bobby,

You short quoted me again. And you answered questions not posed to you, bad form.

You either believe in Neo-Darwinism or you do not. If you do, we have the eyes we have because they ARE the best fit for our species. You are not the designer nor are you in charge of what is best for all of us, regardless of design or chance.

ID is not making the attempt to explain why there are two types of camera eyes.

"Short quoting" is objectionable if it removes context and thereby distorts intent. Please show how my quotes distorted your comments. If you want a specific person to respond to your posts, make it clear in your posts or send your question via PM.

You have failed again to respond to the Drake question.

For ID to be a rational explanation of the variety we can see around us it must be able to explain why cephalopods have a better designed camera eye than vertebrates. And there's the rub, it's not rational, it makes no attempt to explain, it assumes some supernatural entity did it for an inexplicable reason, thus it is not science and has no business being taught in a science classroom.

You imply that there is such a thing as infinity. Even the Universe has it's limits, something like 14 billion light years. ]There are odds that I will disappear off the face of the earth and reappear on Mars. That is first longer then the life span I have and also the life span of the universe.

You did remove context and thereby distorted my intent. I find it more then objectionable! I find it intellectually dishonest.

Im going to stop talking to you for a time. Better then cussing you.

NO, PM thank you.

"bobby" wrote:

...inferior...

"Blank Man" wrote:

George is right, but his conclusion is wrong. The human body and all of its functions didn't "just happen". They evolved over millions of years to provide the best fit for survival of the species. Otherwise, if our bodies were somehow statistical monstrosities that indicate some sort of "designed" advanced function, why can't we fend off the simplest of bacterial or viral infections?

Poor Mr. Gallup just simply couldn't understand the nature behind his own mathematical question.

If you will note---bobby---the above quote from Blank Man, I'll help ya out by pointing right at it for ya..."The human body and all of its functions didn't "just happen". They evolved over millions of years to provide the best fit for survival of the species."

Thank you very much for your time and effort in this subject. It matters not if I believe or not, this is not the matter here. You say you believe in Darwin yet you seem to be in conflict with the 'nature' [if I may] of it.

Thank you, thank you very much for your time and effort.

What part of Darwinism says that everything "just happened"? I'm pretty sure that Darwinism purports that each change happened for a specific reason to help the species survive.

Blank Man..."Darwinism purports that each change happened for a specific reason to help the species survive."

In bold letters,...to help..., you imply an underlaying rhyme for reason? I imply a Guiding Hand, not fate.

No, I suggest that after, for example, using our thumbs to grip and hold things, they eventually became "opposable". No fate involved, no Guiding Hand. Our thumbs didn't "just become, by chance, opposable". There was a need to evolve that way for our species, and so it did through evolution.

Knowing that I do not believe in a Creator, I'll thank you for not seizing on my words to support your stance without first consulting me and confirming that your unique interpretation is what I meant.

What part of Darwinism says that everything "just happened"? I'm pretty sure that Darwinism purports that each change happened for a specific reason to help the species survive.

Darwinism purports no such thing. Changes occur randomly, some are detrimental to survival, some are neutral, some are beneficial, the process of natural selection results in beneficial changes being dominant in a group. In other words each change that helps is retained because it helps.

ID:

You did remove context and thereby distorted my intent. I find it more then objectionable! I find it intellectually dishonest.

You provided an estimate of the size of the universe at 14 billion light years, which is at least half the distance between two photons traveling in opposite directions since the big bang. It was a simple matter of math, your assertion of a limit of 14 billion light years was in error. The comment removed did not add any context to your assertion of a erroneous 14 billion light year limit to the universe.

And still no answer to the Drake equation question.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

What part of Darwinism says that everything "just happened"? I'm pretty sure that Darwinism purports that each change happened for a specific reason to help the species survive.

Darwinism purports no such thing. Changes occur randomly, some are detrimental to survival, some are neutral, some are beneficial, the process of natural selection results in beneficial changes being dominant in a group. In other words each change that helps is retained because it helps.

Yes, I'm aware of this, but I thought that Darwinism also supported the idea that, for example, a giraffe has a long neck because that particular change was useful to that species, and the change came about because they are herbivores looking for nutrition from higher elevation than their bodies would normally allow.

Giraffes didn't "just" get a long neck because God gave it to them. This is what I meant by Darwinism purports that a [dominant] change is kept because it helped the species/group.

Our thumbs didn't "just become, by chance, opposable".

Correct

There was a need to evolve that way for our species, and so it did through evolution.

