Nah, their union balked at the overtime necessary to construct a monolith.

How is this supposed to amount to a "win" for Intelligent Design?

Perhaps you're a little confused between Intelligent Design and just plain intelligence. They're not the same thing.

What a hoot. The University of Wyoming at Laramie? I give it six months at most before we hear of Berkeley's study proving it was because their social safety net wasn't generous enough.

Sometimes the simplest answer is the right one. Probably the equivalent of the CIA in those days merely put something in the Neanderthals malt ale that interfered with their ability to procreate.

Can't be a natural progression and certainly not free trade that brought down what Rousseau taught us is the nature's perfect creature, The Noble Savage.

Neanderthals seem to fit that description and the fact that their race died out under mysterious circumstances must mean that we humans, flawed creatures as we are, did them in. More opprobrium to heap on the head of the western civilization.

maybe the male neanderthals lost interest in their own women, when they caught a peek at the h. sapiens women. hubba hubba me no want wilma anymore.

No wonder the protectionists seem like such Neanderthals. They are merely reverting to type.

Free trade in weapons perhaps. Institutions supporting military power surpass.

I take it, then, that Orrin's headline for this post was in error.

Why?

Because you appeared either unwilling or unable to explain how this was supposed to amount to a "win" for Intelligent Design, and that in the absence of such, the alternate explanation - that you had confused "Intelligent Design" with simple intelligence - looked like a plausible enough explanation for the incongruity.

Then again, perhaps you meant "intelligent design" instead of "Intelligent Design", in which case I apologize for reading too much into it, though then I would have to add that this would amount to an altogether unremarkable observation.

What does the story say happened?

You can read it as well as I can. Where do you see the "win" for Intelligent Design (which I now presume is what you meant)?

How does the speculation described in the article necessitate the conclusion of an intelligent designer?

"Homo sapiens unlocked the secrets of free trade"

"Homo sapiens unlocked the secrets of free trade" is supposed to necessitate the conclusion of an intelligent designer? How so?

Like I said earlier, and you've made it even clearer now, you're simply confusing intelligence with Intelligent Design, either intentionally or carelessly.

What's the difference?

The two are hardly synonymous, and evidence of intelligence does not equal evidence of Intelligent Design; it takes little more than a trip to the dictionary to find that out.

Thank you, anyway, for conceding plainly that you're confusing the two. Whether you're doing so out of carelessness or intentionally remains unclear.

An intelligent design led to the extinction of Neanderthals.

Yes, but an intelligent design by itself does not necessitate a validation of the theory of Intelligent Design. As the article makes quite clear, the intelligent designers in this case were homo sapiens, not some supernatural entity. As such, the headline of your post - apparently referring to merely an intelligent design, not the theory of Intelligent Design - is an entirely unremarkable observation.

"intelligent designers"

That's right, "intelligent designers", not "Intelligent Designer". They are clearly identified as homo sapiens, not a mysterious supernatural entity.

Apart from continuing to concede the point, you're now merely flaunting your confusion.

What's the difference?

Apart from continuing to concede the point, you're now merely flaunting your confusion.

"intelligent designers"

That's right, "intelligent designers", not "Intelligent Designer". They are clearly identified as homo sapiens, not a mysterious supernatural entity.

Are you genuinely unable to back up your reasoning regarding this issue?

You seem confused about Intelligent Design which has nothing to say about the Designer or designers, just that evolution relects intelligent design, as you concede here.

"which has nothing to say about the Designer or designers"

It does have something to say about the Designer, namely that the Designer exists and that we do not know who he is.

If the intelligent designer is already identified as homo sapiens, as is the case here, then it has nothing to do with the theory of Intelligent Design. It is simply an unrelated issue.

"evolution relects intelligent design, as you concede here.

Of course intelligence (resulting in 'intelligent designs' not 'Intelligent Design' - do see if you can spot the difference) has played a part in evolution many, many times, since it is a factor in surviving. This does not lend any support to the notion of Intelligent Design, however.

The story describes intelligent design, as you concede. I'd be happy to hear you argue that it doesn't.

Do I take it that you are no longer arguing that the article shows proof of Intelligent Design, and have now backed off to arguing that it merely shows an intelligent design, which I've already pointed out is an utterly unremarkable observation?

In that case: I never argued that it doesn't reflect intelligent design, as you very well know. I disputed that it showed proof of Intelligent Design. I'd be happy to hear you show how I argued otherwise - or to attempt to show how an intelligent design - be it an iPod, a hammer or a system of trade - necessitates the presence of a mysterious supernatural creator.

