Skip to main content
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 2
Here is a couple of questions for the ID folks how does ID explain mitochondria in prokaryotic cells and how is that explanation superior the evolutionary explanation for mitochondria.

If evolution fails because of irreducible complexity, Isn't ID a bigger failure for not being able to explain complexity.

In other words, if ID states that there are biological processes and structures that are too complex to have evolved without intervention and that intervention is an intelligence, We, in science, are then confronted with attempting to describe an intelligence that is so profoundly complex that it can do all of the things that intelligent Design claims it is responsible for. Now calculating the probability that a irreducibly complex designer was either here all along or claiming that it came into existence using the known laws of physics, and cosmology, gives us a "designer" that is many orders of magnitude less likely than anything evolution can describe.
In other words, ID swallows its own hypothetical tail with an ever larger, statistically improbable, mouth.

Still waiting for Intelligent design adherents to explain testicles- location, lack of protection, incredibly high density of pain receptors- you get the idea.


while you ID folk are at it, you might explain emergent complexity, emergent computation,or any other emergent property and how it relates to ID
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1

Still waiting for Intelligent design adherents to explain testicles- location, lack of protection, incredibly high density of pain receptors- you get the idea.


problem with those kind of questions here is there aren't any actual ID adherents.

there's a couple Creationists who at times try to defend something they don't entirely understand (not that any of us do) and don't really believe.


-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
problem with those kind of questions here is there aren't any actual ID adherents.

there's a couple Creationists who at times try to defend something they don't entirely understand (not that any of us do) and don't really believe.


I believe just about everything from guys like Behe and Dembski. I understand Behe pretty well, Dembski much less, plus I don't like Dembski's approach to the debate. But I generally agree with his logic.

Bryan
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Then ask them to explain testicles
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Still waiting for Intelligent design adherents to explain testicles- location, lack of protection, incredibly high density of pain receptors- you get the idea.

I'm not an ID adherent but I'm curious as to how you would explain "testicles- location, lack of protection, incredibly high density of pain receptors-" by natural selection.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
<Still waiting for Intelligent design adherents to explain testicles- location, lack of protection, incredibly high density of pain receptors- you get the idea.>

<I'm not an ID adherent but I'm curious as to how you would explain "testicles- location, lack of protection, incredibly high density of pain receptors-" by natural selection.>

One could argue, that since testicles have been around for a long time, a better design could have evolved. In many cases it has.

The problem for the bad design of testicles from an evolutionary standpoint is in fact the basis of many of the arguments by Gould. We know that testicles existed in cold blooded animals before they existed in warm- cold blooded animals predate warm. Testicles, eventually evolved into a structure that was designed to produce copious quantities of spermatazoa with great effieciency and a low genetic error rate. All of the multiple small genetic changes that went into an ever refined testicle, mostly happened in cold blooded animals.
Now we have to carry all of these changes forward into a warm blooded animal. Massive roadblock. Trying to make fundamental changes in the genome that alters testicles so that they- or it, can reside in the body of a warm blooded animal requires way too many changes than would exist in any population at an appropriate combination for random chance to allow the development of testicles that could function normally in a warm environment.
Retained testicles in humans- and most mammals- routinely are infertile and if not removed routinely become cancerous. Even if they function, they do so nominally and the percentage of damaged, or dead spermatazoa is huge. In fact, many African tribes recognize soaking of one's testicles in warm water as a method of birth control- or very weird children. It is well documented that the testicles of mammals function poorly when maintained at normal body temperature.

Well, since testicles and ovaries start as the same tissue, and it takes very, very, little shifting of the genome so that ovaries become testicles, ovarian suspensory ligaments become support structures, fallopian tube become spermatic cords, labia become a scrotum - trust me, there is a one to one correspondence of ovarian/vaginal/clittoral structures and the testicular/labial/penile structure.
In fact the correspondence is so perfect and so sensitive that modern living has shown how just a tiny shift in hormone levels can completely screw up this nifty, and economical use of the same embryological tissues for different purposes.
While I digress, I do so to buttress the case. The birth defect that is increasing at a near geometric rate in modern, technologically advanced cultures is "Hypospadia". Hypospadia is a condition where the male penis does not completely form. At it's base, there is an opening. In essence, Hypospadia is a condition where a fetus cannot decide whether or not it has a penis or a clittoris.
That's generalizing but it is sufficient for most people's needs. So, why the sudden increase in hypospadia? Originally presented about ten years ago, one researcher pointed out that many of our standard industrial chemicals, accidentally have an estrogenic effect on the environment. In other words the stuff we use to be modern is increasingly feminizing our environment by producing chemicals that have an estrogenizing effect.
Anyone can spend some time validating what I have written. If I'm wrong, I'd like to know why.
Oddly, many who have not studied this issue would complain, that if we are producing chemicals at random, how come androgenic compounds aren't produced at the same rate as estrogenic compounds, all things being equal.
There is no balance. Estrogenic chemicals predate and are far more ubiquitous than androgenic compounds. Further, as it turns out,when compared, estrogenic compounds have a greater effect on the genomic expression than do androgenic compounds.

