In what case? Where there is no intelligence, I would think if selection occurs we might rule out intelligence. But I don't know that there's a universal rule. Are you suggesting that natural selection was also intelligent selection? If you are a theistic evolutionist, I have no problem with this, but other than this, I would have to ask you where the intelligence came from.
I am not making any claim. All I am asking is how would one tell the difference? You came to the conclusion that the coin example was a case of intelligent selection. What objective test did you do in order to reach that conclusion that would apply to any instance of selection?
I don't know that it does. Shouldn't we be trying to confirm or falsify common ancestry?
I was under the impression that you considered this ridiculous when you said in
Message 153:
Darwinian magic: Elephants magically 'poof' out of amoebas; ape-like critters start giving birth to men in violation of the species definitions in science
Which first off is not what modern science considers common decent or the definition of species to be. If any was really advocating a literal adherance to the parody you described in that post then I agree that this would not be science. There are many definitions of species some of which cover not extant species so there is no violation of any definitions.
Species - Wikipedia
See in particular the definition of morphological species. Certainly where it is possible the stronger definition of biological species can be used but by no means is it an exhaustive definition or the only one used in science.
First, please clarify yourself and come to use these terms more precisely. When you speak of evolution of the inner ear, this just means a change over time in the inner ear not how it originated. Second, I don't even recall discussing the inner ear. Can you link me back??
Also you wrote in
Message 153:
reptiloid therapsids supernaturally shove their jaw-bones up into their ears and shoot etherally into mammals.
We have fossils of creatures who's jawbone has a function as a jaw bone and a sound wave receptor. Before them we have similar looking creatures with just a jaw bone. After them we have similar looking creatures that have the same jaw bone primarily as a sound receptor. Last we have similar looking creatures that have the same bone exclusivly as a sound receptor.
How is this not scientific to tentativily conclude that this is a transitional sequence as a result of decent with modification?
How would the mechanism for this sequence change its meaning if it was performed by Intelligent vs Natural Selection?
What test could I do to tell if this sequence of evolution was intelligently prescribed or a "devolution" as you would call it?
FOX has a pretty good system they have cooked up. 10 mil people watch the show on the network, FOX. Then 5 mil, different people, tune into FOX News to get outraged by it. I just hope that those good, God fearing people at FOX continue to battle those morally bankrupt people at FOX.
-- Lewis Black, The Daily Show