Unintelligent Design

By Sunday November 20, 2011



49 Comments
  1. WmDE says:
    11/20/2011 at 6:44 pm

    Did these clowns kill a giraffe to make this questionable point?

    Reply
    • nilum says:
      11/20/2011 at 6:50 pm

      Giraffes aren’t immortal… some die of natural causes. We’ve been dissecting animals for a while… I wouldn’t be too disgusted as it helps us understand their anatomy and provide better medical care for the ones still alive.

      We dissect humans too. *rolls eyes*

      It’s not a questionable point, as you stated. It’s evidence that supports evolution as does ALL evidence.

      Reply
      • WmDE says:
        11/20/2011 at 10:00 pm

        I detected no search for scientific information in the video. I did detect a smug presentation of known facts.

        As mice, man and giraffes all have the same number of vertebra in their necks and this nerve travels the same route in all of them one could just as easily say this is a design.

        I have no problem with evolution. It seems a rather intelligent solution to problems.

        If these people wasted a perfectly good giraffe to make this video, they are clowns. They also proved nothing. As mentioned by others the route is a solution to a developmental problem that just happens to work in the finished animal.

        Kangaroos hop because their front legs are short. Their front legs are short because they develop very early to allow the fetal kangaroo to crawl from the birth canal to its mother’s pouch. A trip it has to make by itself. A development solution that can be seen in the adult animal.

        A long nerve run is trivial in comparison.

        (Giraffes may have an additional vertebra but it depends on where you start counting.)

        Reply
        • Somecalmetim says:
          11/20/2011 at 11:58 pm

          Wow, if you actually think they went out and slaughtered a giraffe for this video I can’t believe you don’t swallow your own tongue. It looks like a very interesting biology or anatomy course whose students lucked out on an amazing specimen to me…

          It’s amazing…you basically agreed with the point they are trying to get accross (ie. evolution or “development solution” whatever you want to call it) but you still feel the need to post douchy comments about very trivial portions of the logistics of the video…”Thet better not have killed that poor giraffe”…really?…really?

          It’s amazing how many people post comments on blogs just to argree the point…

          Reply
          • Jess Hurchist says:
            11/21/2011 at 7:01 am

            Don’t know whether it was intentional or a typo but I really like the word argree (never seen it before).
            It seems to perfectly cover the point you made about arguing about a point of agreement, let’s get it added to a dictionary.

        • DaveW says:
          11/22/2011 at 5:37 pm

          WmDE,

          Your so-called argument and conclusions underlie a fundamental misunderstanding on your part of the principle of logic as well as the principle of evolution which the video tries to demonstrate. You can describe the facts cited in the video, but then you go onto a leap to argue a conclusion for which the facts try to demonstrate in the opposite. Your argument using the kangaroos demonstrates the same fallacy. You are obviously aware of the fact about the development of the forelegs, but then you somehow see fit to use this fact to argue for the opposite what the fact supports. This is not an issue of misinterpretation but an issue of faulty reasoning.

          Reply
  2. What? says:
    11/20/2011 at 9:44 pm

    why would an intelligent designer create stupid humans who would praise Him?

    Really?

    Why not create smart humans who would be worthy of understanding Him, and who would appreciate all of His creation?

    The evidence against intelligent design is everywhere, and it is us.

    Reply
  3. Tj-the former catholic says:
    11/21/2011 at 12:30 am

    I believe in evolution, but as a designer of software I can say this does not disprove intelligent design.

    All it says is that legacy design decisions, perhaps even bad ones, live on long after they ever made sense.

    Maybe God got a little lazy.

    Perhaps the giraffe simply needs a design review.

    Reply
  4. Mr Ed says:
    11/21/2011 at 7:56 am

    The current crop of repug prez candidates is proof of unintelligent design.

    Reply
  5. Uncle Patso says:
    11/21/2011 at 10:03 am

    BigBoyBC:

    “Based upon your analogy, God loves me more than you.”

    Made me laugh out loud — thanks for the chuckle. Reminds me of the analagous “God must love the Chinese — he made so many of them.”

    Reply
  6. Airsick says:
    11/21/2011 at 2:18 pm

    This still doesn’t address the age old criticism of evolution; specifically how organs such as the larynx came from, or even nerves.
    IMHO Dawkins should spend his time gathering more evidence for evolution instead of gathering evidence against creationism.

    Reply
    • im the real god says:
      11/22/2011 at 6:12 pm

      Airsick,
      I’ll tell you where organs such as the larynx came from…..my big bowl of spaghetti.
      All religions should spend more time evaluating their preposterous beliefs instead of feeding nonsense (without evidence) against science and evolution.

      Dawkins doesn’t need to do what you tell him to do. He made a very simple observation and came to a simple conclusion. Right or wrong, his point is very powerful because we are always told that god in perfect. If god where perfect he would not have made this simple design fluke.
      You see simple ideas with limited or no proof (i.e. God is perfect, God exists, God always was) can be debunked with simple answers.

      Reply
      • Airsick says:
        11/22/2011 at 8:54 pm

        I don’t think you understand what I meant. What I meant is that this I don’t believe this experiment holds *any scientific* merit. At all.

        Right at the beginning of the video Dawkins makes the statement that evolution produces animals that appear to be designed. Then he proceeds to do an experiment to prove that statement false? This is double-false logic.

