Human evolution Intelligent Design News

Supposed design flaws in the human body

Spread the love

This rubbish was written by a person who still has a human body:

3. A too-narrow pelvis

Problem: Childbirth hurts. And to add insult to injury, the width of a woman’s pelvis hasn’t changed for some 200,000 years, keeping our brains from growing larger.

Okay, so Big Brains (like a whale?) would be some kind of advantage? No insult intended, but what have whales ever contributed to the stock of science knowledge?

Fix: Sure, you could stretch out the pelvis, Latimer says, but technologists may already be onto a better solution. “I would bet that in 10,000 years, or even in 1,000 years, no woman in the developed world will deliver naturally. A clinic will combine the sperm and egg, and you’ll come by and pick up the kid.”

And that would be an advantage to whom and how?

(O’Leary for News) has given birth more than once and it was not that painful. The critical question for the mother is, what kind of support she will receive raising the child, and how and why.

Because children take at least a decade and a half to be independent (better, two decades), that is really important.

Nautilus published this garbage, I can only think, for donor money. Possibly, they have descended into the swamp of pop science.

PS: I remember obstetricians marvelling at the excellence of the design of the human body, with respect to giving birth. They were continually learning about it, after thirty or forty years.

But they are not experts, compared to pop science hacks, right?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

50 Replies to “Supposed design flaws in the human body

  1. 1
    Dr JDD says:

    Well if they were a Christian they might recall these words:

    “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth.”

    Like I’ve said elsewhere, the observation that we live in a less than perfect world is entirely consistent with certain Designers and what may have been revealed about their design.

  2. 2
    OldArmy94 says:

    Never mind the fact that a living, human being, fully replicated inside another living, human being, is emerging into a world to live independently. And all these fools can do is talk about a woman’s “narrow pelvis”?

    Besides, I can turn their talking point right back around at them: if evolution was a tenth as marvelous as they say it is, surely it would’ve have eliminated painful childbearing, right? After all, only the women with wide pelvises would be selected.

    Utter and complete fools.

  3. 3
    daveS says:

    Okay, so Big Brains (like a whale?) would be some kind of advantage?

    Hmmm, I thought big brains (within reason) could conceivably be an advantage in some environments.

    But as Dr JDD mentioned, isn’t the notion that the Creator deliberately introduced this design “flaw” causing painful childbirth a part of orthodox Christianity?

  4. 4
    Silver Asiatic says:

    A ‘flaw’ is a label of measurement that assumes a standard of perfection at one end of the scale. That’s one way to reach an understanding of God.

  5. 5
    AdamBGraham says:

    One person’s design flaw can actually be another’s design feature. Design optimization is always relative to the designer’s intent for the object. Therefore, it’s a rather audacious claim to call out supposed design flaws and/or vestigial structures, especially since we routinely find new functions and design significance all of the time.

  6. 6
    Mung says:

    daveS, to answer your question, no.

    Logic is a tool and you too can learn to use it if you so choose.

  7. 7
    Axel says:

    Good point, Silver Fox. I remember Barb posted an absolutely fascinating article on precisely that theme. Do you remember it? I asked her if she would re-post it for me, and she may have done. If so, though, I missed it.

  8. 8
    daveS says:

    Mung,

    daveS, to answer your question, no.

    Logic is a tool and you too can learn to use it if you so choose.

    Ok, it’s probably wrong of me to say “orthodox”. Clearly a lot of Christians believe it is true, however. Do you disagree?

  9. 9
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Axel – no I don’t remember that one, but I’d love to see it if you can find and re-post it again. (… haven’t seen Barb around in a while also).

  10. 10
    Mung says:

    daveS,

    There is no necessary connection between “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth” and the size of the pelvis.

    It is a complete and utter assumption.

    One might with just as much intellectual rigor ask whether God made the heads of babies bigger or the size of the female pelvis smaller. Perhaps the answer is neither of the above.

