Calling Intelligent Designers

I think I would like very simple dietary requirements, i imagine it would be cool to get all of your nutritional needs from a single food source, and not have to waste time searching for and processing foods....like the anteater or the abalone......























SORRY SORRY SORRY........COULDNT RESIST.

Im not a ID but i like to play god in this thread....

I would first make...


-2 different tubes for eating and breathing.
-Teeth that regrows until you die.
-Cellulase enzyme as part of our enzymes.
-stronger bone structure, especially spinal and limbs.
-Larger Lungs, complete 100% use of oxygen..possible a secondary oxygen chamber..
-Expandable arteries and veins. clean clogs
-Stronger and perfect immune system, no no more immune system attacking itself.

Originally posted by luciddream
-2 different tubes for eating and breathing.

Wait wut.

reply to post by Grimpachi


ADD WATERBEAR technology into the strands...

NAMASTE*******

Tardigrades (commonly known as waterbears or moss piglets)[2] are small, water-dwelling, segmented animals with eight legs. They are notable for being one of the most complex of all known polyextremophiles. (An extremophile is an organism that can thrive in a physically or geochemically extreme condition that would be detrimental to most life on Earth.[3][4])

Tardigrades can withstand temperatures from just above absolute zero to well above the boiling point of water. They can survive pressures greater than any found in the deepest ocean trenches and have lived through the vacuum of outer space. They can survive solar radiation, gamma radiation, ionic radiation— at doses hundreds of times higher than would kill a person. They can go without food or water for nearly 10 years, drying out to the point where they are 3% or less water, only to rehydrate, forage, and reproduce.[citation needed]

Usually, Tardigrades are 1 millimetre (0.039 in) long when they are fully grown. They are short and plump with 4 pairs of legs, each with 4-8 claws also known as "disks." The animals are prevalent in moss and lichen and, when collected, may be viewed under a very low-power microscope, making them accessible to the student or amateur scientist as well as the professional.[5][6]

Tardigrades form the phylum Tardigrada, part of the superphylum Ecdysozoa. It is an ancient group, with fossils dating from 530 million years ago, in the Cambrian period.[7] The first tardigrades were discovered by Johann August Ephraim Goeze in 1773. Since 1778, over 500 new tardigrade species have been found.

reply to post by Grimpachi


This is a good thread Grim. I just can't seem to wrap my head around doing anything different than what has been done, if I wanted living beings of free will to interact with, if I were God. As unfortunate as that may sound to you, I wouldn't stray from the model.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

As unfortunate as that may sound to you, I wouldn't stray from the model.

Nor would 1 randyvs Waterbears recently came to mind and felt they would fit this thread more.. Reminds me of LArger Ceatures that would be able to exist on the Surface of VENUS or swim in methan pools/lakes on some of the local moons..

reply to post by Ophiuchus 13

Nor would 1 randyvs Waterbears recently came to mind and felt they would fit this thread more.. Reminds me of LArger Ceatures that would be able to exist on the Surface of VENUS or swim in methan pools/lakes on some of the local moons..

Outstanding imagination. Maybe it's a bad time in my life right now for this thread. I'm usually capable of such things.

reply to post by Grimpachi


I have not been able to spot a question in your text.

What is your point?

reply to post by Nightaudit


This is simply an excursive in imagination. I think I was watching a sci- fi movie that night and other books and movies came to mind. This certainly isn’t a new concept but I thought I could expand on it. The Spiderman movie where the scientist gives himself regenerative powers of a lizard so he could regrow his lost arm is an example. Of course something always goes wrong in the movies but I am removing the plot here and simply offering a suggestion box for the model of a better design on humanity. So far my favorite has been from Dispo offering up the immortality trait of a certain jellyfish. The entire OP is a question which I clarified a few posts down. You get to play god and create a whole new dominant species using the existing traits already known to exist in nature.

I have thought about this many times in life while falling off to sleep at night. I was also a huge Marvel comics fan growing up where characters often had genetic mutations that mimicked something in nature.

I will add another trait now. The genetic markers of sharks that prevent them from ever getting cancer.

