Examples of Unintelligent Design of the Human Body

LGK wrote:

<quoted text>
I see you value external evidence; what do you make of this (Sennacherib’s Invasion of Judea) then....
1. Taylor Prism (in the British Museum) is Assyrian King Sennacherib’s description of his siege of SOUTHERN Judean King Hezekiah in 701 BC. He wrote, "Fear of my greatness terrified Hezekiah...”
2. The same siege is described in 2 Kings 19:35, Isaiah 31:5, Micah 1:12 etc
3. It’s also described in Herodotus written in 450 BC as “a divinely-appointed disaster destroying an army of Sennacherib.” The Bible says angel destroyed Sennacherib’s army killing 185 000 troops.
Is this external evidence of the siege & its divine inspiration?
The Bible also says Sennacherib captured NOTHERN Judea & archeology records Sennacherib bragging of capturing 200 000 N. Judeans. That sounds like external evidence to me.
T3SS: I agree that it’s very, very similar to the flagellum. I don’t agree that this means the flagellum is not irreducibly complex. BOTH flagellum &T3SS are irreducibly complex. They each require a minimum number of parts to function either as flagellum or T3SS respectively, that’s what irreducibly complex mean.
PS
As you can see, I've read your post

It would be quite surprisiing if the ancient Hebrew scribes didn't know anything about their own history. Many of the stories after about 1000 BC are based in fact.

As for your Herodotus quote, his work is readily accessible on line so you might be kind enough to tell us where it is found.

LGK wrote:

<quoted text>
I’m not sure what type of a scientific tool “a hard look” is, it sounds very subjective to me. As you’re still using mere number of parts as an indicator of complexity, is a chicken with more chromosomes than dolphins more complex? You dodged the question the first time, that won’t make it go away.

It is not simply a count of the parts. It is also a count of the number of interactions between those parts. As far as chickens and dolphins go, I'm not sure which would be considered more complex. The answer might even depend on the particular measure of complexity. But for neurons and bacteria, the different possible measures all agree.

LGK wrote:

“Pieced-together systems that work rather than systems that bear the hall-mark of design” is Dawkins’ type wordplay; it can all be summed up in 1 word – Designed.

No, that is exactly the point. The complexity of living systems is NOT the same type of complexity that happens in designed systems. Instead it is the type of complexity we expect to see in evolved systems: instead of well-designed pieces that fit together by an overall design, real living things have a piece-meal arrangement where previously existing systems are co-opted for tasks other than the ones they originally served. That leads to a very different type of complexity from a designed system. Living things are evolved, not designed.

LGK wrote:

<quoted text>
I see you value external evidence; what do you make of this (Sennacherib’s Invasion of Judea) then....
1. Taylor Prism (in the British Museum) is Assyrian King Sennacherib’s description of his siege of SOUTHERN Judean King Hezekiah in 701 BC. He wrote, "Fear of my greatness terrified Hezekiah...”
2. The same siege is described in 2 Kings 19:35, Isaiah 31:5, Micah 1:12 etc
3. It’s also described in Herodotus written in 450 BC as “a divinely-appointed disaster destroying an army of Sennacherib.” The Bible says angel destroyed Sennacherib’s army killing 185 000 troops.
Is this external evidence of the siege & its divine inspiration?

Siege maybe.(shrug)

LGK wrote:

The Bible also says Sennacherib captured NOTHERN Judea & archeology records Sennacherib bragging of capturing 200 000 N. Judeans. That sounds like external evidence to me.
T3SS: I agree that it’s very, very similar to the flagellum. I don’t agree that this means the flagellum is not irreducibly complex. BOTH flagellum &T3SS are irreducibly complex. They each require a minimum number of parts to function either as flagellum or T3SS respectively, that’s what irreducibly complex mean.
PS
As you can see, I've read your post

Except the TTSS has ALL the same parts. But LESS of them. Ergo the flagellum is NOT irreducibly complex. It may not be able to function as a flagellum with less parts, but it could still function as something else. Ergo it is either NOT irreducibly complex, or IC is utterly irrelevant.

Especially as it remains nothing more than an undemonstrated anti-evolution apologetic wet dream of reality denying fundies with zero scientific research to back it up.(shrug)

LGK wrote:

The Dude
I don't agree with Bishop Ussher's calculations, I think it was silly to say Creation happened at 2pm.