  11. 11
    Dr JDD says:

    Mung: I don’t think anyone is saying that the size of the pelvis is definitely the result of God’s judgement on Eve and womankind. All we are saying is that if you are going to criticise a “design” Christianity at least is still perfectly consistent with this observation and it seems of all the things quite a silly and naive thing to comment on as a poor design.

    incidentally, I don’t personally believe God changed the size if the pelvis. But I also think that the biology was quite different pre-fall. (Although I accept the vast majority of people here do not subscribe to Adam & Eve or a “Fall” so will find these comments irrelevant)

  12. 12
    daveS says:

    Mung,

    daveS,

    There is no necessary connection between “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth” and the size of the pelvis.

    It is a complete and utter assumption.

    One might with just as much intellectual rigor ask whether God made the heads of babies bigger or the size of the female pelvis smaller. Perhaps the answer is neither of the above.

    Yes, now that I see your point, I do agree. This additional pain could be unrelated to head or pelvis sizes.

  13. 13
    Dionisio says:

    But they are not experts, compared to pop science hacks, right?

    No one can beat the pop science hacks on expertise! 🙂

    BTW, it took the eco-devo folks a while, but apparently they have finally figured out how macroevolution might have worked (except for a few minor details they have to touch up):

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-567227

  14. 14
    Dionisio says:

    Dr JDD @11

    But I also think that the biology was quite different pre-fall.

    Agree. Here’s a strong hint:

    “but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.” [Genesis 3:3 (ESV)]

    Even immediately post-fall lifespan was quite long compared to today, but it shrank until just lately it has increased again, but still far from what it used to be according to the scriptures. Lots of biological changes due to different factors during all this time. When we zoom-in into the biological complexity and realize how many things could go wrong, it’s amazing that the whole systems work in so many cases.

  15. 15
    Mung says:

    I have to ask. Was their pain in childbirth before the fall?

    Was God going to increase something that wasn’t even present in the first place?

  16. 16
    Dionisio says:

    Mung @15

    Yours are interesting questions. Thanks for asking.

    The questions seem to relate to this specific biblical passage:

    To the woman he said,
    “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
    in pain you shall bring forth children […]”
    [Genesis 3:16 (ESV)]

    Here’s Matthew Henry’s Commentary:

    We have here the sentence passed upon the woman for her sin. Two* things she is condemned to: a state of sorrow, and a state of subjection, proper punishments of a sin in which she had gratified her pleasure and her pride.

    I. She is here put into a state of sorrow, one particular of which only is specified, that in bringing forth children; but it includes all those impressions of grief and fear which the mind of that tender sex is most apt to receive, and all the common calamities which they are liable to.

    Note, Sin brought sorrow into the world; it was this that made the world a vale of tears, brought showers of trouble upon our heads, and opened springs of sorrows in our hearts, and so deluged the world: had we known no guilt, we should have known no grief.

    The pains of child-bearing, which are great to a proverb, a scripture proverb, are the effect of sin; every pang and every groan of the travailing woman speak aloud the fatal consequences of sin: this comes of eating forbidden fruit.

    Observe,

    1. The sorrows are here said to be multiplied, greatly multiplied.

    All the sorrows of this present time are so; many are the calamities which human life is liable to, of various kinds, and often repeated, the clouds returning after the rain, and no marvel that our sorrows are multiplied when our sins are: both are innumerable evils.

    The sorrows of child-bearing are multiplied; for they include, not only the travailing throes, but the indispositions before (it is sorrow from the conception), and the nursing toils and vexations after; and after all, if the children prove wicked and foolish, they are, more than ever, the heaviness of her that bore them.

    Thus are the sorrows multiplied; as one grief is over, another succeeds in this world.

    2. It is God that multiplies our sorrows: I will do it.

    God, as a righteous Judge, does it, which ought to silence us under all our sorrows; as many as they are, we have deserved them all, and more: nay, God, as a tender Father, does it for our necessary correction, that we may be humbled for sin, and weaned from the world by all our sorrows; and the good we get by them, with the comfort we have under them, will abundantly balance our sorrows, how greatly soever they are multiplied.

    (*) only the first thing is addressed here.

  17. 17
    TSErik says:

    A ‘flaw’ is a label of measurement that assumes a standard of perfection at one end of the scale.

