Unintelligent Design

By Sunday November 20, 2011



49 Comments
  1. So what says:
    11/20/2011 at 6:45 am

    I LOVE SCIENCE!

    Reply
  2. AdmFubar says:
    11/20/2011 at 7:29 am

    hhmm another broken flash presentation…
    i’ve been noticing more problems with flash not working right these days..

    Reply
    • ubiquitous talking head says:
      11/20/2011 at 10:21 am

      Seems like they update flash every other day. Fortunately or unfortunately flash is dead. Any web component with no mobile version has no future. (I happen to like flash, wfiw.)

      Reply
  3. jbenson2 says:
    11/20/2011 at 7:51 am

    Unintelligent Design?

    Sounds like a description of how the Obama administration operates. He surrounds himself with little kids with propellers on their heads. Not one has a lick of sense!

    Even Chris Matthews has left the tribe!
    http://goo.gl/NWvyw

    Where’s the vision? Where’s the plan? Obama doesn’t call anyone or even engage in a conversation with his cabinet.

    Reply
    • Basement_Cat says:
      11/20/2011 at 12:35 pm

      Uh, we’re talking science here, so take your fundy-wingnut comments elsewhere.

      God, what an idiot. You degrade both science and the political process with your inappropriate comments.

      Reply
  4. C. Garison says:
    11/20/2011 at 7:55 am

    Of Course, Rick Perry would believe in an “Unintelligent God” had he watched this.

    Which kinda proves, everything.

    Reply
  5. Silenus says:
    11/20/2011 at 8:00 am

    The inefficient routing of the recurring laryngeal nerve does not rule out the divine hand in the design of living things. In fact, it can be taken as good evidence for polytheism, that is, design by committee.

    Reply
  6. Peppeddu says:
    11/20/2011 at 8:19 am

    I beg to differ.

    An engineer can go back and throw away the old design, but often they do not, because it’s much simpler to piggy back on the old design.

    The Space Shuttle SRB (Solid Rocket Booster) size was determined by the width of a horse’s ass.

    http://astrodigital.org/space/stshorse.html

    So what’s the difference between evolution and engineers?

    Reply
    • Thomas says:
      11/20/2011 at 10:48 am

      Using this idea, we have to ask at what point was design introduced? The SRB was an example of multiple engineers introducing design choices at multiple stages in the development. We have no evidence to support even a single design choice much less much less multiple where old design choices were left in place.

      Reply
      • Peppeddu says:
        11/20/2011 at 9:59 pm

        I’m always amazed at the words dancing that some people do to defend their point.

        So we have to question the meaning of each single word?
        ‘Cause when you get out and it’s raining you start wondering: Is this really water, right?

        Reply
  7. Moobie says:
    11/20/2011 at 8:20 am

    The RNC or Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve is evidence of good design IMHO.

    Basically the main reason the nerve takes the “detour” as Dawkins calls it is due to the fact that the never also supports other organs throughout the body.

    More: http://icr.org/article/recurrent-laryngeal-nerve-not-evidence/

    Reply
  8. George says:
    11/20/2011 at 8:27 am

    This is stupid. The recurrent laryngeal nerve takes this course because of a necessity of development not because of a lack of design. In the embryological state, the precursor to the heart exists up in the neck region of the embryo. By virtue of the body needing to elongate, extend and develop, the heart moves downward. The recurrent laryngeal precursor at first being straight must now loop around the great arteries of the heart as the heart migrates down into the chest.

    If you want an analogy, look at printed circuit board design. It would be great if all traces could take a direct path from one component to another, but it is simply not possible in a design of any complexity at all. If the designer cannot put in a “vias” (holes in the circuit board to route the signal from one side or layer to the other), the circuitous routes that result are amazing. And don’t think that some “intellegence” doesn’t go into designing a circuit board. Design constraints aren’t evidence that there is no designer.

    The fact is that biological systems have design constraints. The recurrent laryngeal “problem” is a red herring. To claim that intelligent design didn’t happen on the basis of a design “flaw” is ridiculous. In fact, a great designer would take a basic design and use it in as many applications as possible. The same basic embryo is common not only among mammalians, but also birds, fish and reptiles. The recurrent laryngeal nerve problem in mammals may not be a problem for other species with different morphologies, and in fact the path of the nerve in mammals doesn’t seem to be a serious disadvantage.

    I don’t believe in intelligent design myself. I just find Dawkins’s “evidence” to be insulting to my own intelligence.

    Reply
    • Moobie says:
      11/20/2011 at 8:31 am

      Well said George! Better than I. I’ll go have another cup of coffee, way waaaay too early in the morning for this kind of conversation for me. lol.

