In a message dated 9/20/2000 12:45:22 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
Bertvan@aol.com writes:
<< Bertvan:
Hey, if you don't think RM&NS 'designed' anything, we are in complete
agreement.
>>
If with designed is meant the meaning of ID. i.e. a non-natural designer then
we likely disagree.
I<< f you want to substitute drift, I don't see anything there except more
chance variation. No one is questioning that drift and selection contribute
to those changes in organisms which don't involve added complexity. If there
is more to Darwinism than "chance variation plus selection", no one has yet
spelled out very clearly.
>>
Nor does there have to be anything more for it to be a great explanation of
the variation seen around us.
<< Huxter:
>o back to the point that you couldn't grasp -
Bertvan:
Darwinists will forever be known for their charm.
>>
Thank you. I have to admit that most Darwinists seem to have a better sense
of humor than ID'ers. Although one could argue that making the ID inference
requires some sense of humor. I don't know.
<< Huxter:
>ID advocates are making ignorance-based proclamations when they invoke some
>sort of probability BS because they do not know the history of what they are
>determining the probability of. By taking an extant protein/gene and
>declaring design because this extant protein/gene could not have arisen
as-is
>by 'random chance' (they have the math to prove it, after all) they are
>forgetting that they are ignorant of the protein/gene's history, and so are
>simply making proclamations of ignorance. Maybe I stated it incorrectly,
but
>declaring something to have been designed based on some statistical
gibberish
>cries of ignorance - at least to those that see the baselessness of the
>proclamation.
Bertvan:
Can proteins mutate in only certain ways? Are they alive? Do they have a >>
Can proteins mutate? How do you believe this is supposed to have happened?
Are they alive? Again a non-sequitor.
<< choice about how they mutate? (Some limited choice seems to be a property
of
all life.) Does knowing the history of a protein tell you the probability of
whether it will mutate by chance - or whether it will mutate according to
some innate plan or design? Does science know the history of many proteins?
>>
We get some good understanding of how these proteins and their functions
arose through time.
D<< oes Darwinism know any reason why proteins shouldn't mutate according to
the
same, plain, old-fashioned "chance" familiar to the rest of us? Is declaring
something to be undesigned less ignorant than calling it designed?
>>
Is calling something designed because we "don't know" a better solution?
I don't think so.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 21 2000 - 00:11:08 EDT