Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Plea to understanding: SCIENCE vs INTELLIGENT DESIGN
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 46 of 230 (653887)
02-25-2012 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by jchardy
02-24-2012 11:41 PM


Spouting crap or discussing OP?
Do you know what you are responding to or are you just spouting more crap? Cause your response seems to have nothing to do with my comment.
I stated that it is not just atheists that believe in Evolution. You respond with this drivel? You think Dawkins is an idiot? Well I am quite sure he can follow a debate and respond intelligently to points being made. Something you seem utterly incapable of doing.
Now do you stand by your comment that Evolution is primarily advocated by atheists?
Edited by Theodoric, : major typo

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by jchardy, posted 02-24-2012 11:41 PM jchardy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by jchardy, posted 02-25-2012 2:59 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Warthog
Member (Idle past 3968 days)
Posts: 84
From: Earth
Joined: 01-18-2012


(1)
Message 47 of 230 (653894)
02-25-2012 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by jchardy
02-25-2012 12:04 AM


Re: purpose in science
I feel a need to respond to a couple of your posts...
quote:
We can observe a rabbits tail, an appendix or a flagella but never ever can we observe a 'purpose'. How would you measure how much purpose a rabbit's tail had? Has it got more units of purpose than a flagella?
From a scientific point of view saying that a rabbit's tail has a purpose is as fanciful as saying god created the earth. Maybe the 'purpose' for the rabbit's tail fits better with some empirical data you have whereas the existence of god contradicts it but that is surely irrelevant.
Of course we can observe a purpose in such things as a rabbit tail. Rabbits use their tails to signal danger. Its size is at the moment just about right to do the job - not too small to be easily seen and not large enough to create problems out of scale with its function. Other animals such as deer use it the same way.
We have observed its purpose scientifically as well as a fascinating experiment I read about years ago (trying to find a reference) involving a fake deer tail which reinforced the observation with repeatable tests. This is hardly fanciful.
I don't see how the existence of god would affect this either way.
and regarding the octopus...
quote:
Why in the world would a species evolve this way? Some of us Teleologists would posit:
1) A designer chose to have them held back in favor of some other species chosen to test the benefits (and possible failure) of intelligence or
2) They are being kept protected (in an ocean environment) in reserve in case the intelligent bipeds (with thumbs) destroy themselves and a successor is required.
Science suggests that the intelligence of cephalopods is a result of developing their amazing physiology as well as an active predatory lifestyle. There is no evidence that intelligence is a goal or 'pre-loaded' as used in another thread. It is more like a result of other factors. Brains are expensive in terms of energy to maintain, so the benefit needs to be huge. An octopus doesn't need greater intelligence to be successful in its environment, so it isn't. It's not held back or protected - it's just efficient for its current environment.
I think the biggest problem here is the conflation of two meanings of purpose. I have never seen the use of the term purpose in science to mean anything other than function. I agree with Tanypteryx that function is a better term in this debate.
None of this requires us to assume any form of creator. There is no measurable pattern here that demands a higher power or any form of direction. If there is actual evidence of a creator, I'd love to see it.

Ignorance is a Tragedy
Willful Ignorance is a Sin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by jchardy, posted 02-25-2012 12:04 AM jchardy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by jchardy, posted 02-25-2012 3:21 PM Warthog has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 48 of 230 (653898)
02-25-2012 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by jchardy
02-24-2012 11:48 PM


