Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Neil deGrasse Tyson on why he thinks ID must be wrong

arroba Email

File:A small cup of coffee.JPG From Business Insider:

Director of the Hayden Planetarium and StarTalk Radio host Neil deGrasse Tyson recently appeared on “The Nightly Show” with Larry Wilmore for a discussion with Pastor Carl Lentz about god and intelligent design.

“I think of, like, the human body, and I look at what’s going on between our legs,” Tyson said. “There’s like a sewage system and entertainment complex intermingling. No engineer of any intelligence would have designed it that way.”

So the way input/output in a forward-moving body works, how would Tyson have designed it?

Astrophysicist Tyson not only isn’t a biologist; what’s much more relevant these days is that he isn’t much of an engineer. He is used to thinking about the problems as if they had no real world components.

See also: Can we solve the mystery of the origin of life by creating life in the lab?


And With Enceladus the toast of the solar system, here’s a wrap-up of the origin-of-life problem

Follow UD News at Twitter!

And don't forget that it is the postmoderns who have decided that that region of the body is an "entertainment system" or a "playground" as some forms of this joke have it. Even a true Darwinist should acknowledge that genitals are functional first, and that evolution didn't really care about the pleasure part. EDTA
Aaah, the old "bad design" theory again. Check this out: "http://1079ishot.com/the-top-10-moments-to-visit-the-restroom-during-the-superbowl-list/" 'Seems that there's good engineering wisdom in keeping the waste disposal system near to the entertainment system. bFast
More "theology" in a cheap tuxedo mike1962
The following paper asserts, contrary to the preceding papers claim of ‘dramatically sped up evolution’ to ‘explain away’ the horrendously different Y chromosome, that the human Y chromosome has lost just one gene in 25 million years and, furthermore, that the Y chromosome has been stable for the last 6 million years.
Theory of the ‘Rotting’ Y Chromosome Dealt a Fatal Blow – February 2012 Excerpt: “the sequence of the rhesus Y, shows the chromosome hasn’t lost a single ancestral gene in the past 25 million years. By comparison, the human Y has lost just one ancestral gene in that period, and that loss occurred in a segment that comprises just 3% of the entire chromosome”, “,,,earlier work comparing the human and chimpanzee Ys revealed a stable human Y for at least six million years. “Now our empirical data fly in the face of the other theories out there. With no loss of genes on the rhesus Y and one gene lost on the human Y, it’s clear the Y isn’t going anywhere.” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120222154359.htm CHROMOSOME STUDY STUNS EVOLUTIONISTS Excerpt: To their great surprise, Dorit and his associates found no nucleotide differences at all in the non-recombinant part of the Y chromosomes of the 38 men. This non-variation suggests no evolution has occurred in male ancestry. http://www.reasons.org/interpreting-genesis/adam-and-eve/chromosome-study-stuns-evolutionists
Of related interest: The Y chromosome is more ‘holistically integrated’ with the rest of the genome than would be expected on Darwinian presuppositions:
Genes on the Y chromosome prove essential for male survival – April 23, 2014 Excerpt: Moreover, the vast majority of these tenacious genes appear to have little if any role in sex determination or sperm production.,,, “There are approximately a dozen genes conserved on the Y that are expressed in cells and tissue types throughout the body,” he continues. “These are genes involved in decoding and interpreting the entirety of the genome. How pervasive their effects are is a question we throw open to the field, and it’s one we can no longer ignore.” Page believes this research will at last allow his lab to transition from proving the so-called rotting Y theorists wrong to a new era in Y chromosome biology.,,, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140423132421.htm
Of related interest, the X chromosome plays a ‘integrated’ role in sperm production.
Sex Chromosome Shocker: The ‘Female’ X a Key Contributor to Sperm Production – July 21, 2013 Excerpt: Painstaking new analysis of the genetic sequence of the X chromosome — long perceived as the “female” counterpart to the male-associated Y chromosome — reveals that large portions of the X have “evolved” to play a specialized role in sperm production. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130721161358.htm
Of course the researchers never actually proved the evolution of such a complex relationship between the X and Y chromosomes. They have merely found a complex relationship between the two chromosomes and assumed it must have evolved because, of course, in the materialistic mindset everything must have evolved. Darwin’s theory is simply never allowed to be questioned in any serious way, much less actually falsified. Verse and Music:
