Is it intelligent to design evolvable species?

of course, you forgot natural selection ... the other half of the equation. 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}}}

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 universeunderstanding 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}}}

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 etcbut 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}}}

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?

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 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}}}

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}}}

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}}}

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? 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}}}

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. 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}}}

sigh. 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). umm... the definition of a priori? 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}}}

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.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

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

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

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.) 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). 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.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This amounts to nothing more than personal incredulity founded on lack of information and (thus groundless) speculation. In other words it is not important enought for you to substantiate your claims if you can continue to spout opinion and unsubstantiated speculation. 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? 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? 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. 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. Thanks. I think.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Just remember that it is important to your position re fossil evidence, and that without addressing this issue your position is questionable at best. 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.htmlThis would amount to taking information out of context to apply it to areas where it does not apply, quote mining, and other distortions. 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 Brownbut I'll check further (while you work on the age of the earth).Take care of those {cute} kids eh?Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.