Incorrect. Evolution is unguided. There was no need that evolution responded to, there were changes, when these changes helped, they became widespread, when they didn't, they disappeared. Our ancestors without opposable thumbs were the best that random mutation could produce at that time, when opposable thumbs evolved, the inheritors benefited sufficiently from them that their genes became widespread. Suggesting that there was a "need" for opposable thumbs is looking at evolution in reverse

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Is there Intelligence in YOUR design, William Rothamel, Gary Charpentier, Blank man, SciManStev, Chris S? If the answer is yes, there is Intelligence in your design, how did intelligence get between your ears?

Infinity is a big number. Given an infinity of time evolution will produce me, and more than once.

You imply that there is such a thing as infinity. Even the Universe has it's limits, something like 14 billion light years. There are odds that I will disappear off the face of the earth and reappear on Mars. That is first longer then the life span I have and also the life span of the universe.

The universe is infinite. It does not have a start, nor an end. The observable universe is about 14bly across. This is not the size of the universe, which is infinite. We already observe the effects of stuff outside our bubble upon stuff inside. Galaxy clusters with wrong velocities for the universe being closed.

I would do a simple thought process, but I believe you wish to remain ignorant. However for the rest of the readers of the thread:

Draw a circle and put a point at the center. Call the center point earth. Call the edge of the circle 14bly. Now put a point just a split hair inside the circle. Draw a circle around that point the same size 14bly. Only the stuff inside both circles is stuff both observers can see. But each observer can see a whole lot of universe the other can't. Add another point a hare inside the second circle in line with the others. Draw another circle. Keep doing this with the points in a line and you get to an infinite size universe but each only having an observable size of 14bly.

Are you inside looking out? Or, are you outside looking in? Nevertheless, there is a start of the Universe and we don't know for sure the end. Observable....

Neither one of you seem to understand what is and isn't Neo-Darwinism. Nor how it works....LOL!

It seems you two cant agree to disagree...LOL!

Giraffes didn't "just" get a long neck because God gave it to them. This is what I meant by Darwinism purports that a [dominant] change is kept because it helped the species/group.

Yes, the benefit of a random change is established after the random change happens.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

As to the question of where intelligence comes from, one can look at existing species. Often people look at humans being separate from other animals. Humans are animals, and the lines between the differences are not always so clear.

First of all, people vary greatly in intellect. There is no one description that fits everyone. All of us, at one time or another has met someone that "shoots from the hip", and will answer any question put to them, without having the slightest clue what they were talking about. They do this over and over and are certain they are the authority on just about everything. Others will think about a response, and reply if the response is deemed appropriate. Others will just pass on the question, because they do not know the answer.

Animals can fall into the same categories. For example a Border Collie is considered the most intelligent dog. The thing to note is that not all Border Collies fit that description. In some instances a Greyhound may be more intelligent than a Border Collie. Generalizations are fine, but like humans there can be exceptions.

Typically, but not always, animals that work/hunt collectively are considered more intelligent. Lions, hyena's, chimps, dolphins, and whales are examples. Chimps have been shown to create and use tools to facilitate some process. Otters sometimes bring up rocks, and use them as anvils on their belly's to crack shellfish. Dolphins figured out how to blow a circular wall of bubbles to make schools of fish think they are surrounded by a solid wall. Sometimes they even stir up mud to achieve a similar effect. Orcas have been seen thinking to solve problems. Several of them will see a seal on an ice flow, and they will rush the ice flow lifting their tails in unison at the last moment, creating a big wave that washes the seal off the ice. Other examples are of Orcas nearly beaching themselves to catch a penguin. There are thought out behaviors, that are not instinctive.

Whales and dolphins have larger brains than humans do. They are also capable of language. The language of whales differs from pod to pod. They can sing very long "songs", not missing a note. Whales of a different pod will sing a different "song". I am not sure these are just songs, but descriptions of where food may be, or other intuitive communication. As water is more dense than air, the sound can travel large distances. Dolphins have very finely tunes echo location capabilities that can identify something smaller than a dime. Their brains and bodies are adapted to a marine environment. They have complex problem solving skills, but the problems they solve have to do with their environment. It wouldn't make much sense for them to have hands, as all that would do is slow them down, making them easier prey. I have seen blind humans that can click and echo locate, but no where near as well as a dolphin could.

Human ancestors used to be tree dwellers, so hands were very effective. With their problem solving ability, hands became even more useful. Still, as I have pointed out elsewhere, I saw a test where an Orangutan was taught how to use a computer to perform a simple pattern recognition test. The Orangutan was able to out perform humans repeatedly.

