Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Theory of 'intelligent design' isn't ready for natural selection
The Seattle Times ^ | 6/3/2002 | Mindy Cameron

Posted on 06/07/2002 11:35:28 AM PDT by jennyp

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 681-697 next last
To: VRWC_minion
For with much wisdom comes much sorrow; the more knowledge, the more grief.

In other words, "ignorance is bliss". I agree with general principle, but I don't subscribe to the implication that knowledge and wisdom are bad things. I'd rather see a cold wilderness for what it is than live my life in a neurotic Disneyland fantasy simply because it seems more comfortable.

It is impossible to accomplish real things in the real world unless you are actually living in the real world.

121 posted on 06/07/2002 2:24:40 PM PDT by tortoise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Main Entry: rec·i·proc·i·ty
Pronunciation: "re-s&-'prä-s(&-)tE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties

Date: 1766

1 : the quality or state of being reciprocal : mutual dependence, action, or influence

2 : a mutual exchange of privileges; specifically : a recognition by one of two countries or institutions of the validity of licenses or privileges granted by the other

Spelling and...Pronunciation: "re-s&-'prä-s(&-)tE---doesn't match very well!

122 posted on 06/07/2002 2:25:38 PM PDT by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Junior
If you mean "capable of planning and executing those plans" then wolves and killer whales could be considered rational, as could any number of apes and monkeys.

No, I mean capable of planning and executing plans without being constrained by their genetic limitations. A wolf, for example, by definition lives in a den -- it can never train itself to create a spider web to catch a deer. In fact, it can never train itself to do anything.

123 posted on 06/07/2002 2:26:10 PM PDT by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: WhiteyAppleseed
It's bad enough that economic conservatives get lumped in with social conservatives who want to tell people how to have sex. But when the social conservatives start arguing for the dumbing down of america, life for economic conservatives will only become more difficult.
124 posted on 06/07/2002 2:28:26 PM PDT by ConsistentLibertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: ConsistentLibertarian
Free markets are an example of a complex system where system state is not a product of design.

You don't really believe that, do you? Free markets cannot exist without a substantial amount of design and coordination. In fact, free markets cannot exist without a complex legal system in place to guarantee the integrity of contracts, a monetary system that holds value for buyers and sellers, a proper system of securing land titles, etc.

125 posted on 06/07/2002 2:29:32 PM PDT by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
But Darwin's predictions have no relevance for looking forward into the future --

For the sake of argument, let's say that Darwinism makes no predictions about the future of a species, that is not a prerequisite for a theory. A theory need merely make predictions, which Darwinism does, and be testable in that way.

126 posted on 06/07/2002 2:30:08 PM PDT by Junior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs
There seems to be a consistent theme to your posts. "There is nothing like a dame, nothing in the world . . ."
127 posted on 06/07/2002 2:31:24 PM PDT by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
"Life is so complex that it can only be the result of design by an intelligent being."

Yep, that's right.

128 posted on 06/07/2002 2:31:36 PM PDT by MEGoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConsistentLibertarian
""Insect wings and bird wings are physically different, and have different origins within the organism, but they are functionally similar". Notice that's not what the theory of intelligent design would predict."

Huh? Who says? You? LOL

129 posted on 06/07/2002 2:32:52 PM PDT by MEGoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
it can never train itself to create a spider web to catch a deer.

Neither can humans. Does this mean we're irrational? Methinks you are mistaking "rational" with the use of opposable thumbs...

130 posted on 06/07/2002 2:33:25 PM PDT by Junior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
But Darwin's predictions have no relevance for looking forward into the future -- he could not say for certain that any species in the future would even exist, let alone become more complex.

This claim of yours demonstrates that you don't understand the scientific method at all.

131 posted on 06/07/2002 2:33:47 PM PDT by spqrzilla9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Those are micro-level choices. There's no agent in a free market who is capable of determining _system_ state, ie employment level. In a central system, that's not true. The state makes direct choices about sytem state.
132 posted on 06/07/2002 2:34:36 PM PDT by ConsistentLibertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Junior
I see. Someone else on this thread claimed that evidence for punctuated equilibrium is lacking because it only exists in certian places and therefore hasn't been found yet. If this is an adequate explanation (and I'll even grant you that it is), then I can toss Darwin's theory out the window by claiming that there was an incredibly complex form of life that lived on this earth a billion years ago -- we just haven't dug deep enough to find it yet.
133 posted on 06/07/2002 2:35:16 PM PDT by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Why is it that there are numerous species that share all of these characteristics (eyes, gills, legs, etc.) living today, but for the characteristics that specifically define a human being (a bipod that walks upright, thinks rationally, shows emotion, etc.) there are no other species that share them?

That reminds me of a passage from The Origins of Virtue. Interesting reading...

