Purposeful Design or Chanced Processes?

[theStudent]

Evidence of God is everywhere.
The Bible states that truth clearly, when it tells us, "The hearing ear and the seeing eye — Jehovah has made both of them."

The ear consists of three parts: the outer ear, the middle ear, and the inner ear.
The middle ear is a small chamber that begins with the eardrum and leads to the maze of passageways that constitute the inner ear.
Besides its function in connection with hearing, the inner ear also possesses organs having to do with balance and motion.
The use of two ears greatly helps a person to locate the source and direction of sounds.

The human ear detects sounds within the range of about 20 to 20,000 cycles per second.
The ears of many animals are sensitive to tones of higher pitch that are inaudible to the human ear. The range of sound energy perceived by the human ear is remarkable. The loudest sound that the ear can tolerate without danger is two million million times as powerful as the least perceptible sound. The human ear has the maximum sensitivity that it is practical to possess, for if the ears were any keener they would respond to the unceasing molecular motions of the air particles themselves.

The outer ear is precisely designed with a specially designed structure of curves, and an opening designed to catch and channel sound waves into the inner ear.

How the ear works


How the hearing works
[youtube][/youtube]

How your ear works - Inside the Human Body: Building Your Brain - BBC One
[youtube][/youtube]

The eye is a highly efficient, self-adjusting “camera� that transmits impulses to the brain, where the object focused on the eye’s retina is interpreted as sight.
The possession of two eyes, as in the human body, provides stereoscopic vision. Sight is probably the most important channel of communication to the mind.

How the Eye Works Animation - How Do We See Video - Nearsighted & Farsighted Human Eye Anatomy


Anatomy and Function of the Eye
[youtube][/youtube]

A Journey Through the Human Eye: How We See


Eye Animation
[youtube][/youtube]

If the male and the female reproductive organs evolved, how had life been proceeding before the complete formation of both?

An egg from a woman’s ovaries cannot produce life on its own. For this to happen, a sperm cell from the male reproductive system must combine with the nucleus of the egg.
What does the sperm do to make the egg develop?

Differently shaped cells begin to form - nerve cells, muscle cells, skin cells, and all the other types that make up the human body.
Science Digest

No one knows for sure, why certain cells aggregate to form a kidney while others join to form a liver, and so on.

Eventually, the human body reaches full growth, being made up of some 100,000,000,000,000 cells.
What causes the cells to stop dividing at just the right time and why?

How Sperm Meets Egg | Parents
[youtube][/youtube]

The Masterpiece of Nature, by Professor Graham Bell

Sex is the queen of problems in evolutionary biology. . . . It seems that some of the most fundamental questions in evolutionary biology have scarcely ever been asked . . . The largest and least ignorable and most obdurate of these questions is, why sex?

Imo, it is truly mind-boggling how one can say they have no evidence of God.

Do you agree these give evidence of design and purpose?
Is there any chance that these came about through the process described by evolution theorist?
Evidence for arguments required.

[stevevw]

[Replying to post 212 by stevevw]



[center]

Misunderstanding what natural selection means.[/center]

So if a creature adapts a feature like your example of fingers being adapted for typing then that change in function may become a benefit. But that change in function is not evolutionary. It is a change in use of an existing feature and was not produced by natural selection.

You

Adapting to the environment is what natural selection means.
Time to crack those books open.


"Natural selection is the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype. It is a key mechanism of evolution, the change in heritable traits of a population over time. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

You misunderstood the point I was making. Epigenetic influences are different to Natural selection in that they are derived from what happens to a creature during its lifetime. Rather than adaptations driving changes that will benefit a creature surviving in an environment the circumstances a creature is in will dictate what changes will happen to it. In that sense, selection is overridden because the circumstantial pressure will dominate what the outcome will be regardless of whether it is a beneficial trait or not. So if a previous generation were malnourished then the chances may be that the future generation will be weaker because it has affected the way the associated gene is expressed. It is really tweaking existing genes by expressing them in different ways.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 219 by stevevw]




[center]
The war on drugs isn't working.[/center]

To clarify this the article was talking about opiate medications being the leading cause of death in all prescription medications.