    Exactly. How can we label anything as flawed unless we have the perfect example to measure against.

  18. 18
    bornagain77 says:

    The Unknown Link Between Your Brain and Your Immune System – June 1, 2015
    Excerpt: “In a stunning discovery that overturns decades of textbook teaching, researchers have determined that the brain is directly connected to the immune system by vessels previously thought not to exist.
    That such vessels could have escaped detection when the lymphatic system has been so thoroughly mapped throughout the body is surprising…
    “The first time these guys showed me the basic result, I just said one sentence: ‘They’ll have to change the textbooks.’ There has never been a lymphatic system for the central nervous system, and it was very clear…that it will fundamentally change the way people look at the central nervous system’s relationship with the immune system.”
    Even Kipnis was skeptical initially. “I really did not believe there are structures in the body that we are not aware of. I thought the body was mapped,” he said. “I thought that these discoveries ended somewhere around the middle of the last century.”…
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....122445.htm

    Perhaps if researchers rightly looked at their bodies as fearfully and wonderfully made instead of erroneously looking at them of as just accidents of unguided material processes, then perhaps they would have found this much sooner?

  19. 19
    Robert Byers says:

    Womans pain at birthing makes a YEC point.
    Yes Eve was punished with newly being changed to have pain at birth. Degree and duration.
    female animals do not have pain by degrees or duration.
    Not whale chicks or ape females or elephants.
    on;y our women have this unique pain thing.
    In fact evolutionists have always had to say its from walking upright and the bigger head of the “fetus” etc.
    Genesis answers this.

  20. 20
    daveS says:

    “whale chicks”

    WTH??

  21. 21
    evnfrdrcksn says:

    This blog has become a wasteland since Barry chased away the critics.

  22. 22
    Cabal says:

    Just for the record, since somebody mentioned makng your own research: I’ve been doing my own research since 1943 and have never for a second suspeceted that Id was anything but a last-resort device to comfort doubting minds and saving faith in the inerrancy of the Bible.

    The most glaring characteristic is its total lack of positive evidence; ID is the argument is that Evolution can’t be true, therefore ID.

    Appearance of design is not, repeat: NOT evidence of design.

    It may have had some success in the US but in Europe, we are laughing our heads off.

    Bye.

  23. 23
    logically_speaking says:

    Cabal,

    Just for the record,

    “The most glaring characteristic is its total lack of positive evidence; ID is the argument is that Evolution can’t be true, therefore ID”.

    Hi Internet troll, guess what, your completely wrong.

    “Appearance of design is not, repeat: NOT evidence of design”.

    What a surprise, your wrong again.

    dictionary.reference.com defines “design” as,

    “verb (used with object)
    1. to prepare the preliminary sketch or the plans for (a work to be executed), especially to plan the form and structure of:
    to design a new bridge.

    2. to plan and fashion artistically or skillfully”.

    So, appearance of design IS, repeat: IS evidence of design.

    “Bye”.

    Good riddance.

  24. 24
    Mung says:

    Meanwhile, the real wasteland can be found in a recent thread at TSZ where they don’t know energy from force from gravity.

    But they do know a designer couldn’t have done it.

    And they’re not “materialists.”

  25. 25
    kairosfocus says:

    Mung:

    Care to elaborate?

    maybe they were using metaphors?

    Energy, ability to do work, in turn forced ordered motion.

    Force, rate of change of momentum, or the basic push or pull that accelerates objects free to move and/or deflects bodies elastically or plastically.

    Gravitation, spatial effect of masses leading to observable inverse square forces as outlined by Newton, on the simpler approach.

    KF

  26. 26
    Axel says:

    ‘Appearance of design is not, repeat: NOT evidence of design.’ – Cabal

    Ah, Cabal. So you have discovered an esoterically deceptive and arcane, relationship between appearances and reality. I’m not sure you shouted out, ‘NOT’, quite loud enough to convince, though.

    ‘The virtuous man, though he die before his time, will find rest. Length of days is not what makes age honourable, nor number of years the true measure of life; understanding, this is man’s grey hairs, untarnished life, this is ripe old age. – Wisdom 4:7-15

    Why don’t you let us in on the secret of your utter conviction, you utter certitude. To tell the truth, we still find the idea of Dawkins’ ‘blind watchmaker’ eponymously oxymoronic. An intelligent man with the benighted heart of a fool.

