Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is it intelligent to design evolvable species?
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 96 (199537)
04-15-2005 9:30 AM


I get the idea to ask this question from a recent entry in the Panda's Thumb. Someone said in a feedback, that we should ask the ID people if they consider evolution as evidence of intelligent design. After some thinking, it made perfect sense to me.
On to the question, for everyone evo and cre and those too ambiguous to be pigeonholed into any of the two:
Do you think it is intelligent to design species that can evolve? Surely, an intelligent designer would be able to design lineages of animals, plants, bacteria etc. that responds to changes in the environment, so that the intelligent designer don't have to say "Duh! The giraffes or insert other intelligently designed creature of your choice here went extinct because of a 1 degree temperature rise again! Oh well, back to the drawing board."
Personally I think it is more intelligent to design things that can evolve. But I want to know your views.
Mighty admins, this can go to the ID forum, please.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by coffee_addict, posted 04-15-2005 3:03 PM Andya Primanda has not replied
 Message 4 by arachnophilia, posted 04-15-2005 5:00 PM Andya Primanda has not replied
 Message 5 by NosyNed, posted 04-15-2005 5:11 PM Andya Primanda has not replied
 Message 6 by Ooook!, posted 04-15-2005 6:05 PM Andya Primanda has not replied
 Message 7 by Brad McFall, posted 04-15-2005 7:10 PM Andya Primanda has not replied
 Message 8 by Philip, posted 04-15-2005 7:49 PM Andya Primanda has not replied
 Message 9 by jar, posted 04-15-2005 7:49 PM Andya Primanda has not replied
 Message 13 by RAZD, posted 04-15-2005 10:47 PM Andya Primanda has not replied
 Message 28 by contracycle, posted 04-19-2005 9:55 AM Andya Primanda has not replied
 Message 32 by mick, posted 04-28-2005 1:19 PM Andya Primanda has not replied
 Message 71 by inkorrekt, posted 02-05-2006 7:55 PM Andya Primanda has not replied
 Message 91 by Chronos, posted 03-05-2006 11:54 PM Andya Primanda has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 96 (199547)
04-15-2005 9:54 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 3 of 96 (199612)
04-15-2005 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Andya Primanda
04-15-2005 9:30 AM


Forgive me if I'm wrong on this, but aren't you one of those that don't believe in mutation, natural selection, or changes in allele frequencies in populations?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Andya Primanda, posted 04-15-2005 9:30 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by nator, posted 04-15-2005 8:01 PM coffee_addict has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 4 of 96 (199626)
04-15-2005 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Andya Primanda
04-15-2005 9:30 AM


i think this isn't even a subject of debate. we've been intelligently designing species within the natural processes of evolution for several thousand years.
artificial selection, selective breeding, and genetic engineering are all entirely consistent with evolution.
but yes, i think a TRULY intelligent designer (god) would be intelligent enough to design something that is adaptable. but that is not proof that such a thing happened. this a god-of-the-gaps type thing. strictly faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Andya Primanda, posted 04-15-2005 9:30 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by CreationWise, posted 08-31-2005 2:22 PM arachnophilia has not replied
 Message 40 by CreationWise, posted 08-31-2005 2:24 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 5 of 96 (199628)
04-15-2005 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Andya Primanda
04-15-2005 9:30 AM


What other choices are there?
If the designer doesn't design things to evolve what other choices does s/he/it have?
If the environment is held constant then living things may survive without evolving. But a constant environment is soooo boring.
If the environment changes then if living things don't evolve the designer must step in constantly to create new forms to fit the new environment. This could get tedious though I believe it was a suggestion of those who first realized that a single creation didn't work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Andya Primanda, posted 04-15-2005 9:30 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

  
Ooook!
Member (Idle past 5816 days)
Posts: 340
From: London, UK
Joined: 09-29-2003


Message 6 of 96 (199638)
04-15-2005 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Andya Primanda
04-15-2005 9:30 AM


I think it's a fresh look at the intelligent design thing, very much like the "multiple designer" idea that Panda's thumb were talking about a while back. Unfortunately (like multiple designers) I don't think it stands up to scrutiny. There are just too many extinctions.
If you look at the fossil record, and assume that a Designer wanted things to adapt to the environment then the only conclusion you can make is that ninety-odd percent of all life on earth was very badly designed. There are whole branches of the tree of life that could not adapt quickly enough and have no living representives, hardly a case of intelligence, and definitely a case of "D'Oh!!".
The only way around it I can think of is that the designer simply designed the process of random mutation and natural selection, but then there is always the question of how far back that can take us: first cell, first sort-of-cell, first self replicator? If you take it far enough back it's gonna be quite tricky to convince people that a designer is required at all.
How are you finding London BTW?
This message has been edited by Ooook!, 15-04-2005 10:14 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Andya Primanda, posted 04-15-2005 9:30 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Christian, posted 10-16-2005 6:11 PM Ooook! has not replied
 Message 52 by Christian, posted 10-16-2005 6:54 PM Ooook! has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 7 of 96 (199650)
04-15-2005 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Andya Primanda
04-15-2005 9:30 AM


