Biomimicry - Intelligence In Design

Originally posted by lifeissacred
reply to post by edmc^2

 

Millions of years of genetic mutation are what 'creates' the weird and wonderful things we see in nature, not the Christian God or any of the other hundreds of deities man has invented for himself.

edit on 9-12-2011 by lifeissacred because: (no reason given)

OK - so the magnificent eye of an eagle mutated from what - if it wasn't designed?

Just like the telescope was design by intelligent minds.

reply to post by MrXYZ

Of course people have already told you dozens of times that nature doesn't require intelligence,

Now that's what I call nonsense even to 5th grader knows it!!

reply to post by edmc^2


No, thats not how it works. The evolution of the eye happened gradually over millions of years.

Richard Dawkins explains the evolution of the eye

reply to post by xxsomexpersonxx


In your "BlindWatchmaker.." vid - if it takes an Intelligent Engineer to come up with his design based on Nature - "WINGS" - who then is the "Intelligent Engineer" in Nature?

As for the vid - laryngeal nerve - apparently Dawkins and his team of evolutionary scientists didn't have any idea what they were talking about.

Sadly it's staring them in the face.

reply to post by edmc^2


Ok then, explain to me exactly what was wrong with what was presented in the video?

edit to add: Mechanisms: the processes of evolution

Originally posted by lifeissacred
reply to post by edmc^2

 

No, thats not how it works. The evolution of the eye happened gradually over millions of years.

Richard Dawkins explains the evolution of the eye

Cute vid - seen it already - but scientifically speaking:

who represents that person putting the eye together in nature?

Surely the eye in the demo video will not construct itself just by chance alone - even in trillions of years - same thing with nature.

Of course it's easy to say that it evolve just like Dawkins.

But without knowing how to properly program the DNA code - a cell will not just turn out to be an eye - as you know we have trillions of cell - each with its own program code.

Originally posted by lifeissacred
reply to post by edmc^2

 

Ok then, explain to me exactly what was wrong with what was presented in the video?

edit to add: Mechanisms: the processes of evolution

edit on 9-12-2011 by lifeissacred because: (no reason given)

.

Which video are you referring to?

Is it the giraffe video?

I'm merely stating that they don't know why the nerve made a u-turn and concluded that it was a "stupid" design:.

But do you with agree with what Dawkins said?

reply to post by edmc^2


I was refering to the video about the evolution of the eye which I linked to, it explained how over a period of millions of years a complex organ like the eye can develop through genetic mutation.

Evolution 101

ghr.nlm.nih.gov...

If you can find the time I'd really reccomend reading the information on the sites that I have linked to, it explains everything we have talked about here in a much more detailed manner than I can.

Originally posted by lifeissacred
reply to post by edmc^2

 

I was refering to the video about the evolution of the eye which I linked to, it explained how over a period of millions of years a complex organ like the eye can develop through genetic mutation.

Evolution 101

ghr.nlm.nih.gov...

If you can find the time I'd really reccomend reading the information on the sites that I have linked to, it explains everything we have talked about here in a much more detailed manner than I can.

Thanks for the links and vids - but I'm quite familiar with ALL of them - after all they are everywhere ever since I was in grade school. In fact EVEN the USGS is a big proponent of the evolution theory as well as ALL of the well known and unknown universities in the world. So yes - I'm quite familiar with the theory - probably more than what you know.

SO let's take a look at the eye - what convinced you that it evolved because the way I see it based on science, mathematics, engineering it's a product of advance engineering, advance optics, advance photography, advance mechanics - in other words it has all of evidence of advanced design. So advance that we're not able to duplicate it, we can only mimic a very small portion of it.

When you say that it evolved - are you saying that UNGUIDED blind chance events and time are the creator of this magnificent piece of design?





www.boredpanda.com...

Next I'll show why it's an advance design.

reply to post by lifeissacred

ghr.nlm.nih.gov...

If you can find the time I'd really reccomend reading the information on the sites that I have linked to, it explains everything we have talked about here in a much more detailed manner than I can.

Speaking of mutations - what do cancer cells have to do with mutations and what benefits do they provide?

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by xxsomexpersonxx

 

In your "BlindWatchmaker.." vid - if it takes an Intelligent Engineer to come up with his design based on Nature - "WINGS" - who then is the "Intelligent Engineer" in Nature?

As for the vid - laryngeal nerve - apparently Dawkins and his team of evolutionary scientists didn't have any idea what they were talking about.

Sadly it's staring them in the face.

He didn't copy nature. Not at all. He copied natures process(evolution), but used a computer program to run the process much faster than having animals reproduce.

The result? Took no time at all to create the most aerodynamic wing shape, just like in nature. And the Pig vein, evolved to look nearly identical to the real life pig vein that evolved in a similar fashion. We can copy off the evolution program just like we can copy off nature, because it works the same in either.

~
As for the the Nerve. If you have a proposed reason for it being the way it is, say it. Biologically speaking, it's a huge waste of space and energy.

You also didn't answer the two vestigials I proposed. You seemed so sure of yourself saying there weren't any, you should easily be able to explain them. Unless your confidence was misplaced.

