scigirl

I have another question.

Did you personally write this critique, Vander? Be honest.

scigirl

Vanderzyden

Criticizing the Creator is most certainly a religious activity.


Vanderzyden

LaFlavor

they aren't criticizing a creator. you should have taken Doubting Didymus's advice and looked up the term "atheist".

Vanderzyden

The rate of debilitating congenital heart defects is very low. Very slight defects are thought to occur in one in every fifteen babies. Oh, don't blame God. Blame the ancestors who smoked cigarettes, were alcoholics, or got into some other kind of trouble.

It would seem that you would like to turn this into a religious discussion, scigirl. I would rather limit our religious dialogue in this particular discussion to "design" and "designer", and the implications that are directly related, thanks.

And yes, I took the better part of two days worth of free time to re-examine this fascinating subject, using my anatomy books and the website that was provided. You know, your suggestion is quite ridiculous, and (again) insulting. I question your real motive, scigirl:

-- Do you again question my ability?
-- Do you question my integrity?
-- Do you again attempt to discredit me?
-- Do you really care to find the truth?

Should you wonder why I am not compelled to respond to you very often?

Vanderzyden

Doubting Didymus

Van, If you insist on not responding to people you dislike, then I strongly suggest you stop talking about it and just fucking do so.

Interrupting the conversation every second post to point out yet again that 'I'm not talking to you, because you're naughty'. Is both irritating and childish. Grow up.

scigirl

So because we accept evolution, you automatically assume we think the body is uncomplicated? I'm sure I know more about the complexities of the human body than you do. However, these complexities are 1) found in other organisms, 2) consistent with evolutionary history and 3) can be explained by evolution, if you know anything at all about genetics and gene expression.

Whether or not the "defect" has advantages is completely irrelevant, in my opinion. What IS relevant? That many of these adaptations or defects or whatever you want to call them are consistent with our current models of evolution. Our adapted upright posture, for example.

Well when septal defects occur, artifical valves ARE better than no valves at all.

Um, the liver isn't doing much for the fetal circulatory system - it's just there IIRC.
Say what? Explain what you mean here.

The circulation pattern is however drastically changed - but I do not wish to argue semantics.

For most babies, but not all, unfortunately.

From Clincally Oriented Anatomy by Keith L Moore:
Hmm, yep what a caring designer. Well maybe you meant caring in the sense that these defects keep cardiovascular surgeons in business. Yep God definitely cares about doctors all right - there's enough diseases to go around for many many specialties!

Um, your logic is flawed. Providing an alternate, unproven, explanation for the same phenomenon does not disprove evolution.
I wouldn't say that the human body is poorly designed, in general. It is quite amazingly "designed," and complex. However, I would say that it has the following features:
1) It is constrained by certain features of its biology. We just aren't as strong as, say, gorillas, or as fast as, say, cheetahs. These facts can be explained by our physiology.
2) These constraints, from our physiology, make sense in the light of evolution - and our evolutionary history. We would expect to have similar physiology, and similar constraints, as a chimp, than as a fish. And we do.
3) We have some evolutionary 'leftovers' which may or may not have new functions. The evolutionary relationships between these structures is confirmed through embryological studies.



Well at least you posted SOME stuff about science before prolesthetizing.

Oh and what amazing data leads you to believe that the foramen ovale and related structures proves that your particular definitionn of the creator is valid? Oh yeah - I remember the part in Matthew chapter 6 where God explains his heart designs in great detail. (heehee the mitral valve WAS named after the hat the bishop wears - ok yep God did make the heart in 1 day or whatever! )

I have many more criticisms - for instance, why in the *&#*&@Q did this God of yours place the urethra so close to the anus in the female body? Oh wait, I forgot - he was a mysogenist. Thanks a lot for the UTI's, God! (by the way, that last one was a rhetorical question - I do NOT want to hear your views on any facet of female anatomy! )

Um we don't believe in the floating sky daddy here. Or perhaps you are unclear about the meaning of the term "atheist."

scigirl

[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: scigirl ]</p>

monkenstick

vanderzyden, theres a urate oxidase pseudogene thread waiting for your reply.

scigirl

You consider that LOW? I thought you had kids yourself.

So let me get this straight - all the cool stuff is from God (when the heart works properly) but all the bad stuff is from something other than God?

No I don't want to make this into a religious discussion per se - just want to point out to you that you can't keep side-stepping these critical issues when they come up.

If evolution is true, and DID create us, than it has to account for both the good and the bad facets of our body. And it does.

You are the one who brought the designer into the critique. You can't have it both ways. Like in a courtroom - if the defense attorney brings up the suspect's credibility, than the prosecution has every right to examine that credibility.

Yep that was me that brought up, not so subtlely, that Mr D is going to hell for doubting the sky fairy. OH WAIT no it wasn't - that was YOU!

I'm confused. You can blabber about how this god is all great and wonderful and present evidence to prove this (well attempt to prove this), but when I present evidence to rebut, suddenly I'm changing the subject and talking about religion?

Vanderzyden, if we were at a coffee shop discussing a hypothetical 'designer,' this conversation would go much differently.

But let's not kid ourselves - we (you) are NOT talking about a random designer that could be Vishnu, or even an alien. We are talking about God as described in the Judeo-Christian Bible, right? If not, than what's the point of this whole debate? Why do you refuse to put a name to this creator, or get mad when we do?

Or do you prefer to leave the designer so vaguely defined that you could use this definition however it suits you?
I apologize. It's just that it was a bit more...biological...than some of your posts.

scigirl

scigirl

If disease is a result of sin, than why is it that we can find animal models of nearly every human disease that exists?

scigirl

Albion

This looks like a case of trying to have it both ways. Evolution doesn't work because if it did work the system would be better designed than it is, except that Mr D hasn't shown it's poorly designed even though evolutionarily it is. Basically, if evolution did it, it's bad, but if God did it, it's good. Even if it's the exact same thing in both cases.