Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
9 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is it intelligent to design evolvable species?
Philip
Member (Idle past 4722 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 31 of 96 (203352)
04-28-2005 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by RAZD
04-15-2005 10:38 PM


Mechanisms
...And yes, I'm aware of A PRIORI NS (micro-evolution) mechanisms...
Just another personal hypothesis:
Univeral/Global Mechanisms are not a sum of their atomic and sub-atomic mechanisms.
Hunt all you want for scientific mechanisms, its futile on the sub-atomic level to

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 04-15-2005 10:38 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by RAZD, posted 04-28-2005 9:56 PM Philip has replied

  
mick
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 32 of 96 (203379)
04-28-2005 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Andya Primanda
04-15-2005 9:30 AM


the most intelligent thing might be to design animals that can evolve themselves. ie. voluntarily change their DNA sequences according to the environmental conditions under which they find themselves. If you have cancer, you just change the DNA sequence of the cells in your tumour, and cure yourself. If the forest that you live in is flooded, you just change the DNA sequence of your eggs or sperm to ensure that your offspring have gills.
It seems a bit risky to leave everything up to this random mutation business. In fact it seems spectacularly negligent on the part of the creator.
mick

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Andya Primanda, posted 04-15-2005 9:30 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 33 of 96 (203513)
04-28-2005 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Philip
04-28-2005 11:26 AM


Re: Mechanisms
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}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Philip, posted 04-28-2005 11:26 AM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Philip, posted 04-29-2005 11:35 AM RAZD has replied

  
Philip
Member (Idle past 4722 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 34 of 96 (203643)
04-29-2005 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by RAZD
04-28-2005 9:56 PM


Re: Mechanisms
Help me Adminshraf, I'm about to get squashed by a foot here:
A leftist just insulted my ignorance.
Somebody here want to tell me what a 'quantum' really is? (...not the pseudo-scientific definition from the gramatically correct natural academy of science). No, didn't think so. What about 'photons', 'quarks'? Your pseudo-sientific def. is not enough. I'm afraid you'll have to invoke ID, sorry.
(Note, micro vs. macro is covered elsewhere and does not seem pertinent here. Let's keep this post from devolving into other disjointed topics).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by RAZD, posted 04-28-2005 9:56 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by RAZD, posted 04-29-2005 12:24 PM Philip has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 35 of 96 (203662)
04-29-2005 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Philip
04-29-2005 11:35 AM


Re: Mechanisms
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}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Philip, posted 04-29-2005 11:35 AM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Philip, posted 04-29-2005 1:53 PM RAZD has replied

  
Philip
Member (Idle past 4722 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 36 of 96 (203690)
04-29-2005 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by RAZD
04-29-2005 12:24 PM


Re: Mechanisms
Who says A PRIORI doesn't apply to NS?
...Razd? ...Your sheer quantity of posts? ...Your peers? ...the Natural Academy of Science-falsely-so-called?
Again, "Micro vs. Macro" is discussed AD NAUSEUM (forgive the grammar) and seems covered pretty fully (by both sides). If you really want to belabor that issue, please read what is already written and/or propose a new topic.
Please note this apparent fallacy of authority acting as if it were science itself.
Peace

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by RAZD, posted 04-29-2005 12:24 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by RAZD, posted 04-29-2005 6:38 PM Philip has not replied
 Message 44 by Brad McFall, posted 08-31-2005 4:10 PM Philip has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 37 of 96 (203788)
04-29-2005 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Philip
04-29-2005 1:53 PM


Re: Mechanisms
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}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Philip, posted 04-29-2005 1:53 PM Philip has not replied

  
mick
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 38 of 96 (208666)
05-16-2005 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Andya Primanda
04-17-2005 9:14 AM


founder effect isn't intelligently designed
Hi Andya,
Andya writes:
if I were to be asked for an evidence for Intelligent Design, I would say that evolvability is intelligent design.
I assume that "evolvability" is the ability of a population to adapt to its environment. It is certainly possible to interpret evolvability as intelligent design. The spread of beneficial mutations throughout a population, for example, seems a very intelligent way of going about helping the population to survive. In fact it seems so wondrous that I can understand how somebody might think it must have been intelligently designed, so that it works.
However there are plenty of other aspects of population genetics besides the spread of beneficial mutations. Many of these aspects do not seem as well designed as evolvability.
One is the "founder effect". If a population is established from a very small number of colonists, and some of those colonists have deleterious mutations, it is quite likely that some deleterious mutations will be fixed in the population due to genetic drift. A good example is the high frequency of Huntingdon's disease in the caucasian population of South Africa. Because the caucasian population started out as a very small population, the bad allele was fixed in a relatively large number of human lineages. This situation looks much less intelligently designed than the evolvability that you are talking about.
Phenomena such as the founder effect should make us think twice about suggesting that evolution itself is intelligently designed, or even well-designed.
Cheers!
Mick
[edited by Mick to give appropriate topic title]
This message has been edited by mick, 05-16-2005 01:21 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Andya Primanda, posted 04-17-2005 9:14 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