    Bye.

  27. 27
    Carpathian says:

    logically_speaking:

    So, appearance of design IS, repeat: IS evidence of design.

    That is not completely accurate.

    As an example, when you use the unsharp mask in a photo processing program, you highlight the contrasts that already exist between edges of areas in the photo.

    The photo has no new information from the subject of the photo, but anyone looking at it will claim it is sharper, because it appears to be.

    We have added information that does not exist in the actual subject.

    Appearance of sharpness is not evidence of sharpness and the same applies to so many things in life.

    Appearances can be deceiving.

  28. 28
    Mung says:

    kf, eight pages of mostly insulting commentary interspersed with an occasional tidbit worth reading. A wasteland.

    The essence seems to be the claim that the designer must have applied some force in order to move mass around, aligned with questions like “where did the energy come from”?

    A force that can move matter is a material force. A force that can’t move matter isn’t a force at all. … And to fabricate an object, or modify it, the fabricator has to accelerate matter, i.e. give its parts some kinetic energy it did not otherwise possess, by applying a force.

    Poof! The ID energy question

    Elizabeth keeps asking where the energy comes from, as if the energy is the force.

    F = ma doesn’t tell us what the force is, where it comes from, or whether it’s material…

    …those making the case should provide at least some hypothesis as to where the energy came from that applied the necessary forces…

  29. 29
    Carpathian says:

    Mung:

    F = ma doesn’t tell us what the force is, where it comes from, or whether it’s material…

    Any force acting on something material, must be material.

    If it’s not, there are no physical laws involved.

    If that’s the case, we’re talking magic, not science.

  30. 30
    daveS says:

    Mung,

    Elizabeth keeps asking where the energy comes from, as if the energy is the force.

    I’m not seeing any confusion between forces and energy in the quotes you posted.

    Edit: Are you saying the designer could have used forces to move objects around without expending any energy?

  31. 31
    logically_speaking says:

    Carpathian,

    Since when did design become sharpness??

    Maybe appearances can be deceiving, but design is always design.

  32. 32
    Eric Anderson says:

    Mung @28:

    But of course ID doesn’t posit an immaterial designer anyway, at least certainly doesn’t necessitate it.

    The question of whether a designer is material or immaterial is interesting in its own right, but it doesn’t address the central question ID is asking. And, therefore, cannot refute ID.

  33. 33
    Dr JDD says:

    Cabal:
    If you have been doing research since 1943 then you must be near the latter stages of your life so you would do well to consider the Bible in some detail while you still have the chance.

    by the way, those that believe in Biblical inerrancy have no need for ID or the backing of any worldly systematic view on origins to “comfort” them. Plus, they already have a Comforter who reveals all truth anyway.

  34. 34
    kairosfocus says:

    Mung,

    taking a break from entertaining but in the end sad local and regional shenanigans . . . finger in the leaking hole in the levee holding back the flooding sea and all that.

    I would suggest ask these folks where the energy comes from to type the messages they post, then contrast where the FSCO/I in the messages comes from.

    A glance at Plato on the self moved initiating agent cause may help them begin to see clearly. Energy flow and prescriptive info flow are different.

    And, since they patently want to target God, you are here talking of the one who would have created the space time mass energy domain to begin with, which would logically be a different situation from the situation of continuation and conservation that now obtains in our corner of reality.

    Somewhere in there they need to ponder why is there something rather than nothing.

    Where, as nothing is non being, if there were ever utterly nothing such would forever obtain as such can have no causal capacity.

    If something now is, something always was.

    This means a serious viewpoint, is that there credibly is a necessary root of being.

    With sobering onward issues . . .

    KF

  35. 35
    EugeneS says:

    I personally can remember more than once people were saying to me: ‘there is no design because even I could do it better’.

    It shows the level of their ignorance, nothing more.

