Re: Intelligent Design hypothesis

[perfacetus]

I'll post it, although as I said to another guy you have made errors. The appendix does have a function, its just when people don't know what that function is occasionally they are tempted to say that it doesn't have one, which I imagine also corresponds to lots of junk DNA.

In addition do we have cameras that use as little energy, have the same resolution and colour perception, can have a football kicked at them and still work, last 65 years and then at the end bio-degrade?

[lewiseu]

Pt 1

The appendix used to have a viable function in the physiology of our ancestors, but, today, the only functions it provides are acquired, not intrinsic. Today, it is speculated that the appendix harbour good bacteria, which generally improves the health of the intestinal tract. However, its function is not a requirement, for, if it was, the general health of those who have had their appendix removed would be appreciably lower than that of people who still have their appendix.

[perfacetus]

It is accepted that it has a function. To say that just because your health does not deteriorate because it doens't have a function is ridiculous. If somenes arm was chopped off it wouldn't effect their health but it still has a functin. Also modern medicine could reduce any negative impact. Further again if it did have an impact on health (reducing the risk of colon cancer by 5% for eg) there is no guarentee it would be pciked up on.

[lewiseu]

Pt 2

The same can be said for the Gallbladder and Wisdom teeth, are not required and have no real use. They may *help" but, they don't affect the health of a person with they are removed.

As for the cameras, yes, we have cameras that have equivalent resolution and colour perception (actually, even cheap point and shoot cameras can capture more colours than they eye), and be compact enough to be about eye sized, at least for the optics and sensor, not for the entire camera...

[perfacetus]

If they help they still have a purpose. Anything that assists in some way obviously is still classed as having a purpose.

If we have cameras that as good as our eyes then why aren't people who have lost their eyes being hooked up to digital equivelents?

[lewiseu]

Part 1

While we may have optical systems that are able to resolve more detail than our eyes, the issue is that we have no means to connecting those cameras to our brains.

At present, if I recall, the highest resolution sensor in a human eye can detect either light or dark and has a resolution of 10x10 pixels (or so).

Just because we may have something better, doesn't mean we can apply it to our bodies.

[lewiseu]

Part 2

Aluminium bones would be better than the ones we have, hydraulically powered arms and legs would make us many times stronger than we already are, the issue is that don't have good enough medical knowledge (in the case of bones) and brain/nervous system to computer interfaces (in the case of artificial muscles such as using hydraulics) to actually replace the components of the body, that doesn't mean those components are worse, just that we don't know how to upgrade ourselves yet.

[perfacetus]

Actually Aluminim would be rubbish. Apart from the toxicity to our bodies Titainium (which conveniently fuses with out bones really well unlike any other metal) wears away so quickly that when people do hip replacements they only do it 10 years before they think you will die, because it only lasts 10 years unlike our bone which lasts MUCH longer.

[lewiseu]

You're right, on their own they wouldn't be too good.

Fortunately, humanity has learned the skill of creating alloys, and I'm fairly certain that there is at least one metallic alloy that lasts longer and is stronger than the bones in our body.

[perfacetus]

Nope, if you know of one feel free to suggest it to the medical profession because they don't know about it, that is why they are forced to use titainium.

[lewiseu]

Pt 3

I don't think we are quite their with the power usage, the durability or the degradability, but, the simple fact is that we do have cameras that are capable of providing comparable capabilities than our own eyes.

And even if cameras still fall short by your estimates, the march onto technological singularity will assure that they will eventually surpass even your standards.

[perfacetus]

We have cameras that can beat our eyes on maybe one or two qualities, but not all of them.

The point is that is thousands of years of concerted effort but intelligent beings we supposedly can't mimic what happened on its on with intelligent thought at all. That is farcical.

[lewiseu]

Of course it has taken us thousands of years.

Your god did not see it fit to imbue us with the technical knowledge necessary to replicate his/her/its creation, so, logically, we are a step behind in some/most cases.

The point is that we won't *always* be a step behind, our technology is exponentially improving and it will eventually get to the point of rivalling or exceeding the complexity of what we know of life.

[perfacetus]

So it take the whole of man kind working together thousands of years of thought and effort to replicate what occurred on its own with no thought at all....

[lewiseu]

Well, technically, the vast majority of human technological development has occurred over the last 80 or so years. As mentioned, technological growth is exponential, not linear, as such, while our technology and knowledge has increased since we've been able to record these things, most of has really happened within the span of a lifetime (in other words, someone born in 1920 would have seen practically the majority of human scientific and technological development).

[perfacetus]

Maybe so, but there reason why most of it took place recently is because it took us soooo long to invent the basics, which apparently happened on their own in eovlution.

No need to for communication of idea with evolution.... for some reason.

[lewiseu]

To turn it around on you, you posit that the universe and, by extension, nature as we know it, could have only been created by an infinite, with, naturally, infinite knowledge.

It's a little sad, then, that humanity is able to, on occasion, do better than such a powerful and knowledgeable being.

[perfacetus]

It hasn't been able to do better, and when it does well it is mimicing what is already there. The things that were there already are just taken and given another application (Bats Sonar for eg).

[lewiseu]

Even with all that in mind, I fail to see how that has any actual relevance to what's being said, it ultimately doesn't matter how long it took for us or nature to create everything, let's not forget, nature took at least half a billion years just to make the first cell.

[YellowCrustySock]

"Human designed."

That is the first thing wrong. Who said the human body was designed?