Oh, well, I guess that's alright then.

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>
No, that is exactly the point. The complexity of living systems is NOT the same type of complexity that happens in designed systems. Instead it is the type of complexity we expect to see in evolved systems: instead of well-designed pieces that fit together by an overall design, real living things have a piece-meal arrangement where previously existing systems are co-opted for tasks other than the ones they originally served. That leads to a very different type of complexity from a designed system. Living things are evolved, not designed.

BIBLE: My point was whether or not we have external evidence for the Bible. The answer we all agree, is we do.

DESIGN:“The type of complexity we see in evolved systems” is circular, built into it is the conclusion that whatever we see evolved. Darwinism assumes a conclusion first then arrives at that conclusion. Put simply, the logical structure is it evolved because it evolved.

Anyway, things are either complex or they are not, there’s no ontological complexity of organisms on the one hand & ontological complexity of non-living on the other. There is complexity. The difference between man-made and biological complexity is that the latter is far, far superior. There is NOTHING man-made that matches a living cell.

There is NO EVIDENCE that anything was co-opted in living things, this is just a story. There are no actual Darwinian pathways to a T3SS, just stories. If you disagree, come up with an actual (not imagined) such pathway.

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>
Siege maybe.(shrug)
<quoted text>
Except the TTSS has ALL the same parts. But LESS of them. Ergo the flagellum is NOT irreducibly complex. It may not be able to function as a flagellum with less parts, but it could still function as something else. Ergo it is either NOT irreducibly complex, or IC is utterly irrelevant.
Especially as it remains nothing more than an undemonstrated anti-evolution apologetic wet dream of reality denying fundies with zero scientific research to back it up.(shrug)

Yes the T3SS has less parts, that’s why it’s a T3SS & not a flagellum. To function as a T3SS it must have all its parts i.e. must be irreducibly complex. ALL machines, molecular in the cell or man-made are IC. If you believe IC can arise by blind evolution please be my guest & provide an example. I’d really love to be proved wrong on this.

I'm afraid you don't understand IC (you didn't get from wikipedia did you - see below). It simply means to achieve a certain function requires a minimum no. of parts all at once. It does not mean if parts are missing no OTHER functions are possible. Take a rifle. Without bullets but it CAN have function many other things – walking stick, table prop etc – just not a rifle. To demonstrate that as a rifle it's, remove the trigger or bullets & try using it AS A RIFLE.

Hostility to IC is based on misinformation on the concept & ignorance of history. To understand the concept doesn’t require “scientific research,” just common sense. The idea did NOT come from Behe or other creationist. It's from British chemist Leslie Orgel, PhD in 1973. The misinformation works because folk don't check things but fall hook line & sinker for Dawkins-type lies. I read his account in the God Delusion!

PS
This is funny:“IC is an argument that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or less complete predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring, chance mutations.”– it’s from Wikipedia & it ain’t true. You've been duped.

LGK wrote:

<quoted text>
DESIGN:“The type of complexity we see in evolved systems” is circular, built into it is the conclusion that whatever we see evolved. Darwinism assumes a conclusion first then arrives at that conclusion. Put simply, the logical structure is it evolved because it evolved.

That is actually the opposite of what happened. How could the assumption be that things evolved if the idea of Evolution didn't come about until the evidence for it did? Prior to Evolution the assumption had been Creation. Then scientists started uncovering evidence to suggest Evolution. How could they have started with an assumption that didn't exist yet?

----------
TVtropes shirt "For Science" now available for pre-order:
http://discordmerch.com/index.php...

Discord wrote:

<quoted text>
That is actually the opposite of what happened. How could the assumption be that things evolved if the idea of Evolution didn't come about until the evidence for it did? Prior to Evolution the assumption had been Creation. Then scientists started uncovering evidence to suggest Evolution. How could they have started with an assumption that didn't exist yet?
----------
TVtropes shirt "For Science" now available for pre-order:
http://discordmerch.com/index.php...

Naturalistic Evolution traces back at least to Ancient Greeks Anaximander (550 BC) & Empedocles (450 BC). I haven’t re-checked but there are similar ideas in 5 000yr old Hindu writings. Darwin just used different language for the same core ideas. He never observed mAcro-evolution or origin of life, no-one ever has. Finches stay finches, that's what we see.

