MrDarwin

Just one more comment to add:

I make no claims to design expertise, I'm simply making some observations and using some common sense. (If I had an infinite amount of time to spend here I would gladly go into more depth, but other responsibilities, like family and work, must be attended to first.)

But I expect Vanderzyden must be mightily offended by the entire medical field, the livelihood of whose practitioners depends upon their skill and expertise in analyzing, regularly repairing, and sometimes even improving upon, biological designs that are so poorly executed that they frequently malfunction, or fail to work in the first place. (Dr. Rick, I believe this is your opening?)

Vanderzyden

Your title for this thread is "Sub-optimal design...". If you were only referring to hypothetical Darwinism, then the term "design" would be inapplicable, since selection is inherently mindless.

Design implies a design-er, which implies a mind.


Vanderzyden

scigirl

V -

first of all, design does NOT imply a mind. I freaking hate semantic arguments - but for the lack of a better word, scientists say that evolution "designed" this or that.

second of all, what made you think that Mr darwin, even if he was implying a real designer, was thinking of YOUR definition of God?

scigirl

Vanderzyden

This is more of the same design critique, MrDarwin. While you do not state it explicitly, you clearly imply that if a Designer exists, he has done a poor job. And yet, you provide no detailed explanation of the particular design flaw. This is nothing but an empty claim.

I notice that you have nothing to say in response to my exposition of the cardiovascular system. Why is that?

"...like standing next to a great waterfall and hearing no noise."

Vanderzyden

pangloss

Shall I conclude that you have no plans to present those references you said you would some time ago?

pz

Ridiculous. It certainly does not, and all you're doing now is playing vapid rhetorical games.

I could just as well look at a tree and say growth implies a grow-er, which implies a mind, and claim that that means it is pointless and wrong to study natural mechanisms of plant maturation. Or that trees are intelligent.

pangloss

Well, I am not scigirl, but after having you ignore repeated requests to do what you offered to do, and these vacuous exercises in what amounts to apologetics, I can answer some of this.

Yes, I question your ability.
Yes, I question your integrity.

You discredit yourself.

And yes, I like the truth (without the capital T).

I suspect that you do not respond to anyone very often because you shoot your load in one post and are at a loss as to how to prop up your claims, which are now exposed for all to see.

scigirl

Vanderzyden,

Will you get this one concept through your skull:

Many facets of biology, whether they are poorly designed or not, are indicators of our evolutionary history. "Snapshots" of evolution. Evidence.

Read Lpetrich's excellent summary of the embryological development of the heart. We can yammer away about the "point" or "usefulness" of aortic arches and gill slits ad nauseum but that is not the point.

The point is - their very existence, irrespective of their function indicates and supports our theory of evolutionary history! We evolved from fish, and lo and behold, we have fishy-like hearts at one point in our embryological development.

Do you understand what I am trying to say?

scigirl

MrDarwin

I don't have the time to look it up right now, but does anybody care to dig up statistics on how frequently women and/or their infants died before, during or immediately after birth in the days before modern medicine? I know the numbers were much higher than they are now, but don't have them handy. (I have an old medical book that describes in gruesome detail all the various things that could and did go wrong on a regular basis in the "bad old days".)

Dr Rick

The complexity of a process or thing or the fascination it may invoke does not prove or disprove intelligent design, so why even mention it?

<strong> These defects are real, not potential, and they are inconsistent with intelligent design.

<strong> Elimination of omphaloceles (massive umbilical herniation), nuchal strangulation (cord wrapping around the neck), intestinal incarcerations (entrapment), and umbilical torsions (cord twisting on itself) are just some of the problems the sub-optimal design causes that could be eliminated with thoughtful consideration.

<strong> There is no reason an intelligent design made by an omipotent and omniscient designer should have any flaws; a good design would not have any problems to discuss.

<strong> Criticism of a sub-optimal design is not dependent on offering a superior design.

<strong> Substitutes sought after to compenste for the sub-optimal design of the human circulatory system in the first place.

<strong> An intelligent design would do exactly that: the oxygen requirements of the liver are much less critical than those of the brain and heart.

<strong> It wouldn't be difficult at all if it was designed intelligently. The organs of the chest are no more compressed than the abdominal viscera, and they are better protected. An intelligent design would take advantage of the latter and place something as critical as the fetal "lifeline" in a position where the thoracic skeleton could protect against injury and herniation.

<strong> So do the surgeons who owe part of their living to this sub-optimal design.

<strong> Bad design; it can reopen later in life and create a hernia requiring surgery. The ligamentous remanants can also act as fulcrum that can twist the intestines into a fatal knot (volvulus)

<strong> All this statement says is that the developing fetus can get by with a sub-optimal and unintelligent design.

<strong> Only because the system was not intelligently designed.

<strong> These examples illustrate a lack of intelligent design.

<strong> A nice summary of conversion from a undesigned fetal circulation to a undesigned anterograde circulation. The description does not support intelligent design.

<strong> This is an irrelevant conclusion. Just because something happens doesn't mean it is intelligently designed. The fact that so many things can and do go wrong with the process is evidence of lack of intelligent design, however.

<strong> Except when the sub-optimal and unintelligent design fails, and the foramen ovale or ductus arterious remain patent.

<strong> What we have is ample evidence of suboptimal design; a clear indication that no intelligence was involved.

<strong> Saying that after presenting evidence that contradicts your position is not convincing.

<strong> What's amazing is that anyone could draw erroneous conclusions from the facts that clearly support evolution and refute intelligent design.

<strong> Totally irrelevant.

<strong> Your starting to read like a frightened little child, afraid of a non-extant sky-daddy.

<strong> Deflate them, already, then; your argument so far has been a failure.

<strong> Allah, in His mercy, will eternally torture Vanderzyden for the blasphemy he has posted here.

Rick

[ October 17, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>