What is Digg?119 Comments
- inactive, on 05/16/2008, -1/+22Frank Fish, yes, that's his name,...the design inspires energy efficiency and many different uses, score one for the whale.
- louiebaur, on 05/16/2008, -2/+20And they are just figuring this out now?
- Ruger11mcrdpi, on 05/16/2008, -2/+19So the guy designing blades based on whale fins... is named Fish? love it.
- burketo, on 05/16/2008, -2/+15how is this proof of anything other then that whales who developed growths on the end of their fins were better at catching prey and thus survived to pass this trait on?
infact i would go further and ask; if this was intelligently designed, why do all whales not have these bumps? - gordonj, on 05/16/2008, -3/+15So somebody uses the term "design" somewhere in an article and you take it as proof of intelligent design. Your definition of "proof" is way too relaxed.
- Witchbaby, on 05/16/2008, -3/+14Mother nature knows what she's doing.
- inactive, on 05/16/2008, -0/+10What in the world kind of logic is that?
Perhaps you need to define design. - ApokalypseNow, on 05/16/2008, -0/+9Prayer to what? Vishnu? Allah? FSM? The invisible technicolor pachyderm living in William Shatner's sock drawer? Each of these has as much evidence as the next, though some are more popular than others. Prayer to any of them is neither objective nor empirical.
Also, you're = you are, your = third-person possessive.
Again, that structures exist in nature is not evidence that they were designed by some third party, nor is it evidence for that third party's existence. There is no evidence that directly points to design. - ApokalypseNow, on 05/16/2008, -4/+13The "design" word was applied to the wing surface, not the whale. Man-made wings are designed. Life evolved. This is hardly evidence of life being "created", nor is it anything that would require a supernatural explanation.
- gordonj, on 05/16/2008, -0/+9I don't suppose you'd care to explain why said "designer" would leave signs in the whale genome that it is closely related to ungulates (hoofed animals). In fact whales are genetically more closely related to a cow than a camel is. Why didn't the "creator" make whales appear to be more like fish (or at least have fish-like genes), as whales and fish have fins while cows don't?
"If the creature wasn't a design initially, then man couldn't get his copy from it to make his designs."
If those "designs" are shaped by selective forces in a given environment, then man could still copy the concepts without a need for there to be an initial designer. - ApokalypseNow, on 05/16/2008, -0/+8Claiming that something is "common sense" is a poisoning-the-well fallacy. The "evidence" you submit is subjective and based solely upon your own interpretation.
- dgendreau, on 05/16/2008, -1/+9Check his comments again. Kenyard is actually saying this is proof of intelligent design, which is ridiculous.
- ApokalypseNow, on 05/16/2008, -0/+7Man has copied structures found in nature, but there exists no evidence that those structures have supernatural origins. That structures in nature exist alone is not evidence for your position.
- ApokalypseNow, on 05/20/2008, -0/+7Again, claiming that something is "common sense" is a poisoning-the-well fallacy, and not a substitute for evidence.
- ApokalypseNow, on 05/16/2008, -1/+8No, it just means they inspired a new wing design. It is irrational to presume the existence of a "designer" without evidence.
- ApokalypseNow, on 05/16/2008, -0/+6I have not read the book you referenced.
You did not specify to what mythological entity your prayer exercise should be in reference to, so in light of that lack of experimental constraint, I chose Odin and asked for the same Rune knowledge he gained from sacrificing his eye. Nothing happened.
Regardless, the exercise you ask about would be a subjective one, not an objective one, and any results from it are no more evidence for one side of the debate than the other. - Djerrid, on 05/16/2008, -0/+6Biomimetics is a fascinating area full of promise. The National Geographic had a great article on it a couple of months ago:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/04/biomimet ... - Obzerva, on 05/16/2008, -2/+8Who does God want to win? A predator which is "intelligently designed" to effectively hunt prey, or the prey which is "intelligently designed" to effectively escape predators? ID is not science, it's *****.
- humblechild, on 05/18/2008, -0/+5Humans are nothing special, we're just smart mammals.
