Freethought & Rationalism Archive

HRG · 11-01-2002, 01:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:
The real world is corrupted, not poorly designed.

John

That something can be corrupted is in itself a design fault. What would we conclude of a car designer who omitted anti-corrosion measures ?

HRG.

Stephen T-B · 11-01-2002, 03:16 AM

so, God designed all that's on the world in such a way that it would inevitably be corrupted?
I mean, that is such a weird idea...
�Hey, I�m going to make something which will go wrong, then I can punish it when it does.�
And this a perfect god? And his a perfect creation?
Perfect for what?
If I were to share Vanderzyden�s beliefs, I should be compelled to conclude that our souls were brought into existence for the conducting of some arcane experiment.
I�m more comfortable with the idea (supported by geologists and astronomers) that I am a product of a system which has been running for billions of years, and that my species is about as significant to it as that of an amoeba. (Probably less, in terms of how long it is likely to last.)
Vanderzyden, a question: when our sun begins to run out of fuel and expands and envelopes the Earth, will your God�s experiment have run its course?

ps418 · 11-02-2002, 04:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:
The real world is corrupted , not poorly designed.

John

Interesting. Please explain what evidence this explanation of yours is based upon. What do you mean by corrupted? When was the world not corrupted? How did it get corrupted?

Patrick

MrDarwin · 11-02-2002, 05:53 AM

I would be more interested in hearing a specific example of this corruption, as evidenced in the natural world.

pz · 11-02-2002, 06:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MrDarwin:
I would be more interested in hearing a specific example of this corruption, as evidenced in the natural world.

I'm also confused by something. Vanderzyden has been arguing that fetal circulation and the eyes of blind cave fish are well designed in other threads. Now he's claiming that there are examples of corruption. If everything is well designed, where is the corruption?

scigirl · 11-02-2002, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by GeoTheo:
I know you guys (meaning evolutionists regardless of gender) think sub-optimal design is a slam dunk argument for evolution. In a way it is but I just thought I would point out how it is percieved by creationists. Most of you being atheists, on this particular forum, may not have been aware of this. You appear to be pissing and moaning at God about what a shoddy job he did.

Oh I agree with you - good point, GeoTheo. I think the thing that gets missed in all of these suboptimal design threads is that the "design" of many, many structures, whether or not they are optimal or suboptimal, appears to correlate with evolutionary trees. Here are two examples:

<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=112333 89&dopt=Abstract" target="_blank">The left-sided aortic arch in humans, viewed as the end-result of natural selection during vertebrate evolution.</a>

Quote:

At some point during vertebrate evolution from species dwelling in water to living on land, the ancestral double or right aortic arches became single and left-sided in mammals, including humans, as the result of synchronous developments in cardiovascular and respiratory embryogenesis. Since left-sided aortic arches are unique to mammals, hemodynamics related to the placenta, specifically the requirement for a large arterial duct connecting to the descending aorta, may have led to switching from the right-sided to the left-sided arch. Additionally, development of a trilobar right lung and its bronchial tree, also unique to mammalian evolution, restricted the space above the high eparterial bronchus to a single large vessel. Consequently, mammals that mutated to the left-sided aortic arch avoided respiratory, digestive or circulatory problems that are often associated with an isolated right-sided aortic arch--something which could be considered a successful mistake. Due to natural selection, and survival of the fittest, the left-sided arch became the norm in mammals. In congenital cardiac malformations where a large arterial duct is not mandatory in fetal life, as in Fallot's tetralogy or common arterial trunk, a right-sided aortic arch continues to occur, perhaps as an atavistic reversion to the anatomy seen in ancestral vertebrates.

<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=637356 0&dopt=Abstract" target="_blank">Human tails and pseudotails.</a>

Quote:

A case of a tail in a 2-week-old infant is reported, and findings from a review of 33 previously reported cases of true tails and pseudotails are summarized. The true, or persistent, vestigial tail of humans arises from the most distal remnant of the embryonic tail. It contains adipose and connective tissue, central bundles of striated muscle, blood vessels, and nerves and is covered by skin. Bone, cartilage, notochord, and spinal cord are lacking. The true tail arises by retention of structures found normally in fetal development. It may be as long as 13 cm, can move and contract, and occurs twice as often in males as in females. A true tail is easily removed surgically, without residual effects. It is rarely familial. Pseudotails are varied lesions having in common a lumbosacral protrusion and a superficial resemblance to persistent vestigial tails. The most frequent cause of a pseudotail in a series of ten cases obtained from the literature was an anomalous prolongation of the coccygeal vertebrae. Additional lesions included two lipomas, and one each of teratoma, chondromegaly , glioma, and a thin, elongated parasitic fetus.

