Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is it intelligent to design evolvable species?
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 16 of 96 (199696)
04-16-2005 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by RAZD
04-15-2005 11:46 PM


I believe that GOD created the universe.
I believe that He ordained all of the rules, those of physics, mutation, Natural Selection.
I believe that He intuitively understands the relationship between gravity and all the other forces.
I believe that He could create all that we see as our Universe through no more than wish and will.
So is that ID?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by RAZD, posted 04-15-2005 11:46 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by RAZD, posted 04-16-2005 7:33 AM jar has replied
 Message 24 by dsv, posted 04-18-2005 9:54 AM jar has replied

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


Message 17 of 96 (199721)
04-16-2005 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by jar
04-16-2005 12:02 AM


do you believe that it doesn't matter who did it?
do you believe that it could have been green aliens?
do you believe that it could have been many designers?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by jar, posted 04-16-2005 12:02 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by jar, posted 04-16-2005 2:50 PM RAZD has replied

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


Message 18 of 96 (199771)
04-16-2005 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by RAZD
04-16-2005 7:33 AM


Tough questions.
do you believe that it doesn't matter who did it?
The end result is what we see, so something happened. Who did it is certainly and open question.
I believe I know who did it and that person or entity (probably a better word) is the Creator, IMHO, GOD.
do you believe that it could have been green aliens?
No.
do you believe that it could have been many designers?
No I don't. But I do have a reason for that belief, one that I must admit is based on personal experience and could well be flawed.
My general experience of design by committee has not been good. Unless there was one overriding mind, one clear concept of what was to be, I don't think we would see the consistency throughout the universe that seems to be apparent. If it was multiple designers I wouold expect to see greater variation at the most basic level, that some of the designers might have seen gravity as a repeller as opposed to attractor.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by RAZD, posted 04-16-2005 7:33 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by RAZD, posted 04-16-2005 10:49 PM jar has not replied

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


Message 19 of 96 (199811)
04-16-2005 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by jar
04-16-2005 2:50 PM


Re: Tough questions.
given those responses I would say no, you are not an IDist.
of course I also note that the actual results bear more kinship to design by committee than by a single entity ... that would explain a lot
I wouold expect to see greater variation at the most basic level, that some of the designers might have seen gravity as a repeller as opposed to attractor.
you mean like dark matter and dark energy?

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 18 by jar, posted 04-16-2005 2:50 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by nator, posted 04-17-2005 8:29 AM RAZD has replied

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


Message 20 of 96 (199851)
04-17-2005 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by RAZD
04-16-2005 10:49 PM


Re: Tough questions.
quote:
of course I also note that the actual results bear more kinship to design by committee than by a single entity
Yeah, look at the hyena.
If that animal doesn't look like it was put together by a committee, I don't know what does!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by RAZD, posted 04-16-2005 10:49 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by RAZD, posted 04-17-2005 11:41 AM nator has not replied

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 96 (199860)
04-17-2005 9:14 AM


Thanks for the replies everyone. I'm still waiting for the real IDists though.
The thing is, I've been thinking of the damage creationists make to the term 'creation' and 'design'. The scientists of the past made great advances when they start to acknowledge that organisms were not created by 'poof' magic, but through a natural process. I think it was Ken Miller who quoted a priestess (or a scientist, can't remember) as saying that God is not like a pool player that needs ten shots to sink ten balls, but more like one that sinks all ten in just one shot.
Along came creationists and IDists (who never want to be called creationists) and suddenly they want the ten-shot pool player back, for no reason. Probably it has something to do with the book they consult for everything.
In short, if I were to be asked for an evidence for Intelligent Design, I would say that evolvability is intelligent design. Humans are just beginning to incorporate evolvability into technology. Nature does it 3.5 billion years ago.
Then again, what prevents IDists from admitting that evolvability is intelligent design?
ps: To Oooook:
London... it's great. And expensive. And best viewed from the top of a red double-decker bus

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Brad McFall, posted 04-17-2005 11:24 AM Andya Primanda has not replied
 Message 38 by mick, posted 05-16-2005 1:21 PM Andya Primanda has not replied

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


Message 22 of 96 (199878)
04-17-2005 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Andya Primanda
04-17-2005 9:14 AM


issue
A contingent probability space.
quote:
...in, what prevents IDists from admitting that evolvability is intelligent design?
and that because of what Kant said,(Critique of Teleological Judgement @64 OF THE PRECULIAR CHARACTER OF THINGS AS NATURAL PURPOSES In order to se that a thing is possible as a purpose, that is to be forced to seek the causality of its origin, not in the mechanism of nature, but in a cause whose faculty of action is determined through concepts, it is requisite that the form be not possible according to mere natural laws, i.e. laws which can be cognized by us through the understanding alone when applied to objects of sense, but that even the empirical knowledge of ti as regards its cause and effect presupposes concepts of reason. This contingency of its form in all empirical natural laws in reference to reason affords a ground for regarding its causality as possible only through reason. For reason, which must cognize the necessity of every form of a natural product in order to comprehend even the conditions of its genesis, cannot assume such [natural] necessity in that particular given form. The causality of its origin is then referred to the faculty of acting in accordance with purposes (a will), and the object which can only thus be represented as possible is represented as a purpose.)
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-17-2005 12:18 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Andya Primanda, posted 04-17-2005 9:14 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

