You should look at
this thread. A long-time member here named Quetzal started a discussion about teleology (purpose) in nature.
Otherwise, I don't think this post was on topic here.
ICANT is a great wordsmith (among the greatest of our day), and loves to mince and mingle semantics. Thus, any word that is written on a piece of paper somewhere in some context constitutes genuine evidence, even if it isn't attached to any data whatsoever. For instance, he has purported that:
ICANT writes:
Darwin's book included his conclusions for the origin of life.
If he had actually read the book, he would know that this "conclusion" does not follow from the data presented therein, and therefore, should not be touted as a conclusion, or, for that matter, even as a part of the theory of the book.
bertvan writes:
If evolution is defined as “change over time” I haven’t heard many people dispute that.
This, I think, is part of ICANT's ongoing point. Obviously, things change. However, it's the
mechanism by which they change that defines the theory that is being used.
bertvan writes:
My own view is that the ability to make intelligent, purposeful responses is an observable trait of all living systems. Even single cells are capable of some limited creative response to environmental stimuli. Such responses are heritable, epigenetically, as traits develop, and only become encoded into the genome if persistent over generations
Maybe the IDists want people like you on their side, then. However, be careful with this, because phenotypic changes don't usually happen without genotypic changes happening first.
Oh, wait, this is also off-topic. Start a thread, and I'd like to discuss it with you.
Signed,
Nobody Important (just Bluejay)
™ Version 4.2
