Didn't Darwin make Teleological obsolete?

<< < (10/16) > >>

Mefiante (September 24, 2010, 23:49:20 PM):
Re video above. ID does not deny evolution, so I don't get how finding a unique, unrelated gene should be all that high on the ID agenda. Nor how the lack of such a gene should discredit their hypothesis much. The ID angle is to marry evolution with the idea of an guiding, directed overseeing force, instead of "mere" natural selection, not so?
Perhaps you do not fully understand that the gene is the unit of heritance within the framework of the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis, or what the full implications of that innocuous-sounding statement are. A little hard reflection with that tenet in mind should clear up why, if ID is true, there must necessarily exist at least some genes that do not, in the words of the challenge, “exhibit an evolutionary heritage.” See if you can figure out why.

'Luthon64
Julian (September 25, 2010, 11:17:50 AM):
A little hard reflection with that tenet in mind should clear up why, if ID is true, there must necessarily exist at least some genes that do not, in the words of the challenge, “exhibit an evolutionary heritage.” See if you can figure out why.

Well the designer obviously reused some components. And made some modifications to the components each time he did so, to make it look like there was an evolutionary heritage. Just as a little prank you know. It gets boring when you are the only superintelligent being in the universe and have no one to talk to. And messing with those little humans is so much fun.
Rigil Kent (September 25, 2010, 18:31:54 PM):
Julian, not sure if you spake in jest, but exactly! Where evolution theory proposes mutation along with natural selection as the mechanism of speciation, ID proposes mutation (perhaps due to tinkering) along with what boils down to artificial selection. Neither pathway implies novel, unique, cousinless genes. The product of either evolution theory and ID will be exactly the same, i.e. the genes that make up modern species.

Still, I'll give it some more thought as was suggested, possibly with the aid of some dry red. Hopefully the light will drop, and the penny will come on...

Mintaka

Mefiante (September 25, 2010, 19:32:37 PM):
IDiocy goes considerably further than just proposing “mutation (perhaps due to tinkering) along with what boils down to artificial selection” to explain complex features. Nor does it limit its focus to speciation alone. It may help to pay very careful attention to the terms in which the Discovery Institute’s Stephen Meyer casts the essentials of IDiocy at the beginning of the video clip (recorded on two separate occasions, nogal). Extending those selfsame terms just slightly and taking into account what IDiocy posits as an explanation will go a long way towards identifying the answer.

'Luthon64
Julian (September 26, 2010, 09:57:29 AM):
Julian, not sure if you spake in jest, but exactly! Where evolution theory proposes mutation along with natural selection as the mechanism of speciation, ID proposes mutation (perhaps due to tinkering) along with what boils down to artificial selection.

I did speak in jest, but there is a serious point behind it. You can always add tinkering by God to the observed evolutionary process (whether in the mutation or selection) but a) it is unnecessary, b) it raises serious theological problems and c) it is very silly.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Skeptic Forum Board Index

Non-mobile version of page