|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 151 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is ID properly pursued? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Briterican Member (Idle past 2695 days) Posts: 340 Joined: |
Evolution through natural selection is a wonderful thing, which when given proper thought provides very elegant and satisfying explanations. We are looking for explanations here aren't we?
By what assumption do you say they were apparently finding food just fine. Their very existence is not sufficient evidence of this. And what about the falling from height example discussed above? That's got nothing to do with food.
I disagree. But regardless, symmetry is a basic element of embryology. Mutations with morphological results tend to manifest themselves with bilaterally (or radial) symmetry. I think you are forgetting entirely about embryology, which is crucial to understanding.
See above. Even a small fraction of an inch could make enough of a difference for natural selection to then play a role.
There are always "arms races" going on between competing species, whereby the evolutionary advantages gained by one are offset by the evolutionary advantages of another. The changes happen in unison and are driven by each other. Sometimes things work out as a more symbiotic relationship. Flowers have had a lot to do with the evolution of insects, but it could just as fairly be said that insects have had a lot to do with the evolution of flowers. I think you are trying to ask about the possibility that in one generation you might have a number of different phenotypical mutations that all arise at the same time. If it is even conceivable that this could happen, some mutatations would be selected for and flourish. Others would be selected against and vanish. There would be no point at which all other possible mutations are "on hold" while one develops.
Nobody ever said that the small advantage would trump all other advantages within the population. In most populations they would be competing against other species, not themselves. The small advantage wouldn't necessarily trump all possible adversaries' advantages, but it would be enough to lay the groundwork for natural selection to favour those bestowed with that advantage. If it had the "wrong" colour fur and was eaten by a predator (who might have missed it had it had had the "right" colour fur) then that zero point mutation doesn't get carried forward. Oops, sorry, kthxbai. When viewed against the vast backdrop of geological time, this possibility does not somehow rule out beneficial mutations taking hold. Besides, what exists now is not representative of the best possible results of evolution. It is just one of the many possible permutations. It could very well be that the unfortunate loss of a zero-point mutation has somehow denied us some further benefit.
Pass. I don't know the specific answer to this, but hope that another member will address it. All I can say is I'm not sure why you're concerned that a subsequent mutation directly benefits the previous one. Mutations that survive will invariably be beneficial to the groundwork laid by the previous ones, lest they wouldn't have survived.
Natural selection works on everything in concert. The complex interactions of these simultaneous and sometimes opposed selection factors is vividly demonstrated in sexual selection, where mutations that would have been selected against for valid reasons relating to survivability instead thrive and flourish for no reason other than their "attractiveness" to the opposite sex (it's usually the females who do the selecting).
Nope. Again this is all happening at the same time. I mean honestly, would you really think that just because a mutation arose that helped in terms of hiding from predators, suddenly everything else going on in the creatures ecosystem is put on hold?
See above. If so, adios mutation (in that instance anyway).
This is probably a good argument for why many creatures give birth to litters: Redundancy in case one gets "carried off by an eagle".
As mentioned above, the evolution of prototype wings can be observed in many creatures. Using frogs as an example, you have frogs with no sort of prototype wings and no leg flaps or anything. You've then got various species that demonstrate the intermediate stages all the way up to Wallace's Flying Frogs (Rhacophorus nigropalmatus).
Yes I believe you could, but your points are neither "logical" nor "difficulties".
Please provide us with specific examples of what "difficulties" you think we are sweeping aside? The points mentioned above have relatively simple explanations and do not present the theory of evolution with any real difficulties.
Again as I said in another thread, science is a work in progress. Just because scientists can't account for everything with exacting precision does not mean there is not a naturalistic explanation waiting to be found, one that will piggyback nicely onto what we've already learned. Supernatural/religious/pseudoscience "answers" generate more questions than answers, in an infinitely regressing series of "turtles all the way down".
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Briterican Member (Idle past 2695 days) Posts: 340 Joined: |
Thank you for bringing the gene pool into it, an important point.
I'm still trying to "get my head around" some of the deeper elements of the theory of evolution, but I can't help but feel that there is a core element that BD is missing, which is that individuals don't evolve - populations do.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Briterican Member (Idle past 2695 days) Posts: 340 Joined: |
You are just ranting now, which is probably why you've been suspended. Each time you post, you further reveal your irrational, illogical approaches to these issues.
Enjoy your suspension.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Briterican Member (Idle past 2695 days) Posts: 340 Joined: |
Thank you. And thanks for the link about the "wedge strategy". All the more reason to be wary of ID. Despite the disagreements we may have on some topics, I always find your posts useful, relevant and content rich. As to the topic: Is ID properly pursued? My problem with this is that "pursuing ID" is like coming to a conclusion (things were designed by some intelligent agent) without evidence first, and then looking for evidence that might support that conclusion. Now that may not always be a bad strategy, but when the evidence doesn't point to the idea you started with, you need to be prepared to rethink that idea. In the case of ID, I have not yet heard of any research that even in the slightest way points to an intelligent agent having designed things. As we have seen many times before in many threads, "irreducible complexity" is hogwash. Meanwhile there is a theory that provides for slow gradual change (ToE) which can explain the things that creationists call "intelligently designed".
If only more deists/theists took such a reasonable approach and used words like "skeptical but open mind" and "discarding religious preconceptions". My only qualm with this relates to my comment above, in that in order to have a "proper pursuit of the question of design", you have to first accept that things were designed, lest there is nothing to pursue. So in a way, this is still holding onto a preconceived notion (a creator). I think we should pursue the evidence and let it take us where it may. On first glance many things may appear designed, but we have learned that a remarkable appearance of design can come about in things that were nonetheless a result of naturalistic processes which did not rely on the direction of an intelligent agent. So to answer the question posed in the original post - "Is ID being properly pursued?" - I would say that the possibilty of intelligent design is being pursued every day in every bit of work that biologists do, whether they realise it or not: In other words, they are looking for evidence that will provide explanations of how things came to be the way they are - and they are finding evidence of naturalistic origins and a complete lack of evidence of any divine intervention. Edited by Briterican, : Changed "non-atheists" to "deists/theists". Edited by Briterican, : Message subtitle change.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Briterican Member (Idle past 2695 days) Posts: 340 Joined: |
Sorry to hear that, and I wish you the best.
I've seen this thread in bits and pieces. Perhaps it's time for me to review the entire thing.
I like the way you've phrased this statement. I would add that because philosophy brings with it logic and reason, it is better equipped to pick up where science leaves off than is religion. Take care!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021