Mark 10:6-7 Jesus replied. “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,” Michael Bolton & Percy Sledge – When a Man Loves a Woman – Live https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sgTkpTWFAw
as to:
“I think of, like, the human body, and I look at what’s going on between our legs,” Tyson said. “There’s like a sewage system and entertainment complex intermingling. No engineer of any intelligence would have designed it that way.” Neil deGrasse Tyson
Oh goody another Theologically based argument from a Darwinist for Darwinian evolution. Atheistic Darwinists are horrid scientists and even worse theologians. Regardless of Tyson's personal druthers as to how he would design things if he were God, the fact of the matter is that sexual reproduction is a far bigger problem for Darwinian evolution than he, from his class clown remark, apparently realizes: One of the most enigmatic 'novelties' of life on earth was the appearance of sexual reproduction
How did the sexes originate? Why is it that the vast majority of living things require a "male and female" to reproduce? If evolution were true - doesn't it make much more sense that EVERY living organism was self-replicating and required no useless energy expenditure? When did the first male get here? When did the first female get here? How? Why? Wouldn't they have had to appear fully functional and at the same time in order for the next generation of organisms to arrive? Of course, they would. So, how is it that the first male and female for almost 2 million living organisms arrived together and fully functional so that reproduction could take place? "Sex is the QUEEN of evolutionary biology problems." Dr. Graham Bell - In his book, 'The Masterpiece of Nature' Another whack at the “sex paradox” - July 1, 2014 Excerpt: The article is most informative about tests done on the various theses but in the end (they state). And so the paradox of sex lives on. “We still really don’t know the answer to this very most basic question,” says Mark Welch. “We don’t know why sex exists.” https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/evolution/another-whack-at-the-sex-paradox/
One reason why it is such an enigmatic mystery is best summed up in the following quote:
Richard Dawkins interview with a ‘Darwinian’ physician goes off track – video Excerpt: “I am amazed, Richard, that what we call metazoans, multi-celled organisms, have actually been able to evolve, and the reason [for amazement] is that bacteria and viruses replicate so quickly — a few hours sometimes, they can reproduce themselves — that they can evolve very, very quickly. And we’re stuck with twenty years at least between generations. How is it that we resist infection when they can evolve so quickly to find ways around our defenses?” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/video_to_dawkin062031.html
In other words, since successful reproduction is all that really matters on a neo-Darwinian view of things, how can anything but successful, and rapid, asexual reproduction be realistically ‘selected’ for? Any other function besides rapid asexual reproduction, such as sight, hearing, thinking, and especially ‘slow’ sexual reproduction itself, would be highly superfluous to the primary criteria of successfully reproducing rapidly, and should, on a Darwinian view, be discarded as so much excess baggage since it would, sooner or later, slow down successful rapid reproduction. Moreover, contrary to what Darwinists believe about sexual reproduction promoting genetic diversity, it has been known for quite a while, as Walter Remine relates in this following interview, that sexual reproduction severely limits genetic variability rather than enhances it as Darwinists had originally thought.
Walter ReMine on the Origin of Sexual Reproduction – interview http://kgov.s3.amazonaws.com/bel/2012/20120727-BEL150.mp3
This following study concurs with Dr. Remine that sexual reproduction limits genetic diversity instead of promoting it:
Sex Is Not About Promoting Genetic Variation, Researchers Argue – (July 7, 2011) Excerpt: Biology textbooks maintain that the main function of sex is to promote genetic diversity. But Henry Heng, Ph.D., associate professor in WSU’s Center for Molecular Medicine and Genetics, says that’s not the case.,,, ,,,the primary function of sex is not about promoting diversity. Rather, it’s about keeping the genome context — an organism’s complete collection of genes arranged by chromosome composition and topology — as unchanged as possible, thereby maintaining a species’ identity. This surprising analysis has been published as a cover article in a recent issue of the journal Evolution.,,, For nearly 130 years, traditional perceptions hold that asexual reproduction generates clone-like offspring and sexual reproduction leads to more diverse offspring. “In reality, however, the relationship is quite the opposite,” said Heng.,,, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110707161037.htm
