beervolcano
Posts: 147
Joined: Dec. 2005
|
I left a link to this thread in the I'm From Missouri blog and got a reply there. I would like that person to come here and discuss it, but whatever. (I don't like the 3 inch width of the frame on the blogger.com comments sections.)
I left a reply saying to come here, as I will cut and paste the reply and then reply to it. Hopefully I'll get a response.
| Quote | Well, beervolcano, I'm no IDer but I do have plenty of experience with designed items.
In my experience, as time passes designed items can only lose information. New information can never be gained by random deteriation combined with unnatural selection.
As time goes on, eventually you have two "kinds" of designed items.
The working kind, and the broken-down kind.
However, I think you could argue that each designed artifact is already a separate species.
After all, automobiles, airplanes, and the like can not reproduce.
This means that each individual item, even if they look exactly alike, is reproductively isolated from all others!
Isn't that the definition of a species? |
In my experience, as time passes designed items can only lose information.
By what definition of information?
If a rock falls on top of a house, does the house have more or less information?
If a knife becomes rusty and dull, does it have more or less information?
If a car starts making a weird noise that it didn't make before, does the car have more or less information?
As time goes on, eventually you have two "kinds" of designed items.
The working kind, and the broken-down kind.
If it's broken and nonfunctional, then it can't pass on it's genes to the next generation. Or can it?
However, I think you could argue that each designed artifact is already a separate species.
I really thought it was obvious that when I used the term "species" that I meant a biological species composed of reproducing organisms.
This means that each individual item, even if they look exactly alike, is reproductively isolated from all others!
Isn't that the definition of a species?
Does this mean that the ID position on the origin of species is that every individual is seperately designed and wasn't born/hatched/budded from a parent?
I know this guy was probably parodying ID, but he's not far from the mark.
Please, ID people, come here and straighten me and this guy out.
--------------
("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."--Jonathan Swift)
|
