Re: [asa] (macroevolution) The term Darwinism

Dehler, Bernie wrote:
> Dave said:
> " Thus my experience tells me that
> processes don't necessarily scale up, ie that small scale evolution does
> not necessarily scale up to evolution of complex biological features."
>
> But it DID scale up through evolution. You used intelligence and natural selection to come up with something better. Nature also does that- using intelligence and natural selection. Many animals do have intelligence- they hunt, mate, kill competitors, build nests, etc. because of their thinking. Your thinking is more advanced so you can do more (just like bears and house cats both have claws, bear claws are much more dangerous; same with huge differences in human thinking compared to animal thinking). Your scaling work is evolution at work- unless you think God is doing it by special creation instead (which I don't think you do).
>
> ...Bernie
>

"Nature also does that- using intelligence and natural selection."

Not the way I understand Coyne and Dawkins except that greater
intelligence may in some cases enable an animal to survive more
frequently and thus to breed more offspring which natural selection can
work on. Not sure this helps at the early stages of the development of
life.

No I do not think special creation is what happened. Although God's
intelligence may have made changes in the genome in a similar way that
we evolved our programming to deal with high numbers of
multiprocessors. Usually people like Behe refer to this in the
biological realm as ID. I would tend to refer to it as lower case id
since scientifically I am not convinced that the injected design is
scientifically detectable.

Engineering problems with lackof scalability is well known. That is why
chemical engineers build pilot plants.

Dave W

Dave W

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Jul 9 17:59:01 2009