|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is it intelligent to design evolvable species? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Philip Member (Idle past 4751 days) Posts: 656 From: Albertville, AL, USA Joined: |
...And yes, I'm aware of A PRIORI NS (micro-evolution) mechanisms...
Just another personal hypothesis: Univeral/Global Mechanisms are not a sum of their atomic and sub-atomic mechanisms. Hunt all you want for scientific mechanisms, its futile on the sub-atomic level to
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mick Member (Idle past 5015 days) Posts: 913 Joined: |
the most intelligent thing might be to design animals that can evolve themselves. ie. voluntarily change their DNA sequences according to the environmental conditions under which they find themselves. If you have cancer, you just change the DNA sequence of the cells in your tumour, and cure yourself. If the forest that you live in is flooded, you just change the DNA sequence of your eggs or sperm to ensure that your offspring have gills.
It seems a bit risky to leave everything up to this random mutation business. In fact it seems spectacularly negligent on the part of the creator. mick
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Philip writes: I'm aware of A PRIORI NS (micro-evolution) mechanisms. do you know what a priori or do you just throw words together to see what comes out? so you can tell the difference at the genetic level between "macro" and "micro" -- correct? or is that just another example of "micro" expanding until all evolution is covered under the {undefined, left "kind" of loose on purpose category of} "micro" evolution. what is the difference?
Hunt all you want for scientific mechanisms, its futile on the sub-atomic level to an argument from ignorance for more ignorance? enjoy we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Philip Member (Idle past 4751 days) Posts: 656 From: Albertville, AL, USA Joined: |
Help me Adminshraf, I'm about to get squashed by a foot here:
A leftist just insulted my ignorance. Somebody here want to tell me what a 'quantum' really is? (...not the pseudo-scientific definition from the gramatically correct natural academy of science). No, didn't think so. What about 'photons', 'quarks'? Your pseudo-sientific def. is not enough. I'm afraid you'll have to invoke ID, sorry. (Note, micro vs. macro is covered elsewhere and does not seem pertinent here. Let's keep this post from devolving into other disjointed topics).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
mike writes: A leftist just insulted my ignorance. or did I compliment it? neither. I said your argument was from ignorance and was for more ignorance. the 'argument from ignorance' is a logical fallacy. ignorance in and of itself is not an irredeemably bad thing: it can be cured with knowledge.
micro vs. macro is covered elsewhere and does not seem pertinent here. Let's keep this post from devolving into other disjointed topics then (a) find a topic where it is pertinent and we can discuss it there. may I suggest the {"Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism?} thread? see EvC Forum: "Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism? and (2) refrain from posting such disjointed pseudo-gibberish as appeared in your last post. you may find your ideas are clarified more by using the correct words (ie a priori does not apply to natural selection) enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Philip Member (Idle past 4751 days) Posts: 656 From: Albertville, AL, USA Joined: |
Who says A PRIORI doesn't apply to NS?
...Razd? ...Your sheer quantity of posts? ...Your peers? ...the Natural Academy of Science-falsely-so-called? Again, "Micro vs. Macro" is discussed AD NAUSEUM (forgive the grammar) and seems covered pretty fully (by both sides). If you really want to belabor that issue, please read what is already written and/or propose a new topic. Please note this apparent fallacy of authority acting as if it were science itself. Peace
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
sigh.
Philip writes: If you really want to belabor that issue, please read what is already written and/or propose a new topic. obviously you didn't even bother to look at the topic I recommended for discussing the "micro\macro" issue. Let me recommend it again and suggest you look at the author: {"Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism?}see EvC Forum: "Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism? Then (perhaps) you won't be making foolish statements like that again (but I doubt it).