Originally posted by edmc^2
Speaking of mutations - what do cancer cells have to do with mutations and what benefits do they provide?

Cancer cells are mutations. Cancer cells are bad, no benefits.
This is an ugly kitten. Some kittens aren't cute.

The point I'm sure you're trying to make, is that mutations are harmful. But by that logic, all kittens are ugly. In reality, there are harmful, neutral, and good mutations. No one denies that. The thing though, is that harmful mutations kill or otherwise decrease the likelihood of reproducing. Which means that those with Good mutations pass it on, while those with bad don't.

And Kittens, go from a spectrum of Ugly-Neutral-Cute, though most in this case are cute.(Interestingly, because of artificial selection, evolution)

Originally posted by edmc^2
When you say that it evolved - are you saying that UNGUIDED blind chance events and time are the creator of this magnificent piece of design?

No. Evolution does not, in any way, mean Unguided or blind chance. That's like calling intelligent design (creationism) "Blind Chance" because "God just happened randomly to make it that way".

In reality, Evolution is guided. Not by an intelligent force, but by the principles of natural selection picking and keeping what works while disregarding the rest.

Each step of the eye, was not "Workng towards an end result goal". Each step demonstrably had it's own evolutionary advantage. Our eyes were created over a series of minor improvements. Not a massive risk chance.

This video expands on that much better than Dawkins video did:


And here's the rebuttals video that may interest you:


However, I think the issue is that you don't know what evolution is. Pure unguided chance is what it is not. If you were as well versed in it as you claimed it was, you would be using real arguments, instead of arguing against that strawman idea of evolution that no one believes in.

While I'm dropping Qualiasoup videos: here's one that may give some clarification on the topic. Though what you really need, is do more research than only on creationist sites(if you researched at all), and actually here what evolution is about by those supporting it.



~
I do think I agree with Astyanax though. You don't seem willing to accept information that challenges your world view. You made this topic with the intentions of it self-confirming your believes, by narrowly assuming that good design in nature required an intelligent designer, not to hear why it doesn't. You obviously don't want to consider that it doesn't.

So there's no point speaking about it. Though I will say, if you want one sided information, ATS isn't the site for you. Go to some creationist forum if you only want to hear people agree with you.

~
Oh, and any following posts I have in this thread, or any others by you, I think I'll refer to ID as "UNGUIDED blind creation". Just for increased emphasis on how poor an understanding that is.

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Of course people have already told you dozens of times that nature doesn't require intelligence,

Now that's what I call nonsense even to 5th grader knows it!!

edit on 9-12-2011 by edmc^2 because: gf

No, it's called "logic" and "rationality"...try it

How about you post some proof of your claim that nature requires intelligence?

When you say that it evolved - are you saying that UNGUIDED blind chance events and time are the creator of this magnificent piece of design?

Again with the "blind chance"??? You're incredible disingenuous by once again ignoring the fact that science doesn't say it was "blind chance"...they explain how it happened by backing up their claims with objective evidence, something you haven't done once in this entire thread

reply to post by xxsomexpersonxx

No. Evolution does not, in any way, mean Unguided or blind chance.

Definition of CHANCE 1 a : something that happens unpredictably without discernible human intention or observable cause

observable cause The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above.

Definition of CAUSE 1 a : a reason for an action or condition : motive

Link

So what guides evolution, if not a directing intelligence?

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by lifeissacred

 

ghr.nlm.nih.gov...

If you can find the time I'd really reccomend reading the information on the sites that I have linked to, it explains everything we have talked about here in a much more detailed manner than I can.

Speaking of mutations - what do cancer cells have to do with mutations and what benefits do they provide?

edit on 9-12-2011 by edmc^2 because: do

Cancer cells are just cells that don't self-destruct when they're supposed to. Usually the immune system deals with them pretty efficiently and will send out cells to hunt down and destroy every cancer cell they can find. But sometimes they slip through. The T antigen found on cancer cells is similar chemically to the A antigen that's found in people with type A blood. That's why people with A and AB type blood are more susceptible to cancer overall (although no one is completely immune)--their immune systems don't recognize cancer cells as being an invader.

As to that, though, it's wrong to think that every mutation is beneficial for us. It really does look like DNA exists for one reason only: to get itself replicated. If DNA really had our best interest at heart, it wouldn't have given us things like reverse transcriptase. But some traits that seem harmful, like sickle cell, are just an adaptation to another problem. In sickle cell's case, it's a trade-off for better resistance to malaria.

reply to post by dusty1

So what guides evolution, if not a directing intelligence?

Evolution has observable causes, which the theory perfectly explains...no intelligence required

Please read at least the wiki article about evolution...

reply to post by dusty1


Ok. I give up.

All the information is available to you. You choose to ignore facts. There are reasons why evolution isn't about Random Chance. No one who understands it believes it to be Random Chance. You may find that information yourself, if you wish. I'm sure you don't want to though.

You're so Intellectually Dishonest, It makes me wonder. If you have to be so knowingly deceitful , how do you maintain your beliefs? Is it a joke, or self deception?