Moreover, sexual selection, although originally thought to be a major force in speciation by Darwinists, is now found to be quite ‘tenuous’
The counterintuitive role of sexual selection in species maintenance and speciation – Maria R. Servedio – April 2014 Excerpt: Speculation on the role of sexual selection in driving speciation and species maintenance traces back to the beginning of the explosion in sexual selection research seen in the past few decades (e.g., refs. 3, 4, 22, and 28). The more that this putative relationship is explored, however, the more tenuous it appears to be (e.g., refs. 10 and 11). Here we show that when sexual selection is isolated in a pure Fisherian form, it inhibits species maintenance in one of the situations in which its role seemed clearest, when the trait under sexual selection is also locally adapted. Furthermore, sexual selection is lost in this Fisherian system if preference strengths themselves are allowed to evolve. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/05/08/1316484111.short
Also of interest to sexual reproduction, in terms of sexual biology and reproduction, the ways in which Chimpanzees and Humans reproduce, contrary to Darwinian thought, ‘could hardly be more different':
The Red Ape – Cornelius Hunter – August 2009 Excerpt: “There remains, however, a paradoxical problem lurking within the wealth of DNA data: our morphology and physiology have very little, if anything, uniquely in common with chimpanzees to corroborate a unique common ancestor. Most of the characters we do share with chimpanzees also occur in other primates, and in sexual biology and reproduction we could hardly be more different. It would be an understatement to think of this as an evolutionary puzzle.” http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/08/red-ape.html
One major difference in sexual reproduction that really stands out between man and chimps is that Man’s sexual reproduction relies on ‘hydraulics’ whereas the chimpanzee’s reproductive system is a ‘mechanical’ system that relies on an actual bone in order to achieve reproduction:
Ian Juby’s Chimp compared to Man sexual reproduction video – (plus Can sexual reproduction plausibly evolve in the first place?) – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ab1VWQEnnwM
Moreover, the drastic differences in sexual reproduction between chimps and man, again completely contrary to Darwinian thought, extends all the way down to the molecular level. This evolution friendly article found the differences between the Y chromosome of chimps and Humans to ‘differ radically’ and to show ‘extraordinary divergence':
Recent Genetic Research Shows Chimps More Distant From Humans,,, – Jan. 2010 Excerpt: A Nature paper from January, 2010 titled, “Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content,” found that Y chromosomes in humans and chimps “differ radically in sequence structure and gene content,” showing “extraordinary divergence” where “wholesale renovation is the paramount theme.”,,, “Even more striking than the gene loss is the rearrangement of large portions of the chromosome. More than 30% of the chimp Y chromosome lacks an alignable counterpart on the human Y chromosome, and vice versa,,,” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/04/recent_genetic_research_shows.html A False Trichotomy Excerpt: The common chimp (Pan troglodytes) and human Y chromosomes are “horrendously different from each other”, says David Page,,, “It looks like there’s been a dramatic renovation or reinvention of the Y chromosome in the chimpanzee and human lineages.” https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/a-false-trichotomy/
News, I also find it astonishing that Tyson misses the priority, reproduction. The brains are in an armoured box. The vitals in a flexible armoured cage that at least reduces likelihood of injury while allowing breathing. The reproductive and waste organs are protected by the pelvic girdle, and the abdomen allows room for the growing fetus. Both processes are vital, never mind that one is less "entertaining" than the other. The talking point looks more like a glib excuse for a preconceived conclusion than an argument. KF kairosfocus
“I think of, like, the human body, and I look at what’s going on between our legs,” Tyson said. “There’s like a sewage system and entertainment complex intermingling. No engineer of any intelligence would have designed it that way.”
1- That isn't an argument 2- Tyson doesn't know any engineer that could design any living organism, let alone a human. Virgil Cain

Leave a Reply