Replies

You have now resorted to asking the question in the form of preadolescent love letter. Now I must check a box?

I ask questions because, as I read through these threads, month after month, I don't see them answered. There are certain specific questions that are key to the misunderstanding of evolution. The failure to respond to them seems to me to be wrapped up in a mischaracterization of evolution.

The first question is, why are ID proponents shocked to hear that biologists do not posit any particular direction to evolution?
The second question is, why do ID proponents calculate probabilities based on specified complexity? This makes no sense to a biologist because biologists do not theorise that specifications precede selection. Evolution does not seek a specified goal.
The third question is based on Heartlander's post, but applies to many ID proponents. Do you think selection just eliminates individuals at random? If not, why is selection characterized as accidental or random?

1. The first question is, why are ID proponents shocked to hear that biologists do not posit any particular direction to evolution?

Why would there be any drive toward advancement? Would not lifeforms stay as single cells? The probability problem related to the Second Law of Thermodynamics is applicable to evolution -- the number of states leading to increased entropy far exceed the states that lead to decreased entropy. For evolution, you could say that the number of destructive mutations far exceeds the mutations leading to advancement. The probability of advancement is so small that the time required for evolution is much greater than the available time.

Your statement of the second question shows that you don't understand ID. I state this as an observation and I don't intend to offend you in any fashion. Perhaps you could go to

www.arn.org

and read up on the topic of ID.

Concerning your third question: the mutations are random but the selection is not. The problem is that you must explain how the advancement appears in the first place. Given that life is coupled (the functions are interrelated requiring multiple mutations), the probability of the multiple mutations coalescing into a single genome is too remote.

Evolution does not seek a specified goal.

Hmm, how about survival long enough to reproduce within the context of local conditions? Of course, if the environment changes (globally or locally) that may suddenly change the criteria for fitness, right?

Do you think selection just eliminates individuals at random?

Yes, it can, as there are multiple dangers out there for organisms--e.g. the newly born/hatched of 'most' species ;-) have not yet evolved resistance to teeth or digestive juices of their predators. That's why these things happen "on average" isn't it?

To quote an earlier post of mine on an unknown thread, what if there is a squirrel that has the 1.0 edition of new, improved paws for climbing faster to evade predators, but it never passes on its genes for such because it ran under the tires of my car before mating? Such an event would have an effect on the observed rate of adaptation... :-)

1. The first question is, why are ID proponents shocked to hear that biologists do not posit any particular direction to evolution?

This is not shocking to me at all.

2. The second question is, why do ID proponents calculate probabilities based on specified complexity? This makes no sense to a biologist because biologists do not theorise that specifications precede selection. Evolution does not seek a specified goal.

I actually think a formal equation is not necessary as we can logically infer the differences between an arrowhead and a snowflake.

Biology = function -> structure -> sequence (teleology inferred)
Evolution = sequence -> structure -> function (naturalism a priori)

We have always underestimated cells. . . . The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines. . . . Why do we call the large protein assemblies that underlie cell function protein machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts.
Bruce Alberts, "The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists," Cell 92 (February 8, 1998): 291.

3. The third question is based on Heartlander's post, but applies to many ID proponents. Do you think selection just eliminates individuals at random? If not, why is selection characterized as accidental or random?

Accidental as in without purpose or ultimate reason. You could say unintended, unplanned, or fortuitous…

But I was looking at the ‘bigger’ picture in hope for some resolve in post 975 when I asked, “What do we do and how do we find common ground?” We can all argue until we are blue in the face (or fingers) but it is rare that we actually attempt to find a resolve or common ground. I think there can be a common ground if both sides are not so dogmatic with their beliefs. At least I can hope after looking through these last posts…