The answer is clearly YES.
Creationists who dont see through to this only get caught up in their own biology. It doesnt mean however that current evolutionary theory is able to change species this way nor would I recommend explict procedures to try to do so. I am interested in ecosytem engineering in which by topographic leveling the intrinsic migration capabilities of species might find for human increases of biomass productivity some artifical selectivity in biodiversity. It is a risky notion indeed but there must be some response of humans to their ecological footprint. We humans can not simply evolve just small feet. Some of the species will be coming along for the ride.
The focus of the criticism I would place on changing the Earth's topography and not really on the species that might be able to adapat to higher altitudes
and deserts where soil
might be placed to from which other chemical issues also arise.
There are many legal
, ethical and scientific things that need be worked on in such a project. I think such is perferable to war, any day!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Andya Primanda, posted 04-15-2005 9:30 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

  
Philip
Member (Idle past 4723 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 8 of 96 (199659)
04-15-2005 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Andya Primanda
04-15-2005 9:30 AM


On first glance, APRIORI existence of biological mechanisms for adapation (micro-evo) might seem to behoove redemptive ID.
On the other hand, unchecked randomness of mutations (or stellar entropy/evolution) might also behoove a cursing ID, that is, ID promoting universal decay, destruction, and outer darkness forever.
But, mega-evolution, extraordinary speciation, hopeful monster mutations, etc., do seem to render untenable the whole EX-NIHILO necessity of ID hypothesis.
Personally, I don't see how theistic evos can live with their fallacies. I'd rather be all atheistical-evo or all creo in my faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Andya Primanda, posted 04-15-2005 9:30 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 04-15-2005 10:38 PM Philip has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 9 of 96 (199660)
04-15-2005 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Andya Primanda
04-15-2005 9:30 AM


Yes. In fact the only place I can see even a hint of design is at the smallest most basic levels. If you look at the universe you find systems that work and and there I believe we see the hand of a designer. The combination of mutations filtered by natural selection is such a system.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Andya Primanda, posted 04-15-2005 9:30 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 10 of 96 (199662)
04-15-2005 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by coffee_addict
04-15-2005 3:03 PM


quote:
orgive me if I'm wrong on this, but aren't you one of those that don't believe in mutation, natural selection, or changes in allele frequencies in populations?
No, Andya is a Theistic Evolutionist of the Muslim persuasion, I believe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by coffee_addict, posted 04-15-2005 3:03 PM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by coffee_addict, posted 04-15-2005 9:03 PM nator has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 11 of 96 (199680)
04-15-2005 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by nator
04-15-2005 8:01 PM


If that's the case, my mistake.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by nator, posted 04-15-2005 8:01 PM nator has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 12 of 96 (199688)
04-15-2005 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Philip
04-15-2005 7:49 PM


Philip writes:
On the other hand, unchecked randomness of mutations (or stellar entropy/evolution) might also behoove a cursing ID, that is, ID promoting universal decay, destruction, and outer darkness forever.
of course, you forgot natural selection ... the other half of the equation.
Personally, I don't see how theistic evos can live with their fallacies. I'd rather be all atheistical-evo or all creo in my faith.
I am assuming that you choose "all creo" based on your wording. I personally don't understand how YEC's (in particular) can live with the obvious contradictions between this belief and the observed facts of an old earth, nor how fundamentalist creos can live with the obvious contradictions between their faith and the observed facts of an old beginning of life from simple cells to the complex organisms that we see about us.
but this is off topic.
I do have to ask what fallacies? god created the world to be what it is. all science involves is understanding "what it is" and thus there is no conflict between any science and faith. on the other hand, presupposing a conflict where none exists is a logical fallacy.
now, to bring this back to the topic (somewhat) -- this is also exactly the position that ID if properly pursued would take. the universe {as it is} is the evidence, and the better we understand it and all it's intricate workings, the better we can understand if we can see evidence of a creation.
there is no predisposition for the basic concept of ID to reject any mechanism of any science, including any part of the science of evolution.
ps - a priori is two words.
enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Philip, posted 04-15-2005 7:49 PM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Philip, posted 04-28-2005 11:26 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 13 of 96 (199690)
04-15-2005 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Andya Primanda
04-15-2005 9:30 AM


of course it is, and it is also intelligent to use a mechanism to select between specific evolved individuals to consolidate specific features.
ID properly pursued has no arguments with any science: science is a tool for understanding the universe
understanding the universe fully and completely and honestly needs to be part of the process of determining whether design can truly be infered, rather than a child seeing patterns because he is looking through a kaleidoscope paradigm.
It will be interesting to see if any bonafide IDists answer.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Andya Primanda, posted 04-15-2005 9:30 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by jar, posted 04-15-2005 11:15 PM RAZD has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 14 of 96 (199692)
04-15-2005 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by RAZD
04-15-2005 10:47 PM


It will be interesting to see if any bonafide IDists answer.
Would you consider me an IDist?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by RAZD, posted 04-15-2005 10:47 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by RAZD, posted 04-15-2005 11:46 PM jar has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 15 of 96 (199694)
04-15-2005 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by jar
04-15-2005 11:15 PM


Not really, do you?
To me IDism is a specific faith, usually predicated on an incompletely formulated concept: the faith in the unknown god ... or gods ... or little green aliens acting as god ... or gods ... or little blue aliens acting as god ... etc etc etc
but a faith in and of it's own.
being an IDist means to forsake any previous faith or face irreconcilable conflicts (godalmighty = fallible green alien pretenders) or an incomplete acceptance of either faith

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by jar, posted 04-15-2005 11:15 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by jar, posted 04-16-2005 12:02 AM RAZD has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024