Think about it. If you want the truth, be honest. If you don't, at least don't try to trick others.

I shall leave you to do figure that out. Obviously, nothing I can say will change your stance.

~
I retire from this thread.

reply to post by HappyBunny


OK -HappyBunny, like you said -

... it's wrong to think that every mutation is beneficial for us.

So we both know that cancer cells are mutant cells - and they are deadly MUTANT cells - nothing good comes out of them.

Question to you is - at what proportion does mutation becomes beneficial to evolution?

Also since mutations are by its nature a tearing down of normal cells - how can it produce a better species if the result is a mutant species?

And is the mutant species a new species or is it just a variation of the same species?

reply to post by xxsomexpersonxx


bailed out??

Anyway if ur still around - I need to make some corrections is your statements. Obvoiusly you missed the point that I pointed out in your videos.

You said:

He didn't copy nature. Not at all. He copied natures process(evolution), but used a computer program to run the process much faster than having animals reproduce.

Nope - the engineer copied Nature - a finished product! The magnificent aerodynamic WING of a bird!!

He did not copy the as you stated "natures process(evolution)"

In other words - the engineer built his machine - his "creation" - by MIMICKING the WINGS of a bird - an aerodynamic DESIGN.

In fact that's how man was ABLE to soar to the skies - by MIMICKING a bird's wing!!

That is, man designed the airplanes wings according to a FINISHED product! Not an ongoing process.

FYI:
Definition of PROCESS
1a : progress, advance b : something going on : proceeding
(Miriam-Webster)

Question is - if it takes bright minds to create airplanes - what about the real thing?

Next:

As for the the Nerve. If you have a proposed reason for it being the way it is, say it. Biologically speaking, it's a huge waste of space and energy.

Of course, there's a reason for it being that way - because it was deigned that way, so that the giraffe can move gracefully. In fact those who studied it carefully and intelligently, said that the giraffe's nervous system is one of the most amazing networks. They were in amazement why the nerves were arranges and connected in such a way. Sadly your team Dawkins just wasted a giraffe for the sake of making fun of it. Sad indeed - and they call themselves scientists - hah!

As for the:

You also didn't answer the two vestigials I proposed. You seemed so sure of yourself saying there weren't any, you should easily be able to explain them. Unless your confidence was misplaced.

You mean the nipples and goose bumps?

If you consider these "things" useless then blame your evolution theory.

To me, I think it's there to make you look manly or womanly and to breast feed. Gives me goose bumps just to think of the many possibilities why we or animals have them.

As to my question:

If it takes intelligent minds to copy these amazing designs in nature - what would it take to design and create the real thing?

You said:

Engeneering! That's the keyword that'll find the video!

Thanks for confirming my point!

The intelligence present in Nature - unless you disagree that ENGINEERING does not require INTELLIGENCE.

Is that what you believe? I think so.

Because you said:

Without an intelligent mind guiding it, natural selection can perfect a system over time, better than a human could design it. A few million years, and Bam, seemingly intelligently designed.

In other words - you're saying that BLIND UNGUIDED "natural selection" IS/was the force behind the "seemingly intelligently design[ed]" of life in the universe.

A blind, unguided unintelligent "natural selection can perfect a system over time" - that's the key to "seemingly intelligent design" according to you.

Therefore in your own words:

evolution is a system without foresight

So simple question is: IF "evolution is a system without foresight" - do you agree then that BLIND CHANCE is the force behind it?

Because if you say NO - then what's the difference?

WITHOUT FORESIGHT = BLIND CHANCE!

Mr.XYZ - do you agree?

reply to post by MrXYZ

Again with the "blind chance"??? You're incredible disingenuous by once again ignoring the fact that science doesn't say it was "blind chance"...they explain how it happened by backing up their claims with objective evidence, something you haven't done once in this entire thread

Yet in your own words:

Of course people have already told you dozens of times that nature doesn't require intelligence

To me this means - unguided unintelligent BLIND CHANCE events.

That is, according to you and others evolution theory:

explain how it happened by backing up their claims with objective evidence, something you haven't done once in this entire thread

And the "objective evidence" is that "nature doesn't require intelligence"!

Thus BLIND CHANCE or UNGUIDED CHANCE EVENTS or ACCIDENT or NO INTELLIGENCE NEEDED - is the - designer, creator, force, motivator, actuator or what is it - of life.

Take your pick - anyone will work.

edit:

How about you post some proof of your claim that nature requires intelligence?

Thread title says: Intelligence in Design - as in intelligence in design in nature. In other words, if one honestly study and look at nature - one will see that there's intelligence present in the DESIGN of/in NATURE.

Those that are UNMISTAKABLY have the hallmarks of intelligence in DESIGN.

AND Biomimicry is a good example of such things, but since you believe that:

"nature doesn't require intelligence"

Then of course you're blind to them - you can't see them - because to you they are all products of

BLIND CHANCE or is itt UNGUIDED CHANCE EVENTS or is it "ACCIDENT" or is "NO INTELLIGENCE NEEDED?