RAZD writes:
There are no "intentional and systematic, teleological changes in genetic information."
To refute this, all you need to do is provide evidence of such change.
Any discussion of this without evidence will be taken as tacit admission that there is no evidence for "intentional and systematic, teleological changes in genetic information."
On the one hand, this is entirely sensible. I'm relatively unschooled in these matters, but I would expect that things like plant hybridization, animal husbandry, and the genetic engineering applied to various bacteria could all count as cases of "intentional, systematic, teleological changes in genetic information." People have the wherewithal to demonstrate changes of that sort.
On the other hand, cases of that sort are not the topic of discussion. For the cases that are on topic -- changes in genetic information that have occurred and are observable in nature without deliberate human intervention -- it's really not enough to say "show evidence of deliberate, purposeful change," because in saying that, you entail but do not specify a set of conditions for recognizing "deliberate, purposeful" behavior as such in observable processes. (That is, you beg the question of how to establish a basis of proof for externally directed causation in genetic change.)
I'm just a "junior member" here so far, but I've noticed some EvC threads that tried to explore this problem, along the lines of "what sort of evidence would it take to support a conclusion of intentional design in evolution?" Of course, none of these threads leads to a fully satisfying conclusion: no consensus is ever reached such that the ID-ists and non-D-ists agree on what sort of obtainable evidence is required, and a plan unfolds to seek out that evidence and settle the matter.
And of course, the basic difficulty is the inscrutability of any given "designer". There's no getting around the fact that we mere humans cannot know, with indisputable certainty, what the real purpose is, or even know which of the following is true: (a) all genetic changes are the purposeful work of a given designer, or (b) only some are purposeful, and the rest are mistakes / abominations / inconsequential to the designer / countermeasures from a "competing designer", etc. Both (a) and (b) (in all its variants) can be -- and have been -- used as arguments by those who simply cannot accept (for whatever reason) the complete absence of a designer. And all of these considerations are basically incompatible with the scientific method.
Viewed from the other perspective, the basic difficulty is that there really is no need for a designer, or even for any particular purpose (known or unknown) that is all-encompassing and yet only exists (is only definable) outside the physical system it's supposed to apply to. A properly empirical account of genetic change is based on principles that describe self-organizing, self-perpetuating, and eventually self-directing organisms that tend to have plenty of time to try things out and establish what sorts of patterns succeed best for propagation within a given set of circumstances -- and eventually, some of these organisms may get to work out a sense of purpose on their own.
So I'm sorry to say it, but the request for evidence quoted above is of no practical use. Either such evidence is ubiquitous and unassailable (for those who need a supernatural entity to assign meaning to their existence and who view themselves as beloved devotees of that entity), or else the very concept of such evidence is vacuous and unfounded (for those who consider a designer to be an unnecessary fabrication).
autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.
™ Version 4.2