Re: I TELEOLOGIST
You bet I’m a teleologist! I don’t distance myself from ID because the general concept of Intelligent Design appears to me to be frequently somehow misrepresented and matches most closely teleological foundations.
I'm talking about ID as it is practiced by its founders/vocal proponents such as Dembski and Behe. They seem keen to deny scientific evidence, makes facts up, outright lie and other things that are poor form (such as the Sternberg controversy). It involves such nonsense as irreducible complexity and specified complexity and the like. The ID position is that the evidence is already in, and it confirms the existence of of an IDer.
What kind of misrepresentation are you worried about?
It can be made fundamentalist to the extreme by some, and its demands can be dogmatic as well, -- but so can Science.
Science is not dogmatic. From wiki
quote:
Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, or a particular group or organization. It is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged from, by the practitioners or believers
While there are established beliefs in science, nothing is held to be beyond dispute or doubt. Doubt in fact, is built into the very fabric of science. There are some things which are called 'dogmas' in science, but it kind of tongue-in-cheek - a scientist could challenge them and still be called a scientist.
The words written below indicate that the ID folks have heaped personal abuse on science. I can see why such negativity has evolved, but it doesn’t have to be that way if there is equal acceptance — by Scientists and Atheists - of the beliefs -- by a component of ID proponents -- who believe that design was the foundation of everything from the Big Bang onward; not per force, but by nuance
I don't know any scientist that would have a problem with a person believing in some grand designer. Many scientists are religious and do in fact, believe this very thing - so you'd be in good company.
But ID doesn't claim to be a mere belief, they claim that ID is scientifically proven and that scientists are suppressing the truth and are misleading children so it becomes a 'moral crusade' to expose children to the Truth of ID through whatever tactics they think they can get away with.
If the nuance, or a nudge toward this goal or that, is what scientists or atheists find unacceptable, then so be it. No problem.
That isn't what scientists or atheist find unacceptable. Unncessary, maybe. A waste of time, perhaps. But it only becomes unacceptable when you go beyond 'nudging' and start pushing hard.
But we must all avoid demonizing or demeaning the other because of beliefs, and we should NEVER interfere with the education of our children on the basis of those beliefs.
Exactly the point of scientists, and exactly why they have a problem with IDists who are consistently demonizing and demeaning them and their work and are frequently interfering with the education of our children on the basis of their beliefs.
If you want to just talk, I don't think you'll find any significant problems. If you want to paint scientists as dupes or conspirers, that's when you might have a problem. Just look at the film 'Expelled' as an example of IDist propaganda to demonise those that accept evolution or reject god (with comparisons to Nazis and Stalinists etc).
I find it most repugnant when it occurs emanating from the Creationists as much as I do from Science and I find it most repugnant when that dogma emanates from Atheists, whom I consider just another form of Religion.
Could you explain what you had in mind when you thought of the repugnancy of the demonisation engaged in by science or atheists?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by jchardy, posted 02-24-2012 11:48 PM jchardy has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


(1)
Message 49 of 230 (653900)
02-25-2012 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by jchardy
02-24-2012 11:33 PM


Re: Blending? Intelligent Design should be just laughed at.
OK. This is precisely the kind of vitriol that is unhelpful.
I am a scientist who believes teleological principles MIGHT have led to and through the processes ending in where we are today. In my 50 years of searching, I have not found any evidence to absolutely rule out a "Designer" implicit in our existence. But I also don’t believe in magic. I believe in purpose as a POSSIBLE REASON for the evolution of the universe and life through 13.7 Billion years. It’s certainly true that that’s enough time for probability to do a lot, but the final answers are a long way away, and to deny everything based on bias and vitriol or repugnance is not the way of science and it should not be the way of faith either.
There should be an understanding that we (as humans) are all connected (if by nothing else, quantum entanglement), and we all have our puzzles we deal with in life and about this remarkable Universe and the peculiar and improbable location we find ourselves in it. If we don’t have those puzzlements, I, at least, think we should. We don’t have to believe in anything. We KNOW about the second law of thermodynamics; we KNOW about chaos theory and probability, and strange attractors etc. etc. etc. We KNOW about the horizon of the CMB which limits our view into the past of our universe so we can KNOW nothing past about 14 Billion years ago; we KNOW of the incredible SCALE we are dealing with in our universe of around 65 orders of magnitude (10 65 OR SO) from the exceedingly large to the exceedingly small, with us conveniently plunked right in the middle somewhere. That has always puzzled me. I have sought meaning and in doing so, I have sought explanation from Science. What I have found is that there are no clear explanations nor predictions and hugely more questions than answers AND, most bothersome I find are that technical walls we run into which we can never hope to breach to get all the information we need to clarify our need for answers. I find nothing offensive in anyone’s belief. I just choose not to reward STRANGENESS WITH ANGER. It is not productive, and furthermore, maybe some of these strange ideas are, in fact correct. Some of them at least.
JCH
What justifies practically every thing you say, and what proves false most everything the atheists are saying in this thread, is the ANGER and closed mindedness that is present from those who represent (or think they represent) mainstream science.
The understanding that you seek is impossible because of politics and emotion, nothing else. Why is EMOTION such a large part of science?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by jchardy, posted 02-24-2012 11:33 PM jchardy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Percy, posted 02-25-2012 12:07 PM marc9000 has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 50 of 230 (653902)
02-25-2012 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by jchardy
02-24-2012 11:59 PM


