Replies

"The point made clear in the abstract is essentially the same one made clear in the description of the Post-Doctoral Fellowship position described earlier. According to Doyle and Csete "convergent evolution" in the domains of "advanced technologies and biology" produces "complexity" or "modular architectures." So in Biology, evolution leads to design."

I can sum up most of what you have to say in this statement above.

Now, for the operation of removing your foot from your mouth...

If, biology (and evolution) lead to design, as you put it... Where did the necessity of this evolution come from?

From your analogy, technology is changed to fit the new requirements of newer products, and this is technological "evolution" and where we design new things.

However, the NEED for these things was created in the first place. Humans specifically made both the machine and the need to change (and thereby design) the machine. The initial design was not an evolution, but a simple creation that got changed by will of the initial creators (humans)

The subsequent "evolutions" that "prove creation" are really orderly updates from the need that arose from their creation in the first place.

In the simplest terms I can offer: If creation is the result of evolution, why do we have evolution? A need is obvious if creation is present, regardless of the side in which creation arises.

Or more simply (now that I think about it): Quit trying to use double-speak, you'll put your eye out.

In the simplest terms I can offer: If creation is the result of evolution, why do we have evolution?

We have evolution because evolution is simply the result of the interplay between reproduction, variation, and selection. When those three things are present, you can't *not* have evolution occur unless you take steps to prevent it. It's just the way things work out when imperfect reproduction interacts with selective processes.

In technical terms, evolution is the name we give to the directed stochastic walk of variably reproducing entities.

". . . If, biology (and evolution) lead to design, as you put it... Where did the necessity of this evolution come from? . . ."

Well I do believe the best evidence yet produced indicates that evolution leads to design, but I was not the one who put it that way first, as you reference in my post. That specific hypothesis comes from the authors of the article published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences which was discussed in the opening post of this thread.

I find it interesting that these guys are heroes on the cutting edge of true science as they were introduced as supposedly supporting I.D. and, after it has been made clear that they do not, their viewpoints suddenly become heresy. All of the points you raise with me in your post should also be addressed to those same scientists whose work was cited at the beginning of this thread. That is not "double-speak," as you put it. It is simply a presentation of the arguments two of those scientists, Doyle and Kurata, are advancing in their own work.

Or do you think I made those quotes up on my own?