major threat to women.

>science takes you to a barren rock.
Science also took us to modern medicine, transportation, and computers (the reason you were able to post bait here)
>reason to live
more like reason to die

>atheists think human life is a coincidence

>Can you explain your 'IDiot Bingo' if you're so smart?
I can indeed! For I am a paleofag!

>If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
We did not evolve from modern monkeys, but rather from a common ancestor of monkeys. And speciation proceeds not only through anagenesis (one species becomes another species) but also through cladogenesis (one species becomes multiple species, splitting into two divergent populations)
>Conflates evolution and abiogenesis.
Evolution is life changing over time. Abiogenesis is life emerging from non-living material. They operate by entirely different mechanisms, and it is not necessary to know the details of one to understand the other.
>Famous Scientist X was a creationist.
Yes, and Famous Scientist X was wrong, having been born into a world ignorant of how evolution works. Just because someone was a genius in one respect doesn't mean they were right about everything; Einstein was an insanely gifted physicist, but he was flat wrong about the cosmological constant.
>Clains [sic] junk DNA isn't really junk.
Noncoding DNA generally has no role; occasionally, it can make individuals more susceptible to certain kinds of mutations. By and large, though, it's useless, the detritus of eons of splicing and alteration.
>Claims carbon dating is used to date anything older than 62,000 years.
Creationists frequently conflate radiometric dating with 14C dating. 14C dating, due to its half-life of 5,730 years, is never used to date anything older than ~10 half-lifes due to limits of detection, and people who claim it is are ignorant.

(1/5)

problem with using bacteria to prove evolution is that it takes a (small) degree of education to realize just how much variance exists between various microorganisms
completely uneducated persons (such as the folks who commonly deny evolution tend to be) tend to find the notion that 2 superficially identical looking microorganisms can be more distant genetically speaking than a human and a tree and will only consider truly radical changes in observable physical structure to be "macro-evolution"

Since natural selection doesn't mean "fit" but rather "most fit that can survive and reproduce", it can lead to some stunning inefficiencies.
But the one thing that really keeps me up at night is the realization that nature does not give a shit if your creature undergoes breathtaking agony. A creature could live 50% of its 10 year lifespan in torturous pain, but as long as it can reproduce and survive, it's allowed.

wouldn't see how that could keep you up at night
nature isn't an entity, it has no emotions, feelings or thoughts and as a result has no capacity for malevolence

>Claims that any large percentage of biologists disputes Darwinian evolution.
Evolution is a fact, among biologists. Estimates for its support are something like 99.9%. While there are disputes about rates of change and the importance of various mechanisms, it's practically universally accepted.
>Organ X is too complex to have evolved.
This is argument from incredulity. If someone cannot imagine how some organ might have evolved, that speaks to the limits of their imagination, not to any flaw in evolution.
>The second law of thermodynamics prohibits evolution.
The second law of thermodynamics states that in a closed system, entropy necessarily increases. Earth, however, is not a closed system! It receives infalling material and also quite a lot of energy from the Sun. Local decreases in entropy can be offset by increases elsewhere, and adding energy to a system can drive quite a lot of entropy-reducing processes; this can be verified by letting a glass of salt water evaporate, forming highly ordered crystals.
>If evolution is true, then why aren't we still evolving?
We are still evolving. We're just evolving under a radically different set of conditions and driven by an entirely different kind of selective pressure (very little survival selection, almost entirely mate-choice selection). And of course, evolution is incredibly slow in long-lived K-selectors like us.
>References the Piltdown Man, the Nebraska Man, Archaeoraptor, or a similar hoax as evidence against the reliability of paleontology.
All those hoaxes (or misidentifications, in Nebraska's case) were quickly discovered BY OTHER PALEONTOLOGISTS. Other controversial specimens, from Archaeopteryx to the platypus to the Taung Child, have been greeted with skepticism as well. But they have been investigated independently and thoroughly, and found to be real. That's the great thing about science: it's self-correcting.

>And of course, evolution is incredibly slow in long-lived K-selectors like us.
I wonder, given the sheer number of adult humans which successfully procreate, would it be reasonable to assume humans are the species with the slowest rate of evolution on the planet?

giant tortoises must be slower

>Were you there?
Creationists have no problem accepting Biblical narrative, despite the fact that they weren't there either. We have a record, a geologic one, that tells us some of what has happened in the past, and it can be read (by a trained observer) almost like a book. When Creationists ask me this question, I prefer to answer with "yes, I was indeed there" and dare them to prove me wrong. It seems to fluster their jimbobs.
>Claims that according to evolution, humans evolved from chimps.
According to evolution, we evolved from a common ancestor (a chimp-like one, to be sure) that we share with chimps. And their point is...?
>Free space: Therefore, God did it.
Invoking supernatural intervention to explain unknowns has a poor track record. The same argument was once used to explain everything from seasonality to lighting to earthquakes. And as we got a better idea of how those work, suddenly people stopped magically attributing those to deities. More importantly, it is a needlessly complex and unfalsifiable conjecture.
>Claims evolution is not observable.
I refer you to the Lenski experiment. We have plenty of observations of evolution in progress; Creationists just like to pretend we don't.
>Evolution is only a theory.
This relies on the confusion between colloquial and technical uses of "theory". In science, a theory is an overarching idea that not only explains the sum of the evidence according to some principle or mechanism, but CONTINUES to explain new evidence as it comes in. That is, it stands up against attempts to disprove it. It's the closest thing to Fact that we have in science. General relativity is also a theory, but if you put an accurate clock in a fast airplane and fly it around for several hours, you can guarantee that it will have lost a fraction of a second in the journey.