teleology and ID
I consider this the more important exchange in this discussion.
You replied to Panda, but I believe it was a reply to me. Anyway, thanks for the compliment.
I include the entire discussion component here with my responses bracketed by ***--***. It began with the statement:
That does make it difficult to read. Try reading this to learn how to make the formatting easier to read.
The affirmation of faith should never be a requirement if we are to communicate meaningfully. The key is to accept the fact that Science is and has been beneficial, but it does not negate faith.
I'm not sure what 'negate faith' means. Science does essentially conclude that faith is an insufficient reason to accept belief in something.
Faith should avoid interacting (and especially manipulating) the law to some end. Such interactions are destructive and counterproductive to us all
Sounds like you're a secularist.
A teleologist would say that every item may or may not have a rational purpose. The universe appears to operate to its own rhythm which we humans have attempted to define through science. Those attempts have provided us remarkable means to improve our existence, but the attempts themselves were really to satisfy our curiosity. In a way, purpose, was a spin off we call applied science. But it was our need to know, -- our curiosity about who we are; where we are; where we came from and where we are going --- that really spurred science in the first place. It all emanated from our remarkably creative biologic quantum computer — our brains interacting with our mind and — some would say — with our spirit or souls.***
That does not address the point you were quoting when you said it. That is:
quote:
And that is the main problem with teleological accounts: they assert the existence of a purpose-giver, but do not provide any evidence for the existence of said purpose-giver, or indeed what purpose they are even giving.
I (as a teleologist) am not offended, but it seems that teleology is at least as valid as any other discipline (including multiple components of science), --- most of them being unproven as absolute truth or fact.
All scientific knowledge is tentative and is thus 'unproven as absolute truth or fact'. The difference is that teleology has no supporting evidence for its defining feature: A purpose and a purpose giver.
Unlike with say, what we know about the respiratory system, or ant behaviour, or the mass of the moon. All tentative, all unproven as absolute truths.
Teleology is 'valid' (in the sense that all ideas are valid), but it isn't supported by evidence. And that's the essential claim of the ID movement: That teleology is supported by the evidence. And that is not true.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by jchardy, posted 02-24-2012 11:59 PM jchardy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by jchardy, posted 02-25-2012 3:30 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 51 of 230 (653903)
02-25-2012 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by lbm111
02-25-2012 5:05 AM


Re: purpose in science
when we look at human intelligence this is not the case. We just assume humans have this intrinsic property called "intelligence" - no evidence, no statistical control.
It isn't an intrinsic property, it is an emergent property derived from having a healthy brain. Not all humans have a healthy brain, and not all humans are intelligent. But there is significant evidence that humans, in general, are intelligent.
Obviously such papers could be published. There are many lively debates on all manner of topics. This is exactly my point it is not scientifically proven if there is room for lively debate.
Your point was that it was ludicrous to imagine someone publishing a paper that proves a hammer's purpose is to do x rather than y. My response that it was not ludicrous to imagine such papers being published
To answer your question: I also see no reason to suppose that the debate is intrinsically unsettlable. That is: After some debate, the length of the shaft, the heft of the weight point towards its use as a weapon for instance. It is then as proved as it is possible to be in scientific terms.
Scientifically proven, simply means 'has been argued about, and one point of view has won the argument based on reasoning and evidence'. It is perfectly reasonable to say that it can be scientifically proven that a hammer is for driving nails, that a heart's purpose is to pump blood etc. It might later transpire to wrong, but that's science for you - falsifiable.
Edited by Modulous, : rogue apostrophe execution squad now on standby.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by lbm111, posted 02-25-2012 5:05 AM lbm111 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by lbm111, posted 02-25-2012 2:08 PM Modulous has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 52 of 230 (653906)
02-25-2012 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by jchardy
02-24-2012 11:33 PM


Re: Blending? Intelligent Design should be just laughed at.
In my 50 years of searching, I have not found any evidence to absolutely rule out a "Designer" implicit in our existence.
Nor have you found evidence for this designer. Your religious belief is the only reason you even leave that option open. Can I assume you've not found evidence contrary to the existence of fairies as the reason for gravity so you leave that option open, right? Oh wait, that's not part of your religious belief so of course you don't leave that option open.
And yet you still wonder why ID and creationism are intertwined. They forever will be with IDists such as yourself.

