Posted on 02/19/2002 2:59:38 PM PST by Cameron
Yes, but our universe has only been around for 17 Billion years. You'll have to work within that time period for any finite-time-based theory such as Evolution.
No, I'm simply listing all the degrees of freedom for both theories, per the pre-requisites for Occam's Razor. If Natural Selection and Random Mutation are required for Evolutionary Theory, then list them as degrees of freedom on their half of your Occam chart. If they aren't required then don't.
But simply not listing something because you don't like the final answer in unscientific. Please see Post #194 for an honest example of Occam's Razor.
Also, please note that I am not the one who insists upon using Occam's Razor to choose between Evolution and Intelligent Deisgn. But for goodness sakes, if you are going to insist upon using Occam's Razor, at least use it honestly.
What point did I ommit?
Add a little algorithm that picks letter sequences as they appear to match dictionary entries, checks all combinations formed out of these words, selects only for grammatically correct phrases of those combinations, filter and match it to the existing text of Shakespeare's work, reuse any word or phrase as needed and you could get one monkey and a computer to do the job for you in about the time it would take the monkey to type enough letters to fill the book. The difference is that you have added selection to the random process.
Probability arguments that do not include selection have zero relevance to the real world where selection operates continuously.
No, the difference is that you have added INTELLIGENCE to your process. It is no longer either random or natural.
What you've done is demonstrate that an Intelligent Process can cretae the works of Shakespeare. That's never been in dispute.
Also, you seem to have fallen on your face in regards to being able to substantiate the ten claims that you made in Post #352. If you can't substantiate them and want to appear even remotely intellectually honest, then you'll have to retract them.
Define genetic engineering. If you mean that genetic codes can be altered, there are many natural processes that do that: mutation, substitution, duplication, viruses, etc. Is that genetic engineering? If so, then indeed, genetic engineering happens all the time without intelligent design.
Or do you mean purposeful change to a species to reach a goal? Well, that obviously requires intelligence, because intent requires a thing capable of intending. But before you claim victory, remember that evolution does not have a purpose or a goal: it just happens, much as the water has no purpose in flowing in the river - it just does.
2.Similarity between the DNA code for chimps and humans is analogous to the stunning similarity in code between Microsoft Excel and Microsoft Word. One expects to see similarities between designs whenever code re-use is present. In DNA, this code re-use is observed in shared genes. In computer code, this re-use is observed in Objects, API's, DLL's, and subroutines.
Much like cars, Microsoft Word does not reproduce itself. We do not theorize that Excel evolved form Word because there is no mechanism that could be proposed: the code has no intrinsic ability to create copies of itself. If it did, then errors might creep in over successive generations, and we might see the code evolve. Indeed, MS programs are so buggy that we might see improvements!
3.Why would an intelligent designer use one animal over another life form for various new processes? Because it is intelligent to use that which offers the easiest, quickest, cheapest, and most predictable desired output.
Any intelligent designer you propose would have to have powers that to us would seem as magic. How can you know what is easiest or quickest for such a being? Indeed, the easiest and quickest method would to do nothing at all: to let evolution (which you still do not disprove, but rather only say "me too" to) take its course. But, since you have now fully entered the world of the supernatural by imagining the attributes and preferences of your designer, science cannot follow.
This has nothing to do with claiming that the platipus evolving from something is "impossible" so much as it has to do with being evidence that we have in our possession a species that currently meets the requirements of a big, non-incremental design change which supports what Intelligent Design predicts in a way and a place that Evolutionary Theory does not predict.You have no evidence that the platypus's adaptations were a sudden big change, whenever they happened. All you have in that particular case is a scarcity of evidence for whatever it was that did happen.
Whenever we do have evidence for the orgins of a feature, it's always gradualistic. That's why it's no great shakes to hypothesize that the parts of the tree of life that we can't yet directly observe are more of the same old thing.
When scientists speak of genetic engineering, they are referring to the current procedures of using gene-splicing to obtain a desired organ from a donor species.
Does Evolution explain how we grow organs in pigs for use in humans, or does Intelligent Design explain it?
See my 366 regarding self-replication and natural explanation.
Software reproduces itself everyday. If you've ever had a virus emailed to you then you might have even seen software that reproduced itself on your very computer! Likewise, different software is derived from older programs every day.
Does Evolution explain that behavior or does Intelligent Design explain it?