Who says A PRIORI doesn't apply to NS? umm... the definition of a priori?
a priori - adj 1: involving deductive reasoning from a general principle to a necessary effect; not supported by fact; "an a priori judgment" [ant: a posteriori] 2: based on hypothesis or theory rather than experiment adv : derived by logic, without observed facts [ant: a posteriori] or in other words, reaching your conclusions before the facts are in to support the formation of a hypothesis. Now support your contention that this applies to Natural Selection. Or is your only purpose to post whimsical statments that you wish were true? we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mick Member (Idle past 5015 days) Posts: 913 Joined: |
Hi Andya,
Andya writes: if I were to be asked for an evidence for Intelligent Design, I would say that evolvability is intelligent design. I assume that "evolvability" is the ability of a population to adapt to its environment. It is certainly possible to interpret evolvability as intelligent design. The spread of beneficial mutations throughout a population, for example, seems a very intelligent way of going about helping the population to survive. In fact it seems so wondrous that I can understand how somebody might think it must have been intelligently designed, so that it works. However there are plenty of other aspects of population genetics besides the spread of beneficial mutations. Many of these aspects do not seem as well designed as evolvability. One is the "founder effect". If a population is established from a very small number of colonists, and some of those colonists have deleterious mutations, it is quite likely that some deleterious mutations will be fixed in the population due to genetic drift. A good example is the high frequency of Huntingdon's disease in the caucasian population of South Africa. Because the caucasian population started out as a very small population, the bad allele was fixed in a relatively large number of human lineages. This situation looks much less intelligently designed than the evolvability that you are talking about. Phenomena such as the founder effect should make us think twice about suggesting that evolution itself is intelligently designed, or even well-designed. Cheers! Mick [edited by Mick to give appropriate topic title] This message has been edited by mick, 05-16-2005 01:21 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CreationWise Inactive Member |
I was listening to you guys debate and I remembered something Acreationist named Ken Ham said. And I quote: "A computer is one of the most intelligent machines in the world. But, how did it come into existence? Obviously man made it. Do you believe in that man? Do you believe he existed? of course you do. and it's the same thing with God. Man is the smartest thing alive. How did we get here? God made us. Do you believe in God? Do you believe he existef? Some people don't. But they won't allow themselves to look at or listen to the evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CreationWise Inactive Member |
I was listening to you guys debate and I remembered something Acreationist named Ken Ham said. And I quote: "A computer is one of the most intelligent machines in the world. But, how did it come into existence? Obviously man made it. Do you believe in that man? Do you believe he existed? of course you do. and it's the same thing with God. Man is the smartest thing alive. How did we get here? God made us. Do you believe in God? Do you believe he existef? Some people don't. But they won't allow themselves to look at or listen to the evidence. Also, Ya'll don't understand what evolution is. Evolution is this, millions of mutations change one thing into another. I don't think anyones ever seen a dog that was half turkey do you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CreationWise Inactive Member |
STUPID DOUBLE POSTS!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 7.6 |
Also, Ya'll don't understand what evolution is. Evolution is this, millions of mutations change one thing into another. I strongly disagree with "y'all." I propose that we DO understand evolution and its claims, and that it is you who are ignorant of the actual claims of the theory.
Evolution is this, millions of mutations change one thing into another. Close. Charles Darwin never once mentioned the word "mutation." Evolution describes the mechanism by which new species evolve from pre-existing species, through small generational changes that add up to large difference over many iterations, guided by natural selection. Not just random mutations.
I don't think anyones ever seen a dog that was half turkey do you? Certainly not, but this has nothing to do with evolution. No evolutionist predicts a half-and-half animal, a Chimaera. The idea of half-turkey, half-dog creatures, or half-man, half-turtles, is a popularized strawman of evolution. Popular media silyness like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and the X-Men, while certainly entertaining to their intended audiences, are by no means representative of evolution. Perhaps you should read up on the subject, instead of relying on TV and popular myths. Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5937 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
CreationWise
I remembered something Acreationist named Ken Ham said. And I quote: "A computer is one of the most intelligent machines in the world If Ken Ham thinks a computer is an intelligent machine then he has no clue as to what constitutes intelligence.
it's the same thing with God. Man is the smartest thing alive. How did we get here? God made us. Do you believe in God? Do you believe he existef? Some people don't. But they won't allow themselves to look at or listen to the evidence. Really? Care to back up your assertion with the evidence you are claiming that we may look and listen?