(3/5)

dunno, while giant tortoises reproduce at an ungodly slow pace, they still have a fairly large selective pressure applied to that reproduction, while humans have found a way to ignore the vast majority of them

I mean, even humans with non functional genitals can still reproduce successfully (in the western world)

>there are still people in 2017 who think evolution and the religious viewpoint are inherently mutually exclusive
>there are still people who think God is some transcendent designer in a 4D workshop slaving over cellular flagella or w/e is the hot button meme bio-mechanism of the week
>there are still people who refuse to see something divine in there being a nature that self-organizes in the first place

the designer is not outside the universe, it is immanent: nature itself. we literally bootstrapped ourselves out of the dirt, and "it's just matter broooo" does not do the miracle that is justice.

want proof? go look in a mirror

are you my grade 8 math teacher?

>Equates evolution by natural selection to random chance or chaos.
Mutation is (mostly) random. Selection is non-random. Next!
>Where are all the missing links?
In the fossil record. We have way more of them now than we used to. But when Creationists are presented with an intermediate Z between X and Y, they then demand that we produce an intermediate W between X and Z and an intermediate V between Z and Y. It's an outrageous example of goalpost-moving, pic related.
>Claims the theory of evolution has become sacrosanct.
Creationists don't get laughed out of academia for rejecting evolution; they get laughed out of academia for rejecting evolution without basing that opinion on evidence. If someone showed up with conclusive evidence against evolution, we'd listen. But oddly enough, nobody yet has.
>Claims the theory of evolution has no practical uses.
This has no bearing on whether or not evolution is real, but it also happens to be hilariously false. Understanding the mechanisms of evolution and how selection works allows us to predict the emergence of resistance in pests, weeds, and pathogens, and tailor our control methods to limit it. The reason patients are treated with multi-drug antibiotic cocktails is because it's harder for bacteria to simultaneously evolve resistance to multiple antibiotics than to a single one.
>Claims Darwin recanted on his deathbed.
A malicious rumor spread by the evangelist Elizabeth Cotton, Lady Hope. Darwin's daughter Henrietta, who was present at his deathbed, conclusively and vehemently rejected this claim.

(4/5)

I don't know, why, is it cause this thread's at an 8th grade level? Come on don't you guys ever get tired of the old creationism vs. SCIENCE dichotomy, why can't you move past it? Why do you think in boxes?

no that's just the exact same argument she used when trying to convince me God exists

>doesn't do it justice
c'moooon, that's all feels no reals

i don't think it's an argument for the existence of god, i think it's an argument against ignorance of god

the answer to the "great mover" argument is quite simple: if it's impossible to differentiate god from natural processes the belief in god is pointless

>Claims that if we come from animals, we have to act like animals.
Is-ought distinction. We come from ancestors who rarely bathed, could neither read nor right, lived in the same room as their pigs, and were lucky to see their thirtieth year. That doesn't mean that we should be unwashed, unlettered, uncivilized, and unenduring; we have improved ourselves. And of course, this has no bearing on whether evolution is real, merely whether it is pleasant to think about.
>What use is half an eye?
Plenty! Suppose an organism has a light-sensitive protein. It's advantageous to express it in the skin, since that's what's exposed to light. Now you have an organism that can tell day from night, which is very useful for feeding or avoiding predators. Now suppose the area is indented, forming a rim around the edge. This allows for simple directional vision, telling the organism whether it is facing towards or away from the light, which is invaluable for telling up from down in the water. Let's raise that rim a little more, improve the directionality of vision. Well, what if a clear membrane grows that can maybe focus the light a little, helping to discern simple images? That's how you get an eye, maintaining some sort of useful function all the way.
>Claims some systems are irreducibly complex.
Just because a system might not function with the loss of any of its components doesn't mean it couldn't have evolved. It might previously have had MORE components, making up some other structure for some other purpose, that was repurposed and gradually lost all non-essential parts.
>Claims microevolution and macroevolution are completely different.
Small incremental changes can and do lead into large dramatic changes. Pic related.
>Scientists are changing their theories all the time. Evolution could be the next one they discard.
And if conclusive evidence against evolution appears, then and only then will we reject evolution. We make decisions based on what we KNOW.

(5/5)

Any questions?

nope, bravo!

...