Re: Book-able view of ID as speculative science
- From: "topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 4 Dec 2005 17:15:35 -0800
Ernest Major wrote:
> In message <1133734567.933894.112240@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> topmind <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
> >
> >Reproduction does not explain the original source of complexity. Robots
> >making robots does not tell us anything about how the original cycle
> >started. The issue is how the thing obtained the ability to reproduce
> >in the first place. Nobody disputes that life or even robots can
> >reproduce.
> >
> So you're telling us that Behe's examples of the bacterial flagellum and
> the vertebrate clotting system are not relevant to the issue?
I am not sure how those relate to this. I would note that I don't claim
that evo "cannot explain" such. It is just that it has not performed
"complex" changes while being observed. Nobody has seen flagellum form
in the lab tank when there were none before under observation. Until
such happens, the contest is still open (despite evo being the
front-runner).
> (The
> latter long postdates the ability to reproduce; I assume the same holds
> for the former, but I don't have the details to hand.)
> --
> alias Ernest Major
>
-T-
.
- References:
- Book-able view of ID as speculative science
- From: topmind
- Re: Book-able view of ID as speculative science
- From: Mark VandeWettering
- Re: Book-able view of ID as speculative science
- From: topmind
- Re: Book-able view of ID as speculative science
- From: Mark VandeWettering
- Re: Book-able view of ID as speculative science
- From: topmind
- Re: Book-able view of ID as speculative science
- From: Ernest Major
- Book-able view of ID as speculative science
- Prev by Date: Re: No Such Thing As "Macro" Evolution
- Next by Date: Re: the little book
- Previous by thread: Re: Book-able view of ID as speculative science
- Next by thread: Re: Book-able view of ID as speculative science
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|