Often different species of animals can be taught difficult tricks. It's true that is a learned behavior, but sometimes a species will use a learned behavior in a different way to accomplish a goal. Remember Coco? She was a gorilla that was taught sign language. She had a very impressive vocabulary, and could make sentences describing things she had never experienced. She could ask questions, and understand the responses. Her language went far beyond taught tricks. Cleary she was capable of thought, feelings and emotions.

Species other than humans are also quite capable of grief. Dogs, cats, and even elephants as well as other species can grieve over lost companions. Just like with humans, there is no one characteristic with other species. Some dogs are very happy, and others are depressed. Even some snakes are very ill tempered, and another of the same species might be very docile. They all have individual personalities. I will admit that they are not very high up on the intellect rankings.

This is a good time to take another look at the octopus. They can have very impressive problem solving abilities, actually thinking out the solutions. Once again they are adapted to a marine environment, and many of the problems are usually, but not limited to that environment.

Being self aware is something that is shared by many species. It is quite true that the awareness can vary greatly, but where do you draw the line. To me it really looks like those lines are very blurred. I am certain there are whales and dolphins that can out think some humans, and even as the old saying goes, elephants never forget. It is very true that they have excellent memories, and can remember the location of a water hole they have not been to for decades. Their low frequency rumblings may have more content that just "I am here."

Intelligence seems to be shared among multiple species, although it is usually adapted for the environment the species lives in. Saying humans are the most intelligent can be quite blurred, as we are not always best adapted for an existence outside our environment. It is quite true that we can invent technology that allows us to experience different environments, but that may not make us more intelligent. Some other species do easily what they need to do in order to survive, even when that requires reasoning.

What I'm trying to do is show that intellect has been shown in different species, to different degrees, but not all of a particular species share the same intellect. The lines are so blurred, they can be indistinguishable. Remember the person who constantly "shoots from the hip", and knows nothing? I am sure some dolphin would exhibit greater problem solving skills that that person. Perhaps the octopus could too.

Problem solving ability, and even language are not necessarily unique to humans. As has been said before, if a trait works, then it is more likely to be passed on, while ones that do not work, tend not to be passed on. Of course there are always circumstances where for example a village of unusually intelligent people might be destroyed one night in a mud slide, or some other calamity that takes them out of the gene pool, even though they were succeeding and even prospering. This can hold true for any species, not just humans.

It is not really much different for humans to have the problem solving ability that they do. It may be a different ability, but the similarities can be found with many species, all of which would have some that out perform their peers, and some that would "shoot from the hip". If a trait does work, and is passed on without some event interfering, then that trait can become more developed with many generations. Humans are not really so different. We are what we are because of our pasts, which go back as long as life began to evolve.

Steve

---

Warning, addicted to SETI crunching!
Crunching as a member of GPU Users Group.
GPUUG Website

Our thumbs didn't "just become, by chance, opposable".

Correct

There was a need to evolve that way for our species, and so it did through evolution.

Incorrect. Evolution is unguided. There was no need that evolution responded to, there were changes, when these changes helped, they became widespread, when they didn't, they disappeared. Our ancestors without opposable thumbs were the best that random mutation could produce at that time, when opposable thumbs evolved, the inheritors benefited sufficiently from them that their genes became widespread. Suggesting that there was a "need" for opposable thumbs is looking at evolution in reverse

Well then, there you go. I was looking at it slightly in reverse and therefore expressing myself confusingly. I stand corrected.

Neither one of you seem to understand what is and isn't Neo-Darwinism. Nor how it works....LOL!

Then do tell.

It seems you two cant agree to disagree...LOL!

It seems we just came to an agreement. Wrong yet again, ID.

Is there Intelligence in YOUR design, William Rothamel, Gary Charpentier, Blank man, SciManStev, Chris S? If the answer is yes, there is Intelligence in your design, how did intelligence get between your ears?

Infinity is a big number. Given an infinity of time evolution will produce me, and more than once.

You imply that there is such a thing as infinity. Even the Universe has it's limits, something like 14 billion light years. There are odds that I will disappear off the face of the earth and reappear on Mars. That is first longer then the life span I have and also the life span of the universe.

The universe is infinite. It does not have a start, nor an end. The observable universe is about 14bly across. This is not the size of the universe, which is infinite. We already observe the effects of stuff outside our bubble upon stuff inside. Galaxy clusters with wrong velocities for the universe being closed.