  
CreationWise
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 96 (239040)
08-31-2005 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by arachnophilia
04-15-2005 5:00 PM


How is that possible?
I was listening to you guys debate and I remembered something Acreationist named Ken Ham said. And I quote: "A computer is one of the most intelligent machines in the world. But, how did it come into existence? Obviously man made it. Do you believe in that man? Do you believe he existed? of course you do. and it's the same thing with God. Man is the smartest thing alive. How did we get here? God made us. Do you believe in God? Do you believe he existef? Some people don't. But they won't allow themselves to look at or listen to the evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by arachnophilia, posted 04-15-2005 5:00 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
CreationWise
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 96 (239041)
08-31-2005 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by arachnophilia
04-15-2005 5:00 PM


How is that possible?
I was listening to you guys debate and I remembered something Acreationist named Ken Ham said. And I quote: "A computer is one of the most intelligent machines in the world. But, how did it come into existence? Obviously man made it. Do you believe in that man? Do you believe he existed? of course you do. and it's the same thing with God. Man is the smartest thing alive. How did we get here? God made us. Do you believe in God? Do you believe he existef? Some people don't. But they won't allow themselves to look at or listen to the evidence. Also, Ya'll don't understand what evolution is. Evolution is this, millions of mutations change one thing into another. I don't think anyones ever seen a dog that was half turkey do you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by arachnophilia, posted 04-15-2005 5:00 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by CreationWise, posted 08-31-2005 2:24 PM CreationWise has not replied
 Message 42 by Rahvin, posted 08-31-2005 2:52 PM CreationWise has not replied
 Message 43 by sidelined, posted 08-31-2005 3:00 PM CreationWise has not replied
 Message 45 by arachnophilia, posted 08-31-2005 8:49 PM CreationWise has not replied

  
CreationWise
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 96 (239043)
08-31-2005 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by CreationWise
08-31-2005 2:24 PM


STUPID DOUBLE POSTS!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by CreationWise, posted 08-31-2005 2:24 PM CreationWise has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 42 of 96 (239049)
08-31-2005 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by CreationWise
08-31-2005 2:24 PM


Re: How is that possible?
Also, Ya'll don't understand what evolution is. Evolution is this, millions of mutations change one thing into another.
I strongly disagree with "y'all." I propose that we DO understand evolution and its claims, and that it is you who are ignorant of the actual claims of the theory.
Evolution is this, millions of mutations change one thing into another.
Close. Charles Darwin never once mentioned the word "mutation." Evolution describes the mechanism by which new species evolve from pre-existing species, through small generational changes that add up to large difference over many iterations, guided by natural selection. Not just random mutations.
I don't think anyones ever seen a dog that was half turkey do you?
Certainly not, but this has nothing to do with evolution. No evolutionist predicts a half-and-half animal, a Chimaera. The idea of half-turkey, half-dog creatures, or half-man, half-turtles, is a popularized strawman of evolution. Popular media silyness like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and the X-Men, while certainly entertaining to their intended audiences, are by no means representative of evolution.
Perhaps you should read up on the subject, instead of relying on TV and popular myths.

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by CreationWise, posted 08-31-2005 2:24 PM CreationWise has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 43 of 96 (239053)
08-31-2005 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by CreationWise
08-31-2005 2:24 PM


Re: How is that possible?
CreationWise
I remembered something Acreationist named Ken Ham said. And I quote: "A computer is one of the most intelligent machines in the world
If Ken Ham thinks a computer is an intelligent machine then he has no clue as to what constitutes intelligence.
it's the same thing with God. Man is the smartest thing alive. How did we get here? God made us. Do you believe in God? Do you believe he existef? Some people don't. But they won't allow themselves to look at or listen to the evidence.
Really? Care to back up your assertion with the evidence you are claiming that we may look and listen?
Also, Ya'll don't understand what evolution is. Evolution is this, millions of mutations change one thing into another. I don't think anyones ever seen a dog that was half turkey do you?
Really? Would you care to explain how millions of mutations change one thing into another? Do you know what natural selection is? Genetic drift? Would you also care to bring to light an example anywhere in scientific research and theory on evolution which is consistent with your dog and half turkey example? I bet you have been spoon fed this bullshit from someone who is without a clue on the matter.
Of course you could bring a rebuttal that is designed to put me in my place but I doubt you will make the attempt.This is too bad as I am feeling pretty chipper today.
Patiently awaiting your abuse of critical thinking.

