Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Human body poorly designed?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Years ago, I debated an Australian broadcaster, Robyn Williams, author of Why God isn’t as smart as She thinks She is who thought the human body demonstrated bad design. Maybe he means stuff like this:

No? Okay, so they won’t be doing it at 80 years of age. But … doesn’t that raise larger issues?

PS: It’s better without the sound track.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

– O’Leary for News

Comments
Andre, let's be fair. AB is not making a conclusion from personal experience or research, but rather reciting a catechism in the true sense of the word. -QQuerius
July 24, 2014
July
07
Jul
24
24
2014
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PDT
AB Love your religious statements, then show us how to do it please.Andre
July 22, 2014
July
07
Jul
22
22
2014
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT
It is not about whether humans (or any organism) is poorly "designed". It is about whether the best possible "design" is being used. There are many parts of the human body that could be better "designed" (eyes, spine, hips, abdominal wall, teeth, etc.). But given that they weren't "designed", I guess the point is moot.Acartia_bogart
July 22, 2014
July
07
Jul
22
22
2014
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT
Dr Moose - "On the famous “backwards eye” canard, Turns out the eye with the light sensors on the wrong side is, like, way superior! I remember this stupid time wasting faith affirmation in my biology course from my Biology instructor. He religiously insisted this was proof in no creator because of it's inferior design. He claimed the eye of the Octopus was far superior. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.DavidD
July 22, 2014
July
07
Jul
22
22
2014
12:26 AM
12
12
26
AM
PDT
Wow!!!!! Thank you Moose DR The paper opens with this! "Having the photoreceptors at the back of the retina is not a design constraint, it is a design feature." Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-07-fiber-optic-pipes-retina-simple.html#jCp You are fearfully made!Andre
July 21, 2014
July
07
Jul
21
21
2014
11:47 PM
11
11
47
PM
PDT
On the famous "backwards eye" canard, check out this article: http://phys.org/news/2014-07-fiber-optic-pipes-retina-simple.html Turns out the eye with the light sensors on the wrong side is, like, way superior!Moose Dr
July 21, 2014
July
07
Jul
21
21
2014
11:27 PM
11
11
27
PM
PDT
Seriously, again I am inclined to ask: "This is the vaunted logic of atheism?" The argument breaks down into, "It doesn't look like where I would have done. Therefore an infallible God couldn't have designed it."EvilSnack
July 21, 2014
July
07
Jul
21
21
2014
05:43 PM
5
05
43
PM
PDT
I find that women are very well-designed.EvilSnack
July 21, 2014
July
07
Jul
21
21
2014
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PDT
Thanks, BA77. Yes, I noticed an outline around the announcer which looked like a bluescreen effect. I hope he will get back to you with an honest answer.Silver Asiatic
July 21, 2014
July
07
Jul
21
21
2014
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic, questions have been brought up as to the authenticity of the 'Inside the Kaaba' video. Specifically, it looks to be a bluescreen fake. I agree that it looks like a fake. I asked the guy on his facebook page to prove that it was not a fake. Sorry for jumping the gun and any falsehood I may have helped advance.bornagain77
July 21, 2014
July
07
Jul
21
21
2014
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT
Can you say BOLD! Declating the Gospel Inside the Kaaba – Islam’s most sacred site https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UW6AZ38CPTQ
Not sure what that has to do with ID or the human body for that matter - although the announcer looks a little overweight. I guess, in fairness, Christians will allow Muslims to preach the Koran in their churches now? I think Muslims generally agree with ID theory -- but then again, if they're converted to liberal Christianity they could become Theistic-Darwinists like Karl Giberson. Slow news day ... slow comment day. :-)Silver Asiatic
July 21, 2014
July
07
Jul
21
21
2014
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT
Another good oneJoeCoder
July 21, 2014
July
07
Jul
21
21
2014
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT
Can you say BOLD! Declating the Gospel Inside the Kaaba - Islam's most sacred site https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UW6AZ38CPTQbornagain77
July 20, 2014
July
07
Jul
20
20
2014
06:58 PM
6
06
58
PM
PDT
Moreover, in 'Origin of Species' Darwin claimed that,,,
Human begins are not justified in believing that God creates in ways analogous to the intellectual powers of the human mind. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo046391.html