  36. 36
    bornagain77 says:

    as to cabal’s claim:

    “I’ve been doing my own research since 1943 and have never for a second suspeceted that Id was anything but a last-resort device to comfort doubting minds and saving faith in the inerrancy of the Bible.”

    So right in the middle of the ‘final solution’, when the holocaust was at its horrid height, Cabal found that humans were not designed?

    Interesting year to come to that realization!

    Cabal, since you have such a long history of finding non-Design features in the human body, perhaps you could list all the things in the human body that are not designed?
    According to my notes, the list of ‘non-Design’ features in the human body has been growing shorter and shorter since 1943 not longer as you hold.

    “There are, according to Wiedersheim, no less than 180 vestigial structures in the human body, sufficient to make of a man a veritable walking museum of antiquities.”
    -evidence submitted to the Scopes trial

    “The thyroid gland, pituitary gland, thymus, pineal gland, and coccyx, … once considered useless by evolutionists, are now known to have important functions. The list of 180 “vestigial” structures is practically down to zero. Unfortunately, earlier Darwinists assumed that if they were ignorant of an organ’s function, then it had no function.”
    “Tornado in a Junkyard” – book – by former atheist James Perloff

    Vestigial Organs: Comparing ID and Darwinian Approaches – July 20, 2012
    Excerpt: A favorite criticisms of ID is that it is a science stopper. The opposite is true. The Live Science article shows that the “vestigial organs” argument has not changed for over a century, since Wiedersheim coined the term and listed over a hundred examples (in 1893). Evolutionary theory, in fact, has been worse than a science stopper: its predictions have been flat out wrong. Only a handful of alleged vestigial organs remains from Wiedersheim’s original list, and each of those is questionable.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....62281.html

    In fact, as far back as 1947, about the time you started your research into the non-Design of humans, it was known that the appendix was functional

    Over sixty years ago we find these words from the prestigious Quarterly Review of Biology, “There is no longer any justification for regarding the vermiform appendix as a vestigial structure” (Straus, 1947).
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....-actually/

    Despite the fact that it was known that the appendix was functional, Darwinists continued to insist the appendix was evidence for non-design, i.e. vestigial.
    Recently, the evidence that the appendix is functional was made much stronger:

    Appendix has purpose:
    Excerpt: “The appendix acts as a good safe house for bacteria,” said Duke surgery professor Bill Parker.
    http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Sc.....as_purpose

    Your Appendix Could Save Your Life – Rob Dunn – January 2012
    Excerpt: Individuals without an appendix were four times more likely to have a recurrence of Clostridium difficile, exactly as Parker’s hypothesis predicted. Recurrence in individuals with their appendix intact occurred in 11% of cases. Recurrence in individuals without their appendix occurred in 48% of cases.
    http://blogs.scientificamerica.....your-life/

    Surgical removal of the tonsils and appendix associated with risk of early heart attack – June 2011
    Excerpt: The surgical removal of the appendix and tonsils before the age of 20 was associated with an increased risk of premature heart attack in a large population study performed in Sweden. Tonsillectomy increased the risk by 44% (hazard ratio 1.44) and appendectomy by 33% (HR 1.33). The risk increases were just statistically significant, and were even higher when the tonsils and appendix were both removed.
    http://medicalxpress.com/news/.....html#share

    In fact, no thanks to Darwin’s theory, it would be considered medical malpractice to remove a healthy appendix nowadays:

    Evolution’s “vestigial organ” argument debunked
    Excerpt: “The appendix, like the once ‘vestigial’ tonsils and adenoids, is a lymphoid organ (part of the body’s immune system) which makes antibodies against infections in the digestive system. Believing it to be a useless evolutionary ‘left over,’ many surgeons once removed even the healthy appendix whenever they were in the abdominal cavity. Today, removal of a healthy appendix under most circumstances would be considered medical malpractice” (David Menton, Ph.D., “The Human Tail, and Other Tales of Evolution,” St. Louis MetroVoice , January 1994, Vol. 4, No. 1).
    “Doctors once thought tonsils were simply useless evolutionary leftovers and took them out thinking that it could do no harm. Today there is considerable evidence that there are more troubles in the upper respiratory tract after tonsil removal than before, and doctors generally agree that simple enlargement of tonsils is hardly an indication for surgery” (J.D. Ratcliff, Your Body and How it Works, 1975, p. 137).
    The tailbone, properly known as the coccyx, is another supposed example of a vestigial structure that has been found to have a valuable function—especially regarding the ability to sit comfortably. Many people who have had this bone removed have great difficulty sitting.
    http://www.ucg.org/science/god.....-debunked/

