Who likes evolution?

Post Reply New Topic

It is the matter of dysteleology. In any case, dysteleology isn't really the most essential aspect of what I posted, as I said that the perceived lower chance of dysteleology under an intelligent designer would be a reason I would like it if ID were true.

In any case to address your point, I didn't really say that harmful designs or poor designs were the issue, I said that the issue is purposelessness, and the impersonal nature of biology. Adaptationist stories might be able to remain, but I consider the teleological account of organism structure to be dead, given that I even argued that the mental structure of human beings was really impersonal rather than personal.

Additionally, I don't see how ID can really be effective once you say a designer could design anything. I mean, one can then posit opposing or disorganized teams of designers, crazy designers, lazy designers, loving designers, sadistic designers, and so on.


The statement about dysteleology was a philosophical issue, I didn't cite it as a scientific issue. Here's how I divide the paragraphs of the post you responded to:
1) Smart alecky comment
2) Methodological concern where I favor methodological naturalism for reasons of reduction.
3) Methodological concern where I argue that a flaw is irrelevant given that theories update.
4) Philosophical comment about how dysteleology fits in with evolution, but that dysteleology is an unfavorable fact that would presumably not exist given how I would tend to model an intelligent designer.
Paragraph 4, the one you decided to address, is actually the least relevant to ID as a scientific theory. So, chastising me for a paragraph 4 that is not scientific is pointless. Of course my philosophical commentary isn't scientific, it is philosophical commentary. I am not treating ID as a scientific theory in paragraph 4 at all, because I don't see ID as a scientific theory for reasons I put forward in paragraph 2. Now, your question "can natural selection via mutation be responsible for the variation we see today?", to me, seems like an answered question given nylon-eating bacteria, the island with a new variety of lizard, the change in moth color following the industrial revolution, lactose tolerance in milk consuming cultures along with the lack in cultures that never used cattle in such manners, etc. Now, all of these facts don't absolutely prove that natural selection vis mutation is responsible for the variation we see today, but so far an evolutionary answer fits the best to a significant agree by the standards of most in the scientific community. The question has ceased to be, "Is evolution correct?" so much as "How does evolution work?".

In any case, the question you bring up still isn't one I agree with. Evolutionary faults are often things that decay over time, but often the very structure is an ad hoc one that does not work in the way that any intentional designer would start off with. So, if, let's say the eye, is set up in a manner that stands against efficient design principles to a fundamental extent, then the theory that the eye was designed but that design decayed seems falsified as much as such a notion can be, as the very design pattern is unlike how we would model an intelligent design. If you disagree with that explanation, then I would refer you to my 3rd paragraph about the problems in positing designers, given that any "designer" can be given attributes that would make their designs utterly different than any model can reasonably account for.

At this point, I am not sure if evolution is realistically falsifiable. The idea has survived over a hundred years of criticism throughout the time of the greatest scientific progress, the modern era, and has become so successful as to become one of the major paradigms in modern biology. The notion that evolution is "fact" seems relatively valid at this point.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211.html

Edit: As a good creationist, better try coming up with newer arguments.

Edit 2: Somewhere in the thread I've seen signs of getting offended by saying that "evolution is fact". Regardless of how offensive it might be to say it, it is fact:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA201.html

Nice site Vex I know where to find my counter-creationist weaponry now. ^^

I used to look there when I was considering agnosticism back when I was a teenager, however they tend to twist everything creationists say. I hate dishonesty.

It really is pointless trying to argue science with creationists. To believe in creation one must first deny/ignore all objective facts and rely upon a belief system which cannot be substantiated. I have been accused of suggesting that my belief in evolution proves me to be more intelligent than a creationist, this is simply not true. There are plenty of highly intelligent creationists whose IQ far outstrips my own, this only increases my bemusement at their ability to be so wilfully ignorant.

I've looked around talkorigins a fair bit, and every creationist view they address, I have seen upheld by creationists in real life, both by individuals who try to debate me on it and in printed publications from creationist organizations.

The ones who make money from the charade.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEkXHHhmTVM[/youtube]

never goin to happen, god only made the earth 1000 years ago.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nj587d5ies[/youtube]

Which creationist organizations argue for the immutability of species? Provide links to their actual websites please, on the page(s) where the claim is made.

wrong. Historical backtracking would not be "1,000", though I think you mean "10,000", approximately 6,000 is much closer to the value that can be derived from backtracking using Biblical and secular historical accounts, such as Ussher had attempted.

I am confused, how would a fossilized bunny be from the cambrian, geologic layers are fairly well
known and understood, unless you are implying that its the great biblical flood that mixed up the
geological record, there is no proof of a world wide flood, even if you melted all the ice on the poles
and took all the water vapor out of the air, it would hardly raise the seas more then 70 metersa little
over 200 feet. I am not saying there weren't any great floods, there were, but they were massive
localized floods such as the Missoula Floods which occurred when Glacial Lake Missoula drained
periodically, the so called great biblical flood is most likely an old tale, dating from the dawn of history
when sea levels were 120 meters lower, the Black Sea deluge which occurred around 5600 BC creating
several flood myths. Scientific proof is out there, you just have to look.

There you go again trying to fill our heads with your radical ungodly ideas

I actually meant 100 years, there is no evidence of anything before 1900