Dumb Designer

[Lotharia]

Not necessarily. An out-of-equilibrium universe, out of whack on a minor versus a major scale, might take billions of years to show signs of it.

Besides, the concept of perfect and imperfect are human constructs. What is, is. We assign it a value. The universe doesn't care.

Yes, "perfect" is an opinion, it's subjective - you think it's perfect, I think it's not - actually it's just how it is.

And I think that "balance" is also an opinion. If it goes "out of balance" then what happens is some things go on (live) and some things are destroyed (die), and what isn't destroyed is what goes on and evolves until some other "out of balance" event takes place, and . . . in other words, it's just what it is, it's what CAN be in current conditions. As conditions change, what is changes with it.

[Zhavric]

And have you built a human being lately?

Can you build a 1987 ford taurus station wagon? Do you need to be able to build one to know that there are better cars on the road?

It isn't hard to imagine at least a half dozen improvements that could be made to the human body that would make it far better than it is today. Our knees require surgery to fix if we tear the right tendon (which is very easy to do). Our appendix appears to serve no purpose other than to inflame, burst and endager our lives. Our eyes eventually lose their rigid shape and leave us with blurred vision. We're slower than animals less than a quarter of our size. We're incapable of regenerating certain crucial tissue (like nerves). The list goes on and on.

What about the hundreds of thousands of other species of plants and animals on this planet?

What a dishonest question? For every living species there are HUNDREDS that didn't make it and are now extinct. Also, if you examine any species long enough and you'll find it has very obvious flaws. Even the shark (a species unchanged for millions of years) is incapable of swimming backwards... an ability which tens of thousands of fish posses.

What about the complex particle and atomic makeup of the universe?

What about them?

[RickSp]

Thanks for the link. That was hilarious.

[Heehoos]

Regarding the fallabilities of the current "creation" versus evolution...

If these parts of our bodies are weaknesses and not strengths or not purposeful, then how on earth could we have developed them through evolution? If survival of the fittest is what is responsible for evolution of superior genes, then how did things like knees (from fins), single orifice for airway and stomache (from gills), a prostate around the urethra (from what??) ever come to be?

[Jack]

They performed useful functions in our earlier forms. We are now evolving away from needing them. They are vestigial organs. What purpose do our fingernails serve, or our hair? They were once vital to our survival (defense and warmth) but no longer serve that purpose. We have less hair and nail than our predecessors.

[Jagged]

Its sad when the arguments against intelligent rival arguments for intelligent design in narrow-mindedness and terrible logic.

[Heehoos]

They performed useful functions in our earlier forms. We are now evolving away from needing them. They are vestigial organs. What purpose do our fingernails serve, or our hair? They were once vital to our survival (defense and warmth) but no longer serve that purpose. We have less hair and nail than our predecessors.

True.

But give me an example of how any creature has GAINED an attribute, not just lost one?

How did the testicles end up on the outside in the first place? Or when did the prostate evolve from a fish that doesn't have one?

I'm asking honestly -- I can't think of a reason myself...

[Zhavric]

Regarding the fallabilities of the current "creation" versus evolution...

If these parts of our bodies are weaknesses and not strengths or not purposeful, then how on earth could we have developed them through evolution?

Natural selection is a tendency, not a hard & fast rule. There isn't a cosmic inspector doling out stamps of approval for the "fittest" life forms and wiping out anything that doesn't stack up.

Consider the lesson of the cheetah and the crane fly.

The cheetah is THE fastest land animal. It can run at 70 mph. One would think that being able to keep up with rush hour traffic would be an amazingly good adaptation to have.

It is and isn't.

The cheetah's metabolism is cranked up so high that it can't keep any body fat on it. If it doesn't kill & eat about every other day it gets really weak and risks dying. By comparison, humans, with water and oxygen, can go WEEKS without food especially if they're in good metabolic shape with a few extra pounds. The cheetah, with it's amazing adaptation, is now in danger of becoming extinct.

Have you ever seen a crane fly? It looks like a mosquito only much bigger with REALLY long legs (about as wide around as a 50 cent piece). It's legs are so flimsy that they break off at the slightest touch / bad landing / or in a light breaze.

Clearly an organism that has legs that FALL OFF should be endangered, right? Wrong. The crane fly is thriving all over north america, asia, europe and eslewhere with hundreds of different sub-species.

These two organisms prove that evolution is about change and that natural selection is a tendency, not a rule. Sometimes good adaptations can cause a species to die out. Sometimes bad adaptations are passed on in thriving species. Evolution has a lot to do with circumstance. It's random chance AND natural selection together.

If survival of the fittest is what is responsible for evolution of superior genes, then how did things like knees (from fins), single orifice for airway and stomache (from gills), a prostate around the urethra (from what??) ever come to be?

Simple. They evolved from slightly less complex structures on back to a common simple ancestor. When I hear theists ask questions like the one you asked, to my ear, it sounds like you're asking "How could an infant go from being an infant to sprouting a beard and driving a car?" Evolution is ANALOGOUS to aging in that both are gradual processes. There isn't a specific moment when we can say an infant has become an adult. It happens very gradually with many subtle changes over a long period of time.

[Zhavric]

Or when did the prostate evolve from a fish that doesn't have one?

I'm asking honestly -- I can't think of a reason myself...

You're still thinking too big. You're still looking from the baby picture to the graduation picture and asking "how'd this infant manage to don that cap & gown? What's with the beard?"

Mutation happens VERY slowly and VERY subtlely. There was never a fish that laid eggs that hatched into fish with lungs, but there's no doubt in my mind that there was a fish who hatched a clutch of eggs that (through random mutation) was able to process air from its gills far more efficiently than its previous generation. Still a gilled animal swimming around, but one step closer to be able to breath air.

A few generations down the road, enter another mutation where the gills begin to fold inward towards the body cavity. Still a fish. Still swimming. Still visible gills... but slightly different from its ancestor.

These subtle changes go on and on and on and on. Eventually, you go from having a fish to having a mudskipping fish. From there, it's not hard to see how a mudskipper could mutate into a primitive amphibian.

[Heehoos]

But shouldn't we have SOME sort of evidence that we could see where an attribute would be added, rather than subtracted? In the thousands of years that humankind has been around, haven't we seen one attribute grow and stick?

[Jack]

Do you mean like opposable thumbs, which we share with a few other species not in our lineage?

[Cephus]

If these parts of our bodies are weaknesses and not strengths or not purposeful, then how on earth could we have developed them through evolution? If survival of the fittest is what is responsible for evolution of superior genes, then how did things like knees (from fins), single orifice for airway and stomache (from gills), a prostate around the urethra (from what??) ever come to be?

Which just proves you don't know a goddamn thing about evolution.

Anyone surprised?