<<
Bertvan:
<< So far I know, Neo Darwinism has presented no positive evidence that
could
not be more easily by design. >>
Huxter:
>**** This statement can only be a product of your selective digestion of
material posted to this list. What >is 'easier' about patterns of shared
mutations via design?
>The fact that these patterns are indicative of relationship has been PROVEN
(insofar as scientific proof >goes
Bertvan:
"that these patterns are indicative of relationship" can not be denied. The
question remaining is what is the nature of that relationship? You believe
Neo Darwinism, a mechanistic process without plan or purpose, provides the
complete explanation. Fine. However, if that relationship includes some
presently unknown design, pattern, plan or purpose, only a scientist
believing in design will find it.
NEW HUXTER:
WHY does one have to 'believe in' design to find this mysterious plan or
purpose? You are delving into metaphysics and philosophy again. How is one
to find 'plan' or 'purpose' by examining empirical evidence?
Huxter
- see
>Science 1991 Oct 25;254(5031):554-8
>Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice.
>Atchley WR, Fitch WM
>for example. This shows that KNOWN lineages can be reconstructed using DNA
sequence data. If this >simple observation can be tested, WHY would it be
easier to say 'oh, well, it was designed to be that >way'?
Bertvan:
I assume "gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice" shows that
all mice are related. Isn't that micro evolution?
NEW HUXTER:
Actually, it isn't even that. It is merely descent from a parent stock.
What it IS, is the testing of the methodology of using DNA sequence data to
glean information on relationships. There have numerous such tests - the
above is but one example. If the methodology works for small scale issues
like this, What is the rationale for assuming that it fails for more
'diffiicult' problems? Not a SINGLE anti-evolutionist has been able to
provide a rational, reasonable argument.
I haven't heard anyone dispute the possibility of Neo Darwinism explaining
micro evolution. There might be other explanations for the DNA
relationships of entirely different organisms. Is the neo Darwinist reply:
"No there is not!! We like the explanation we have and we are not going to
look any further!!"??
NEW HUXTER:
No, that is not what Neo-Darwinists say. They say that the explanation we
have WORKS, and WORKS WELL and therefore we do not NEED to continually second
guess ourselves at every turn. When NASA plans a shutle launch, do you think
they abandon all of the data from previous missions and start anew? Do they
send up probes to test for gravity and radiation and so forth before every
launch? Do they re-work all of the trajectory pathways and such on the
chance that gravity might not always be the same next time out? I believe
not.
BV:
I am not a scientist, but I can even think of a few myself. I hope
scientists who believe design and purpose to be a part of nature are
thinking
of others.
NEW HUXTER:
Well, lets hear them. It would be a switch from the usual 'your philosophy
is flawed' fluff we hear so often. Those who 'believe in' design and purpose
HAVE been thinking for other explanations for the observed patterns of shared
nucleotides, but have come up empty - or with comically inept ad hoc
'explanations' that only betray their desperation. I personally like the
'well, us and chimps look alike, so our DNA should mutate the same way'
arguement. Thats a good laugh...
Bertvan
>>