"Any intelligent designer you propose would have to have powers that to us would seem as magic. How can you know what is easiest or quickest for such a being? Indeed, the easiest and quickest method would to do nothing at all: to let evolution (which you still do not disprove, but rather only say "me too" to) take its course." - cracker
I doubt that any geneticist in any lab on this planet would agree with your statement that letting Evolution run its course is the quickest and easiest method for creating new varieties of life that have medical use for humans.
I will repeat myself a third time. After that I will assume you are willfully ignoring the explanation.
Natural Selection and Mutation are observed facts of the natural world. I listed "existence of the observed universe" as a prerequisite for evolution (and for ID). Thus, they are accounted for. Note that I did not list the existence of gravity, the sun, or water. Those are also all observed facts of the universe, and the only assumption that needs to be made is that the universe exists. I suppose I could include an assumption that our sensory perceptions are an accurate and true reflection of the universe, but that seemed unneccessary, especially since that assumption is also required for ID.
As stated before, ID requires all of the assumptions of evolution: those relating to the existence of the natural world and our ability to perceive it. ID then further requires assumptions about the existence of the supernatural. Thus, ID requires ADDITIONAL assumptions, and is rejected by Occam's Razor as a less likely hypothesis.
To the extent you dispute the evidence for evolution in the natural world (fossils, DNA, speciation, mutation rates, etc.), that is a matter for scientfic research and investigation and debate. But thus far, you have not made those arguments.
I have a platipus. That is evidence. From that evidence, I stated that the platipus appears to support the prediction of Intelligent Design for the occassional big new design introduction.
On the other hand, you have a scarcity of evidence. It is you who needs to come up with fossils that show a gradual evolution into the platipus. Your lack of evidence for your theory is your problem, not mine.
Also, you still haven't retracted your ten claims in Post #352. Am I to conclude that you can neither substantiate those claims nor muster the intellectual honesty to retract them, or do you just need more time?
Most Darwinians claim that Evolution is dependent upon:Occam didn't say doodlesquat about "degrees of freedom." It's about overall simplicity and economy of supposition. However complicated the evolution scenario may be--it can have elements beyond mutation and natural selection when you get into the dirty details--it's a logically consistent, known scenario that has no funny external invisible elements. It only has to assume that when/if we learn more about what has happened/can happen/does happen we could in theory completely understand our history. (We'll never actually gather enough data to do that, of course, simply because some of the data record is gone.)
1. Appropriate environment,
2. Natural Selection, and
3. Random Mutations.Most ID-er's claim that ID is dependent upon:
1. Appropriate environment and
2. Intelligent Designer.3 degrees of freedom versus 2, yet you picked the loser and wrongly ascribed Occam's Razor as your reasoning.
ID has to assume that what we know now is misleading--amounting to a red herring--because naturalistic explanations can never be sufficient. It further has to assume forces and facts not in evidence: magical beings or supertechnological aliens amounting to the same thing.
That's at least 1 against 2, favor evolution.
If you're asking that question, then you didn't understand the math (and its implications for a universe that is less than 17 Billion years old) in Post #310.
No, Intelligent Design does not explain it. Intelligent design is a theory that the universe was designed and created by an intelligent being. I'm not sure how that necessarily predicts that individuals in lab coats will be mucking around with ribonucleaic acids. Unless you propose that the Designer independently and specially created thost scientists, lab coats and all.
You are correct that genetic engineering involves intelligence and design (lower case), but in that sense so does every creative endeavor man has ever undertaken. I am not sure you want to cite Beavis and Butthead as evidence for ID - it will be hard to get it in the curriculum.
I have examined your platypus claims in detail in post 337. The platypus fits on the tree of life just fine. Note that there could be creatures found that tend to invalidate the hypothesis that there is a tree structure to life at all, which would be great for the design hypothesis, but it's getting very late for that. It ain't gonna happen.
The platypus is basically a modern transitional from reptiles to mammals. It has a sketchy but long fossil history. Where in this history are you even claiming these sudden appearances happened? You have no data and no clue. You're just hiding in the data gaps, like Duane Gish. (Except he's still hiding in gaps that no longer exist.)
There's no more to your game than that.
Why does it have to assume that? Where does Intelligent Design preclude Evolution as being mutally exclusive in its theory?
Please, show me how you drew such a conclusion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.