intelligent design

Why did we become bipedal then?

 

I'm not sure the solar system is a good example. Suns are removed from solar systems all the time. I guess I would need clarity on what you think the function of the solar system is.

I don't know if God does it just giving an example of a scientific generalization.

If there are instances complex systems coming into being without intelligent interaction then I will admit ID is a farce. Id proponents are just saying "Show me one" they are actively trying to find one or theorize how one might come into being.

 

There are tons: man, the universe, etc etc

You're trying to shift the burden in the ID argument with your test, and then patently rejecting all evidence to the contrary.

 

Man isn't one and neither is the universe. The "best" explanation we have, evolution does not account for irreducibly complex systems. Every cosmologist agrees the universe had a beginning and a cause outside of the bounds of the universe and time yet they don't say what that cause was so it cannot be said to be naturally occuring either.

 

one theory is the "aquatic ape theory" which makes a lot of sense to me. we actually share a lot of features with aquatic mammals and lack features of other land mammals.

 

so we're back to subjectivity.

that's perhaps an example, but i think it has the same faults as id. i wouldn't call gravity aqequately explained if it didn't fit all the observable data.

but their criteria is exclusionary of anything that isn't what they expect. the majority of complex systems are the ones we're trying to understand. it seems a little strange to look at a minority class of complex systems and then pronounce that all complex systems are of a similar class.

there's a disconnect in the thought process here. let's set aside the fact that most complex systems are "natural". if you propose that all observable complex systems are the direct result of some observable intelligence utilizing observable behaviors that obey observable physical laws, how do you then make the leap to an unobsersable creator using unknown abilities in opposition to all known physical laws? you're basically throwing out all other observations to make this one observation about complex systems generalize to cover all complex systems.

 

I don't know, but I think these little critters are a bit confused.

Platypus

 

I read some on that today, and I gotta tell you - that's pretty thin.

If we evolved along those lines, why do we not have better underwater sight? Or membranes that allow us to keep our eyes open underwater? Or the ability to see underwater better while standing above water? Why would we evolve as better walkers than swimmers? What was our food source? Why aren't human babies born knowing how to swim, when all other mammals are?

 

Environment. We haven't had to live in an environnment that required that for millions of years and it slowly leaves you.

I saw something about people that lived on a river, in Vietnam I believe. They were born on the river, lived on the river and died on the river. They could hold their breath twice as long as most people and had way better eyesight underwater than most.

Most babies can learn to swim before they learn to walk. Fear is the only thing that holds them back.

 

all those questions are good ones. they come from seeing a well thought out theory and observing the evidence and comparing it to what the theory describes. this is why i'm really curious what id's theory actually is - beyond "some creator(s) did something at some time by some means for some period some number of times".

compared to other primates, we're reasonably adapted to aquatic life. no, we're not aquatic and never were. the theory is that we started adapting to aquatic life, then moved back to the savanna -- perhaps multiple times.

so the perfect adaptations to aquatic life never fully materialized -- i guess that makes us transitional, eh?

babies actually do a reasonable job of swimming -- better than children -- they instinctively hold their breaths. in fact, i don't believe most mammals can even hold their breath (aside from the aquatic ones). the fat content and its distribution is way more akin to aquatic mammals than other primates. hairlessness is generally associated with aquatic mammals and those that wade or wallow.

standing upright would be necessary when wading (which is about as aquatic as we got). in fact, water would provide the boyancy required to eliminate the negative effects of transitioning to upright posture (back problems, knee problems, hip problems, etc.) there's really no other reason to stand upright as a general posture if you're on the plains.

there are things it doesn't explain, but there are similar problems with evolution of man on the savanna.