The assumption of evolution prior to evidence is the word EVOLVED in “The type of complexity we see in *evolved* systems.” I’m not suggesting it's deliberately; it's unawares. If anyone wants to get to the truth & avoid false conclusions it is his / her responsibility to be mindful of such hidden assumptions.

LGK wrote:

<quoted text>
Naturalistic Evolution traces back at least to Ancient Greeks Anaximander (550 BC) & Empedocles (450 BC). I haven’t re-checked but there are similar ideas in 5 000yr old Hindu writings. Darwin just used different language for the same core ideas. He never observed mAcro-evolution or origin of life, no-one ever has. Finches stay finches, that's what we see.
The assumption of evolution prior to evidence is the word EVOLVED in “The type of complexity we see in *evolved* systems.” I’m not suggesting it's deliberately; it's unawares. If anyone wants to get to the truth & avoid false conclusions it is his / her responsibility to be mindful of such hidden assumptions.

I am aware the idea of life developing existed prior to Darwin, but in the majority of the western world prior to Darwin Creationism was a much stronger influence.

----------
TVtropes shirt "For Science" now available for pre-order:
http://discordmerch.com/index.php...

LGK wrote:

<quoted text>
BIBLE: My point was whether or not we have external evidence for the Bible. The answer we all agree, is we do.

Do we have external evidence that *some* things mentioned in the Bible are factual? Sure. We know that Egypt existed, for example. But many things in the Bible have no external evidence or are even against the external evidence we have. We certainly can't take the Bible as a whole to be factual based on evidence.

DESIGN:“The type of complexity we see in evolved systems” is circular, built into it is the conclusion that whatever we see evolved. Darwinism assumes a conclusion first then arrives at that conclusion. Put simply, the logical structure is it evolved because it evolved.

No, you didn't understand my argument. We have two competing models: in one, life is designed. In the other, life evolved. What are the consequences of the two models? Each would lead to a type of complexity, but they are different types of complexity. When we actually look at life in the real world, it shows the type of complexity that comes from being evolved and not the type that comes from being designed. No circularity.

Anyway, things are either complex or they are not, there’s no ontological complexity of organisms on the one hand & ontological complexity of non-living on the other. There is complexity. The difference between man-made and biological complexity is that the latter is far, far superior. There is NOTHING man-made that matches a living cell.
There is NO EVIDENCE that anything was co-opted in living things, this is just a story. There are no actual Darwinian pathways to a T3SS, just stories. If you disagree, come up with an actual (not imagined) such pathway.

All *you* have is imagined stories. People have given the evidence and you simply ignore it or discount it for no reason. The changes of evolution happened in the past, so we use evidence from the past to demonstrate it. But you dispense with anything based on evidence from the past as being 'imagined'.

LGK wrote:

<quoted text>
Naturalistic Evolution traces back at least to Ancient Greeks Anaximander (550 BC) & Empedocles (450 BC). I haven’t re-checked but there are similar ideas in 5 000yr old Hindu writings. Darwin just used different language for the same core ideas. He never observed mAcro-evolution or origin of life, no-one ever has. Finches stay finches, that's what we see.

Yes, the idea that species change over time has a long history. It certainly was not originated by Darwin. What Darwin did was give a hypothesis for the *mechanism* of that change and collected evidence that the changes actually happened.

The assumption of evolution prior to evidence is the word EVOLVED in “The type of complexity we see in *evolved* systems.” I’m not suggesting it's deliberately; it's unawares. If anyone wants to get to the truth & avoid false conclusions it is his / her responsibility to be mindful of such hidden assumptions.

And you are simply wrong here. ANY time you make a hypothesis, you seek conclusions of that hypothesis. The question is whether you can use the data to distinguish between different hypotheses. We can investigate the complexity that can arise in evolved systems by purely theoretical means. We can also distinguish the types of complexity that would come from evolved systems and designed systems. This can be done purely theoretically with no assumptions that either one is the case in the real world. THEN we can go and look at the real world and see which hypothesis agrees best with the actual data. And what we find is that the type of complexity that would arise in evolved systems is what we see in the real world and we do NOT see the type of complexity that comes from designed systems. No circularity.