To me, the evolution explanation works great to explain designs that look like they were jury-rigged from earlier designs. And of course evolution explains the quirks above - because the genes for those earlier designs are still in our genome. If we were separately created, why would those genes even be there?

If a creationist wants to debunk evolution, then they need to come up with a better and more detailed theory as to why we occasionally get the wrong aortic arches, and tails. Invoking 'The Fall' or stating "we are corrupted that's why" do not count as detailed scientific explanations.

scigirl

[ November 02, 2002: Message edited by: scigirl ]

ps418 · 11-05-2002, 03:26 PM

Bump.

Vanderzyden,

I'm still curious. Would you please explain what what you meant when you said that the world is corrupted, not poorly designed?

Patrick

John M3 · 11-05-2002, 04:37 PM

What is optimum?

In the case of the faulty computer program, does it not do its faulty job optimally?

An optimum implies a purpose. Lets assume that the general purpose of across many life forms is to evolve (as it does seem). Who is to say that the universe is not optimally searching out the possibilities?

I am not agreeing with either the theists or the atheists here because they both deride the universe when they find it to be below their standards of "how they would do it." As if you could do it better. Do particles behave sub-optimally?

To say that we live in a sub-optimal (or corrupt) universe, geesh.... What audacity. The only corruption here is our ignorance. But that will all inevitably change.

scigirl · 11-05-2002, 04:49 PM

Hello John M3, and welcome to infidels!

Feel free to introduce yourself <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=43" target="_blank">here</a> if you like.

You stated,

Quote:

Originally posted by John M3:
What is optimum?

Good question - that's why I stated this earlier in the thread:

I think the thing that gets missed in all of these suboptimal design threads is that the "design" of many, many structures, whether or not they are optimal or suboptimal, appears to correlate with evolutionary trees.

[quote] As if you could do it better. [/qutoe]
Well I am no expert in engineering, but I could have at least designed our maxillary sinus drainage better. And I'm sure an expert engineer could have thought of a way to give us a way to keep our respiratory and digestive systems more separate so we don't aspirate or choke so much. See <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001646" target="_blank">this thread</a> for more details.

scigirl

John M3 · 11-05-2002, 05:12 PM

I know what your saying, scigirl. I wish there were more girls like you in this world... anyway..

I agree, we dont need to sweat on our hands and feet when we're nervous anymore. In fact in inhibits us.

But I am not arguing against evolution but only the suboptimality of its process.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-01-2002, 03:16 AM	#12
Stephen T-B Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Leeds, UK Posts: 5,878	so, God designed all that's on the world in such a way that it would inevitably be corrupted? I mean, that is such a weird idea... �Hey, I�m going to make something which will go wrong, then I can punish it when it does.� And this a perfect god? And his a perfect creation? Perfect for what? If I were to share Vanderzyden�s beliefs, I should be compelled to conclude that our souls were brought into existence for the conducting of some arcane experiment. I�m more comfortable with the idea (supported by geologists and astronomers) that I am a product of a system which has been running for billions of years, and that my species is about as significant to it as that of an amoeba. (Probably less, in terms of how long it is likely to last.) Vanderzyden, a question: when our sun begins to run out of fuel and expands and envelopes the Earth, will your God�s experiment have run its course?

11-02-2002, 05:53 AM	#14
MrDarwin Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 4,140	I would be more interested in hearing a specific example of this corruption, as evidenced in the natural world.

11-05-2002, 03:26 PM	#17
ps418 Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Louisville, KY, USA Posts: 1,840	Bump. Vanderzyden, I'm still curious. Would you please explain what what you meant when you said that the world is corrupted, not poorly designed? Patrick

11-05-2002, 04:37 PM	#18
John M3 Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: D.C., W.Va. Posts: 10	What is optimum? In the case of the faulty computer program, does it not do its faulty job optimally? An optimum implies a purpose. Lets assume that the general purpose of across many life forms is to evolve (as it does seem). Who is to say that the universe is not optimally searching out the possibilities? I am not agreeing with either the theists or the atheists here because they both deride the universe when they find it to be below their standards of "how they would do it." As if you could do it better. Do particles behave sub-optimally? To say that we live in a sub-optimal (or corrupt) universe, geesh.... What audacity. The only corruption here is our ignorance. But that will all inevitably change.

11-05-2002, 05:12 PM	#20
John M3 Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: D.C., W.Va. Posts: 10	I know what your saying, scigirl. I wish there were more girls like you in this world... anyway.. I agree, we dont need to sweat on our hands and feet when we're nervous anymore. In fact in inhibits us. But I am not arguing against evolution but only the suboptimality of its process.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.