Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,906 Year: 4,163/9,624 Month: 1,034/974 Week: 361/286 Day: 4/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Vestigal Features: Why?
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1422 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 2 of 18 (61336)
10-17-2003 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Rei
10-17-2003 2:04 AM


A Reply from a Not So Intelligent Intelligent Design Creationist.
Rei,
I think you need to read Darwin's Black Box again, as I do quasi-religiously every summer. Evidence of poor design, redundant design, or the absence of design are not sufficient cause to abandon a design perspective. You're assuming that the Designer (whether God, other deities, cartoonists, extraterrestrials, or what have you) intended the design to be optimal, and your basis for that assumption is invalid. It would be just as valid (or moreso, since Behe said so) to assume that the Designer intended the design to be poor, redundant, or to have the appearance of having evolved. This is what makes Design such a powerful hypothesis. Useful? Works for me.
Remember, only IDC proponents are qualified to make judgments concerning how a Designer would design. And even we can't decide how a Designer wouldn't design. But when we do, we'll let you know. Maybe.
------------------
I would not let the chickens cross the antidote road because I was already hospitlized for trying to say this!-Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Rei, posted 10-17-2003 2:04 AM Rei has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Andya Primanda, posted 10-18-2003 3:29 AM MrHambre has replied
 Message 6 by lpetrich, posted 10-24-2003 3:06 AM MrHambre has not replied
 Message 7 by sidelined, posted 10-24-2003 9:49 AM MrHambre has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1422 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 5 of 18 (61484)
10-18-2003 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Andya Primanda
10-18-2003 3:29 AM


quote:
Wasn't his creation scenario like this: God created the ur-cell with every feature that would show up later in all kinds of creatures?
One of the major problems with this, ahem, hypothesis is that Behe's front-loaded 4-billion-year-old cell certainly couldn't have been a eukaryote cell. Clare Stevens (who calls Behe's scenario 'ludicrous') is quick to ask:
"If Behe's cell contained designs for all subsequent biochemistry,how come we Eukaryotes can't do all those clever things bacteria can do like 'fixing' Nitrogen or living off sulphur or crude oil? Perhaps the designer made a different cell for the bacteria or have we just failed to 'turn on' these systems?"
{added by edit:}
As you said, if this cell is not only the common ancestor of all life on earth, but already contained genes for all biological functions, wouldn't we expect to find vestiges in our genome of abilities (such as photosynthesis) that we no longer use?
------------------
The bear thought his son could talk in space about the time matter has to rotate but twisted heaven instead.
-Brad McFall
[This message has been edited by MrHambre, 10-18-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Andya Primanda, posted 10-18-2003 3:29 AM Andya Primanda 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