Also, Ya'll don't understand what evolution is. Evolution is this, millions of mutations change one thing into another. I don't think anyones ever seen a dog that was half turkey do you? Really? Would you care to explain how millions of mutations change one thing into another? Do you know what natural selection is? Genetic drift? Would you also care to bring to light an example anywhere in scientific research and theory on evolution which is consistent with your dog and half turkey example? I bet you have been spoon fed this bullshit from someone who is without a clue on the matter. Of course you could bring a rebuttal that is designed to put me in my place but I doubt you will make the attempt.This is too bad as I am feeling pretty chipper today. Patiently awaiting your abuse of critical thinking. But I realize now that these people were not in science; they didn’t understand it. They didn’t understand technology; they didn’t understand their time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5062 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
I was suprised to simply READ Weyl say so.
page 241 Philosophy of Mathematics and Natural Science
quote: The only think thing is that I persoanlly actually think inertia heritably. That took some time since Cornell but it did happen.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
I was listening to you guys debate and I remembered something Acreationist named Ken Ham said. And I quote: "A computer is one of the most intelligent machines in the world. But, how did it come into existence? Obviously man made it. Do you believe in that man? Do you believe he existed? of course you do. and it's the same thing with God. Man is the smartest thing alive. How did we get here? God made us. Do you believe in God? little bit of trivia, because i feel like sharing an anecdote. the first personal computer ever made was made at xerox's palo-alto research centre (parc). apple computer, really a techy club from phone-box nerds at the time, went and visited parc's dead-ended desktop computer program, and basically ripped them off for all they were worth. now, the second people to get into the market for personal computers -- and the first to actually call it by that name -- had their development center right here. by right here, i mean, i passed by it on the bus everyday going to high school. i live within ten miles of where the pc was first built. it was built within my lifetime, and lived here at the time. what's the point in tell you this? maybe we can infer design from something like a computer. maybe we can't. but let's say we can. why would this be a reasonable assumption? well, i know where the plant is. the existance of man and his designing ability is not a matter of faith, is it? we know man exists, and we know he builds things. we know what the things he builds looks like. we don't know, empirically, that god exists. so we can't start with that as a given. god's existance is a matter of faith -- and so faith, it turns out, is the cornerstone of intelligent design. it is now leap of faith to think that the first pc was built in my home town. i've seen pictures of the designers, used and taken apart pc's, drove past the site countless times... and people definitally exist. the same cannot be said for god.
But they won't allow themselves to look at or listen to the evidence. i find creationist have this problem. i suggest you stop balking at the idea and what you THINK it says, and actually research fields like geology, biology, and paleontology. the "evidence" most creationists have is basically pot shots taken at something they don't understand, using material they don't understand, and often generally twisted so far from accuracy and take so far out of context that its actual worth becomes next to nothing. for instance, i once saw a creationist try to justify dating problems by dating inclusions in lava floes. if they'd stopped for a second and thought about what the word "inclusion" meant, their point kind of disappears: of COURSE the inclusions are older.
Also, Ya'll don't understand what evolution is. Evolution is this, millions of mutations change one thing into another. I don't think anyones ever seen a dog that was half turkey do you? no, actually, ya'll don't understand what evolution is. a half-dog half turkey is not evolution. it's hybridization. it'd be a chimera, not a transitional form. if this is your SERIOUS objection to evolution, then you have nothing to worry about. not only does evolution not claim any such thing, but if such a thing were discovered it would probably rock the foundations on which the theory stands to the extent that it would be over turned. This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 08-31-2005 08:53 PM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024