Design Theory

From: Susan Brassfield Cogan (Susan-Brassfield@ou.edu)
Date: Fri Sep 01 2000 - 15:03:17 EDT

  • Next message: Bertvan@aol.com: "ID vs. ?"

    I picked this up from another list (I didn't write it) But I thought it was
    so good I should post it here for everyone's amusement.

    Susan
    --------------------

    >Well, all extant phyla can be traced to that
    >explosion. And remain in stasis for 500 million
    >years.

    False. Most phyla were already in place at the time,
    with all of the plant phyla (divisions for you
    purists) occurring later. Even if I give you the
    benefit of the doubt and assume you meant all animal
    phyla appeared in the cambrian explosion (which is
    what you probably meant), you are still wrong because
    several animal phyla precede the explosion by millions
    of years. Even worse, some didn't show up until much
    latter. I'm not aware of a single tongue worm fossil,
    but since they only live in the nasal tracts of
    terrestrial vertebrates, I find it hard to believe
    they were created in the Cambrian only to hang around
    for nearly 200 million years doing nothing until
    terrestrial vertebrates evolved.

    Of course, your definition of "kind" has the same
    flaws as most of the other creationist attempts,
    namely that "phylum" isn't any better defined than
    "kind". Different scientists divide species up into
    different Phyla, clearly indicating that there is no
    set of well defined absolute lineages as IDers and
    creationists want us to believe.

    But if we take the commonly accepted phyla as
    absolute, what does that leave you with?

    Well, one creative event about 3.5 billion years ago.
    We don't know how many other creative events there
    were between 3.5 and 2 billion years ago, but there
    were several. It took your designers 500 million
    years to get cyanobacteria from the basic bacterial
    design. It took another 600 billion years to get
    archaebacteria (who aren't suspected of preceding
    eubacteria like they used to be). Then your creators,
    um, designers, don't actually do anything until about
    2 billion years ago when they decide that eukaryotes
    would be cool. A nice bunch of creation events follow
    (I don't have data for all of them. They then do
    nothing for over a billion years and then decide on a
    lark to make a few worms (including phylum annelida),
    sponges (animals which appear to us poor evolutionists
    to be evolved from protists in a different kingdom,
    much less phyla!), and those weird Ediacaran stuff.
    Bored with that, 540 million years ago, they scrap the
    Ediacaran stuff, keep the worms and sponges, and make
    a bunch of new animals with hard parts. They then
    decide that animals aren't worth worrying about and
    concentrate on making new phyla of plants for the next
    few million years until the present, stopping off here
    and there to make a parasite phylum or two when the
    animals get unruly.

    Frankly, I don't see this as making much sense. Now,
    I admit that this is argument from personal
    incredulity, but it also seems a gross violation of
    common sense. What are these designers doing? Why?
    Have they run out of imagination for animals or have
    parasites been a fad for 800 million years? Why is it
    that all the groups that first appear look so much
    like groups that existed previously? Coincidence?
    Are your designers just adding IC systems to designs
    that just happened to evolve naturally?

    ----------

    The most important human endeavor is the striving for morality in our
    actions. Our inner balance and even our very existence depend on it. Only
    morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to life.
    --Albert Einstein

    http://www.telepath.com/susanb/



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 01 2000 - 15:05:18 EDT