|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Defence of Intelligent Design | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Darwin's Terrier Inactive Member |
Okay Bran, you may try to defend it if you wish. Once you’re done with your paper, bring it here and I’ll discuss it further. But for now, just so you know...
Whatever wrote:
different kinds of creatures have perfect design, And plenty more do not. Many have wasteful, dangerous, pointless, inefficient and/or utterly stupid designs. So define ‘perfection’.
all the different kinds of creatures came onto the fossil record fully formed (evidence of design)
Wrong. Mammals do not appear fully formed; nor do tetrapods; nor do humans. So define ‘kinds’.
and have since evolved because God made all his creatures male and female, to be a sharing of genes,
Again, hogwash. Apart from it ignoring half a dozen other Kingdoms, there are plenty of hermaphrodite, asexual etc animals. And you see here why defining ‘kinds’ is crucial: how much evolution is allowed?
and by natural selection(survival of the fittest), which they call micro-evolution,
Yet again, what’s a ‘kind’? Is it microevolution when an ape lineage ends up as a human? When a lineage of fishes becomes an amphibian? Because we have literally masses of evidence for these transitions.
no evidence of any new genes
Wrong. Define ‘new gene’...
or chromosomes coming onto the scene,
Wrong. Define ‘new chromosome’...
only copies, mutated copies, but only copies,
Just as evolution predicts! But if a new function is acquired by copying and mutation (eg the gaining of an antifreeze glycoprotein by antarctic notothenioid fish; the ability of bacteria to digest nylon, a substance never found in nature till recently)... if a new single chromosome can be formed by a mutation that fuses two chromosomes together (as in the human lineage, where our chromosome 2 is a fusion of the equivalent 2p and 2q of chimpanzees)... if such apparently new genes and chromosomes can be produced by copying and mutation, we’ll need a definitions of ‘new gene’ and ‘new chromosome’ too, so we can see why these things aren’t ‘new’.
no evidence to suggest life is able to design all the different evidences of design,
Come again? What designed what? The mechanism is perfectly capable of producing apparent designs.
no evidence that the theory of evolution answers the question of origin
Which it never intended to. Here, look: I’m an ‘evolutionist’, and I am delighted to tell you that you may have god(s) invent the first replicators. Got that? Some god or other can start it all off, if you want. There. Feel better? Evolution is what you get, automatically and inevitably, once you’ve got replicators. They can originate in any way you like, as far as evolution’s concerned. So I don’t know whether your point is a straw man, or just plain irrelevant. There is, however, evidence behind the researches into abiogenesis. And though it’s still sketchy, no designer seems necessary. What’s certain is that no designer is required for all the stuff we normally marvel at. At least, if there was a designer, it is an incorrigibly stupid one.
the reason evolutionists are continually looking for missing links
Are we? Well I suppose you could put it like that. But the thing is, we have found loads of them already. The gaps keep getting smaller. We keep finding fossils of organisms that creationists would have us believe are impossible. Again, we need to know what a ‘kind’ is. The reason we’re continually looking for missing links is that it’s nice to know more details. But what we have already amply demonstrates evolution.
is that the theory of evolution has no evidence that the creatures didn't come onto the scene fully formed,
Define ‘kind’. Did mammals or tetrapods come on the scene fully formed? NO, THEY DID NOT.
so they are forced to pretend the theory of evolution isn't concerned about origin,
Drivel. Evolution is completely concerned with origin: with the origin all living and extinct species. The origin it does not explain, was never intended to explain... which evolutionary biologists may be interested in, but which is mostly irrelevant to them... that origin is the origin of life from non-life. If evolution is pretending it’s not concerned with origins (except as noted), how come there can be papers such as, for instance, Romer’s gap: tetrapod origins and terrestriality? (Note: Romer’s gap has been filled.)
or design,
Again, wrong. As an ‘evolutionist’, I for one am interested in biological designs. So are anatomists, physiologists, cytologists... biologists in general. My own interest is in designs such as the human coccyx, wings that cannot work on ground-dwelling beetles, genes for making teeth in birds, and so on. Far from pretend[ing] the theory of evolution isn't concerned about design, it is the best explanation I’ve seen for it. Certainly better than the alternative, a clumsy, blundering half-witted and totally unevinced supernatural designer. (Heehee, I just mistyped it as deisigner -- perhaps more appropriate! )
which of course its this design evident in the creatures themselves
Uh-huh. Designs like these? This website is frozen.
that make it time to replace the theory of evolution with the theory of Intelligent design.
You would replace it with a theory that postulates a designer who’d design baleen whales to have teeth and hind limbs as embryos, then reabsorb them? A designer that gave non-feeding insect adults (eg mayflies) useless mouthparts? That’s an improvement?!
Just a few examples of design, etc...
Yeah, see my link above for Some More of God’s Greatest Mistakes... Note, too, that most of whatever’s arguments are against evolution, not for intelligent design. Let’s hear some arguments for it, please. TTFN, Oolon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Darwin's Terrier Inactive Member |
No, not whether you understand it, but what you understand by the term.
How can we answer you, if we don't know what you yourself mean by the term? If we were to simply go with the usual meanings, we may not be providing what you're looking for. Cheers, DT
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Darwin's Terrier Inactive Member |
I like this article on how the whales ribs collapsed because there "designed", to collapse so they are able to dive to the bottom of the ocean, etc... Hah! And this demonstrates what, exactly? Are you claiming this is irreducibly complex, perhaps? How is it inexplicable via evolution? Since when was evolution unable to explain good designs? Okay, if you want to talk whales, please explain via intelligent design:
... and so on.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Darwin's Terrier Inactive Member |
I was under the impression that the reason insects cannot grow really big is because of their respiratory system. Spiracles, tubing etc, leading to diffusion at the ends. There's a practical upper linit to the length of functional tubing possible, and so to the size the critter can be.
But that's A Level biology from 1986, so I might be wrong... DT
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Darwin's Terrier Inactive Member |
S/he is easy to ignore (most of the time) because the posts are so obviously stupid. As Barry Cryer said on Radio 4 the other day (ref Kilroy): "He makes points that are hard to ignore, but it's worth the effort."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Darwin's Terrier Inactive Member |
Yes I have heard about the domestic and wild horses but they were still horses. Interesting. What kind are zebras, quaggas, asses and, say, Pliohippus? DT
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024