You don't bring up any scientific papers in which you seize on a particular word or phrase that you believe supports some kind of anti-evolution or pro-ID position or conclusion that is clearly contradictory to what the authors intended or believe.
Based on this, one cannot use a fact an evo presents and consider it within an ID paradigm. That's unacceptable. I think you need to distinquish between conclusions based on a certain paradigm and facts or data. For example, here we clearly have some evos stating the theoritical common metazoan ancestor was much more complex genetically than people realized. They also clearly say genetic sequences for complex even human nerve systems are found in a simple species with no complex nerve system. Those are statements they consider factual although the gene sequences existing in a certain format is all we can is a hard fact. Everything else is an intepretation, but nevertheless, they consider the evidence supports their views.
Now, why should I not be able to discuss their findings within a teleological or ID paradigm? I am not misrepresenting them and suggesting they are IDers or anything. If you are saying it's improper to involve the papers and findings of evos in discussion, that seems quite bizarre to me.
Let's go a little further in thinking about the thread topic. Presumably you want people to talk of possible ways or facts that could be interpreted to suggest teleology, right?
However, you seem to want to deny any arguments from an ID perspective. There seems to be disconnect here. Of course, creationist and IDers are going to present creationist and ID arguments. If you think those arguments are nonsense and shouldn't be allowed a priori, what are you doing here?
QM and the anthropomorphic principle are quoted by scientists who are either Iders or favor teleology. You asked what sorts of things would suggest teleology, so how can you take what some evidence of what some very distinquished scientists think support teleology off the table? It doesn't make sense.
Now, Haeckel? I suppose there isn't any conceivable reason where haeckel is applicable to this thread.
Phyla, nested heirarchies, the Cambrian explosion? Of course they are ideas that will probably be brought up as they are areas IDers and teleologists so to speak would normally bring up.
On the other hand, if you would like to propose a potential research methodology or observation that could indicate teleology
I think I already did. For example, I would suggest more genetic testing to see if your idea, which I was just saying is already being done, of whether simple organisms developed greater complexity and evolution, if you accept common descent, occured via a "massive loss of genes" rather than adding genes. That's already being done, but you called it nonsense.
Secondly, I think considering anthropomorphic and QM principles, theory and experiments can shed a lot of light and is doing so.
Thirdly, I think though I did not mention this, that there might be some aspects within mathematics that indicate teleology. Tipler and Barrow appear to think so with some of their writings.
™ Version 4.2