"There is no refutation of Darwinian evolution in existence. If a refutation ever were to come about, it would come from a scientist, and not an idiot." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by jchardy, posted 02-24-2012 11:33 PM jchardy has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 53 of 230 (653910)
02-25-2012 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by marc9000
02-25-2012 11:24 AM


Re: Blending? Intelligent Design should be just laughed at.
marc9000 writes:
What justifies practically every thing you say, and what proves false most everything the atheists are saying in this thread, is the ANGER and closed mindedness that is present from those who represent (or think they represent) mainstream science.
The understanding that you seek is impossible because of politics and emotion, nothing else. Why is EMOTION such a large part of science?
If you think anyone in this thread is being inappropriately angry then you should bring it to the attention of moderators by posting to the Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 thread. It's not usually a good idea to appoint yourself moderator.
The idea that someone who becomes angry is wrong is, to understate the case, a bit of a stretch. If this were true then this video would be proof that Buzz Aldrin didn't land on the moon:
Unethical and/or immoral behavior (or in the case of the Aldrin video, also badgering behavior) does tend to draw an anger response from people. This is due to repugnance at dishonesty and immorality and has nothing to do with any scientific opinions someone might hold.
But none of this is the topic of the thread. If you have any factual or evidential positions concerning the thread's topic that you'd like to argue, you should focus on those.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by marc9000, posted 02-25-2012 11:24 AM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by marc9000, posted 02-25-2012 1:55 PM Percy has replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


(1)
Message 54 of 230 (653911)
02-25-2012 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by jchardy
02-25-2012 12:06 AM


JCH thanks for the reply.
I agree that Cephalopods are fascinating.
Thus, in spite of their intelligence, Cephalopods have not advanced since they have been structured at a creative (inventive) dead end.
Maybe I am reading your underlying meaning incorrectly, but you seem to be saying that intelligence, specifically Human intelligence, is the goal or purpose of life.
Why in the world would a species evolve this way?
Evolution can only work with what it has. There is no target or end point to evolution.
"Evolution is the change in the frequency distribution and composition of hereditary traits within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities." to quote RAZD.
Cephalopods are a highly diverse group with lots of species that exploit niches in almost every marine environment. Hardly an evolutionary deadend!
2) They are being kept protected (in an ocean environment) in reserve in case the intelligent bipeds (with thumbs) destroy themselves and a successor is required.
Ah, I see now. The designer designed us with a nuclear holocaust in our genes, which will get rid of us and cause a higher background radiation which will cause Cephalopods to have more mutations and to evolve to the next level and on upward to the top spot in creation.
-
... as you are new here, some posting tips:
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quotes are easy
also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.
For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer
If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0
It would also make your replies a lot more readable if you would put some blank lines or pargraphs in.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by jchardy, posted 02-25-2012 12:06 AM jchardy has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 55 of 230 (653920)
02-25-2012 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Percy
02-25-2012 12:07 PM


Re: Blending? Intelligent Design should be just laughed at.
If you think anyone in this thread is being inappropriately angry then you should bring it to the attention of moderators by posting to the Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 thread. It's not usually a good idea to appoint yourself moderator.
I used the term mainstream science, and science, and in no way referred to this thread in particular.
The idea that someone who becomes angry is wrong is, to understate the case, a bit of a stretch.
And I didn’t say or imply that in any way. Anger inhibits rational discussion — that is my point, and I suspect, a large part of the thread starters point.
Unethical and/or immoral behavior (or in the case of the Aldrin video, also badgering behavior) does tend to draw an anger response from people. This is due to repugnance at dishonesty and immorality and has nothing to do with any scientific opinions someone might hold.
Getting back to this thread, repugnance at dishonesty can go both ways. From message 6, we have this;
jar writes:
Until and unless those who are trying to market the con job absurdity called "Intelligent Design" actually present first the designer critter for examination and testing and second, the method/model used by that critter, Intelligent Design should be simply relegated to the same wastebasket
It’s repugnant to ID proponents that ID has to present this to become science, while evolution doesn’t have to present anything concerning the origins of life. Yet it’s obvious that a far higher percentage of ID proponents are capable of discussing it without vitriol, than are evolution proponents. A look at dozens of threads on these, as well as other scientific discussion forums, are proof of it.
Percy writes:
But none of this is the topic of the thread.
Exactly right — YOU are off topic, I am not.
If you have any factual or evidential positions concerning the thread's topic that you'd like to argue, you should focus on those.
I'll CONTINUE to do that, but I won't spend much time, as it's probably suspension time for me. This was in the opening post;
jchardy writes:
If all scientists and educated faithful can come to an understanding that each deserve to believe what they individually want to believe, rejecting nothing, -- including either’s concepts of possibility or probability; and in that process reject dogma,-- the vitriol will cease and a conversation can commence.
Come to an understanding, the anger that begins in the highest realms of the scientific community trickles down through education, websites like ‘talkorigins’ and ends up in just about any type of scientific discussion media, is a large reason that vitriol abounds in questions and challenges to the established paradigm in biology, a paradigm that is a long way from having all the answers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Percy, posted 02-25-2012 12:07 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Percy, posted 02-25-2012 2:07 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
jchardy
Member (Idle past 4400 days)
Posts: 85
Joined: 11-24-2008