    Moreover, the appendix appears suddenly, in a non-evolutionary fashion, 32 times and thus provides ‘a convincing refutation of Darwin’s hypothesis’:

    Evolutionists Multiply Miracles – February 12, 2013
    Excerpt: William Parker, a surgeon,,, says it has the strongest evidence yet that the appendix serves a purpose. In a new study, published online this month in Comptes Rendus Palevol, the researchers compiled information on the diets of 361 living mammals, including 50 species now considered to have an appendix, and plotted the data on a mammalian evolutionary tree. They found that the 50 species are scattered so widely across the tree that the structure must have evolved independently at least 32 times, and perhaps as many as 38 times.
    Randolph Nesse (U of Michigan) had an interesting take on this conclusion. “The conclusion that the appendix has appeared 32 times is amazing,” he said. “I do find their argument for the positive correlation of appendix and cecum sizes to be a convincing refutation of Darwin’s hypothesis”
    http://crev.info/2013/02/evolu.....-miracles/

  37. 37
    bornagain77 says:

    As well, the inverted retina, which evolutionists insisted was “bad design” for many years, is now found to be ‘optimal design:

    Retinal Glial Cells Enhance Human Vision Acuity A. M. Labin and E. N. Ribak
    Physical Review Letters, 104, 158102 (April 2010)
    Excerpt: The retina is revealed as an optimal structure designed for improving the sharpness of images.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20482021

    New Research Shows Retina Complexities – Cornelius Hunter – December 16, 2012
    Excerpt: “New research out of Germany is helping to pinpoint details of how the mammalian retina converts incoming light into digital signals which ultimately make their way to the brain. Before the information is shipped off to the brain, however, it undergoes massive processing which, among other things, helps to extract features present in the incoming image.”
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....ities.html

    Fiber optic light pipes in the retina do much more than simple image transfer – Jul 21, 2014
    Excerpt: Having the photoreceptors at the back of the retina is not a design constraint, it is a design feature. The idea that the vertebrate eye, like a traditional front-illuminated camera, might have been improved somehow if it had only been able to orient its wiring behind the photoreceptor layer, like a cephalopod, is folly. Indeed in simply engineered systems, like CMOS or CCD image sensors, a back-illuminated design manufactured by flipping the silicon wafer and thinning it so that light hits the photocathode without having to navigate the wiring layer can improve photon capture across a wide wavelength band. But real eyes are much more crafty than that.
    A case in point are the Müller glia cells that span the thickness of the retina. These high refractive index cells spread an absorptive canopy across the retinal surface and then shepherd photons through a low-scattering cytoplasm to separate receivers, much like coins through a change sorting machine. A new paper in Nature Communications describes how these wavelength-dependent wave-guides can shuttle green-red light to cones while passing the blue-purples to adjacent rods. The idea that these Müller cells act as living fiber optic cables has been floated previously. It has even been convincingly demonstrated using a dual beam laser trap.,,,
    ,,,In the retina, and indeed the larger light organ that is the eye, there is much more going on than just photons striking rhodopsin photopigments. As far as absorbers, there are all kinds of things going on in there—various carontenoids, lipofuscins and lipochromes, even cytochrome oxidases in mitochondria that get involved at the longer wavelegnths.,,,
    ,,In considering not just the classical photoreceptors but the entire retina itself as a light-harvesting engine,,, that can completely refigure (its) fine structure within a few minutes to handle changing light levels, every synapse appears as an essential machine that percolates information as if at the Brownian scale, or even below.,,,
    http://phys.org/news/2014-07-f.....imple.html

