|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,481 Year: 3,738/9,624 Month: 609/974 Week: 222/276 Day: 62/34 Hour: 1/4 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is it intelligent to design evolvable species? | |||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Philip writes: On the other hand, unchecked randomness of mutations (or stellar entropy/evolution) might also behoove a cursing ID, that is, ID promoting universal decay, destruction, and outer darkness forever. of course, you forgot natural selection ... the other half of the equation.
Personally, I don't see how theistic evos can live with their fallacies. I'd rather be all atheistical-evo or all creo in my faith. I am assuming that you choose "all creo" based on your wording. I personally don't understand how YEC's (in particular) can live with the obvious contradictions between this belief and the observed facts of an old earth, nor how fundamentalist creos can live with the obvious contradictions between their faith and the observed facts of an old beginning of life from simple cells to the complex organisms that we see about us. but this is off topic. I do have to ask what fallacies? god created the world to be what it is. all science involves is understanding "what it is" and thus there is no conflict between any science and faith. on the other hand, presupposing a conflict where none exists is a logical fallacy. now, to bring this back to the topic (somewhat) -- this is also exactly the position that ID if properly pursued would take. the universe {as it is} is the evidence, and the better we understand it and all it's intricate workings, the better we can understand if we can see evidence of a creation. there is no predisposition for the basic concept of ID to reject any mechanism of any science, including any part of the science of evolution. ps - a priori is two words. enjoy we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
of course it is, and it is also intelligent to use a mechanism to select between specific evolved individuals to consolidate specific features.
ID properly pursued has no arguments with any science: science is a tool for understanding the universe understanding the universe fully and completely and honestly needs to be part of the process of determining whether design can truly be infered, rather than a child seeing patterns because he is looking through a kaleidoscope paradigm. It will be interesting to see if any bonafide IDists answer. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Not really, do you?
To me IDism is a specific faith, usually predicated on an incompletely formulated concept: the faith in the unknown god ... or gods ... or little green aliens acting as god ... or gods ... or little blue aliens acting as god ... etc etc etc but a faith in and of it's own. being an IDist means to forsake any previous faith or face irreconcilable conflicts (godalmighty = fallible green alien pretenders) or an incomplete acceptance of either faith we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
do you believe that it doesn't matter who did it?
do you believe that it could have been green aliens? do you believe that it could have been many designers?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
given those responses I would say no, you are not an IDist.
of course I also note that the actual results bear more kinship to design by committee than by a single entity ... that would explain a lot
I wouold expect to see greater variation at the most basic level, that some of the designers might have seen gravity as a repeller as opposed to attractor. you mean like dark matter and dark energy? we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
and that's without even getting to the pseudo-penises that the females have (in one of the rare but not uncommon female dominated species).
yeah looks like the hindend people were working in centimeters and the front end people were working in inches and the neck people were in feets. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
now there's a valid methodology and encompassing philosophy for raising children.
don't you have a challenge to answer? we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Philip writes: I'm aware of A PRIORI NS (micro-evolution) mechanisms. do you know what a priori or do you just throw words together to see what comes out? so you can tell the difference at the genetic level between "macro" and "micro" -- correct? or is that just another example of "micro" expanding until all evolution is covered under the {undefined, left "kind" of loose on purpose category of} "micro" evolution. what is the difference?
Hunt all you want for scientific mechanisms, its futile on the sub-atomic level to an argument from ignorance for more ignorance? enjoy we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
mike writes: A leftist just insulted my ignorance. or did I compliment it? neither. I said your argument was from ignorance and was for more ignorance. the 'argument from ignorance' is a logical fallacy. ignorance in and of itself is not an irredeemably bad thing: it can be cured with knowledge.
micro vs. macro is covered elsewhere and does not seem pertinent here. Let's keep this post from devolving into other disjointed topics then (a) find a topic where it is pertinent and we can discuss it there. may I suggest the {"Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism?} thread? see EvC Forum: "Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism? and (2) refrain from posting such disjointed pseudo-gibberish as appeared in your last post. you may find your ideas are clarified more by using the correct words (ie a priori does not apply to natural selection) enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
sigh.
Philip writes: If you really want to belabor that issue, please read what is already written and/or propose a new topic. obviously you didn't even bother to look at the topic I recommended for discussing the "micro\macro" issue. Let me recommend it again and suggest you look at the author: {"Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism?}see EvC Forum: "Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism? Then (perhaps) you won't be making foolish statements like that again (but I doubt it).
Who says A PRIORI doesn't apply to NS? umm... the definition of a priori?