Yet one thing that drastically separates man from animals, (i.e. part of the 'image of God' inherent to man), is our ability to communicate information.
Origin of the Mind: Marc Hauser - Scientific American - April 2009 Excerpt: "Researchers have found some of the building blocks of human cognition in other species. But these building blocks make up only the cement footprint of the skyscraper that is the human mind",,, http://www.wjh.harvard.edu?/~mnkylab/publications/rec?ent/mindSciAm.pdf Young Children Have Grammar and Chimpanzees Don't - Apr. 10, 2013 Excerpt: "When you compare what children should say if they follow grammar against what children do say, you find it to almost indistinguishable," Yang said. "If you simulate the expected diversity when a child is only repeating what adults say, it produces a diversity much lower than what children actually say." As a comparison, Yang applied the same predictive models to the set of Nim Chimpsky's signed phrases, the only data set of spontaneous animal language usage publicly available. He found further evidence for what many scientists, including Nim's own trainers, have contended about Nim: that the sequences of signs Nim put together did not follow from rules like those in human language. Nim's signs show significantly lower diversity than what is expected under a systematic grammar and were similar to the level expected with memorization. This suggests that true language learning is -- so far -- a uniquely human trait, and that it is present very early in development. "The idea that children are only imitating adults' language is very intuitive, so it's seen a revival over the last few years," Yang said. "But this is strong statistical evidence in favor of the idea that children actually know a lot about abstract grammar from an early age." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130410131327.htm
In fact, the three r's, 'reading, writing, and arithmetic', are the first things to be taught to children when they enter school. And in direct contradiction to Darwin's claim that we have no right to believe that God creates 'in ways analogous to the intellectual powers of the human mind', at the heart of life, we find 'reading, writing, and arithmetic' (information processing) to be central to biological life:
Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVkdQhNdzHU “One of the things I do in my classes, to get this idea across to students, is I hold up two computer disks. One is loaded with software, and the other one is blank. And I ask them, ‘what is the difference in mass between these two computer disks, as a result of the difference in the information content that they posses’? And of course the answer is, ‘Zero! None! There is no difference as a result of the information. And that’s because information is a mass-less quantity. Now, if information is not a material entity, then how can any materialistic explanation account for its origin? How can any material cause explain it’s origin? And this is the real and fundamental problem that the presence of information in biology has posed. It creates a fundamental challenge to the materialistic, evolutionary scenarios because information is a different kind of entity that matter and energy cannot produce. In the nineteenth century we thought that there were two fundamental entities in science; matter, and energy. At the beginning of the twenty first century, we now recognize that there’s a third fundamental entity; and its ‘information’. It’s not reducible to matter. It’s not reducible to energy. But it’s still a very important thing that is real; we buy it, we sell it, we send it down wires. Now, what do we make of the fact, that information is present at the very root of all biological function? In biology, we have matter, we have energy, but we also have this third, very important entity; information. I think the biology of the information age, poses a fundamental challenge to any materialistic approach to the origin of life.” -Dr. Stephen C. Meyer earned his Ph.D. in the History and Philosophy of science from Cambridge University for a dissertation on the history of origin-of-life biology and the methodology of the historical sciences. Intelligent design: Why can't biological information originate through a materialistic process? - Stephen Meyer - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqiXNxyoof8 John Lennox – Is There Evidence of Something Beyond Nature? (Semiotic Information) – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6rd4HEdffw
Verse and Music:
Genesis 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness,,,, Do Something - Matthew West http://myktis.com/songs/do-something/
bornagain77
July 20, 2014
July
07
Jul
20
20
2014
