Robin
Posts: 1431
Joined: Sep. 2009
|
[quote=phantom menace,Dec. 10 2009,23:07][/quote]
| Quote | Hey folks, just thought I would drop in on this conversation and add a few observations.
1) I noticed several refernces to natural law in relation to the origin of biological diversity, but I didn't see an account given of natural law itself from what appears to be some unexamined materialist assumptions. Anyone care to explain why the universe has "laws" rather than just chaos? And by explain, I mean give us your empirical observations since that seems to be the only grounds for knowledge you guys consider valid. |
Before I can answer this I need some additional information. For starters, why do you presume that there must be one or the other? In other words, what other universes have you seen or what evidence have you seen that leads you to conclude that there could be an alternative to this universe having laws? Why do you presume that there's a possibility that this universe could have been "just chaos?"
| Quote | | 2) It would seem to me that the issue of isolated populations is an example of devolution and not evolution. In fact it is becoming quite clear that genetic entropy accounts for this phenomena much better than natural selection, beneficial mutations, etc. Since negative mutations far exceed positive mutations (assuming that there are some actual net-positive mutations) it is no wonder that organisims can actually lose functionality when isolated. |
I need further information on this claim too. For starters, what do you mean by "devolution" as opposed to "evolution"? I mean, evolution - that is the process - doesn't describe a specific direction of change. It merely describes change. So gaining light sensitive organs and the ability to use light sensing as a means to make decisions about the environment vs losing light sensitive organs are both the result of evolution at least as far as the ToE goes.
Secondly, can you elaborate on what you mean by "genetic entropy accounts for this phenomena"? I can't find any need for a reference to entropy for the phenomenon of loss of functionality in isolated organism populations.
| Quote | | 3) Inquiry - the definition you offered for "species" assumes evolution to be true. You are equivocating on the term if you then try to argue against the formation of a new species through natural processes. Don't worry though, Darwin's definition is just an assumption that he made and has no biological necessity to it. If we assume the process of evolution in defining a species then of course evolution has "produced" new species. What I would like to know is if your opponents can define a species apart from an evolutionary assumption? |
Um...sure:
Species - American HeritageŽ Dictionary
NOUN: 1. Biology a. A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding. See table at taxonomy. b. An organism belonging to such a category, represented in binomial nomenclature by an uncapitalized Latin adjective or noun following a capitalized genus name, as in Ananas comosus, the pineapple, and Equus caballus, the horse.
Doesn't require an understanding of evolution at all. Does require an understanding of scientific taxonomy though.
--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed. Bilbo
The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis
|