    William Bialek: More Perfect Than We Imagined – March 23, 2013
    Excerpt: photoreceptor cells that carpet the retinal tissue of the eye and respond to light, are not just good or great or phabulous at their job. They are not merely exceptionally impressive by the standards of biology, with whatever slop and wiggle room the animate category implies. Photoreceptors operate at the outermost boundary allowed by the laws of physics, which means they are as good as they can be, period. Each one is designed to detect and respond to single photons of light — the smallest possible packages in which light comes wrapped.
    “Light is quantized, and you can’t count half a photon,” said William Bialek, a professor of physics and integrative genomics at Princeton University. “This is as far as it goes.” …
    Scientists have identified and mathematically anatomized an array of cases where optimization has left its fastidious mark, among them;,, the precision response in a fruit fly embryo to contouring molecules that help distinguish tail from head;,,, In each instance, biophysicists have calculated, the system couldn’t get faster, more sensitive or more efficient without first relocating to an alternate universe with alternate physical constants.
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....an-we.html

    Moreover, eyes, like the appendix, refute Darwinian expectations:

    “The reason evolutionary biologists believe in “40 known independent eye evolutions” isn’t because they’ve reconstructed those evolutionary pathways, but because eyes don’t assume a treelike pattern on the famous Darwinian “tree of life.” Darwinists are accordingly forced, again and again, to invoke convergent “independent” evolution of eyes to explain why eyes are distributed in such a non-tree-like fashion.
    This is hardly evidence against ID. In fact the appearance of eyes within widely disparate groups speaks eloquently of common design. Eyes are a problem, all right — for Darwinism.”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....83441.html

    As well, the human brain was recently shown to be far more complex than the entire internet combined:

    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/8301-2708.....2-247.html

    So basically, contrary to cabal’s claim, the evidence for design of the human body has only gotten far stronger since 1943, not weaker.

    Verse and Music:

    Psalm 139:14
    I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.

    Johnny Cash – Ain’t No Grave
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0MIFHLIzZY

  38. 38
    Axel says:

    Unfortunately for Unintelligent Designers, Carpathian, the work of science is predicated on the intelligent design of the natural world, not deceptive appearances.

  39. 39
    EugeneS says:

    Dr DDR #11

    No, it’s not irrelevant.

  40. 40
    Carpathian says:

    logically_speaking:

    Carpathian,

    Since when did design become sharpness??

    It didn’t.

    The analogy is about appearances.

    The picture appears to be sharper in focus, but is not.

    Simply accepting appearance as strong evidence for any specific event is not being scientific.

    Evidence better than appearance is required.

  41. 41
    Carpathian says:

    Axel:

    Unfortunately for Unintelligent Designers, Carpathian, the work of science is predicated on the intelligent design of the natural world, not deceptive appearances.

    You are assuming your conclusion.

    The topic is whether nature is a result of ID.

    Appearances are not evidence.

    They may prompt further study, but in themselves are not evidence.

  42. 42
    Mung says:

    Carpathian: Appearances are not evidence.

    What you no doubt meant to say is that appearances don’t appear to be evidence.

  43. 43
    Carpathian says:

    Mung:

    What you no doubt meant to say is that appearances don’t appear to be evidence.

    It appears so.

  44. 44
    logically_speaking says:

    Carpathian,

    The problem I think is your example, when you sharpen an image, that’s what happens.

    When I looked up unsharp mask, I got this from Wikipedia,

    “The “unsharp” of the name derives from the fact that the technique uses a blurred, or “unsharp”, positive image to create a mask of the original image. The unsharped mask is then combined with the negative image, creating an image that is less blurry than the original. The resulting image, although clearer, may be a less accurate representation of the image’s subject. In the context of signal processing, an unsharp mask is generally a linear or nonlinear filter that amplifies the high-frequency components of a signal”.

    So what happens is the programme creates another picture and combines it with the original. so you are actually looking at 2 pictures of roughly the same thing. So because of this added information that the eyes can now process, the picture becomes sharper.

    Interestingly adding more information to the picture made it less accurate.

    I do agree that sometimes appearances can be deceptive, but unless you can supply an example of a design (that we can trace the origin of) that isn’t actually designed then your argument fails in this case.

