lol.....

Mott the Hoople said:
No I didn't. I pointed out the inanity of your argument and it's lack of logic. The fact that a specific anatomical structural orientation and adaptation works for a given task has nothing what so ever to do with the fact that they perform said task suboptimally. Why would you design something to function suboptimally?
Click to expand...

again, by whose standard.....would it be "optimal" if the upper human torso could rotate 360 degrees from a stationary lower body....does the fact the spine functions as it currently does prove that it wasn't intelligently designed......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
Post #133....respond to it for the conversation to advance.....
Click to expand...

You did not answer the question, chickenshit. You sidestepped it and tried to divert attention.


http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1d.asp

Another consequence of evolutionary opportunism is the existence of apparent suboptimal function. As stated before, in evolving a new function, organisms must make do with what they already have. Thus, functions are likely to be performed by structures that would be arranged differently (e.g. more efficiently) if the final function were known from the outset. “Suboptimal function” does not mean that a structure functions poorly. It simply means that a structure with a more efficient design (usually with less superfluous complexity), could perform the same final function equally as well. Structures with suboptimal function should have a gradualistic historical evolutionary explanation, based on the opportunistic recruitment of ancestral structures, if this history is known from other evidence (e.g. if this history is phylogenetically determined by closely related organisms or fossil history).

It is evidence of evolution because it validates a prediction that is made based upon evolutionary theory. It does not offer any proof of design and especially not of a designer with the powers you claim. A designer that can magically create a new species in gestation should have little trouble completely redesigning limbs, from scratch, customized to their purpose.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
Mott, I'm still waiting for an answer to why you believe the whale's flipper is suboptimal......
Click to expand...
I was going to take the easy route and refer you to PB's post 144 but since I'm sure it's over your head.....sigh....I'll dumb it down for you. The fact that the pectoral fin of a Whale has a complex anatomical orientation and configuration is suboptimal anatomically as a simpler anatomical configuration, that is specific to the task to be performed by the Whales fin, would be more efficient.

Again, evidence for macroevolution and evidence against intelligent design.
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
again, by whose standard.....would it be "optimal" if the upper human torso could rotate 360 degrees from a stationary lower body....does the fact the spine functions as it currently does prove that it wasn't intelligently designed......
Click to expand...
By engineering standards and yes, the suboptimal configuration of the spine does indicate it was not intelligently designed.

Again.....that was easy. Next intellectually dishonest argument?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
The fact that the pectoral fin of a Whale has a complex anatomical orientation and configuration is suboptimal anatomically as a simpler anatomical configuration, that is specific to the task to be performed by the Whales fin, would be more efficient.
Click to expand...

again, by what standard.....does the whale find it inefficient?......can you honestly claim that other configurations would serve equally well?......
 
Mott the Hoople said:
By engineering standards and yes, the suboptimal configuration of the spine does indicate it was not intelligently designed.

Again.....that was easy. Next intellectually dishonest argument?
Click to expand...

seriously?.....you believe that's an intellectually honest argument?.....the only basis for your position then is that evolution would have resulted in a better fin.....does that not contradict your own position?......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
seriously?.....you believe that's an intellectually honest argument?.....the only basis for your position then is that evolution would have resulted in a better fin.....does that not contradict your own position?......
Click to expand...

Where did he say evolution would result in a better fin? No, a designer would produce a better fin.
 
Professor Baxter said:
Where did he say evolution would result in a better fin? No, a designer would produce a better fin.
Click to expand...

are you saying then, if evolution could not produce a better one, that the present fin is the best that can be?......if so, why would a designer have to produce a better one?......why would he need to if the present one functions properly.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
are you saying then, if evolution could not produce a better one, that the present fin is the best that can be?......if so, why would a designer have to produce a better one?......why would he need to if the present one functions properly.....
Click to expand...

It is not the best that can be. Evolution has produced different fins and wings of varying efficiency. A designer should be able to design a better one and should not be limited by the animals ancestors, as evolution is.
 
Professor Baxter said:
Wtf ru talking about. I did not say I won anything, chickenshit. You asked for a definition of suboptimal and I provided you with one.
Click to expand...

I didn't ask for a definition of suboptimal.....I asked....
by whose standard
Click to expand...

the definition you provided states that it performs equally......who is to decide that what performs the task required is insufficient because someone imagines a way it could have been done equally and assumes that way is better?.....
 
Professor Baxter said:
It is not the best that can be. Evolution has produced different fins and wings of varying efficiency. A designer should be able to design a better one and should not be limited by the animals ancestors, as evolution is.
Click to expand...

and you accuse ME of circular arguments?.......fins and wings prove evolution exists because they were produced that way by evolution?......

a bat's wings are different from a butterfly's wings are different from an eagle's wings are different from a bumblebee's wings........all seem to serve their purpose quite well......macro-evolution argues that all four evolved from an amoeba, what are these limits you speak of..........why couldn't a designer have created a flying insect, a flying mammal and a flying avian instead?.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top