But I realize now that these people were not in science; they didn’t understand it. They didn’t understand technology; they didn’t understand their time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by CreationWise, posted 08-31-2005 2:24 PM CreationWise has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by arachnophilia, posted 08-31-2005 8:54 PM sidelined has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 44 of 96 (239104)
08-31-2005 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Philip
04-29-2005 1:53 PM


Re: Mechanisms
I was suprised to simply READ Weyl say so.
page 241 Philosophy of Mathematics and Natural Science
quote:
The development of two organisms may run a different course, owing to 'external circumstances', even if they are of the same genetic constitution (have the same germ plasm or are of the sam genotype, in Weismann's and Johannsen's terminologies). This duality of constitution and environment, 'nature and nurture', is basic for our interpretation of the facts of inheritance. It may be called an a priori conception like the somewhat similar duality of inertia and force in mechanics.
The only think thing is that I persoanlly actually think inertia heritably. That took some time since Cornell but it did happen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Philip, posted 04-29-2005 1:53 PM Philip has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 45 of 96 (239240)
08-31-2005 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by CreationWise
08-31-2005 2:24 PM


Re: How is that possible?
I was listening to you guys debate and I remembered something Acreationist named Ken Ham said. And I quote: "A computer is one of the most intelligent machines in the world. But, how did it come into existence? Obviously man made it. Do you believe in that man? Do you believe he existed? of course you do. and it's the same thing with God. Man is the smartest thing alive. How did we get here? God made us. Do you believe in God?
little bit of trivia, because i feel like sharing an anecdote. the first personal computer ever made was made at xerox's palo-alto research centre (parc). apple computer, really a techy club from phone-box nerds at the time, went and visited parc's dead-ended desktop computer program, and basically ripped them off for all they were worth.
now, the second people to get into the market for personal computers -- and the first to actually call it by that name -- had their development center right here. by right here, i mean, i passed by it on the bus everyday going to high school. i live within ten miles of where the pc was first built. it was built within my lifetime, and lived here at the time.
what's the point in tell you this?
maybe we can infer design from something like a computer. maybe we can't. but let's say we can. why would this be a reasonable assumption? well, i know where the plant is. the existance of man and his designing ability is not a matter of faith, is it? we know man exists, and we know he builds things. we know what the things he builds looks like.
we don't know, empirically, that god exists. so we can't start with that as a given. god's existance is a matter of faith -- and so faith, it turns out, is the cornerstone of intelligent design.
it is now leap of faith to think that the first pc was built in my home town. i've seen pictures of the designers, used and taken apart pc's, drove past the site countless times... and people definitally exist. the same cannot be said for god.
But they won't allow themselves to look at or listen to the evidence.
i find creationist have this problem. i suggest you stop balking at the idea and what you THINK it says, and actually research fields like geology, biology, and paleontology. the "evidence" most creationists have is basically pot shots taken at something they don't understand, using material they don't understand, and often generally twisted so far from accuracy and take so far out of context that its actual worth becomes next to nothing.
for instance, i once saw a creationist try to justify dating problems by dating inclusions in lava floes. if they'd stopped for a second and thought about what the word "inclusion" meant, their point kind of disappears: of COURSE the inclusions are older.
Also, Ya'll don't understand what evolution is. Evolution is this, millions of mutations change one thing into another. I don't think anyones ever seen a dog that was half turkey do you?
no, actually, ya'll don't understand what evolution is. a half-dog half turkey is not evolution. it's hybridization. it'd be a chimera, not a transitional form. if this is your SERIOUS objection to evolution, then you have nothing to worry about. not only does evolution not claim any such thing, but if such a thing were discovered it would probably rock the foundations on which the theory stands to the extent that it would be over turned.
This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 08-31-2005 08:53 PM

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by CreationWise, posted 08-31-2005 2:24 PM CreationWise has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Brad McFall, posted 09-01-2005 7:19 AM arachnophilia 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