      Reply
    • Thomas says:
      11/20/2011 at 10:44 am

      I don’t think you have established that elongation is a *necessity* of development as opposed to a by-product of evolution. The only necessity is that the larynx can communicate with the brain. The loop isn’t *required* for that. As a design choice, it a poor one in large animals. Works great for fish though.

      Reply
    • The tallest midget spoketh says:
      11/20/2011 at 1:41 pm

      “.And don’t think that some “intellegence” doesn’t go into designing a circuit board.
      Design constraints aren’t evidence that there is no designer.”

      Double negatives.; my head hurts as I ‘m analyzing your points.
      May this help you understanding my gripe:

      http://thefreedictionary.com/double+negative

      BTW, discussing PCB design and any life form ‘design’ is a very weak analogy.
      Why? I am EMP resistant, for one.
      This whole topic is a red hearring: sharks and sequoias have not evolved, – simply did not need to, whereas T.rex is long gone.

      Reply
  9. What? says:
    11/20/2011 at 8:51 am

    Well, had I seen this on Saturday, a week ago, I could have introduced doubt in the minds of the Creationists who knocked on my Alabama door at 9:00 am.

    Your arguments that the nerve would HAVE to take this route are not credible to me. It is a nerve from the brain to the upper throat, what does this have to do with the location of the heart, and its decent into the chest?

    I accept that embryos are fish-like, and therefore, this fish vestigial anatomical feature we have inherited from our common fishy ancestors have made this nerve’s route the way it is.

    Reply
  10. Raintrees says:
    11/20/2011 at 9:16 am

    Update: I use NoScript and had to allow dmcdn.net, as well as dailymotion.com.

    Reply
  11. Jorn says:
    11/20/2011 at 9:38 am

    Don’t believe in intelligent design either. But what if fish/animals were ‘designed to evolve’?

    Reply
    • Thomas says:
      11/20/2011 at 10:38 am

      There are two problems with that tack. First, how does one determine evidence of design? Claims of something that isn’t designed could end with the circular logic of “it was designed not to show evidence of design” and around we go. Second, if we have no evidence of a designer because it evolved, then why introduce the notion of a designer at all?

      Reply
      • Jorn says:
        11/20/2011 at 10:49 am

        Can only agree. It just shows how moot the whole thing is. There is no way to be sure, just another distraction from solving real problems.

        Reply
  12. Animby says:
    11/20/2011 at 10:31 am

    The nerve loops deep into the chest so young boys in love can feel their hearts beating in their throats.

    Reply
  13. moebeans says:
    11/20/2011 at 10:58 am

    Blaspheme!

    Reply
  14. Skeptic > post # 27,669 says:
    11/20/2011 at 11:41 am

    Intelligent design believers would be more amenable to Dawkins’ ideas if he would stop saying “evilution”.

    Reply
  15. Dallas says:
    11/20/2011 at 11:58 am

    There goes my appetite for steak

    Reply
  16. Uncle Patso says:
    11/20/2011 at 1:01 pm

    To me, the most powerful anti-intelligent-design argument is human dentition. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2006-07, there are 150,000 licensed dentists in the United States. I couldn’t begin to total up the number of hours I’ve spent in agony from toothaches and the number of hours I’ve spent in a dentist’s chair.

    If we were designed by a Designer, all arguments for a “Loving God” go right out the window.

    Reply
    • BigBoyBC says:
      11/20/2011 at 1:47 pm

      Equating the existence of God to people’s poor dental hygiene seems a bit silly. In 48 years, I’ve never had a cavity or toothache. Based upon your analogy, God loves me more than you.

      Evolution neither proves nor disproves the existence or non-existence of God. Evolution only proves the existence of change, nothing more.

      Reply
  17. Gildersleeve says:
    11/20/2011 at 1:26 pm

    Reserved for publication on Sunday. Figures.

    Reply
  18. Gary, the dangerous infidel says:
    11/20/2011 at 2:30 pm

    If someone is capable of believing that once upon a time, only one small group of people in all the land were special enough to deserve an oracle who communicated directly with the Creator of the Universe, I don’t see much hope that a rather technical argument of logic like this one can dissuade them from any tenets of their doctrine. My Ouija board sees little such hope as well.

    Reply
  19. doG says:
    11/20/2011 at 6:20 pm

    intelligent-design assumes an intelligent deity (fatal logic flaw)

    Reply
  20. Breetai says:
    11/20/2011 at 6:26 pm

    SCIEEEENCE!!!! SCIENCE… science….

    Reply

Newer Comments »

Leave a Response


Bad Behavior has blocked 25399 access attempts in the last 7 days.