Or just a bred-in instinct. Or a natural instinct that humans make use of. Apes may not have that instinct. Apes, on the other hand, show a great capacity for figuring things out, or at least to be taught elementary reasoning. Humans may not have that instinct either. We may have seen that instinct in dogs and reasoned out a way to make use of it.

Any of those are possibilities. There may be more.

Dogs were claimed in some science text some months ago that due to the long relation between man and tamed wolves/dogs, dogs have not only learned to interpret mimic and gesticulation of man to some degree, but also give this knowledge to their puppies - because it is genetically encoded now. That also is the reason why wolves, even if used to humans and close with them from early age on, do not do certain things and cannot do certain things - they lack these adapted genetic information. It is assumed that this also is the reason why dogs balk, but wolves cannot: when man tamed wolves, part of the adaptation process was the animal developing an additional communication form: from grumbling and howling (wolves) to balking (dogs). Wolves may be heavier in natural instincts, but dogs are smarter by now in interacting with humans, I'm sure.

For long time they were wondering why birds can navigate around the globe. But a growing number of ornithologists now claim that they maybe just carry the knowledge for flying paths in their genes - maps and formations inclusive. But the last word on this is not yet spoken.

And then there is this famous laboratory experiment that in principle you can only explain so far with exotic - though fascinating - ideas like Sheldrake'S morphogenetic fields:

Evidence for this is supplied by an experiment started at Harvard University. Over a ten year period, rats were trained to escape from a water maze. Each new generation learned to escape quicker. After ten years, the rats could escape ten times faster than the original rats. This change occurred in all of the rats of the same species and not just the descendants of the original rats. In fact, the change occurred in rats of the same species in other areas of the world (Sheldrake, 1991)

Classical genetics cannot explain this famous finding.

Ahhh, so you saw the same documentary?:up: I thought that part was so fascinating, that they couldn't teach a Chimpanzee to respond to pointing or facial expressions but a dog does.

If the human being is an intelligent design, why do we have old genes in us as well? Sometimes these old genes get activated by accident:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atavism
An intelligent design wouldn't have those traits, would it?
Besides an intelligent design, created by an omnipotent god, would surely have better knee joints and a proper spine and not the stuff that we have.:-?

Can we assume that intelligent design equals perfect design?

I don't, but the people who propose it do.

Not sure I have ever read anything that equates ID with perfection.

There are many humans born with defects. I am one of them. I don't think that the observation that I am myopic refutes the theory of ID.

Perhaps ID and evolution can live in harmony? The initial design may have been "intelligent" but as time went on, it evolved to something less "intelligent"?

Like I am an authority on the theory of Intelligent Design. :haha:

The problem isn't the concept of Intelligent Design. The Deists believed in a God who created the Natural Universe exactly as we find it, and gave us brains to figure it out. If that's the ID you're thinking of, then there is no problem in equating it with Evolution. I can see attributing our universe to a Supreme Being, but it's still a matter of pure faith, not science or reason or logic.

The problem is that the term Intelligent Design is a modern-day substitute for Biblical Creation. There was so much opposition to teaching BC as science that they finally dressed it up with a new name and tried again. Nothing else has changed.

I'm not so sure about dressing BC up, but I get the point. I think a great many believers no longer accept the biblical account of creation as literal, more accepting of science, just believe a creator is responsible. I see a big difference between those that believe BC and those that believe ID, one accepts science and evolution, the other doesn't.

ID accepts not science, Armistead. They just act as if. Steve is right on ID being BC coming back in a new dress only. The differences are marginal and cosmetic only, and only serve the purpose to distract.

I'm not sure who you've been reading. The arguments presented are identical. Only the names have been changed to protect the subterfuge.

I think many, if not most, that believe in ID have no religious agenda to push, why those that believe in BC usually do. Seems to me those that believe in BC are more right, fundy, etc.

Now, I would agree there seems to be a more recent movement in churches using ID and dropping the BC theme. I think the Catholics are doing this to a point, but I think it's a business decision more than anything.

Heck, you might be right afterall......

You say you think that, and there are recent articles that support that, but the main proponents of ID never use in the context that I've mentioned, that of the Deists. They invariably use it to oppose Evolution, and to support Creationist claims. While the concept is valid as an idea that cannot be proven or disproven, existing only in a philosophical context, its modern usage is just as I've described - a tool of the Creationists to try to gain support for their old ideas under a new name.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

The church continues to evolve in it's beliefs, but of course still has to believe in God and creation. No one can argue that science has evolved the church and will continue to do so, but the majority of people that believe in ID, believe in evolution, those that believe in BC don't. I see that as a major shift in religion, don't you?

What will be interesting is to see how religion evolves in the next 500 years.

You've said that several times now, but you are the first person I've ever heard it from. Do you have any evidence for that, any IDer saying it is so? As I say, I've seen ID used in place BC in "it should be taught in school" arguments, but never in the context in which you present it.