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>
Do we have external evidence that *some* things mentioned in the Bible are factual? Sure. We know that Egypt existed, for example. But many things in the Bible have no external evidence or are even against the external evidence we have. We certainly can't take the Bible as a whole to be factual based on evidence.
<quoted text>
No, you didn't understand my argument. We have two competing models: in one, life is designed. In the other, life evolved. What are the consequences of the two models? Each would lead to a type of complexity, but they are different types of complexity. When we actually look at life in the real world, it shows the type of complexity that comes from being evolved and not the type that comes from being designed. No circularity.
<quoted text>
All *you* have is imagined stories. People have given the evidence and you simply ignore it or discount it for no reason. The changes of evolution happened in the past, so we use evidence from the past to demonstrate it. But you dispense with anything based on evidence from the past as being 'imagined'.

BIBLE: Give an example of a historical Biblical event contradicted by external evidence & with that evidence.

CIRCULARITY: You have simply re-stated the circular argument but gave it title,“model.” This makes it sound scientific but nothing else's changed. The basic logical structure is the still same, you’ve decided BEFORE hand that “X” evolved. Perhaps what you don’t understand is what’s meant by circular reasoning.

COMPLEXITY: There are no ontological types of complexity & if you insist on their existence please define what you mean.“Put together” is not a scientific term. One scientific measure of complexity is Kolmogorov complexity. It applies to BOTH biological & non-biological structures.“Put together” is special dispensation to make Evolutionism believable. I won't fall for that.

EVIDENCE: I have discounted “evidence” that T3SS evolved into a flagellum or can be accounted for Darwinian processes for the following reasons:

1. The Flagellum is phylogenetically younger therefore can’t be the product of the T3SS

2. There are NO actual Darwinian pathways ever put forward for either flagellum or T3SS

3. There is NOT ONE molecular machine ever shown to be ACTUALLY due to co-option.

As you can see I reject the “evidence” because it’s false & indistinguishable from what Prof H Gee called a bedtime story. If you want me to believe the “evidence” make it credible with

1. actual Darwinian pathways
2. molecular machines shown to be ACTUALLY due to co-option

Otherwise it’s just stories like the primordial soup, RNA world & constipation as the cause of dinosaur extinction. I’m sorry if this sounds harsh but that’s the truth about Evolutionism – stories!

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, the idea that species change over time has a long history. It certainly was not originated by Darwin. What Darwin did was give a hypothesis for the *mechanism* of that change and collected evidence that the changes actually happened.
<quoted text>
And you are simply wrong here. ANY time you make a hypothesis, you seek conclusions of that hypothesis. The question is whether you can use the data to distinguish between different hypotheses. We can investigate the complexity that can arise in evolved systems by purely theoretical means. We can also distinguish the types of complexity that would come from evolved systems and designed systems. This can be done purely theoretically with no assumptions that either one is the case in the real world. THEN we can go and look at the real world and see which hypothesis agrees best with the actual data. And what we find is that the type of complexity that would arise in evolved systems is what we see in the real world and we do NOT see the type of complexity that comes from designed systems. No circularity.

“Change over time” is as old as the universe & there’s nothing special about this when applied to species, they change over time & NO-ONE disagrees. What evolutionists do is play a sales trick i.e. bate-&-switch. They make out as if they are talking about change over time which everyone buys then switch to MACRO-evolution which is MORE than just change over time. Like a holiday advertised as from £500.00 but costs £1500, it requires something else & a lot extra. Yes Darwin gave a mechanism but this doesn’t mean the mechanism actually works. If you disagree give ONE observed example of MACRO-evolution. I've asked a million times.

“The type of complexity we see in *evolved* systems” is not a hypothesis – WE SEE IN EVOLVED means what we *see,* not what we hypothesise. You keep talking of “type of complexity that comes from designed systems.” What on Earth is this? A precise scientific distinction of these types would help.

LGK wrote:

<quoted text>
BIBLE: Give an example of a historical Biblical event contradicted by external evidence & with that evidence.
CIRCULARITY: You have simply re-stated the circular argument but gave it title,“model.” This makes it sound scientific but nothing else's changed. The basic logical structure is the still same, you’ve decided BEFORE hand that “X” evolved. Perhaps what you don’t understand is what’s meant by circular reasoning.