a priori - adj 1: involving deductive reasoning from a general principle to a necessary effect; not supported by fact; "an a priori judgment" [ant: a posteriori] 2: based on hypothesis or theory rather than experiment adv : derived by logic, without observed facts [ant: a posteriori] or in other words, reaching your conclusions before the facts are in to support the formation of a hypothesis. Now support your contention that this applies to Natural Selection. Or is your only purpose to post whimsical statments that you wish were true? we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... multiplied by the supposed age of the earth (which I believe to be incorrect). Rather than address this issue on this thread (which is about ID) Please take your comments on this to the {Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part II.} thread at:http://EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part II. And we can discuss how you believe you can correct this matter. Enjoy. by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I personally believe macro-evolution to be false ... Even if a designer were only required for the first self-replicator, the complexity in anything that can self-replicate is enormous. But that enormous self-replication is evolution, "macro" and all, so you contradict yourself. ps - welcome to the fray. This message has been edited by RAZD, 10*16*2005 08:42 PM by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
It's self-replication (reproduction). You're dodging. If all life came from one self-replicating unit that has diversified to all the life forms that have been and are, there is no difference between that and evolution except possibly for the mechanism of the change from one life form to another. We know that mutation occurs and accounts for sufficient change to the replication process to create new life forms, you have accepted "micro" evolution, and hence mutation as a source of that change. We also know of no other mechanism to change existing life forms into new forms other than to change the DNA. That is all that is necessary. In fact if you look at the DNA - the record of all those changes - there is no distinction at any level that can distinguish "micro" DNA from "macro" DNA, thus there is no obstacle to "macro" other than time -- which is a different matter for a different thread - {Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part II.}http://EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part II. (And which has been mentioned before: you need to substantiate your claim on the problem with time or withdraw that from the argument, and in which case there is then no problem with evolution.)
(I think it would be a cell, but perhaps there's something less than a cell that could self-replicate) Less has already been demonstrated for self-replication. You can see some of this information on a new topic that has not been released yet (being worked into a column) at {Building Blocks of Life - Minimum Requirements?}http://EvC Forum: Building Blocks of Life - Minimum Requirements? You'll have to wait to discuss that (rather than tie up this ID thread with it).
... a designer is required. On what basis do you make this bare assertion? This is a science thread and that means giving evidence for your concepts, not just opinions. Enjoy. by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I don't believe that all life came from one self-replicating unit. I'm only saying that if it DID, then a creator would still be required for the self-replicating unit. If it did, the changes into the various species would also be miraculous, my point, however, was that the self-replicating unit is itself a work of increadible ingenuity. This amounts to nothing more than personal incredulity founded on lack of information and (thus groundless) speculation.
When time allows I will do my best to substantiate my belief that the world is not billions of years old In other words it is not important enought for you to substantiate your claims if you can continue to spout opinion and unsubstantiated speculation.
... so if we can just agree that the 99.999999% extinction is a theory based on the theory that the earth is old, rather than a fact based on actual fossils of extinct species Why would I want to agree to something that doesn't jibe with the facts? Just to have a polite pointless discussion? The age of the earth is based on much more than the fossil record, as is pointed out in the thread it seems you are afraid of tackling:Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part II. EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part II. These are age dating methods that count actual annual cycles, in manners that also record climate patterns and that correlate those climate patterns with the annual cycles. The more pertinent question is that, now that we have established that the earth is ~4.5 billion years old, and that life on it is ~3.7 billion years old, and that the numbers of fossils that we have only come from a small segment of the different strata from the ages of the earth and life, what then does that tell us about the fecundity of life?
The reason I find this hard to believe is because according to von Neumann, in order for any machine to self-replicate, it must also be able to self-diagnose and self-repair, so this would be a very complex machine that people are not capable of making. Why does von Neuman's opinion (whether about machines or anything) have any effect on the behavior of molecules? Where are you getting this information from?
There's also the question of the environment which would allow amino acids to come together. Oxygen would've destroyed the amino acids. But if there were no oxygen, there would be no ozone to shield the earth and the sun's rays would've destroyed life. So? We pretty much know that there was no oxygen atmosphere during the early stages of life. Cloud cover takes care of the rest. Things were different.
Then there's the problem of handedness. Let me quote Walt Brown here. Walt has nothing to say that is of any value, imho, because he has willingly used and perpetuated distorted and wrong information. This speaks to his personal credibility. This is appeal to authority, at best (a logical fallacy), one that is a bad authority, and not any real information. The question of "handedness" is an interesting question, but let me ask: if all the molecules were left-handed would this be a problem? Would it be any different? What we see is a preference for single-handedness in the molecules made by the living processes, the same single-handedness that the cell molecules have. A flip of the coin makes it right-handed, while another would have been left-handed. That's a 50-50 chance eh? There also seems to be a preference for handedness in the molecules that come from space (the delayed post, which I need to do some edit work on yet), so if these were crucial to the formation of life on this planet then that explains the handedness, handily.
P.S. my kids think you're cute Thanks. I think. by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
You're age of the earth thread is interesting, but just reading the first post will take awhile. You have to give me time. I'm not afraid of tackling anything. And I'll readily admit that I probably don't have good answers for everything. Just remember that it is important to your position re fossil evidence, and that without addressing this issue your position is questionable at best.
"The Scientific Alternative to Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory" by A.E. Wilder-Smith Ah. Not from evolutionary theory then. You realize that von Neuman was a theoretical mathematician that worked on game theory, right? And that he was likely discussing the Theory of Self Reproducing Automata - a self replicating computer {algorithm\machine} - and not biological or chemical reproduction? John von Neumann - Wikipedia"The term "von Neumann machine" also refers to self-replicating machines." more at: http://ei.cs.vt.edu/~history/VonNeumann.html This would amount to taking information out of context to apply it to areas where it does not apply, quote mining, and other distortions.
It most certainly would. Could you give me examples of this? The evidence is on other threads where Walt's ideas have been discussed. I belive one of the threads was {The predictions of Walt Brown}http://EvC Forum: The predictions of Walt Brown but I'll check further (while you work on the age of the earth). Take care of those {cute} kids eh? Enjoy. by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024