Re: Pitman's Miller Time


"Seanpit" <seanpitnospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1182866090.880384.254900@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jun 26, 5:17 am, Frank J <f...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

So what exactly happened instead of "evolution" in those instances
that your "math" (or Behe's or Dembski's) suggests otherwise? Do you
specifically rule out *Darwinian* evolution, or other, e.g.
Lamarckian?

I believe intelligent design was clearly involved when it comes to the
origin of novel biosystem functions having structural threshold
requirements beyond a thousand specified residues.

An interesting theory. Seems that the designer sits back, ready to jump in
and do some advanced, sophisticated genetic engineering whenever he sees
that a species needs to exceed the threshold imposed by Sean.

But why doesn't he fix the genetic technology to eliminate the threshold? If
I were him, I would have fixed it for good so I could concentrate on more
interesting and rewarding projects. But I suppose his resources are limited.

Also, your previous writing suggests disagreement with Behe's
biological continuity (aka common descent). Have you changed your
mind, or will you show some scientific integrity by "ripping Behe to
shreds" too?

I believe the evidence clearly shows a common origin for all living
things. However, this evidence could equally be explained by common
design and common descent. If Darwinian-style evolutionary mechanisms
of random mutation and function-based selection cannot do the job
beyond very low levels of functional complexity, then intelligent
outside input is most certainly required. The notion that this input
was added over long periods of time vs. a sudden creation event of
different basic "kinds" of creatures can both be classified as
"creationism" (slow vs. fast creationism). I personal tend to favor
"fast creationism" because of the evidence of geology for a fairly
rapid formation of much of the geologic and fossil record.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Pitmans Miller Time
    ... specifically rule out *Darwinian* evolution, or other, e.g. ... I believe intelligent design was clearly involved when it comes to the ... biological continuity (aka common descent). ... "fast creationism" because of the evidence of geology for a fairly ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Horse and Donkey
    ... >> confused common descent with natural selection. ... >> that if natural selection can be shown to be inadequate to explain ... >other mechanism besides natural selection or intelligent design. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Eleven questions Pitman refuses to answer. was Non-beneficial
    ... necessity of deliberate design behind most of the key differences. ... deliberate design without the need for common descent. ... The problem with that is that any pattern at all, or no pattern at all, ... If on the other hand we allow that anything can actually be rules, out, we can certainly rule out the idea that only design could result in a nested hierarchy, right? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The ID-only hypothesis - - yet again
    ... to detecting design. ... separate creation) can be distinguished from common descent. ... That's because nothing can really falsify common descent - as I've ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The ID-only hypothesis - - yet again
    ... However, this isn't about motive, but about design. ... separate creation) can be distinguished from common descent. ... It wouldn't be laughed at if you provided a testable hypothesis and some evidence in its favor. ... The potential to falsify your position is what ...
    (talk.origins)