That is NOT how it goes. We look at two *theoretical* situations: one where there is design and the other where there is evolution. We look at the consequences of the two different scenarios and see which consequences agree with the data we collect. That is NOT a circular argument because we don't decide ahead of time that things evolved. We use the evidence to decide which of two scenarios is closer to the truth.

This, by the way, is how science typically works: by looking at the consequences of a hypothesis and comparing the consequences with actual data.

As Berkeley was my Alma Mater, here's one:

(paraphrasing the original joke, which I can't find)

A group of three engineers were having lunch. One was a Cal alumnus, one a Stanford alumnus, and the third a UCLA grad. They were having a heated debate over which university the human body's creator graduated from. The UCLA grad said the creator must have come from his Alma Mater, for the sheer artistic beauty and symmetry could only have been envisioned by one possessing such a CV. The Stanford grad disagreed and said the technical brilliance could only have been achieved by one of his collegiate family. The Cal grad agreed that it must have been a Stanford graduate, as they are the only engineers who would have lacked the foresight to realize how ridiculous it is to run a sewer line through a playground.

Sorry for the double post.

LGK wrote:

<quoted text>
“Change over time” is as old as the universe & there’s nothing special about this when applied to species, they change over time & NO-ONE disagrees. What evolutionists do is play a sales trick i.e. bate-&-switch. They make out as if they are talking about change over time which everyone buys then switch to MACRO-evolution which is MORE than just change over time. Like a holiday advertised as from £500.00 but costs £1500, it requires something else & a lot extra.

The only thing 'macro-evolution' needs over 'micro-evolution' is time.

Yes Darwin gave a mechanism but this doesn’t mean the mechanism actually works. If you disagree give ONE observed example of MACRO-evolution. I've asked a million times.

Several *have* been given (evolution of mammals, evolution of birds, evolution of whales, evolution of amphibians, etc). The supporting fossils are given.

Now, it is true that we don't see evolution above the species level happening in a couple of centuries. if anything, seeing such rapid change would destroy the current theory of evolution. That doesn't mean we have no evidence of such change or that we don't 'see' it in the fossil record.

“The type of complexity we see in *evolved* systems” is not a hypothesis – WE SEE IN EVOLVED means what we *see,* not what we hypothesise. You keep talking of “type of complexity that comes from designed systems.” What on Earth is this? A precise scientific distinction of these types would help.

OK. Evolution leads to complex systems where previous systems are co-opted and used for new systems. We see this in abundance in life. Designed systems are ones that are organized with some overall plan, with specifics optimized for their purpose. That is NOT what we see in life.

LGK wrote:

1. The Flagellum is phylogenetically younger therefore can’t be the product of the T3SS

Huh? being *younger* would support it developing later.

2. There are NO actual Darwinian pathways ever put forward for either flagellum or T3SS

Yes, in fact, there are. Again, you have chosen to ignore them.

3. There is NOT ONE molecular machine ever shown to be ACTUALLY due to co-option.

Except, of course, the flagellum.

As you can see I reject the “evidence” because it’s false & indistinguishable from what Prof H Gee called a bedtime story. If you want me to believe the “evidence” make it credible with
1. actual Darwinian pathways
2. molecular machines shown to be ACTUALLY due to co-option
Otherwise it’s just stories like the primordial soup, RNA world & constipation as the cause of dinosaur extinction. I’m sorry if this sounds harsh but that’s the truth about Evolutionism – stories!

We have the evidence of the relationship. We have proposed pathways. You ignore them.

Buzzin Fr0g wrote:

As Berkeley was my Alma Mater, here's one:
(paraphrasing the original joke, which I can't find)
A group of three engineers were having lunch. One was a Cal alumnus, one a Stanford alumnus, and the third a UCLA grad. They were having a heated debate over which university the human body's creator graduated from. The UCLA grad said the creator must have come from his Alma Mater, for the sheer artistic beauty and symmetry could only have been envisioned by one possessing such a CV. The Stanford grad disagreed and said the technical brilliance could only have been achieved by one of his collegiate family. The Cal grad agreed that it must have been a Stanford graduate, as they are the only engineers who would have lacked the foresight to realize how ridiculous it is to run a sewer line through a playground.

I've heard the above from Neil de Grasse Tyson & in my view he was thinking like Mike Tyson. There are 2 problems

1) Bad design is not the equivalent of no design
2) If he thinks the system is so badly designed, we could always give him a colostomy - it's the best we can design.