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


Message 23 of 96 (199879)
04-17-2005 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by nator
04-17-2005 8:29 AM


Re: Tough questions.
and that's without even getting to the pseudo-penises that the females have (in one of the rare but not uncommon female dominated species).
yeah looks like the hindend people were working in centimeters and the front end people were working in inches and the neck people were in feets.

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 20 by nator, posted 04-17-2005 8:29 AM nator has not replied

  
dsv
Member (Idle past 4724 days)
Posts: 220
From: Secret Underground Hideout
Joined: 08-17-2004


Message 24 of 96 (200072)
04-18-2005 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by jar
04-16-2005 12:02 AM


If Intelligent Design is designing creatures that can evolve and adapt to their environment, does that mean extinct species are failed designs?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by jar, posted 04-16-2005 12:02 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by jar, posted 04-18-2005 10:02 AM dsv has replied
 Message 30 by Brad McFall, posted 04-20-2005 9:23 AM dsv has not replied

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


Message 25 of 96 (200074)
04-18-2005 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by dsv
04-18-2005 9:54 AM


failed designs?
If Intelligent Design is designing creatures that can evolve and adapt to their environment, does that mean extinct species are failed designs?
It's not the critters that were designed, but the system. The critters are nothing but byproducts and only incidental. The system works. It guarantees that should conditions change, critters will evolve to fit those changed conditions.
Extinct species are not failed species but rather evidence that the design, the system, worked.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by dsv, posted 04-18-2005 9:54 AM dsv has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by dsv, posted 04-18-2005 10:20 AM jar has replied

  
dsv
Member (Idle past 4724 days)
Posts: 220
From: Secret Underground Hideout
Joined: 08-17-2004


Message 26 of 96 (200078)
04-18-2005 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by jar
04-18-2005 10:02 AM


Re: failed designs?
Does that include humans?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by jar, posted 04-18-2005 10:02 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by jar, posted 04-18-2005 10:23 AM dsv has not replied

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


Message 27 of 96 (200079)
04-18-2005 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by dsv
04-18-2005 10:20 AM


Re: failed designs?
Do you mean "Are humans simply a byproduct?" If so then yes, of course.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by dsv, posted 04-18-2005 10:20 AM dsv has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 96 (200329)
04-19-2005 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Andya Primanda
04-15-2005 9:30 AM


quote:
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."
A Device needs autonomy when you will not be nearby to handle or direct it. Thus, our planetary probes are largely autonomous, because direct control is technically impossible.
On the other hand, applied to metaphysics, this would imply an absent, uncaring god. If you will not be close enough to direct a device, you will not be close enough to save it from danger either, and must be resigned to losses.

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 29 by RAZD, posted 04-19-2005 10:03 PM contracycle has not replied

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


Message 29 of 96 (200556)
04-19-2005 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by contracycle
04-19-2005 9:55 AM


now there's a valid methodology and encompassing philosophy for raising children.
don't you have a challenge to 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 28 by contracycle, posted 04-19-2005 9:55 AM contracycle has not replied

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


Message 30 of 96 (200664)
04-20-2005 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by dsv
04-18-2005 9:54 AM


That will depend on a reanalysis of Mayr's 4 point dissection of Agassiz's viewpoint as he classed both Aggassiz's CLASSIFICATION and Lyell's book as a part of NATURAL THEOLOGY but even given this philosophical denial of typology say we still need some working tools that can show the falsity of thie view
quote:
For Agassiz and Milne-Edwards, brancing reflected a divergence in ontogeny, so that the adult forms were far more different than the eariler embryonic stages. From all these examples it is evident that static branching diagrams of nonevolutionists are no more indications of evolutionary thinking than branching flow charts in business or branching diagrams in administrative hierarchies.
TOWARDS A NEW PHILOSOPHY OF BIOLOGY p200
Lyell considered extintion to be in equilibrium with speciation etc.
Mayr and Gould insist there is this wrongful confusion of ontogeny and phylogeny. I think Croizat's method provides the means to ending this end only Nelson did not use main massings.
the four bullets by Mayr were(in his 76 book)
1)rational plan of the universe
2)typological thinking
3)discontinuism
4)ontogenetic concept of evolution
Gould/Eldredges' PE rereads this list and so does my reading of Croizat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by dsv, posted 04-18-2005 9:54 AM dsv has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024