Very good.
I like precision like that.

People might want to fall asleep and never wake up instead of going into some other form of overdose. ( if we are talking about suicide ) I know I'd prefer to gently go into that dark night than take my chances on a more horrible kind of death.

As to accidental death by opioid, I'm not too sure how that would happen. I have trouble imagining it... maybe people are using these pills for entertainment. Makes a case for legalizing marijuana, doesn't it?

Let them have fun with that.. hardly anyone dies by locoweed.
http://www.medicaldaily.com/medical-and ... oss-400696

It also accounts for over 50% of deaths through overdose. These deaths now outnumber overdoses from cocain and heroin combined. The point is we have a problem with prescription drugs.

Whadaryagonnado?

No one would deny that cocaine and heroin are a problem that needs addressing. So if prescription drugs are outnumbering these illegal drugs in deaths then we have a problem.

Look, there's been a "war" on those drugs for a long, long time. What we have achieved is to put a lot of people in jails.

More cops and more jails is only going to give us more of that. What are you suggesting we should do about this "drug problem"?

More cops, more jails?
http://www.alternet.org/drugs/trump-goe ... rugs-crime

It is almost like you are dismissing the fact that we have a problem.

It's almost like, but it's not..
The sky is falling. What are you suggesting we do about it?

I am not saying we should ban all opiates.

You keep repeating that, and then prescribing to us alternatives, instead.

There may be certain prescribed drugs that need taking off the market as the statistics show that they are causing problems or bad side effects as we have seen with some of the anti-depressant drugs for example that cause people to become more depressed and suicidal.

So, your solution is to ban only certain opiates.
Great.

Who should decide what drugs should be banned?

It is all about control and prescription drugs are out of control at the moment as acknowledge by all the leading health authorities.

OUT OF CONTROL, PEOPLE !!!

I love the rhetoric. Sounds like something Trump would say.

Let's have more cops, more jails.
Let's have more enforcement.

I think that's Trump's new idea.

I don't know what you mean by battling marijuana. Some states in the US are legalising it.

Yes, some states.
I think they all should.

Lets see the stats on prescription over-doses in those states, shall we?
Would you be opposed to legalized marijuana use?

And here is a little history about the war on drugs in case you never heard of that:
http://www.drugpolicy.org/facts/new-sol ... drug-war-0

It may be good for certain medical uses but I am not sure about legalising it for recreational use. But that's another debate topic.

It's just that there is a study I just read about how marijuana use is negatively correlated to prescription drug over-use and alcoholism.

I think I put a link to it somewhere in here.

The only vested interest I can see is the pressure exerted from the big business pharma companies for the medical industry to use their products with financial incentives. There is overwhelming evidence for this.

Ah, the big pharma. They sure like to turn a profit, don't they?
Why didn't I see that coming?

Most of my "alternative medicine" friends are always bemoaning "big pharma".

Let's have more cops, more jails, and put big pharma in them.


I thought we had decided that quick, easy answers were way too simplistic and were not going to work? East advice is really easy to give, isn't it?

Is your prescribed medicine really the best option?
https://www.choice.com.au/health-and-bo ... nce-on-gps

It must be horrible to you that big pharma is promoting their newest drugs like that. Pity that their newest drugs are always created JUST to make money, right?

There's no reason at all to make new drugs?
You don't think that the rest of us have any interest in the latest medical science has to offer? Your thinking is terrible.

You take whatever medicine you want.
I'll take MY medical advice from someone competent.

So, I wonder why doctors seem to be over-prescribing opioids?

There will be a number of reasons such as mentioned above with influence of big pharma companies, the need for quick fixes in modern life, an easy option for dealing with complex problems, pressure from patients who are already addicted or dependent on pills, money in that a doctor can see more patients in a shorter time and therefore increase their payments and income.

Only those reasons?
Do you think there might be others, too?