The dark side of the dolphin

It is no coincidence that baboons form coalitions and have relatively big brains; or that chimpanzees rely still more heavily on coalitions and have even bigger brains for their body size. To use cooperation as a weapon in social relations requires individuals to keep a record of who is an ally and who a foe, who owes a favour and who bears a grudge - and the more memory and brainpower available, the better the calculation can be done. It will not have escaped the reader's notice that there is another ape with an even bigger relative brain size. But the human being is not the only species on earth with a bigger brain relative to its body size than a chimpanzee. There is one other: the bottlenose dolphin.

Bottlenose dolphins are far branier than other dolphins and whales, to about the same degree as human beings are brainier than other apes. ...

When a female dolphin comes into season, a male alliance often 'kidnaps' her for some days from the group in which she lived. The males then swim with her, one on either side.... Nor are her suitors especially gentle with her. They chase her when she tries to escape, hit her with their tails, charge, bite and slam their bodies into her to keep her going where they want. ...

There seems to be little doubt that the males are trying to monopolize the fertile female in order to father her next offspring, an that they do so in pairs or triplets for the obvious reason that a single individual could never control the movements of a female or keep her from being stolen by another male or pair of males. ...

However, Connor's team then discovered that male alliances steal females from each other and they do so by forming 'second-order' alliances with other male coalitions. These allies are recruited especially for the occasion of the theft. For instance, Connor's team once saw a triplet called B come to the feeding beach, where they watched another triplet, H, which had a female in tow. B then left, swam a mile to the north and returned with a pair, A. The five dolphins proceeded to attack H and stole the female from it, at which A departed, leaving B in control of the female. A week later, B returned the favour by helping A to steal a female from H. A and B often help each other this way, as do H, G and D: the coalitions are affiliated with others into super-coalitions.

This is exactly how baboons use allied - X recruits Y to steal a female from Z - except for two features. In dolphins, X, Y and Z are not individuals but teams of friends; and in dolphins there is no question of who is going to benefit from the theft of the female: one alliance is merely performing a selfless act of assistance. Indeed, the assisting alliance sometimes already has a female in tow (and may lose her in the commotion) when they help steal another for their allies - yet they can never control more than one female at a time. Far from helping the thieves out if self-interest, they are being immediately generous. Connor and his colleagues believe, but have not yet proven, that the relationship between a friendly pair of alliances is reciprocal. The dolphins therefore do something no primates except humans do: they form second-order alliances - coalitions of coalitions. In baboon and chimpanzee society all relationships between coalitions are competitive, not cooperative.
- Matt Ridley, The Origins of Virtue, pp 160-162


134 posted on 06/07/2002 2:36:16 PM PDT by jennyp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: all
Signing off for a while - there's a big electrical storm that is RIGHT ON TOP OF US here in W. Seattle. The last strike (about 1 sec. away) rattled the house...
135 posted on 06/07/2002 2:37:25 PM PDT by jennyp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Monkeys have opposable thumbs, and I have yet to see one who was capable of using (let along creating) a 30.06 rifle to shoot bananas out of a tree.

Maybe humans can't create a real spider web to catch deer, but if you saw what they are using to thin the deer herds in parts of New Jersey you'd have to admit we make a pretty good imitation.

136 posted on 06/07/2002 2:38:34 PM PDT by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
Momma used to say that one of the side effects of a decent education is that one stops asking "Who's to say?" and starts asking "What reason is there to think so?" The first question directs attention to a quest for an authority figure. The second directs attention to the evidence. But that was momma. If you think you can explain non-functional differences between structures by appealing to the fact that there were designed for their function, go ahead and offer the explanation.
137 posted on 06/07/2002 2:39:23 PM PDT by ConsistentLibertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Okay, you've proposed a hypothesis. Now go out and get the evidence to back it up. If you can't find any evidence, you will need to either modify or discard your hypothesis. That's science, baby!
138 posted on 06/07/2002 2:39:45 PM PDT by Junior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: spqrzilla9
I certainly do understand the scientific process, and if you go back over our posts you'll understand why I made that point. If Darwin's theory of the complexity of species were valid, then it would apply in a forward-looking sense, too. Absent some kind of cataclysmic event, of course.
139 posted on 06/07/2002 2:41:08 PM PDT by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
You missed the point of the panda's thumb example. It's a structure that's not well suited for its function. That's not something the theory of intelligent design entails is more probable than not. It does share a non-functional similarity in structure to the the thumbs of other mammals, including humans. That is something that a theory of common origin entails is more probable than not. I'm thinking Bayesianism is getting crowed out of Alberta's schools to make room for all publically funded religious education Alberta is famous for.
140 posted on 06/07/2002 2:42:45 PM PDT by ConsistentLibertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 681-697 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson