|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2523 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Help me understand Intelligent Design | |||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Is it ? Please make your case that it is.
quote: You are very badly wrong. Firstly you have yet to establish that there is an actual problem here. Simply insisting that your subjective opinion is objective fact is not a valid argument.And you certainly haven't "shut down" my arguments - ignoring them is not good enough. quote: I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Selection has no effect on which mutations occur - and I haven't said that it does. It DOES have an effect on which mutations are retained, and spread through the gene pool. And that is where our argument fails. That is Fisher's point.
quote:As I have stated the answer appears to be yes in the sense that the probability of a mutation is not directly influenced by whether or not it will prove useful in the current environment. quote:That is not what Fisher said. Fisher was talking about the result of selection, and certainly not individual mutations. And that really IS objective. quote:Since your argument relies on grossly misrepresenting Fisher, and in fact the quote from Fisher agrees with my position I'm hardly the one who should be embarrassed. quote:Behe endorsed a major error. And as I have pointed out even Behe and Sermonti - biased against evolution as they are - accept that the "fundamental question" has been answered.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ausar_maat Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 136 From: Toronto Joined: |
quote: Review of Edward Larson's Evolution : The Remarkable History of a Scientific Theory (Modern Library Chronicles) - BrothersJudd.com Thanks for this article Brad, I enjoyed it. I particularly find this passage relevant to the entire debate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Annafan Member (Idle past 4610 days) Posts: 418 From: Belgium Joined: |
quote: Well, that is what this entire debate is about now isnt it? Are we getting closer? I'm not so sure, lol... What is it exactly that you are arguing? Is it that "evolutionists" stubbornly deny purpose and intent, even though the words they use (mimicing, adapting...) constantly illustrate that purpose and intent are "inevitable"?
quote: Right now you're reiterating the positions on both sides of the debate, but this hardly constitutes an argument, it simply reminds us of what each side is saying. But thank you for that reminder though. I haven't seen it worded this way.
quote: Vestigial organs in humans and animals are certainly not a counter-argument against the existance of a Designer. It's an argument against people who think God created every creature as they are right now, and did so, 6000 years ago at that. But vestigial organs in humans are becoming increasingly rare these days. Take toncils, just to name a few. Thought vestigial, not so anymore. But even the list of vestigial organs in humans remained intact from the one cratfted in 1890, it says very little baring against Intelligent Design, it says something about how people understand the Bible though, I agree. Please explain why vestigial organs are NOT a problem for intelligent design?
quote: Not if I consider what Ronald Fisher has to say about it. Then you can't maintain that you agree 'intelligence' is not needed to explain the actual phenomena. Why add something that is unnecessary?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ausar_maat Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 136 From: Toronto Joined: |
quote: Right, again with the arguement backwards. Selection has no effect on mutation. You said it, but therefore, what are we arguing about? Think about it? What are we arguing about then? We are arguing about the probability of the mutation resulting into a leaf-like bug. We all know that in order to get there, it had to have a genetic construct of such potentiality, but that this potentially, in reality, would result in a bug-like creature is the EHDI part of that equation, so that by Ockham's razor, it's alot more logical to conclude that it was Designed that way by a Designer, then to say it was random. That being said, if you tell me that the Selection Process, in and of itself, is what Fisher refered to when he said EHDI, that would make no sense. The selection process, deals with the organism's ability to survive quite simply and naturally. The Highly Improbable part, is that it mutates to the point that it would then be naturally selected. To call the NS process EHDI in and of itself would be silly, and that's not what Fisher meant. There is nothing Highly Improbable about The Survival Of the Fittest In and Of Itself, come on now?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ausar_maat Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 136 From: Toronto Joined: |
quote: In that it doesn't preclude design at all, it only details it's directional path as given by it's Designer. Not all religions depend on that Bible by the way. Some look at Nature as their Holiest Book, as did Native Americans, Ancient Egyptians, etc. And in books like the Qur'an references are made to God guiding and evolving His creation on to perfection. This is only an example to show my initial point on this very question, which is, that vestigial organs are a problem to people who say the earth and all it's creatures were created 6000 years ago, as they are, wrapped up and ready to go. Which would be a textual and not an allegorical understanding of their Scriptures. But I fully embrace vestigial organs yet, I believe in God. Now can you show me how that constitutes a contradiction? Of course, not knowing what I mean by God can be a problem, but that sort of discusion doesn't belong in this forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ausar_maat Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 136 From: Toronto Joined: |
quote: Well I did clarify that point in a response to Crash or Paul.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Annafan Member (Idle past 4610 days) Posts: 418 From: Belgium Joined: |
quote: But certainly not by chance. Not when we look at what is involved in the actual "randomness" of mutatation itself. It's Highly Improbable enough to be dismissed.
quote: ...and selection does the rest, yes. We heard this 1 million times already. You are not adressing the improbability factor here, you're refusing to deal with it with great lack of objectivity... Ok, so we've had 13 pages here and now it seems we hit the fundamental issue here: you can not believe that random mutations combined with natural selection could together offer adequate efficiency to cause the adaptation that we see in organisms?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Evolution, which combines the effect of selection and mutation.
quote: Wrong. We are arguing about the probability of EVOLUTION producing a bug resembling a leaf.
quote:That is very unclear. After all we are starting off with a "bug-like creature". That is a given for this discussion. We are discussing whether it is possible or not for this species to evolve so that its descendants resemble a leaf. quote: The quote - your quote from Fisher is:
"Natural selection is a mechanism for generating an exceedingly high degree of improbability"
Thus your EHDI is the outcome produced by selection. That is what the quote says.
quote: That is certainly not what Fisher said - the quote does not even mention mutation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5063 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Tis true about the drake but I was only a teenager then.
What I do not understand is how Will Provine can sleep at night knowing that I, BSM, however am not to be taken seriously. This possible purpose = function
http://EvC Forum: All species are transitional -->EvC Forum: All species are transitional There seems to be a disconnect between intuitive and discursive cognitions going on. This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 10-11-2005 11:51 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Annafan Member (Idle past 4610 days) Posts: 418 From: Belgium Joined: |
But I fully embrace vestigial organs yet, I believe in God. Now can you show me how that constitutes a contradiction? That indeed doesn't need to be a contradiction, depending on what you mean with your 'God'... Fact: we have vestigial organsQuestion: does this rather support a 'long distance radar' design (= purpose) or a mere 'ad hoc solution' design? There is no question it supports the latter. It can not EXCLUDE the former but it certainly asks for stronger additional evidence. And probability calculations will need to be damn convincing to turn things around again! BTW, what would be a reason for you to concede that there is not some teleological component after all? Or is it a GIVEN?
quote:Then you can't maintain that you agree 'intelligence' is not needed to explain the actual phenomena. Why add something that is unnecessary? Well I did clarify that point in a response to Crash or Paul. Could you repeat it again, please? Try to be clear since I'm not native english (and the others will also appreciate, lol)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ausar_maat Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 136 From: Toronto Joined: |
quote: Ok, replace possible by probable, because I said it was possible. If it wasn't possible, there would be no basis for this 13 page discussion, because there would be no leaf-bug, period.
quote: That's what you wish the arguement was about, but it's not. So, at least I'm arguing about the probability of the mutation resulting into a leaf-like bug.
quote: "Natural selection is a mechanism for generating an exceedingly high degree of improbability" Now if mutation is not inferred in this statement, then it's a silly statement by all accounts of what we understand to be NS in and of itself. That's a ridiculous claim, mutation is what makes the NS process a EHDI. Not "survival of the fittest". It doesn't make any sense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ausar_maat Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 136 From: Toronto Joined: |
quote: Strange, I honestly feel the exact same way, but the other way around.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: So essentially you have not been talking about evolution - which is what I've been talking about, and what Bottaro is talking about and what Sermonti and Behe were arguing against. Instead you are arguing against something nobody has claimed, that a single mutation makes a bug that looks at most a little like a leaf produce descendants a lot like a leaf.And the relevance of that would be ? quote: Of course the question is not whether mutation is involved somehow, the question is what the "EHDI" Fisher referred to was. And that quite clearly is the outcome of selection. That is exactly and explicitly what the quote states. And understanding natural selection the obvious result is in preserving a particular combination of mutations - out of the many that have occurred. Something that would be "EHDI" without the cumulative effect of selection. If you want to disagree then I suggest you produce the context of the quote.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ausar_maat Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 136 From: Toronto Joined: |
quote: You've stated that already, to which I said, Mutation is obviously inferred, or else the quote wouldn't make sense. You seem to want to agree with this in your first setence: "if course the question is not whether mutation is involved somehow" This message has been edited by ausar_maat, 10-11-2005 01:36 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
Of course the issue at dispute was what the "EHDI" referred to.
Your claim that it refers to a mutation prior to selection is clearly wrong since Fisher states that the EHDI is the product of selection.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024