>Susan:
>
>>how would you propose that be done? So far intelligent design consists of
>>"it looks designed to me."
MikeBGene:
>Which is not much different than naturalistic evolution which consists of "it
>looks evolved to me."
Susan:
>naturalistic evolution--change in a gene pool over time--has been observed
>to occur. Several times.
So? You can have changes in a gene pool over time
that do not involve any morphological (organismic or
cellular) or behavioral changes. Thus, this is clearly
an insufficient indicator of evolution.
>It can happen if you take your antibiotics
>improperly. It's not much of a mystery.
Yes, antibiotic resistance is a nice example of natural
selection. But it involves nothing more than minor
tweaking at the periphery with strong selective pressure.
Yet this doesn't mean the same process formed the
bacteria in the first place. The most we can do there
is look for data that makes it look like bacteria evolved
by the same process (and there is very little, if any, of
that).
>As far as the history of life is
>concerned it's not unreasonable to believe that things
>that are happening today, happened then.
But abiogenesis is not happening today. New cell plans
are not forming today. New body plans are not forming
today. Everything that is happening today are variations
within the *constraints* of such plans. Sorry, but there is
not a shred of evidence that clearly indicates changing gene
frequencies were sufficient for generating the cell or body
plans that are at the heart of biology.
Remember that evolution reshuffles, co-opts, tinkers,
recycles, etc. Natural selection clearly can be important
here (although it is still clearly limited). But this also assumes
that a matrix exists than can be reshuffled and tinkered with.
>But you ignored my question.
No, I addressed it over a week ago even before you raised it.
>You said "a non-intelligent cause for a biotic
>phenomenon is never tested against an intelligent cause for such phenomena"
>I wanted you to suggest ways this could be done. Obviously, you would not
>have suggested it unless you knew it was possible and some possible ways it
>could be done. What did you have in mind?
Back on Jan 30, I posted a long reply to Chris exploring this, as even
he has suggested ways to distinguish the two. Of course, this cannot
be done in science because that would violate its own ground rules.
Look at it this way. If you think you cannot distinguish a non-intelligent
cause from an intelligent cause, on what basis do you attribute things
to non-intelligent causes? Clearly, it must be an issue of pure
metaphysics.
Me:
>Now, I've already spoken to these questions of yours. And although you
>obviously read my contributions to this list, you choose to ignore it
>and keep asking questions as if they had not been answered.
Susan:
>in that case perhaps you could cut and paste from the post in which you
>answered those questions. In this post you merely dodged my questions.
I didn't dodge your question. I spoke about all these a little over a week
ago at some length. Why you need me to repeat myself is unclear when
a little more than a week ago I contributed to a thread entitled, "What's
*Really* Different Between Design and Evolution."
Me:
>This indicates to me you don't have a fair
>and open mind on this issue. Thus, to be quite blunt, I could care less if
>you are not convinced that something is designed.
Susan:
>it's a debate list. You have to persuade using evidence and logic. I haven't
>seen much of that.
I suppose I will have to bow to your superior logic and ability to
perceive evidence. So you wanna debate? Okay, let's start with the
protein ubiquitin. You enlighten me about the evidence behind the belief that
it evolved by changing gene frequencies and then I'll see if there are
some features that are better attributed to ID. It's time to practice what
you preach and persuade. You have to persuade using evidence and
logic. I haven't seen much of that.
Mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 09 2000 - 09:50:45 EST