- ApokalypseNow, on 05/16/2008, -0/+5They did no such thing in the article - try reading the whole damn thing next time. From page 8:
"Evolution doesn't 'design' a fly's wing or a lizard's foot by working toward a final goal, as an engineer would—it blindly cobbles together myriad random experiments over thousands of generations, resulting in wonderfully inelegant organisms whose goal is to stay alive long enough to produce the next generation and launch the next round of random experiments."
This is an oversimplification, and their use of the word "blindly" is inaccurate, but it directly contradicts your above statement about "admitting design". - Obzerva, on 05/20/2008, -0/+5Hahaha kenrayd you crack me up. Your "argument" doesn't even make a bit of sense.
"For a mammal that is so smart, what makes them so destructive that in comparison with the most aggressive preditor, say a great white, is a mere puppy."
Are you posing a question? Where's the question mark? Besides your lack of basic knowledge of english, your statement is B.S. How exactly do you prove that humans "sin" more than great white sharks? (What a retarded statement by the way...) - ApokalypseNow, on 05/20/2008, -0/+5You have provided no evidence for any of the ridiculous assertions you gave. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
- blakeage, on 05/16/2008, -1/+6Will the whales be compensated for the rights to the design?
- Jacolyte, on 05/16/2008, -2/+7Here's essentially the same article, but with pictures: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/03/biomimicry ...
Pictures make everything better :) - ApokalypseNow, on 05/16/2008, -1/+6There exists no evidence for the supernatural - spiritual or otherwise. Your argument is based on the assumption of the existence of the supernatural, and that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
- Dimensio, on 05/21/2008, -0/+5"If the creature wasn't a design initially, then man couldn't get his copy from it to make his designs."
Why not? Please be specific in your justification. - burketo, on 05/16/2008, -1/+6have you ever developed an ulcer or a cold? did you do that with shear force of will or something?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/develop i'll skip to the good part:
your definition:
to create or produce especially by deliberate effort over time (transitive verb)
my definition:
1 a: to go through a process of natural growth, differentiation, or evolution by successive changes
2: to become gradually manifest.
(intransitive verb)
don't try and twist words until you know what they mean. - Pinkertinkle, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4A whale's not a fish.
- rotten777, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4That's what I was thinking. Seems they thought that millions of years of evolution was wrong. If a creature can do something spectacular, look at it through the eyes of an engineer because it probably has a lot to do with its form.
- maelnum, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4"Pictures make everything better"
remember that when grandma talks about her hemorrhoids. - Pinkertinkle, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4If you put random dimples on the wing/blade surface it'll have even less air/fluid resistance.
- ApokalypseNow, on 05/17/2008, -0/+4Simply put, either those traits were not advantageous to that particular group of whales and their behaviors, or the variation that produces these traits has not shown up or not been rewarded by selection properly so as to cause it to have a large impact on those populations.
- ApokalypseNow, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4Evolution isn't an entity, it is a process of adaptation by a population to better fit or compete in an environment through selection pressures acting upon heritable traits.
As I said, their explanation is an oversimplification, and their use of the word "blindly" is inaccurate. - DeFex, on 05/16/2008, -2/+6--------Normal--------
-------Retarded------
---------Peter---------
-----Creationists---- - ApokalypseNow, on 05/16/2008, -1/+5Evidence for this assertion?
- burketo, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4"development into a functional design by only through intelligent action because statistically, for a natural process to develop design is statistically impossible."
i gather you mean that statistically it is so rare for a mutation to be of any use that it makes it impossible.
actually the opposite is true and has been shown to be true countless times. for one example:
Staphylococcus aureus is a common bacteria which lives - among other palces - in the noses of most people and on the odd occassion causes an infection. methicillin is an antibiotic related to penicillin. methicillin kills staph. A. however, some staph. A. mutated (around the 50's i think) and became resistent to methicillin, therefore ensuring it's survival. this is known as Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus or MRSA. this evolution can and has been recreated in a lab, because all you need is for a bacteria to replicate a couple of million times and the statistical probability of a useful(from the bacteria's point of view) mutation is basically unity ( or 100% ( or fo' shizzle)). if you have a more complicated organism you have more likelihood of mutations etc. and if you have millions of years you have evolution.
your maths is wrong. Darwin is right. - ApokalypseNow, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4No - as I said, it is a process of adaptation by a population to better fit or compete in an environment through selection pressures acting upon heritable traits. There is no analogy towards experimentation except for that, due to inherent variability in life due to many different factors (genetic recombination, mutations, different expression characteristics, etc), many different possibilities are "tried". Selection pressures weed out that which does not work, and rewards that which does. Also, there is no "finish" in evolution. If a population stays relatively static for a period of time, that would indicate that their niche was relatively stable, but not that there is some "finished" state for the population to reach.