Just to add many scientists are already studying many of these traits trying to find cures for mankind’s illnesses. Sharks have been sought after not only for their seeming immunity to cancer but now they are also using the design of their skin/scales on both medical equipment and ships exteriors because the design itself reduces the ability of bacteria or barnacles to grow.

reply to post by Grimpachi


intelligent design makes sense

Reply to post by ICanHearTheTrumpets

"intelligent design makes sense"

To someone who already believes in a designer, of course it would.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by Grimpachi


1. Seriously, I would make farts smell more like cut lawn or something in nature.

2. At least one eye in the back of the head (I don't know why the prey animals didn't evolve this).

I'm tired. That's all for now. But, I like the thread. S&F

Originally posted by randyvs
As unfortunate as that may sound to you, I wouldn't stray from the model.

The model.............

[T]his universe is 99.99999 percent composed of lethal radiation-filled vacuum, and 99.99999 percent of all the material in the universe comprises stars and black holes on which nothing can ever live, and 99.99999 percent of all other material in the universe (all planets, moons, clouds, asteroids) is barren of life or even outright inhospitable to life. In other words, the universe we observe is extraordinarily inhospitable to life. Even what tiny inconsequential bits of it are at all hospitable are extremely inefficient at producing life—at all, but far more so intelligent life … ...in fact, if we put all the lethal vacuum of outer space swamped with deadly radiation into an area the size of a house, you would never find the comparably microscopic speck of area that sustains life (it would literally be smaller than a single proton). It’s exceedingly difficult to imagine a universe less conducive to life than that—indeed, that’s about as close to being completely incapable of producing life as any random universe can be expected to be, other than of course being completely incapable of producing life.

The End of Christianity-John W Loftus

reply to post by jiggerj


Jigger, I'm not picking on you but you're involved here, anyway, what do you make of Cognito's above post ?
I'm not sure my understanding is correct. It seems way out of character at the moment.

reply to post by randyvs


If you understand it as we are either a freak accident, or an engineered event, then you understand correctly.

I'm atheist. But the mere possibility that even a single cell could evolve from all the random forces in nature, could evolve from simple chaos, is simply equal to infinitively small - thus, very near to absolute zero. Thus I feel something forced molecules to pack up following an underlying logic. After all, plants, and humans, and animals, and even natural events like some storms, all follow Fibonacci sequence proportions. By definition, chaos is the absence of sequential order. Which means, we are missing a big mathematical yet simple principle for life.

reply to post by swanne

I'm atheist. But the mere possibility that even a single cell could evolve from all the random forces in nature, could evolve from simple chaos, is simply equal to infinitively small - thus, very near to absolute zero. Thus I feel something forced molecules to pack up following an underlying logic. After all, plants, and humans, and animals, and even natural events like some storms, all follow Fibonacci sequence proportions. By definition, chaos is the absence of sequential order. Which means, we are missing a big mathematical yet simple principle for life.

Exactly. The mere presence of physics belies the randomosity of the universe. There are laws in places that function as preservative mechanisms, allowing chaos to pinpoint weaknesses and disorganize them so that order can come along and instill a better design. That's not chance. That's intent. But whose intent?

My suggestion, as I have iterated before, is that there is a lexicon of values whose arrangement determines the interactivity of the forces that hold our universe together. Call it the syntax of our quantum world. Where does this code come from? There's a possibility that it's one of very few successes among an infinity of failures.

Lucky us.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
My suggestion, as I have iterated before, is that there is a lexicon of values whose arrangement determines the interactivity of the forces that hold our universe together. Call it the syntax of our quantum world.

Yes, just like information (like a book) can be encoded into DNA, maybe information is encoded in the relative energies of different forces. I often think of it as a property of some division results. the sequence "0-2-8-5-7-1-4-2-8-5-7-1-4-2-9" may seem super complex, but it's in fact really just the result of 2 divided by 7.

Where does this code come from? There's a possibility that it's one of very few successes among an infinity of failures.

Lucky us.

Yes. That's the classical approach to the anthropic principle... but it implies there exist infinite number of unsuccessful possibilities, which resulted in empty universes. Infinite empty universes, with only our universe being the lucky one... Ugh, it implies we are surrounded by an epic (and infinitely vast) cosmological mess!

reply to post by swanne


Which means that the only meaning we will ever have is the meaning we ascribe to ourselves. It is our greatest gift as a species, after all - the ability to ascribe or detract meaning.