lol.....

PostmodernProphet said:
I didn't ask for a definition of suboptimal.....I asked....


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?.....
Click to expand...

My response explained the standard of suboptimal, chickenshit.

“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.

Put simply, it is more complicated than it needs to be or the design is inefficient. There are other fins and wings without mammalian skeletal structures underneath them. There is no reason why a designer would need to incorporate that skeletal structure, but for evolution it would be expected. The same is true with a penguins fin and underneath are the bone structure of any bird.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
and you accuse ME of circular arguments?.......fins and wings prove evolution exists because they were produced that way by evolution?......
Click to expand...


That is not argument I made, chickenshit. It is evidence of evolution because it validates a prediction that is made based upon evolutionary theory. Evolution predicts that the parts of animal would be repurposed through gradual change. A bat wing and a chicken (your true creator) wing are superficially similar but underneath they are more like a whale flipper or a penguin flipper. This is one piece in a large collection of evidence for evolution.

PostmodernProphet said:
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?.....
Click to expand...

The limits are due to descent from a previous ancestor.

In order to design a flying mammal why did a designer need to repurpose the limb of a mammal? Why couldn't it just design a whole new limb that was custom made for the purpose of flight?
 
Professor Baxter said:
with a more efficient design
Click to expand...

third attempt....who defines "more efficient".....mayhap the designer is meeting a need your mind is not yet advanced enough to grasp......until the last twenty years science thought there were sections of DNA that served no purpose.....

so why do you assume that the skeletal structure of a fish would better serve a penguin......
 
Professor Baxter said:
It is evidence of evolution because it validates a prediction that is made based upon evolutionary theory. Evolution predicts that the parts of animal would be repurposed through gradual change.
Click to expand...

and intelligent design predicts that when something functions well you utilize it......you can find traces of MSDOS programming in everything from toasters to mainframe computers.....they were put there......


Why couldn't it just design a whole new limb that was custom made for the purpose of flight?
Click to expand...

and why do you claim it isn't custom made?......it serves that purpose admirably, does it not?.....what is substandard about it?.....and how about a bat's sonic sensitivity.....is that merely a repurposed ear?......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
third attempt....who defines "more efficient".....mayhap the designer is meeting a need your mind is not yet advanced enough to grasp......until the last twenty years science thought there were sections of DNA that served no purpose.....
Click to expand...

Quit dropping context, chickenshit. They explained their use of a "more efficient design," i.e., one with usually less superfluous complexity.

Let me guess, your chickenshit response.... Who defines "superfluous complexity." And round and round you go with your idiotic games of infinite regress and semantic tricks. You are pathetic. What you are doing is not about science. It is vulgar sophistry and you are not any good at it.

PostmodernProphet said:
so why do you assume that the skeletal structure of a fish would better serve a penguin......
Click to expand...

I did not claim that or make that assumption.

Evolution explains why the penguin has its skeletal structure and we could make other predictions based on it about other birds. That is science. Your argument for intelligent design does not offer an explanation other than "the chicken (your creator) wanted it that way," which clearly does not allow us to make any further predictions. It's not science. It's a ridiculous theology.
 
Last edited:
evince said:
all except there is NO proof you theory has any basis in fact.
Click to expand...
If it has no basis in fact it can't be a scientific theory Desh. ID fails almost all the tests of a scientific theory.

#1. It doesn't model natural phenomena.
#2. It provides no testable or useful predictions.
#3. It is not, in principle, falsifiable.
#4. It does not have a factual basis.
#5. There are no published results of testing Intelligent Design.
#6. So ergo there has never been any peer review of the non-existent published results.

Etc, etc, ID doesn't even meet the most basic tenents of science. It is relgion. Pure and simple. PiMP arguments, as PB correctly states or intellectually dishonest sophistry based primarlly on religious beliefs and circular reasononing. It's a waste of time evne discussing the topic with him and he will not discuss it honestly nor will he defend his arguments with any form of relevent data or proof while irrationally rejecting any evidence to the contrary or irratinionally claiming such evidence actually supports his religious opinions. It's high comedy and a complete waste of time.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
If it has no basis in fact it can't be a scientific theory Desh. ID fails almost all the tests of a scientific theory.

#1. It doesn't model natural phenomena.
#2. It provides no testable or useful predictions.
#3. It is not, in principle, falsifiable.
#4. It does not have a factual basis.
#5. There are no published results of testing Intelligent Design.
#6. So ergo there has never been any peer review of the non-existent published results.

Etc, etc, ID doesn't even meet the most basic tenents of science. It is relgion. Pure and simple. PiMP arguments, as PB correctly states or intellectually dishonest sophistry based primarlly on religious beliefs and circular reasononing. It's a waste of time evne discussing the topic with him and he will not discuss it honestly nor will he defend his arguments with any form of relevent data or proof while irrationally rejecting any evidence to the contrary or irratinionally claiming such evidence actually supports his religious opinions. It's high comedy and a complete waste of time.
Click to expand...

why do you ignore the fact that macro-evolution is not testable either?.......are my beliefs the only ones that need to meet scientific criteria?.....
 
This discussion would proceed a lot faster if you would spend as much time answering as you do telling us you don't have to answer.....

"They explained their use of a "more efficient design," i.e., one with usually less superfluous complexity" does not resolve the issue.....person A decides that a design has "superfluous complexity"....person B looks at it and says "well gee, it works pretty well and has for thousands of years, who's to say its complexity is superfluous?".......does that mean the "proof" of macro-evolution is relative?.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
This discussion would proceed a lot faster if you would spend as much time answering as you do telling us you don't have to answer.....

"They explained their use of a "more efficient design," i.e., one with usually less superfluous complexity" does not resolve the issue.....person A decides that a design has "superfluous complexity"....person B looks at it and says "well gee, it works pretty well and has for thousands of years, who's to say its complexity is superfluous?".......does that mean the "proof" of macro-evolution is relative?.....
Click to expand...

It would proceed much faster if you quit avoiding the answer that has already been given by dropping context and forcing me to remind you of the full answer.

Exactly what I predicted, you are just going to continue on and on and on with the regress argument. Apparently you are unaware how it makes you look silly.

The superfluous complexity was explained to you in the answers you continue to evade. The skeletal structure that underlies the flippers is not all necessary to a flipper.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
This discussion would proceed a lot faster if you would spend as much time answering as you do telling us you don't have to answer.....

"They explained their use of a "more efficient design," i.e., one with usually less superfluous complexity" does not resolve the issue.....person A decides that a design has "superfluous complexity"....person B looks at it and says "well gee, it works pretty well and has for thousands of years, who's to say its complexity is superfluous?".......does that mean the "proof" of macro-evolution is relative?.....
Click to expand...
Well it doesn't for you because you're playing the old illogical creationhist game of raise the bar. Another intellectually dishonest argument. No matter how much data we heap in front of you'll continue to raise the bar as to the burdon of proof as to what constitutes evidence of macro-evolution. It's irrational. You refuse to accept that we've provided the burdon of proof but you keep evading and running away from the central issue.....just like you did last time.....where is your evidence refuting the data I presented to you and where is your data supporting Intelligent design? We're still waiting and you're still running. LOL

Why don't you at leat be intellectually honest and just say you reject the science of biology for religious reason. It may be ignorant, it may be stupid but at least you'd be honest for once.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top