<< .Huxter.
>>> seems to me that without being able to document the history of a
>>>proposedly IC structure/pathway, declaring it IC and thus designed is a
>>>proclamation of ignorance.
Bertvan;
>>It seems to me a proclamation of ignorance would be an improvement over
>>declaring it was designed by "random mutation and natural selection"
without
>>being able to suggest how that might have been accomplished.
Huxter:
>I guess you just don't see what I'm getting at. Who claimed RM&NS
'designed'
>anything? The only people that seem to think RM&NS are all evolution has is
>anti-evolutionists. There is, after all, evidence for selection and drift.
>Would you like to see some, or would you just reject/ignore it?
Bertvan:
Hey, if you don't think RM&NS 'designed' anything, we are in complete
agreement.
If you want to substitute drift, I don't see anything there except more
chance variation. No one is questioning that drift and selection contribute
to those changes in organisms which don't involve added complexity. If there
is more to Darwinism than "chance variation plus selection", no one has yet
spelled out very clearly.
Huxter:
>o back to the point that you couldn't grasp -
Bertvan:
Darwinists will forever be known for their charm.
Huxter:
>ID advocates are making ignorance-based proclamations when they invoke some
>sort of probability BS because they do not know the history of what they are
>determining the probability of. By taking an extant protein/gene and
>declaring design because this extant protein/gene could not have arisen
as-is
>by 'random chance' (they have the math to prove it, after all) they are
>forgetting that they are ignorant of the protein/gene's history, and so are
>simply making proclamations of ignorance. Maybe I stated it incorrectly,
but
>declaring something to have been designed based on some statistical
gibberish
>cries of ignorance - at least to those that see the baselessness of the
>proclamation.
Bertvan:
Can proteins mutate in only certain ways? Are they alive? Do they have a
choice about how they mutate? (Some limited choice seems to be a property of
all life.) Does knowing the history of a protein tell you the probability of
whether it will mutate by chance - or whether it will mutate according to
some innate plan or design? Does science know the history of many proteins?
Does Darwinism know any reason why proteins shouldn't mutate according to the
same, plain, old-fashioned "chance" familiar to the rest of us? Is declaring
something to be undesigned less ignorant than calling it designed?
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Sep 20 2000 - 15:44:43 EDT