I would do a simple thought process, but I believe you wish to remain ignorant. However for the rest of the readers of the thread:

Draw a circle and put a point at the center. Call the center point earth. Call the edge of the circle 14bly. Now put a point just a split hair inside the circle. Draw a circle around that point the same size 14bly. Only the stuff inside both circles is stuff both observers can see. But each observer can see a whole lot of universe the other can't. Add another point a hare inside the second circle in line with the others. Draw another circle. Keep doing this with the points in a line and you get to an infinite size universe but each only having an observable size of 14bly.

Are you inside looking out? Or, are you outside looking in? Nevertheless, there is a start of the Universe and we don't know for sure the end. Observable....

This image shows a time line for the universe since the Big Bang, the unit of measure is years. Your original comment on limits referred to light years. Years measure time, light years measure distance (the distance traveled by light in a vacuum for one calendar year). While distance and time are related concepts in 4 dimensional space time, the measures of each are not typically used interchangeably, i.e. it is more common to say "the Sun is 93 million miles away", than "the Sun is is 8 minutes 19 seconds away".

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Is there Intelligence in YOUR design, William Rothamel, Gary Charpentier, Blank man, SciManStev, Chris S? If the answer is yes, there is Intelligence in your design, how did intelligence get between your ears?

Infinity is a big number. Given an infinity of time evolution will produce me, and more than once.

You imply that there is such a thing as infinity. Even the Universe has it's limits, something like 14 billion light years. There are odds that I will disappear off the face of the earth and reappear on Mars. That is first longer then the life span I have and also the life span of the universe.

The universe is infinite. It does not have a start, nor an end. The observable universe is about 14bly across. This is not the size of the universe, which is infinite. We already observe the effects of stuff outside our bubble upon stuff inside. Galaxy clusters with wrong velocities for the universe being closed.

I would do a simple thought process, but I believe you wish to remain ignorant. However for the rest of the readers of the thread:

Draw a circle and put a point at the center. Call the center point earth. Call the edge of the circle 14bly. Now put a point just a split hair inside the circle. Draw a circle around that point the same size 14bly. Only the stuff inside both circles is stuff both observers can see. But each observer can see a whole lot of universe the other can't. Add another point a hare inside the second circle in line with the others. Draw another circle. Keep doing this with the points in a line and you get to an infinite size universe but each only having an observable size of 14bly.

Are you inside looking out? Or, are you outside looking in? Nevertheless, there is a start of the Universe and we don't know for sure the end. Observable...

There is no inside or outside. There is observable and not observable. Just because you can't see photons from elsewhere does not mean elsewhere does not exist. You may see the effects of elsewhere on other things which you can see. And we do see gravitational effects on distant galaxy clusters. Why? Because those things have a different observable limit than you do. They can see things that are forbidden to you.

The universe is not a little closed ball about 14bly across, it is infinite. It extends well beyond - forever - what you can ever know about. For someone who believes in a God, why is this concept hard? Just place your God living there, not here.

---

Our thumbs didn't "just become, by chance, opposable".

Correct

There was a need to evolve that way for our species, and so it did through evolution.

Incorrect. Evolution is unguided. There was no need that evolution responded to, there were changes, when these changes helped, they became widespread, when they didn't, they disappeared. Our ancestors without opposable thumbs were the best that random mutation could produce at that time, when opposable thumbs evolved, the inheritors benefited sufficiently from them that their genes became widespread. Suggesting that there was a "need" for opposable thumbs is looking at evolution in reverse

Well then, there you go. I was looking at it slightly in reverse and therefore expressing myself confusingly. I stand corrected.

No you were correct[to a point]and just because you was told wrong you accepted a wrong. LOL! I have already given you a link to how impossible this so called "random mutation" is. Just because someone told you incorrectly that my link was false does not mean my link was false. Read or reread the link I provided you.

Is there Intelligence in YOUR design, William Rothamel, Gary Charpentier, Blank man, SciManStev, Chris S? If the answer is yes, there is Intelligence in your design, how did intelligence get between your ears?

Infinity is a big number. Given an infinity of time evolution will produce me, and more than once.

You imply that there is such a thing as infinity. Even the Universe has it's limits, something like 14 billion light years. There are odds that I will disappear off the face of the earth and reappear on Mars. That is first longer then the life span I have and also the life span of the universe.

The universe is infinite. It does not have a start, nor an end. The observable universe is about 14bly across. This is not the size of the universe, which is infinite. We already observe the effects of stuff outside our bubble upon stuff inside. Galaxy clusters with wrong velocities for the universe being closed.

