Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)
- From: "Iain" <iain_inkster@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 9 Apr 2006 03:35:10 -0700
Wall Of Sleep wrote:
Iain wrote:
Wall Of Sleep wrote:
Ye Old One wrote:
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 20:12:13 GMT, Wall Of Sleep <Sabotage@xxxxxxxx>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Ken Shackleton wrote:
Wall Of Sleep wrote:
Ye Old One wrote:
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:03:54 GMT, Wall Of Sleep <Sabotage@xxxxxxxx>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
The fact that mainstream "science" has treated ID as a form of leprosy
is undisputed.
No, they treat it as what it is - unscientific mumbo-jumbo.
So where is the critical analysis of the ToE? Have you ever seen an
article challenging it's premises in a peer-reviewed journal? Is this
the "scientific method" - to take for granted an untested premise and
castigate those who question it?
Hey...I've got an idea.....why don't you provide a critique of your
own?...be sure that it can stand up to minute scrutiny....and then
provide us with an alternative theory for the diversity of life on
earth that accounts for all observations to date.....while at the same
time giving superior explanatory and predictive abilities to what can
be found with the Theory of Evolution.
If you can do that.....you'd probably win a Nobel Prize.
OK, I'll be brief. The observed evidence shows that:
1. Life comes from life.
At this time.
IOW, all that's ever been observed in the entire history of recorded
science...
2. The simple cannot give rise to the complex.
Wrong. Evolution show exactly how the complex has come from the
simple.
No, the evolutionary hypothesis *asserts* that the simple gave rise to
the complex. It's never been observed to actually happen, and it's
proposed mechanism has never been empirically tested for that capability.
Of course increase in complexity is observed. Every coil, cleavage,
curve, increase in significance of one enzyme and its manifold effects
is an increase in complexity.
Well, we've been through this before. "Complexity" by itself is not
function. You could conceivably add junk DNA to a genome all day long
and not gain one function. Likewise, I could add random letters to the
end of this post and increase it's complexity. The more letters I add,
the more complex it becomes. But does that increase or decrease
meaning? The complexity of life and letters must be specified to function.
I know what you mean, but there really are some things you are not
considering.
All evolutionary change is ad-apt-ation -- response -- reaction -- A
solution to a complex environment.
The structure of a species remains goal-oriented at all times. There
are many implications in the fact that every generation is descended
from a non-randomly selected cross-section of the last: Those that are
adjusted well enough to the environment to reproduce.
As a result, all the adjustment that accumulates is geared toward that
goal. However, the methods of achieving that goal of reproduction
involve different ways of working around the environment and its
hazards. To make the plot even thicker, evolution can only work from
what it's already got.
The combination of what has passed through the sieve is especially
tuned to coping with the environment. This may or may not amount to
something complex over time, but the point is, it is always
goal-oriented.
The specific way a species evolves is controlled by two things.
Firstly, whatever inhibits the size of the population. This information
is complex. Secondly, all the development thus far. This may also be
complex. It's a straightforward process, but it co-ops complex data
from the environment and how it acts upon the population.
Let's take a simple example,
Are you comfortable with the idea that the reason a stick insect
resembles the sticks it lives on, is because their population size in
inhibited by, among other things, predators that prey on the _least_
stick-like individuals, thereby propelling the gene pool in a
particular direction, by a sort of "carving" or "pruning" process? The
sieving mechanism in this case in complex.
The thing that puzzles you is why this amounts to something
task-oriented and harmonious on every scale. Instead of asking this
sensible question outright, you've ducked and dived and learned the
fifteenth thing about genetics without learning the first. I've
actually posted at length on this before, but I'm not going to post
more unless I have a specific commitment from you that you'd read it
through properly (your biggest flaw on this NG is that you really do
not read other people's posts through properly and so you blunder on
just as underinformed as you were to begin with -- So far you've
laboured under the ideas that the "nested hierarchy" means the physical
hierachy of the fossil record, and that mutation is not the cause of
variation -- Simply reading what other had previously written would
have remedied this).
I struggle with the concept of the nested hierarchy I'll admit. Not
being an evolutionist, I struggle with a lot of the reasoning presented
by your side. It's counterintuitive and illogical to me.
As for random mutation not being the cause of variation; It must
necessarily be the root cause of it, else what does natural selection
have to act upon? If you've posited another root cause for variation,
please refresh my memory.
Random mutation is the root cause of variation; That's correct.
However, you earlier seemed to have a problem accepting that.
~Iain
.
- References:
- Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)
- From: Wall Of Sleep
- Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)
- From: Iain
- Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)
- From: Wall Of Sleep
- Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)
- Prev by Date: Oublic Prayer (Slightly off topic)
- Next by Date: Re: Thanks to those who commented on my Tiktaalik page
- Previous by thread: Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)
- Next by thread: Re: Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
