Didn't Darwin make Teleological obsolete?

<< < (11/16) > >>

Julian (September 26, 2010, 10:04:20 AM):
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


I think different proponents of ID have different takes on it, perhaps some take the slightly more limited and subtle view outlined by Mintaka. But hey, I'm no expert on ID theory, and don't intend on becoming one.

As for Stephen Meyer's argument in the video, which I could paraphrase as such: "Living things contain DNA which stores information. Therefore, an intelligent designer". Um, no.
Rigil Kent (September 26, 2010, 10:15:40 AM):
Discovery Institute’s Stephen Meyer casts the essentials of IDiocy at the beginning of the video clip

All I can gather from the opening sequence is that he thinks that the mere existence of a nifty digital sequence looks like it has been designed, which sounds to me like an argument from ignorance. But I don't know if he wants us to believe that the code was created as is (i.e. in seven days), or evolved and guided by intelligence. I assumed he meant the latter. The challenge set in the video was for ID proponents to come up with a cousinless protein or DNA sequence which, sure, would be evidence against evolution and for creation. So only if IDeology rejects evolution, whatever the mechanism, will such a dare be meaningful. Otherwise it is simply a challenge to creationism.
???

Mintaka
Mefiante (September 26, 2010, 10:54:52 AM):
The challenge set in the video was for ID proponents to come up with a cousinless protein or DNA sequence which, sure, would be evidence against evoloution and for creation. So only if IDeology rejects evolution, whatever the mechanism, will such a chalenge be meaningful.
Not really. IDiocy consistently holds that “certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.” The Discovery Institute says it, several IDiots have said it, and the Wikipedia entry says it. It is the basic working hypothesis of IDiocy. Now it doesn’t matter whether you read “intelligent cause”/“not an undirected process” as “periodic/ongoing maintenance” or “perfect initial planning with no further tweaking” because there is, as said, necessarily one link in the chain where random interference plus an “undirected process” either completely refutes IDiocy as an explanation, or renders it superfluous. It may help to think of an analogy in the form of a cleverly designed computer program that is self-learning, polymorphic, encrypted, stealthy, and has access to a source of true randomness in support of its growth and those various properties. There is one piece of code (or routine if you like) in such a program that cannot be messed around with without destroying it completely.

'Luthon64
Hermes (September 26, 2010, 11:35:09 AM):
In artificial genetic modification I should imagine genes that do not “exhibit an evolutionary heritage” are introduced into the genome and that these genes can later be identified as such. How would they be identified later? Not being schooled in genetics, my guess would be that they display characteristics that are incompatible with randomness. Any ID aimed at a specific quality would require similar genetic modification that can later be identified in the same way.
Julian (September 26, 2010, 11:51:20 AM):
Yes and no. The introduced gene would exhibit an evolutionary heritage, since it comes from another organism. If however the donor and recipient organism are sufficiently distantly related, then it should be possible to later identify the gene as having been introduced. For example if you had to put certain types of plant genes into an animal.

If however you were able to synthesise the entire gene (as will soon be possible, or perhaps already is) then it could be made to be entirely distinct from any naturally occuring gene.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Skeptic Forum Board Index

Non-mobile version of page