  45. 45
    Carpathian says:

    logically_speaking,

    My comment was in response to this comment of yours:

    So, appearance of design IS, repeat: IS evidence of design.

    But appearance of sharpness is not evidence of sharpness.

    Blanket statements are not very good at describing technical topics.

    Something like intelligent design is I believe a technical subject and should be handled that way.

    You have asked me this:

    I do agree that sometimes appearances can be deceptive, but unless you can supply an example of a design (that we can trace the origin of) that isn’t actually designed then your argument fails in this case.

    Your initial statement of “appearance” however, does not reached the technical level of accuracy you have just asked of me.

  46. 46
    logically_speaking says:

    Carpathian,

    Remember, I was originally responding to Cabals blanket statement, “Appearance of design is not, repeat: NOT evidence of design”. So your own reasoning about blanket statements must apply to his statement too.

    However again I say that even if there may be cases of appearance being deceptive, it does not mean we should discount ALL “appearance” as evidence. Simply because in most cases appearance IS evidence of whatever appears.

    You say “But appearance of sharpness is not evidence of sharpness”. However I disagree, the example you used does make the picture sharper as Wikipedia described.

    As far as I can see appearance of something is almost always evidence for that something, therefore the ball is in your court to show HOW the appearance of design IS NOT actual design.

  47. 47
    Carpathian says:

    logically_speaking:

    You say “But appearance of sharpness is not evidence of sharpness”. However I disagree, the example you used does make the picture sharper as Wikipedia described.

    Wiki doesn’t always come up with the best explanations though they are useful for more discussion.

    When using the “unsharp mask”, the picture is not made sharper, it is instead given more contrast where edges are detected.

    Stock photo sites want “tack sharp” pictures but some will reject photos where any sharpening is attempted because the photos don’t end up sharper.

    They only “appear” sharper and that is a very important distinction.

    The definition of the term “appearance” is not “evidence”.

  48. 48
    Querius says:

    AdamBGraham @ 5,

    One person’s design flaw can actually be another’s design feature. Design optimization is always relative to the designer’s intent for the object. Therefore, it’s a rather audacious claim to call out supposed design flaws and/or vestigial structures, especially since we routinely find new functions and design significance all of the time.

    Wonderfully stated and worth repeating.

    And for the peanut gallery, if something has the appearance of design, then it makes perfect sense to study it as if it were! And this is the gist of the ID paradigm.

    -Q

  49. 49
    logically_speaking says:

    Carpathian,

    First I’ll just say that this will be my last comment about this on this thread.

    “When using the “unsharp mask”, the picture is not made sharper, it is instead given more contrast where edges are detected”.

    Let’s be clear here, NOTHING happens to the original picture, a copy is made and combined with the original, this creates a NEW almost identical picture which is supposed to be sharper (this is due to the added information that our eyes can absorb giving the appearance of sharpness). After the process you are NOT looking at the original picture but the new combined image. It is this new image that has the appearance of sharpness not the original. And in this case the appearance of sharpness is evidence of sharpness as we can trace the origin to the “unsharp mask” program.

    “Stock photo sites want “tack sharp” pictures but some will reject photos where any sharpening is attempted because the photos don’t end up sharper”.

    This only means that the appearance of sharpness is subjective and the process of sharpening photos isn’t perfect.

    If the photo doesn’t end up sharper, what evidence is there that sharpening was attempted?

    “They only “appear” sharper and that is a very important distinction”.

    Every example you have given went though a sharpening process, so every example you have provided that appears sharper has been evidence of sharpness.

    “The definition of the term “appearance” is not “evidence”.

    The definition of “evidence” on dictionary.reference.com,

    1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
    2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign:

    In other words evidence makes things appear sharper!!!

  50. 50
    Zachriel says:

    Querius: if something has the appearance of design, then it makes perfect sense to study it as if it were!

    It might be worth treating as a hypothesis, a tentative assumption held to draw out its empirical implications. So, let’s give it a go. If the object is an artifact, that means there was an art and an artisan. What evidence can we find that links causation from artisan to art to artifact?

Leave a Reply