Some that even you haven't thought of?
( hard to imagine that you wouldn't know, but I'm dreaming up a wild hypothetical... )

Easy fixes isn't the answer to complex problems.
Drugs in our society is an extremely complex problem.

I agree.

Good, then let's not pretend there ARE any easy fixes to the problem.
And please, stop pretending that you would know what the fixes are.

Offering us your medical advice isn't what you should do. You are trying to tell us that we should seek alternative medicine...

You are not qualified.
Cat not happy.

But I am not sure that all medical industry is based in science.

You could not be more wrong. The legitimate medical industry is applied science, and basic science.

There is an industry built around "alternative medicine" that we know isn't built around science at all. You seem to be advocating for those.

Big pharma companies when promoting their products are not too concerned about the science in getting people to buy their products.

Wrong, and wrong.
You are mind-reading again, and you are wrong about the science.

Doctors wanting to make more money by handing out more pills are not too worried about the science.

Wrong.
Mind reading again.

Hard habit to quit, right?

I was thinking more along the lines of the main alternatives to pills such as counselling, Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), stress management, relaxation therapy, physiotherapy, psychotherapy, naturopathy, pain management techniques and the use of nutritionists and dietitians. These are all well-known and well-used methods that replace the need for pills. Other methods such as acupuncture, herbal remedies, meditation, chiropractic, and spiritual therapies are not as well known but still there is some research that shows they can have good results.

You don't like drugs, do you?
I can understand that.

I think that they are a necessary evil at times.
They happen to keep me alive. Call my staying alive a pharma conspiracy if you like.

IF I have a problem of any kind, I don't want the alternative solutions, I want the very best solutions, whatever they are. I will trust someone competent to suggest them to me. I will not take some internet pundit's advice.

That would be an extremely bad idea.

You could not be more wrong.
Thanks for the free advice.

It's wrong.


If I needed counselling, Id seek counselling. I don't. That would be a stupid waste of time.


If I needed cognitive behavioral therapy, I'd ask a competent practitioner about that, and NOT someone on the internet giving free medical advice.

If I needed mainstream medical advice, about mainstream medical therapies, I'd probably be getting that. Mainstream doctors usually recommend mainstream therapies.

If I really needed spiritual whatnot, I'd ask someone qualified to do that.
I just don't think that you are qualified to prescribe anything to anyone.

People have opinions and that's fine.
You are probably just giving us yours.

But when it comes to health issues, I draw the line.
We are talking about life and death issues here... and non-qualified people are giving WAY too much free medical advice these days. It's all over the place.

Bad thinking about health is probably a big medical problem, too.
Addiction is a huge problem, and it's been around for a long long time, and nobody has a quick and easy answer.

It's certainly not going to be eating more salads ( which, because of the good medical advice I got, I happen to do )

I remember Nancy Reagan's slogan :

"Just say no"

How stupid.
It's a little more complicated than that.

It's too bad that not everyone can afford all those alternative methods.

Yeah, isn't it?
And it's too bad that not everyone needs those "alternative" methods.

They just might need the drugs, my friend.
Stop giving us your free medical advice.

Cat unhappy.

The important point is to take a holistic approach and not concentrate on one method.

Your free medical advice isn't acceptable.
Sorry.

What we want is a method that works who cares if it's "holistic" or not?
There are many quacks out there selling what they call "holistic medicine".

Not a happy cat.

It really irritates me to no end how so many people think of themselves as competent to make medical decisions like that, and then to presume to tell us that they know what they are talking about. If there is an epidemic, it's an epidemic of unqualified medical practitioners quacking around.

Maybe you are reading more into it than there is. I think we are approaching the same issue from different perspectives and that is why you may feel I am against medication.

I suppose if it's important enough for you to write about it, it's important enough for me to respond to it.

You have been doing nothing but to criticize medication.
Cat not happy.

I have not said that medication is the right circumstances is not warranted. Jumping from medication to spiritual therapy is being very restrictive. There are other methods that can play a part such as exercise, diet, relaxation etc when it comes to heart health.