I would do a simple thought process, but I believe you wish to remain ignorant. However for the rest of the readers of the thread:

Draw a circle and put a point at the center. Call the center point earth. Call the edge of the circle 14bly. Now put a point just a split hair inside the circle. Draw a circle around that point the same size 14bly. Only the stuff inside both circles is stuff both observers can see. But each observer can see a whole lot of universe the other can't. Add another point a hare inside the second circle in line with the others. Draw another circle. Keep doing this with the points in a line and you get to an infinite size universe but each only having an observable size of 14bly.

Are you inside looking out? Or, are you outside looking in? Nevertheless, there is a start of the Universe and we don't know for sure the end. Observable...

There is no inside or outside. There is observable and not observable. Just because you can't see photons from elsewhere does not mean elsewhere does not exist. You may see the effects of elsewhere on other things which you can see. And we do see gravitational effects on distant galaxy clusters. Why? Because those things have a different observable limit than you do. They can see things that are forbidden to you.

The universe is not a little closed ball about 14bly across, it is infinite. It extends well beyond - forever - what you can ever know about. For someone who believes in a God, why is this concept hard? Just place your God living there, not here.

Id agree with you that there is observable and not observable. We appear to disagree on what is fact and fiction. What you have given me is unproven theory. We have no idea what is on the other side of the microwave background noise.

I don't place the Designer anyplace at all. It is my understanding that the Designer is everywhere at all times. I'll venture a unproven theory that the Designer keeps track of us by the Higgs Boson, but, that is like your theory--unproven.

random change and genetic mutations are natures experiment. It's how new designs happen, designs by evolution. Time, chance, and natural (i.e. controlled by nature) selection. There's no big mystery beyond that...

There's nothing "impossible" about it, otherwise there would be no variation in species!

I have already given you a link to how impossible this so called "random mutation" is...

---

#resist

random change and genetic mutations are natures experiment. It's how new designs happen, designs by evolution. Time, chance, and natural (i.e. controlled by nature) selection. There's no big mystery beyond that...

There's nothing "impossible" about it, otherwise there would be no variation in species!

I have already given you a link to how impossible this so called "random mutation" is...

So some of you people here keep saying. If nothing is impossible then why is a Grand Designer?

Yet it seems none of you understand statistical math.

One more time from the top boys...

"George H. Gallup" wrote:

“I could prove God statistically. Take the human body alone-the chances that all the functions of an individual would just happen is a statistical monstrosity.”

Id agree with you that there is observable and not observable. We appear to disagree on what is fact and fiction. What you have given me is unproven theory. We have no idea what is on the other side of the microwave background noise.

We can't know what is in elsewhere, but that doesn't mean elsewhere hasn't been proven or that something exists in it. Gravity from elsewhere is perturbing distant galaxy clusters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_flow

---

random change and genetic mutations are natures experiment. It's how new designs happen, designs by evolution. Time, chance, and natural (i.e. controlled by nature) selection. There's no big mystery beyond that...

There's nothing "impossible" about it, otherwise there would be no variation in species!

I have already given you a link to how impossible this so called "random mutation" is...

So some of you people here keep saying. If nothing is impossible then why is a Grand Designer?

Yet it seems none of you understand statistical math.

One more time from the top boys...

"George H. Gallup" wrote:

“I could prove God statistically. Take the human body alone-the chances that all the functions of an individual would just happen is a statistical monstrosity.”

"There's nothing impossible about evolution" is not the same thing as saying "nothing is impossible". Given sufficiently long periods of time, highly improbable events are almost certain to occur. The Earth has been orbiting the Sun for over 4 billion years, which is an extremely long period of time.

Similarly, George H. Gallups statistical monstrosity is a straw man, no evolutionary biologist believes that the human body evolved from nothing to fully functional, life has been evolving since it started over 3.8 billion years ago. It took a very long time for multicellular organisms to develop, once this happened, about a billion years ago, the possibilities were, well look around you.

We, and all life around you, are the result of around 4 billion years of evolution via random mutation and natural selection.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Id agree with you that there is observable and not observable. We appear to disagree on what is fact and fiction. What you have given me is unproven theory. We have no idea what is on the other side of the microwave background noise.

We can't know what is in elsewhere, but that doesn't mean elsewhere hasn't been proven or that something exists in it. Gravity from elsewhere is perturbing distant galaxy clusters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_flow

Once again, unproven theory.
"You are a master of the words you don't say
and a slave to the ones you do." ~ Unknown