Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9032 total)
41 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 40 visitors)
Newest Member: robertleva
Post Volume: Total: 884,809 Year: 2,455/14,102 Month: 120/703 Week: 99/272 Day: 0/34 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3839
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001


Message 91 of 294 (847380)
01-21-2019 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by WookieeB
01-21-2019 7:14 PM


What is "design"?
That is a pretty broad definition of evolution. If it is simply change over generations, I don't think anyone would disagree with it, including Porkncheese. With that definition, design would apply as equally as M+NS or any other proposed material process.

As I see it, "intelligent design" is just another way of saying "theistic evolution". And apparently the "design" is God doing some genetic engineering (aka guiding evolution to some degree). Now, the question is, how does one tell the difference between a Godly genetic tweak and a non-Godly random mutation?

As I recall, Michael Behe (one of the big guns of "intelligent design") is a big believer in the bulk of mainstream biological evolutionary theory. He just thinks that God had his fingers in the operation in some subtle way.

Bottom line - "Design" is at best an undetected and probably undetectable detail in standard biological evolutionary theory.

God, the genetic engineer (or something like that).

Moose

Edited by Minnemooseus, : Fix typo.


Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.

"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

"Yesterday on Fox News, commentator Glenn Beck said that he believes President Obama is a racist. To be fair, every time you watch Glenn Beck, it does get a little easier to hate white people." - Conan O'Brien

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by WookieeB, posted 01-21-2019 7:14 PM WookieeB has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-27-2019 11:03 PM Minnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3839
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001


Message 178 of 294 (847834)
01-27-2019 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Minnemooseus
01-21-2019 11:21 PM


BUMP to WookieeB - What is "design"?
BUMP

Minnemooseus writes:

WookieeB writes:

That is a pretty broad definition of evolution. If it is simply change over generations, I don't think anyone would disagree with it, including Porkncheese. With that definition, design would apply as equally as M+NS or any other proposed material process.

As I see it, "intelligent design" is just another way of saying "theistic evolution". And apparently the "design" is God doing some genetic engineering (aka guiding evolution to some degree). Now, the question is, how does one tell the difference between a Godly genetic tweak and a non-Godly random mutation?

As I recall, Michael Behe (one of the big guns of "intelligent design") is a big believer in the bulk of mainstream biological evolutionary theory. He just thinks that God had his fingers in the operation in some subtle way.

Bottom line - "Design" is at best an undetected and probably undetectable detail in standard biological evolutionary theory.

God, the genetic engineer (or something like that).

What is this "design"?

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-21-2019 11:21 PM Minnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3839
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001


Message 248 of 294 (848694)
02-13-2019 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by WookieeB
02-12-2019 4:32 PM


Older never responded to message
Care to respond to message 91?

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by WookieeB, posted 02-12-2019 4:32 PM WookieeB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by WookieeB, posted 02-14-2019 12:34 PM Minnemooseus has responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3839
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001


Message 253 of 294 (848827)
02-16-2019 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by WookieeB
02-14-2019 12:34 PM


Re: Older never responded to message
And apparently the "design" is God doing some genetic engineering (aka guiding evolution to some degree). Now, the question is, how does one tell the difference between a Godly genetic tweak and a non-Godly random mutation?

No. ID makes no attempt to identify the designer, it only infers there is a designing intelligence behind many of the features seen in nature. The designer could be the Christian God, a Hindu God, (in some contexts) a super-intelligent alien species, or any from a host of other potential intelligent entities (known or not) - but ID doesn't care.

I massively suspect that the vast majority of ID proponents (including yourself) have the Christian God as being the designer.

I would assume that the method of design would involve some genetic engineering. I'm not sure what you mean by "guided evolution", as that term is somewhat an oxymoron, though that may depend on how you define "evolution".

Biological evolution (and I throw out this definition as being a geologist, not a biologist) is the change in a population from genetic change through time. Your "intelligent design" is changing the path ("guiding") evolution would take without the "intelligent design".

As I recall, Michael Behe (one of the big guns of "intelligent design") is a big believer in the bulk of mainstream biological evolutionary theory.

That is a bit of a vague statement, but IMO that would not be an accurate characterization. Behe in the past has indicated agreement in the idea of Common Descent, but he does not subscribe to M+NS as the sole mechanism.

Common decent is a chain of genetic change. Certainly Behe does not subscribe to M+NS as the sole mechanism. More like M + NS + ID (aka divine genetic engineering).

qsDesign" is at best an undetected and probably undetectable detail in standard biological evolutionary theory.

No. Design would be detectable, or at least inferred from the data.[qs]

What we see in life is more the picture of non-design or bad design.

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by WookieeB, posted 02-14-2019 12:34 PM WookieeB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by WookieeB, posted 02-21-2019 4:18 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021