Do you even imagine for a second that the medical profession doesn't know that already?

They just fill me up with drugs, do they?
Cat not happy.

Fair enough, each person has a right to choose how they want to live.

You are quite free to live the most difficult way that you can imagine.
Stop advocating that for the rest of us.


Cat not happy.

[TheBeardedDude]

It is a false dichotomy to present these two options ("purposeful design or chanced purposeless")

The theory of evolution does NOT posit that the adaptations of life are a consequence of "chance" nor that they are without purpose. Evolution demonstrates that there are mechanisms that do indeed generate genetic and morphological change in a population (natural selection, sexual selection, etc), so it is not "chance" in that it is random. Nor are adaptations without purpose ("purposeless" as the OP put it). Organisms adapt the structures that they have specific purposes. For instance, your fingers weren't made for typing nor did they evolve for typing, you adapted them for typing.

So if a creature adapts a feature like your example of fingers being adapted for typing then that change in function may become a benefit. But that change in function is not evolutionary. It is a change in use of an existing feature and was not produced by natural selection.

The adaptation of a new function for an existing structure is also natural selection. This is how something like a photosensitive cell for detecting light above (which is useful for predator detection) can be continually adapted generation after generation until it is useful for vision, the proto-eye.

The feature itself is also a product of natural selection.

[William]

It is a false dichotomy to present these two options ("purposeful design or chanced purposeless")

The theory of evolution does NOT posit that the adaptations of life are a consequence of "chance" nor that they are without purpose. Evolution demonstrates that there are mechanisms that do indeed generate genetic and morphological change in a population (natural selection, sexual selection, etc), so it is not "chance" in that it is random. Nor are adaptations without purpose ("purposeless" as the OP put it). Organisms adapt the structures that they have specific purposes. For instance, your fingers weren't made for typing nor did they evolve for typing, you adapted them for typing.

So if a creature adapts a feature like your example of fingers being adapted for typing then that change in function may become a benefit. But that change in function is not evolutionary. It is a change in use of an existing feature and was not produced by natural selection.

The adaptation of a new function for an existing structure is also natural selection. This is how something like a photosensitive cell for detecting light above (which is useful for predator detection) can be continually adapted generation after generation until it is useful for vision, the proto-eye.

The feature itself is also a product of natural selection.

Such an Awesome display of intelligence. Intelligence derives from consciousness.

[TheBeardedDude]

[Replying to post 223 by William]

I am not entirely sure what you are trying to say. Please be more explicit.

[William]

[Replying to post 223 by William]

I am not entirely sure what you are trying to say.

I was making an observation re what you had posted. The observation does not appear to so be complicated that it needs further clarification. I kept it as simple as possible to avoid that.

Please be more explicit.

Such an Awesome display of intelligence. Intelligence derives from consciousness=natural selection.

Natural selection= Such an Awesome display of intelligence=Intelligence derives from consciousness.

[TheBeardedDude]

[Replying to post 225 by William]

"Natural selection= Such an Awesome display of intelligence=Intelligence derives from consciousness"

Natural selection isn't an intelligent process though. It is not a conscious process. It is not derived from it nor does it require it.

[William]

[Replying to post 225 by William]

"Natural selection= Such an Awesome display of intelligence=Intelligence derives from consciousness"

Natural selection isn't an intelligent process though. It is not a conscious process. It is not derived from it nor does it require it.

It is all in the eye of the beholder.

I see intelligence and consciousness where you see mindlessness.

[TheBeardedDude]

[Replying to post 227 by William]

*You assume* (and commit the anthropomorphic fallacy)

I don't see "mindlessness," I see a series of natural processes that require no appeal to consciousness.

[TheBeardedDude]

[Replying to post 227 by William]

Also worth noting is that your interpretation of the science of evolution is irrelevant. Natural Selection and Evolution as scientific processes are without intelligence or consciousness.

So it isn't a matter of perspective (it isn't "in the eye of the beholder"), it is a matter of you adding a special pleading argument to scientific ideas.