“Take that Evolution!” – Intelligent Design


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Michael

    blind watch maker…

  • MrBarrington

    Maybe the bug has selfish genes….

  • Chad Valiant Jnr

    In what way does this disprove evolution?

    • Benoni

      Theory of evolution postulates a single “random” change of a chemical group on a DNA molecule which produces a favourable change in the organism such as a longer beak or stronger legs. It is hard to see a single random change in DNA configuration producing not only multiple teeth on the cog but matching and meshing cogs on the other gear wheel.
      If you allow one mutation to produce one gear wheel the organism cannot carry that around for millions of years waiting for a second random mutation to produce the complementary gear wheel as carrying the one useless gear wheel around would have to be a biological hinderance to survival and the ability to prosper and to propagate favourable genes by succesful breeding. This argument is known as “irreducable complexity”. Macro evolution where whole new organisms has a huge intellectual problem with “irreducable complexity”. Simple natural selection on favorable variations of a single species has no such problem.

      • phronesis

        The definition of irreducible complexity always seems to amount to “it’s to hard for me to understand”.

        • CouchKumara

          According to nobody else but you. Irreducible complexity alludes to an intelligent design whilst weakening the sacrosanct theory of evolution. It seems you may be from the I don’t want to understand anything more than what I currently hold to be true camp.

          • phronesis

            When you put it like that it’s pretty clear that the whole point for you is to prop up intelligent design and undermine evolution. Irreducible complexity could also be defined as “we don’t understand exactly how this evolved so the only possible explanation is that God did it!”.

          • CouchKumara

            There is certainly nothing wrong with agreeing with a different theory that I think better supports the facts. IC could also be defined as I don’t think that macro evolution is true as it has never been witnessed, there is a complete absence of evidence in the fossil records and no one has seen a sheep turn into a fish. Marco evolution is a non falsifiable theory postulated by that great writer of 19th century fiction, Charles Darwin. In light of all this I have reasoned that an organism has two fully functioning cogs in it that work 100% perfectly and reason that any other lesser organism that has anything less than perfectly functioning cogs would be completely useless and have no advantage. So from this I conclude that the likelihood of an Intelligent Designer is surprisingly evident.

          • phronesis

            There’s plenty of circumstantial evidence of macro evolution but you are correct that no living person has ever witnessed it happen. So tell me who exactly has witnessed this “Intelligent Designer”?

          • Chad Valiant Jnr


          • Chad Valiant Jnr

            Phronesis, I could not agree more. If the end point of someone’s reasoning is that we should all be babbling to a invisible friend in the sky then this is all a bit backward in 2015.

          • Nige.

            saying babbling is a bit rough. people pray for all sorts of reasons.

          • NoEyeDeer

            It only alludes to ID if you don’t look too closely (in fact ID itself does not fair well under close scrutiny by people with open minds).

            Initial definition of Irreducible complexity: “A single system which is composed of several interacting parts that
            contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of
            the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.”

            The hop function in the insect is an escape mechanism from predators.
            The gears are used to ensure the hop is timed together by the young insect so it doesn’t go off at crazy angles.
            The plant hopper in loses it’s ‘gears’ as it matures into an adult. The adult, after they lose the “gears” is a much better hopper than the young insects.
            Shock horror, they actually get better rather than “cease functioning”

            It takes little imagination to grasp that young hoppers with rougher carapace’s around the legs that enabled better jump styles survived predators early on, became adults and passed on the trait to their offspring.

            Evolution for the win!

        • Benoni

          I would love to see a cogent argument against irreducable complexity that I can follow and accept. The simple one of allowing enough time fails because the universe is only 15 billion years old and evolution and it’s random mutations must follow the laws of probability. Of couse if the mutations are not random and were are on a pre-set track then we are back to intelligent design.

          • NoEyeDeer

            How about this; survival of the fittest.

            It’s a pretty simple concept, the genetic mutation gave the creature an advantage to survive in the environment and conditions it found itself in.

            When things change rapidly those evolutionary advantages can turn into handicaps (the dinosaurs as an example).

            Speaking of dinosaurs, there is an christian based Intelligent Design museum in Utah, that has a scene of the garden of eden. In the background are velociraptors. Because the earth is only 6k years old right, and God wouldn’t be fooling us by putting fossils in the ground of creatures that can’t exist…right?

            Anywho the kicker of the story is that the curators got bad feedback from vistors as most of them had seen Jurasic Park. So they took the teeth out of the model velociraptors and put branches in their mouth and stated that they were vegetarians…. heads in the sand thinking, a bit like irreducable complexity.

      • wanarunna

        I fail to see how something like this can disprove evolution, but the ball and socket hip joint can’t.

      • Chad Valiant Jnr

        Oh dear. A single DNA change does not create all of that change.

  • steve and monique

    Natures cool.

  • Hamiltonoldman

    Have any of those detractors ever read Darwin? Unbelievably beautiful reasoning, now that’s intelligent. And everything we have learned since confirms his main ideas. It’s time to accept the obvious even when we have to admit we don’t know everything yet.

    • Matt Pearce

      Lol he was wrong with almost everything he said

  • Sailor Sam

    For a moment I thought I was in the religious forum on “Abovetopsecret.com”!

  • AndrewML

    Its the same old question, which came first the egg or the bird the female or the male. How did random produce love where did all the water come from. The millions of forms of life? Why now so many inventions at this time of history. Why some so good and some so evil, whatever you believe takes a step of faith. From the nutbar bomer to the Darwin believer and the Intelligent Design. For me Intelligent Design takes less of a step than all the alternatives.

  • Lord_Montrose

    This Youtube about the Game of Life explains how a few simple rules can produce incredible complexity. There are other games with very simple programming that are better at playing games than humans. You need to watch this or stop talking about intelligent design!

  • david

    A bit late for the discussion but this is actually a strong comment on intelligent design