Intelligent Design makes no claims about a Designer.

intelligent design is Intelligent Design.

"Intelligent Design makes no claims about a Designer."

Does it not claim the necessity of the existence of a Designer, no matter who or what that may be?

"intelligent design is Intelligent Design."

That's just plain nonsense, Orrin. The invention of the hammer or a car does not stand in contradiction of the modern theory of evolution.

"Intelligent Design:

A theory about the origin of life that holds that intelligent causes best explain the origin of many features of living systems."

As you've said, this appears to be an instance of extinction caused by intelligent design.

"As you've said, this appears to be an instance of extinction caused by intelligent design"

Where did I say that?

You are thoroughly confused between a person using his intelligence to better survive and the notion of Intelligent Design which posits a Designer of unknown identity (which can also be described by the phrase "intelligent causes", if you wish) to explain the origin of life and some of the complexities around us.

If I invent a better mousetrap tomorrow, that does not stand in contradiction to everything we know about evolution and is therefore not supportive of the notion of Intelligent Design to explain the origin of life.

If your trap led to the extinction of the mouse you'd have indeed demonstrated the efficacy of intelligent design. You'd be the intelligent designer.

Of course, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with Intelligent Design.

The efficacy of intelligent design as seen in, for example, a ballpoint pen, is not contradicted by the theory of evolution as it stands, and as such scores nil points for Intelligent Design.

The difference is that we observe intelligent design routinely, but never natural selection.

Given that what natural selection is makes it impossible for you to observe it in real time to your satisfaction, what would it take for you to say that you have observed natural selection?

Observing intelligent design routinely is thoroughly unremarkable, and is as compatible with the theory of evolution as it is with creationism or whatnot.

To observe it in real time the way we do intelligent design.

So, to put your response into the context of the question, your answer turns out to be:

Given that what natural selection is makes it impossible for me to observe it in real time to my satisfaction, what it would take for me to say that I have observed natural selection is to observe it in real time the way we do intelligent design.

All you've accomplished with this response is to put either your blind stubbornness or rampant ignorance of the subject matter on display.

Natural selection can by its very nature not be observed in real time, at least not once you purposely exclude any experiments in laboratory settings intended to demonstrate it. Natural selection in nature is of course too slow to be perceived in real time, as are many other things. That does not mean that we don't have other ways of perceiving them. You purposely block out the timescales in evolution to hang on to your religious triumphalism.

Not that I haven't noticed that you've backed off Intelligent Design in this discussion, and instead are now simply proceeding with 'intelligent design', which merely means something that has been designed intelligently, including anything designed and built by man - which in turn really has nothing to do with any kind of 'win' for the notion of Intelligent Design, and so I'll take that as a concession that you've realized that the above headline, if referring to Intelligent Design, simply does not work.

so Natural Selection is unobservable but you believe it? How does that differ from a religious faith?

I don't believe in Intelligent Design. I think it's God. The example demonstrates intelligent design.

I didn't say natural selection was unobservable; I said it was unobservable in real time. There are many things that are unobservable in real time, or with the naked eye, yet we have ways of perceiving or deducing them.

"I don't believe in Intelligent Design. I think it's God. The example demonstrates intelligent design."

It demonstrates human intelligence at work. There is nothing in the article that necessitates the intervention of a supernatural entity, though you are of course welcome to stick on your "but God did it" interpretation, as you do with everything else.

No, as I said, the example demonstrates intelligent design, not necessarily intervention by God.

I don't have a problem with your faith in the unseen, don't you be so afraid to proclaim it.

"No, as I said, the example demonstrates intelligent design, not necessarily intervention by God."

Which is why it is an utterly unremarkable observation, as I've repeatedly pointed out.

"I don't have a problem with your faith in the unseen, don't you be so afraid to proclaim it."

There is a difference between extending our perception by mechanical or deductive means (and I'm not in the slightest afraid to proclaim that I think these means are valid) and simple 'faith in the unseen'.

This conflation of yours is somewhat similar to the one you were trying to pull about the laws of nature stopping at the edge of the solar system, where you pretended to be confused between the concepts of 'supernatural' and 'far away'.

Yes, so the headline you objected to was precisely accurate.

"Yes, so the headline you objected to was precisely accurate."

Not if you meant Intelligent Design in its capitalized form, referring to ID.

If it is not and you are simply talking about intelligent designs being a cool thing, then it is an accurate observation, but trivial and unremarkable.

Yes, the observation of intelligent design is entirely ordinary and the observation of natural selection has never occurred. Food for thought there, for the open-minded anyway.