Spotting Beretta's "designer" {Now only 1 summation message per member}

Rabbits in the Precambrian would undermine the idea of evolution itself as an explanation for the origin of species, and therefore all evolutionary theories (Lamarckian, for example, as much as the modern theory).

I understand what you mean here, but I think you need to phrase it carefully, because in a sense, it exists. Micro-organisms are known to increase mutation rates in relation to stress, increasing their chances of producing a strain that might be able to cope.Also, genetic drift could, theoretically, produce the effect that you're describing.

quote:

---

Rabbits in the Precambrian would undermine the idea of evolution itself as an explanation for the origin of species, and therefore all evolutionary theories (Lamarckian, for example, as much as the modern theory).

---

Please explain how rabbits in the Precambrian would undermine the observations made in the last 100 years about evolution in progress.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Rabbits in the Precambrian were just Haldane's way of pointing out that evolution could be falsified. The observations made in the last 100 years about evolution in progress would stand, by definition (they're observations) but they could no longer be used to explain the history of life on earth.This is important. The fact that we never find evolutionary impossibilities is central to the role of the ToE as an explanatory theory not only for what's going on now, but for the entire history of life on earth (except for its genesis).

quote:

---

Rabbits in the Precambrian were just Haldane's way of pointing out that evolution could be falsified. The observations made in the last 100 years about evolution in progress would stand, by definition (they're observations) but they could no longer be used to explain the history of life on earth.

---

And that's what my point was. The ToE wouldn't be falsified, but our application of it to explain the history of life would need reworking. Either that or, and here's where the IDists' ears would perk up, we'd have to resort to some sort of supernatural explanation to resolve the inconsistency. In fact, while I don't mean to underestimate the impact that such a finding would have, if that were the only anomaly, I suspect that most scientists would spend a great deal of time looking for an alternate explanation before tossing everything we know about natural history into the dustbin.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

No, the theory would need reworking. A mechanism would have to be added, as genetic drift was, for example. In this case, it would be called "magic".But the point of rabbits in the Precambrian is to highlight what's wrong with the creationist way of looking at the fossil record. They point to its incompleteness, but the wrong incompleteness. They should be concerned about the missing fossils that would destroy the ToE. Those are the real gaps.In a sense, the evolution/creation debate discusses the fossil record the wrong way round. From a creationist point of view, there's absolutely no reason why we shouldn't find rabbits (or humans) in Precambrian rocks. With all the fossils dug up, there should be thousands that couldn't possibly be fitted into the evolutionary view, the nested hierarchies. Yet there are none.Omphalism or evolutionism? Which do you think explains this?Shall we have a vote on whether or not there's a deceiving designer?

quote:

---

Well, the conclusions that could be confidently drawn about the nature of the agent, whether it was intelligent or supernatural, would depend entirely on what we saw as an example of a structure that could not have developed by evolution. I'm sure that with a bit of imagination, any of us could describe a hypothetical discovery that would difficult, if not impossible, to explain without resorting to the intervention of an intelligent agent, supernatural or not.

---

I think that it bears repeating. We have no idea of what an unintelligent supernatural cause could NOT do, therefore we can never eliminate one through negative arguments.ID's reliance on negative argumentation is a major weakness, and one of the indications that ID is not trying to be scientific.

Very good point, Bluegenes.Would be nice to see an ID proponent make his or her case here...Beretta? Anyone? Bueller?Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

In all the essentially infinite number of tiny random to semi-random evolutionary "decisions" where more than one thing could have happened, God conceivably could have chosen and implemented a result. But there is no way of determining when and where God may have tweaked the direction.Analogy - Rolling two 6 sided dice a thousand times. Each roll will result in some total between 2 and 12. God may have chosen the result for any number of the rolls, from none to all of them. But there is now way to tell of any Godly influence.But what if all the rolls resulted in either 2 or 12, and the dice were provably not "loaded"? Especially if the results could be determined as being some binary code for a message? And Richard Dawkins and James Randi personally witnessed the event and recorded the results?Would Randi be giving out his million dollar prize?And yes, I don't know if this is on-topic or not.Moose

Me neither. Try rolling two di, and if it comes to a 2 or a 12, suspend yourself until you sober up.

I think we are agreeing , while just slightly missreading each other , to use yourexample .. when i talk about knowing about the designer i dont mean at the personal level .. like your Mr Nils Are Oritsland .. i mean knowing about the nature of the designer , just as you knew Nils Are Oritsland is a scientist , of good reputaion ,and is knowledgable in the field of thermoregulation of polar bears ...You would not have picked The complete works of Bach as a referance for your review on the thermoregulation of polar bears , it would be meaningless ...you pick some one because.." having read his materials and methods, I know exactly how each of his research papers was carried out"you understood the "designers" methods , reasoning ,aims ,goals .. and by that understanding could see how his research workes ,and explains .Moving on .. i do agree a designer could make use of evolution to carry forth the design .. but that does mean only the start conditions are set and it is then allowed to run .. this more smacks of a expriment-er than a designer .. unless he has magic hands to poke the direction of evolution , and activly drops rocks from space .

Personaly I believe if IDists want to find a label for their designer the process of evolution is the wrong place. Lets make the assumption that the "designer" has at least as much intelligence as we humans. In this case he/she/it would know of the mechanics of evolution and would use this natural ability to complete the work. Where they should focus their study is on how to "make" life in the first place. The origin of life will more likely prove how the designer did it, rather than how life advanced once it was already established. The problem lies in the assumption that we humans are as advanced as it gets, or the purpose of life in the first place. Ex: If we humans reach a point where we can seed the galaxy with DNA through the use of atonomus robots, than the very minimum for a designer is something at least as intelligent as ourselves.

Hello, Rueh. So, basically, you're saying what we've all been trying to say: they need to describe the mechanism for ID, the "materials and methods" of God's grand Creation experiment. To me, this seems like a no-brainer: its just a theistic way to describe the main thrust of science. It's like we've been given the "Results" section of God's paper (which is the universe in its current condition), and we've got to figure out the "Material and Methods" based on that.To us, part of the universe's "Materials and Methods" section has already been found: evolution by natural selection. To IDists, that's not the case. While many IDists accept the principle of natural selection, they do not see it as capable of "completing the work," as you say, of producing the vast diversity of life we have on Earth today. They believe that the universe needs more materials and methods than evolution can account for. So, they don’t necessarily agree that the mechanics of evolution were enough to “complete the work.”In a sense, every new major life-form ("baramin," as they like to say) that arises is another act of Creation, not a deep divergence in the tree of life. So, when they attack the process of evolution, they're attacking it for the very purpose you've brought up here: they believe they are studying how an intelligent designer “makes” life.

---

Darwin loves you.

quote:

---

In a sense, every new major life-form ("baramin," as they like to say) that arises is another act of Creation, not a deep divergence in the tree of life.

---

That thought process is majorly flawed however. They treat every fossil you find as entirely new with no thought as to what precided it or what came after it. It's basicaly like looking at a pile of grain and watching mice come out of the grain. Than by that observation concluding that every mouse was created new and whole from the grain. Where as we clearly can see they were there as a product of circumstance.
What I am trying to express is that you must first understand the process to make DNA from scratch, a process that currently aludes us but we may be able to understand as our technology and intellect develops. Once you understand how to create life where none existed before, or how to transplant life to a lifeless enviroment. Then and only then will we be able to see what is necesarry for a designer of life. Even if that designer is ourselves.

Great replies folks. Don't think I've disappeared - I just have little to add to what's been said at the moment.