(1)
Message 56 of 230 (653925)
02-25-2012 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by hooah212002
02-25-2012 7:57 AM


Re: DAWKINS IS A DRAG
Dear: hooah212002
I’m sorry I did not cover your other more salient points. I know that must have seemed insulting but I had 20 responses to keep up with. I’ll try and go back and review the piece that I missed the point of.
Again, my apologies for focusing on your signature item --- but you must admit, Dawkins loads any discussion about ID; even Teleologic ID, and it loads the piece with bias from the beginning, which was the reason I wrote my entry piece in this discussion.
JCH

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by hooah212002, posted 02-25-2012 7:57 AM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 57 of 230 (653926)
02-25-2012 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by marc9000
02-25-2012 1:55 PM


Re: Blending? Intelligent Design should be just laughed at.
Hi Marc,
I don't know why you think you're close to suspension. Apparently you do not think anyone in this thread is inappropriately angry, but if you did then there's a thread for that. If you think anger is on-topic for this thread, then I don't think that it is. And if you have on-topic comments to make, maybe you could begin making them soon.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by marc9000, posted 02-25-2012 1:55 PM marc9000 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Modulous, posted 02-25-2012 2:59 PM Percy has replied

  
lbm111
Member (Idle past 3926 days)
Posts: 32
Joined: 02-24-2012


Message 58 of 230 (653927)
02-25-2012 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Modulous
02-25-2012 11:44 AM


Re: purpose in science
yes now we are getting somewhere - so intelligence is an "emergent property". emergent as opposed to something intrinsic like say the chemical composition of the brain. We can observe and measure the chemical composition or a variety of other aspects of the human brain but we are not going to observe "intelligence" It is not something we measure. It is a supposition in our theories that we use to make our lives easier. A shorthand to explain behaviour that we don't yet have a complete neurological explanation for. until recently facial recognition would be seen as strong evidence of intelligence - now facebook can easily recognize faces!
going back to the hammer - a paper could be published detailing what the hammer was used for certainly. You could identify marks for example that indicated it was used to hit small iron objects such as nails, or look at the shaft, the heft or the weight. All of these are valid points but they do not prove the purpose of the hammer. They prove at best what the hammer was once used for. The purpose is an unwarranted hypothesis. Science should stick to the facts and say what the evidence shows happened otherwise you get in a position IDists can claim that the evidence shows things it doesn't.
Scientifically proven means that based on explicit premises, logical conclusions are deduced and verified via empirical data. If it is falsified later it must be because the premises are wrong or the data you have studied is shown to be a subset.
i.e newton is proven to be wrong by Einstein because one of the premises - that newton's theory holds in all cases - is in fact wrong when applied at relativistic speed

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Modulous, posted 02-25-2012 11:44 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Modulous, posted 02-25-2012 2:55 PM lbm111 has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 59 of 230 (653929)
02-25-2012 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by jchardy
02-24-2012 11:44 PM


Well sir. Unless you can prove to me that --- in this case --- one side is right and the other is wrong; I am entitled to my belief, and you to yours. Neither of us should demand the other relent other than to not interfere with the other's right to those beliefs,---- giant purple anteaters included. They are, after all, the most benign and useful of the insectivores.
No, no, giant green anteaters are benign and useful. The purple ones are bastards.
As to the main point of your post, I'm not sure that I see what it is. Is it a plea that we should simply stop having the argument? To agree not only to disagree, but not even to actually do that? Then I'm not sure that people will oblige you; and I'm not sure that they should. Every other question has only been resolved after debate; and I like it when people resolve questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by jchardy, posted 02-24-2012 11:44 PM jchardy has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 60 of 230 (653931)
02-25-2012 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by jchardy
02-25-2012 12:16 AM


Purpose in evolution --- like all such endeavors of nature and man --- is cluttered with vestigial components. "Shavings from the work bench" as it were — which some tails, appendices etc. most likely are. Cluttering of the evolutionary pathway are like breadcrumbs and (pardon my leap) — sort of messages from God. But they are also structures which can be accessed again in the future should they be needed. Perhaps we should be more reverent to vestigia. They likely have provided us and all animalia with latitude for survival through the eons. JCH
This is an interesting idea, but I can't think of a case where it's actually happened; where a vestige has come out of retirement to play a starring role. Can you think of any examples?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by jchardy, posted 02-25-2012 12:16 AM jchardy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024