        Dawkins is trying to prove that this nerve doubling back is proof of evolution through poor engineering but I can think of a few reasons it is not just off the top of my head:

        1. This nerve may seem like an inefficient design, but it may actually have an architectural benefit; for example doubling back means less holes in the spine leading to better strength overall of the neck.

        2. A poor or inefficient design is not proof there was no creator. There are lots of awful cars out there, but there was at least a little bit of intelligence behind the design and building of them. In fact probably some of the engineers and designers behind them have more intelligence and skill than I do, but they still built an awful car.

        3. His idea that a creator could have gone back to the drawing board is not correct. Could someone say that God wiping out the dinosaurs in a flood was just God rebooting creation?

        There are criticisms of evolution that remain unanswered. I would like to see science move forward, and people like Richard Dawkins fill me with despair – not because he makes a good point but because he does such a good job of not making any point.

        You can shout me down all you want, but I’ve evaluated the evidence and the facts and I am not even remotely convinced of evolution. People did not believe in a God long before Darwin, and they will still not believe in God after we can finally move ahead in science. Evolution does not debunk God, nor does God debunk evolution. Lots of Christians also believe in evolution.

        I’m not trying to make you believe in any God. I’m just saying that this is not science and doesn’t even prove the point Dawkins was trying to point out.

        Natural selection was the main mechanism of evolution behind Darwin’s “Origin of the Species”. However natural selection does not explain the origins of life. It does not explain how simple single celled organisms could evolve into complex multi-celled organisms (which require organs and circulatory systems to exist).

        We have theories on how this can be achieved, but we lack evidence. The fossil record does not support evolutionary processes, but rather shows sudden changes. Explain this. Lets see some *real* science being done. Do some real work collecting evidence rather than doing all this grand standing.

        This isn’t a religious argument, it is a scientific one. Turning it into a religious argument is just a weak tactic used by people with weak arguments. Don’t get suckered into that. Don’t get brainwashed into believing that you can’t look critically at a scientific theory without being a religious nut. That is the whole point of science!

        People defend evolution with a religious fervor, but they should not. No science is a religion. Science and God can both exist. There is nothing wrong with trying to understand the universe if you are religious or an atheist. There is nothing religious about questioning evolution.

        Reply
        • nilum says:
          11/23/2011 at 10:21 am

          People don’t need to defend evolution. It’s a fact! I don’t need to defend gravity because it is a natural law. What atheists are trying to do is educate the ignorant masses with facts, not faith.

          That is what separates atheists from theists. We aren’t trying to sell empty beliefs, we are trying to instill knowledge which is scientifically proven based on empirical data.

          You do nothing but spout BS about being ‘brainwashed’ by science, but that is absolutely absurd. The very foundation of science is based on skepticism, peer review, and critical thinking. Everything scientists find must be tested over and over. Even when there is a general consensus we continue to look for more evidence.

          Certainly there are some of us who aren’t experts, but we know that peer review works. I am not a climatologist, but if 99% of them say man-made climate change is real, I am likely to believe them. I am not arrogant or ignorant enough to think that I know better than the people who research the subject for a living.

          On the other hand, the real religious nuts are the ones who believe some ancient bullshit about an invisible friend who loves us all, but wouldn’t think twice about sending us to hell to burn for eternity. They are the ones who are arrogant enough to question FACTS. And that’s the problem with you Airsick.

          You don’t know what the FUCK you are talking about, yet you sit on your computer typing vast amounts of bullshit. What the fuck do you have a degree in? Business management? Do you have a degree at all? What the fuck do you know about biology. I bet you get confused by basic human anatomy (meaning you probably can’t find the clitoris).

          Science and god can both exist you say. Well, what a fucking revelation. Here is the problem though, science DOES exist. You can’t dispute scientific laws. You can dispute god’s existence.

          So let me fix your statement: Science and god can both exist, but science can exist without god. The latter is MUCH more likely.

          Reply
          • Airsick says:
            11/23/2011 at 11:50 am

            I am *not* arguing about God. I am saying this video is show boating and proves nothing.
            And I’m right.

            There is no science going on here.

            If evolution was a *fact* then lame fake experiments like this wouldn’t be necessary. If peer review worked then people wouldn’t be treated like heretics. You wouldn’t have to paint us with the awful RELIGIOUS FANATIC brush just to marginalize everything we say. This is social and religious BULLYING. Not science.

            And yes, your form of atheism IS RELIGIOUS.

            If the problem with me is that I don’t believe what 99% of atheists want me to believe just because they say so, despite the evidence then I am OK with myself. I can live with that, because what I am interested in is the truth, not fitting in.

            I don’t give in when a bunch of Jehovah’s Witnesses bang on my door and try to pressure me into joining their cult. Why should I join your cult?

            What you say about God is what you say, but if there is a God we cannot chose who he is any more than we can chose our parents. Turning evolution and science into a religion is not going to change God!

            Right now, as it stands, we have more evidence that Jesus Christ is God than we have about evolution! What is that about? Shouldn’t science have evidence behind it? Not when you can bully people into believing it instead!

            THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS (yes I said it) it takes more FAITH to believe in evolution than it does to believe in Jesus or any other religion. I am NOT OK WITH THAT. I can put my faith into a religion but I REFUSE to put my *faith* into science, even if 99% of everyone else will.

            Putting faith into science is not science: it is religion. Keep your religion (even your atheist religions) out of my science. I want to see progress, not another 150 odd years of stagnation!


« Older Comments

Leave a Response


Bad Behavior has blocked 24817 access attempts in the last 7 days.