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT
One example that blows the 'Human body poorly designed' argument out of the water is the brain.
Human brain has more switches than all computers on Earth - November 2010 Excerpt: They found that the brain's complexity is beyond anything they'd imagined, almost to the point of being beyond belief, says Stephen Smith, a professor of molecular and cellular physiology and senior author of the paper describing the study: ...One synapse, by itself, is more like a microprocessor--with both memory-storage and information-processing elements--than a mere on/off switch. In fact, one synapse may contain on the order of 1,000 molecular-scale switches. A single human brain has more switches than all the computers and routers and Internet connections on Earth. http://news.cnet.com/8301-27083_3-20023112-247.html Component placement optimization in the brain - 1994 As he comments [106], “To current limits of accuracy ... the actual placement appears to be the best of all possible layouts; this constitutes strong evidence of perfect optimization.,, among about 40,000,000 alternative layout orderings, the actual ganglion placement in fact requires the least total connection length. http://www.jneurosci.org/content/14/4/2418.abstract
Darwinists have yet to explain how a single neuron of that staggering complexity operates, much less how a single neuron originated:
"Complexity Brake" Defies Evolution - August 2012 Excerpt: "This is bad news. Consider a neuronal synapse -- the presynaptic terminal has an estimated 1000 distinct proteins. Fully analyzing their possible interactions would take about 2000 years. Or consider the task of fully characterizing the visual cortex of the mouse -- about 2 million neurons. Under the extreme assumption that the neurons in these systems can all interact with each other, analyzing the various combinations will take about 10 million years..., even though it is assumed that the underlying technology speeds up by an order of magnitude each year.",,, Even with shortcuts like averaging, "any possible technological advance is overwhelmed by the relentless growth of interactions among all components of the system,",, to read more go here: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/complexity_brak062961.html Here Are Those Two Protein Evolution Falsifications That Have Evolutionists Rewriting Their Script - Cornelius Hunter - March 2012 Excerpt: Several different studies indicate that, at a minimum, about 10^70 (a one followed by 70 zeros) evolutionary experiments would be needed to get close enough to a workable protein design before evolutionary mechanisms could take over and establish the protein in a population. For instance, one study concluded that 10^63 attempts would be required for a relatively short protein. And a similar result (10^65 attempts required) was obtained by comparing protein sequences. Another study found that 10^64 to 10^77 attempts are required, and another study concluded that 10^70 attempts would be required. This requirement for 10^70 evolutionary experiments is far greater than what evolution could accomplish. Even evolutionists have had to admit that evolution could only have a maximum of 10^43 such experiments. It is important to understand how tiny this number is compared to 10^70. 10^43 is not more than half of 10^70. It is not even close to half. 10^43 is an astronomically tiny sliver of 10^70. Furthermore, the estimate of 10^43 is, itself, entirely unrealistic. For instance, it assume the entire history of the Earth is available, rather than the limited time window that evolution actually would have had. Even more importantly, it assumes the pre existence of bacteria and, yes, proteins. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/03/here-are-those-two-protein-evolution.html
bornagain77
July 20, 2014
July
07
Jul
20
20
2014
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT
"Robyn Williams, author of Why God isn’t as smart as She thinks She is who thought the human body demonstrated bad design" More like this author isn't as smart as she thinks she is. Bad design arguments always end up like "uh...so...yeah...well...this isn't an exact science you see...we didn't fully understand the system / design in question...turns out it is highly adapted to that particular species, in that particular time, in that particular environment..." And what follows is usually some tripe about science being self correcting or this is how science works blah blah. Any open minded scientist, not blindly committed to Darwinian fairytales, would have linked the human body with bad design. And they call themselves enlightened...pfft bwahaha sure.humbled
July 20, 2014
July
07
Jul
20
20
2014
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT

Leave a Reply