scigirl

John,

Please see my direct quotes from my animal physology book.

Are you claiming that an entire profession is wrong and you are right?

scigirl

Edited to add - fetuses are not on the surface of a pool - they are completely immersed.

I still do not understand the point of this entire exercise. Both evolution and Intelligent Design (if either exist) are capable of producing complex structures that work. Evolution, however, gives us added explanations about structures, such as the aortic arches.

I guess what I am trying to say is - what is your point exactly? Could you summarize what the pressure argument has to do with ID in a sentence or two? Maybe I'm dense, but I just don't see what you are arguing for. Also, how does the giraffe fit into your paradigm?

Also - what do you think of these other examples of sub-optimal design I posted here: <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001646" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001646</a> as well as all the examples we all posted in the "good mutations anyone" thread that you started?

[ November 05, 2002: Message edited by: scigirl ]</p>

Vanderzyden

Scigirl,

My post is largely in response to your quotation from the physiology text. Perfusion pressure is what is at issue in addressing this outrageous "design critique". It does not matter if the fetus is completely immersed: it is still at sea-level, and therefore gravity still significantly affects its CV system.

Evolution, via "natural selection", cannot explain design because design requires a Designer. A process requires a Processor. The claim of the Darwinist is that universal common ancestry (even the entire cosmos) is the result of accidental events. This is not a process.

You have not addressed my rebuttals concerning the function of the human aortic arch. And, I don't have time to engage in yet another discussion about trans-species development of left- and right-oriented aortas.


John

[ November 05, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

scigirl

Rebuttal? You didn't like the way they worded the science (you never do). That's not an argument, that's just contradiction. Besides, Rufus already did a good job rebutting your 'rebuttal.'

I understand that you may not have time to evaluate all the evidence we provide for you here, to refute your constant claim that there is "precious little evidence for evolution."

However, if you don't take the time to read the evidence, you can't also claim there is no evidence. You are limited to saying "I don't know," which by the way is very acceptible in science!

scigirl

[ November 05, 2002: Message edited by: scigirl ]</p>

scigirl

Yes in every dimension!! The fetus changes position during its development. And 1/3 of the time (depending on the sleeping habits of the mom) gravity is acting in a different axis!!

Gravity does not matter in the 'design' of the placement of fetal vessels! It couldn't possibly matter, due to those above facts! It doesn't take a PhD in physics to figure that out - just a dose of common sense.

scigirl

RufusAtticus

Selection does explain design in nature since selection is the designer. There is no requirement that design be the product of a sentient process. There is no better example of this principle than genetic algorithms, which are able to design both software and hardware without any sentient interference.

Now you're just playing silly semantics. If the above statement is true, who or what is the "Processor" in the process of erosion?

Sorry, Vander, reproduction is a process.

I have. Are you ever going to respond to me?

~~RvFvS~~

RufusAtticus

Vander if you think gravity is an issue in fetal circulation pressure, please show us your calculations. Thank you.

lpetrich

Vanderzyden:
Evolution, via "natural selection", cannot explain design because design requires a Designer.

How does one tell that something is a "design"?

And it is possible that the evolution of life on Earth was due to the design efforts of a 4-billion-year-old population of invisible elves that do it just for the heck of it.

A process requires a Processor.

Pure anthropomorphism.

The claim of the Darwinist is that universal common ancestry (even the entire cosmos) is the result of accidental events. This is not a process.

What do you mean, "accidental"?

You have not addressed my rebuttals concerning the function of the human aortic arch.

This from someone who has not bothered to address early-embryonic circulation. Maybe because it is simply too difficult to think of some Panglossian "explanation" for it.

And, I don't have time to engage in yet another discussion about trans-species development of left- and right-oriented aortas.

Vanderzyden, grow up. You have plenty of time to spend on gabbing here, so what are you whining about?

Vanderzyden

Rufus,

Is this what you mean by "rebuttal"?

This has been addressed before, and is done easily again:


These are defects, as distinct from design flaws.


What else needs to be said?

John

[ November 05, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

RufusAtticus

Go back and read Scigirl's post. It has nothing to do with design flaws. Instead it is about how developmental defects and atavisms reveal to us the evolutionary history of the aortic arch. In otherwords, her post was about clues to the evolutionary design of the aortic arch. So if that is your rebuttal to scigirl, you obviously missed the entire point of her post.

I notice that you didn't respond to anything else in my post, so I guess you concede those points.

However, your comments bring up a question. How are defects distinct from design flaws?

[ November 05, 2002: Message edited by: RufusAtticus ]</p>

Vanderzyden

1. Homology is not knock-down evidence of universal common descent. It also fails to be substantial contributory evidence in light of other problems, such as the utter lack of "transitionals" in the fossil record.

2. I don't think it's fair to presume that because I don't respond to some of your points that I agree with them.

3. It is inappropriate to construe externally imposed (i.e. intra-species ancestral) defects cannot as design flaws. The automobile manufacturer cannot be held liable for failure on the part of the owner to properly maintain the vehicle. The manufacturer has communicated through the owner's manual.

John

[ November 05, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>