- Monkeydew06, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3Those are concave dimples. They, in no way, resemble or represent the same dynamics of a whale's use of their tubercles.
- TJ11240, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3Sawtoothed wind turbines will look pretty ***** amazing.
- ApokalypseNow, on 05/16/2008, -1/+4@ken
Wrong! From wikipedia:
Cold: Acute viral nasopharyngitis, or acute coryza, usually known as the common cold, is a highly contagious, viral infectious disease of the upper respiratory system, primarily caused by picornaviruses (including rhinoviruses) or coronaviruses.
Ulcers: A major causative factor (60% of gastric and up to 90% of duodenal ulcers) is chronic inflammation due to Helicobacter pylori that colonizes (i.e. settles there after entering the body) the antral mucosa. The immune system is unable to clear the infection, despite the appearance of antibodies.
Functional design:
Your claim is unsupported, and requires justification. It is not inherently true, nor even *apparently* true. A "function" is only defined by human terms, and is not a property inherent in the life form itself. Mother nature, after all, can't see functions and purposes. All it sees are molecules and atoms clashing around. A storm cloud has many parts that work together functionally to produce lightning and thunder. However, that function is only an interpretation by the human mind, not an inherent property that the storm cloud can comprehend.
Statistics:
What math are you using here? Regardless, simply because an event, or a chain of events has an extremely low probability of occurring does not mean that it can not occur. If that were true, then no one would ever have won the lottery, been bitten by a shark, or been struck by lightning. - inactive, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3A lot of these natural stuff is being in being investigated and applied in F1 aerodynamics at the moment.
- Monkeydew06, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3First off, it's not a win for evolution because you have no evidence of an older species of bee that was less successful at flying because it had smooth wings. I could just as easily argue that a creator designed the wings to allow flight. You cannot win, or lose at these types of arguments.
And second, Natural Selection would be a more appropriate term rather than (1) evolution (assuming there were smooth winged bees in the first place.)
Footnote: 1. Evolution contains three subcategories: mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. Logically one could assume that bees with smoother wings (assuming they existed) would be slower and thus more prone to being eaten by birds. Thus, nature has "selected" them for extinction. Personally, I doubt mutation, or a genetic drift would be a factor in the changing of the Bees physical structure. - noahhoward, on 05/16/2008, -2/+5Because you knew this the day you were born right?
- alittleroy101, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3They're called speed holes, buddy.
- Dimensio, on 05/21/2008, -0/+3"But development into a functional design by only through intelligent action because statistically, for a natural process to develop design is statistically impossible."
Please provide the statistical calculations and justify all values incorporated. Please explain the mechanisms of the "intelligent action" through which the "development" was accomplished, and describe the observations that constitute evidence of the occurrence of these mechanisms. Be specific. - buffyangel108, on 05/16/2008, -4/+7Coming soon - Wesley Snipes in Blade V: Whaleology
- aminal, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3Not that soon
http://digg.com/politics/Wesley_Snipes_3_years_in_ ... - saxmaster, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2This article cites the green movement at the reason for the design's popularity. This seems typical of idealist thinking. The truth is that the design is simply more efficient, saving businesses money. Why does every new discovery in efficiency have to be attributed to green consciousness?
- Tryptomine, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2What do you mean? I put Speed Holes all over my car.
- ashfish, on 05/21/2008, -0/+2So...if we never sinned what exactly were the animals going to do? All the carnivores were going to just sit around and eat grass? Not eat and be divinely fed? If so then why do carnivores have sharp teeth? Or why do animals have teeth at all? The story of Adam and Eve was one of my favorites and there was no mention of God changing any of the animals because of our sinful ways, with the exception of the serpent who then was made to walk on his belly and "eat dust," to my recollection. If you want to talk about logic and common sense apply a little bit to your own statements.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 122 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is