Back to the testicles. Testicles from a gene standpoint, require way too many genetic changes to allow sperm production in a significantly warmed environment. Conversely, it takes just a few tweaks of the genome to move the testicles outside of the warm body.
Now the source of propogation of the species resides outside of the body. How do we instinctively protect the testicles? Well testicles with an increased pain neuron density would allow survival.


Admittedly this is a really lousy solution to explain testicles. This is my point. Evolution has to work with the materials at hand. As the environment changes, evolution has a limited amount of time and a limited genome to solve the problem at hand. Failure means extinction.
According to the record, failure is what happens to better than 99% of all species that have ever existed on earth.

So, we have to ask some interesting questions.

1. Do we buy the fact that at least 99% of all species accounted for in the fossil record no longer exist? If yes, the question to ID folks is why were they created in the first place? A failure rate of less than one percent doesn't bode well for the concept of ID or an intelligent designer that has a failure rate of greater than 99%
At last, I have to bring up the density of pain receptors in testicles.
If ID was responsible for testicles, they wouldn't be outside the body. Testicles wouldn't need increased pain receptors because a good designer would put testicles inside the body where the nads would rarely have to experience pain stimuli.

Hopefully this is enough to explain how a bumbling, stumbling biological event- testicles- comes into existence as a statistical event- whether or not it wants to- with a really bad design, only because it is the best design with the information given.
That fact that the evolution of testicles and their supporting structures points out how a truly badly designed structure survives says much about the evolution of an apparently poorly designed, biological structure.
Conversely, when one tries to argue the perfect prescience of "intelligent design" as it applies to testicles, one has a lot more to explain about structure,function, and origin, than does evolution.

That said, I am willing to listen to any argument from Intelligent Design that explains how an intelligent and gifted creator placed my testicles-one of the most important biological structures for species reproduction in a position that makes reproduction of the species easy to compromise.

I'm not an intelligent designer , but given the resources of this and many other universes, I, with my limited intellect could design testicles better than any suppossed Intelligent designer.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
That fact that the evolution of testicles and their supporting structures points out how a truly badly designed structure survives says much about the evolution of an apparently poorly designed, biological structure.
Conversely, when one tries to argue the perfect prescience of "intelligent design" as it applies to testicles, one has a lot more to explain about structure,function, and origin, than does evolution.


Obviously, along with Intelligent Design class in High School, we must provide a disclaimer at the beginning that says, "Warning- no one is saying that the "designer" is particularly bright."

That oughtta do it.

That way, the leetle chillun won't wonder why the designer was so concerned about the efficient ability for bacteria to swim, but didn't seem to notice that certain mammalian reproductive organs were evolving out of control.

k
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Darn it all to heck, you said in ten lines what I wasted thrity or so on.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
It is indeed remarkable that (one of ) the cornerstones of ID is the ability to recognize design in biological structures, but that there seems to be a total reluctance to recognize "undesign" (if I may call it that way), i.e. what seems like irrational design decisions. When vestigal structures or inefficiencies are mentioned then it turns out we cannot know the designer's mind or that he had to cobble together some pre-existing material that don't match well.

Anyway, painful testicles are just part of the punishment for biting in that apple, didn't you know ?

T.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
That said, I am willing to listen to any argument from Intelligent Design that explains how an intelligent and gifted creator placed my testicles-one of the most important biological structures for species reproduction in a position that makes reproduction of the species easy to compromise.

To teach men that kicking people in the groin is bad (I believe that was Commandment #11 that was unfortunately left out due to a copier jam).

I'm not an intelligent designer , but given the resources of this and many other universes, I, with my limited intellect could design testicles better than any suppossed Intelligent designer.

So how would you redesign your testicles?
Print the post Back To Top