nanosoliton
Posts: 11
Joined: Jan. 2003
|
Hi everyone, thanks for the welcome. Forgive me for the delay in responding, I have been having trouble getting online lately. I hope the moderator doesn't mind me making seperate posts for each reply, it does look a little spammy, so I'll try to reply to a couple of people in a post at a time. My first post here has little to do with the cytosine deamination issue and the evidence pertaining to it. However, this is only because I want to respond chronologically, with a full response to Wesley's post, and this may take me some time. Art's post is last chronologically, so my last post will pertain directly to the evidence for Mike's hypothesis.
Nic and Wesley,
Frances has been arguing at the ISCID board for some time now that Mike's conclusion is essentially the same as Poole's. Now, it is my opinion that the majority in this thread disagree with this notion. If so, why hasn't anyone corrected him? For example, Nic quotes:
| Quote |
The first step was probably very complex, and has recently been reviewed elsewhere2, 5. Here we look at the second (UT) replacement, which is emerging as another example of why evolution is best viewed as a tinkerer, not as an engineer with an eye for 'good' design
|
However, Mike's observation is that this is not an example of evolution "best viewed as a tinkerer", rather, Mike's observation is that this consitutes good evidence for efficient intelligent engineering. If this is the same as a non-teleological perspective I cannot fathom why. However, this is not "anti-evolutionist" as it does propose a mechanism of evolution. Which brings me to Wesley's point:
| Quote |
The buzz-phrase "evidence against evolution" is often deployed by ID advocates. That ID advocates may not reject every observation, hypothesis, or theory found in evolutionary biology doesn't mean that the ID movement is not antievolutionary. Even the Institute for Creation Research accepts some instances of the action of natural selection occurring, which hardly means that the ICR is not antievolutionary.
|
If teleology can be employed in evolutionary thinking this makes the inner workings of evolution and evolutionary mechanisms quite different. I agree that the blind watchmaker mechanism for evolution is clearly argued against in most ID literature, however, it is my contention that BWM thinking has largley hijacked the evidence for evolution and that pointing this out is not necessarily "anti-evolution", in fact, it can be argued that this is very pro-evolution. Your links don't really contradict this merging of evolutionary thinking and intelligent design:
Ohioans Don't Want Evolution Only:
This link talks about the controversy surrounding the Ohio school board decision. I cannot fathom why critics of this move do not want evidence for and against Darwinian evolution.
Evidence Against Evolution:
This is a link to an article by Absolute Truth Ministries. I do not see the relevance of it, and worse, it makes the mistake of making an argument from impossibility, something that the author of irreducible complexity himself, Michael Behe, does not argue.
Can Neo-Darwinism Survive?:
This is a link to apologetics article as well, however, the title correctly points out that what IDist argue against is not evolution per se, but it's mechanism.
Columbus Dispatch is Blind to the Arguments and Evidence Against Evolutionism:
It is very misleading to link to this. This is clearly a creationist article which mentions evidence from Mt St. Helens, etc. ID theory as currently espoused does not entail a young earth or young earth evidence. The next couple of links also fall under the same category.
Philip Johnson is indeed very critical of evolution, however, but I think he also focuses on mechanism. ID theory itself is not necessarily based on a rejection of common descent and can actually be quite comparable with it.
Critics: No science in intelligent design:
This article makes quite a few mistakes:
| Quote |
Supporters of intelligent design contend Earth's abundance of wildly differing flora and fauna is too complex to have evolved from a shared ancestor in the primordial ooze.
|
As I have stated, many ID advocates, like myself, accept common descent of said flora and fauna, however, they reject the mechanism by which this evolution could have occured.
Remarks to the Kansas State Board of Education:
The so called "icons of evolution" discussed here is a good discussion of where evolutionary theory has gone astray with outdated information in the textbooks. Isn't this good?
Skepticism's Prospects for Unseating Intelligent Design:
This is a good article about what intelligent design is and does, and why it rejects the Darwinian mechanism. I have no idea what relevance this has to your point.
Evolution FAQ:
This is a good FAQ about the sterility of the Darwinian mechanism to account for evolution.
"So What Evidence IS There Against Evolution?":
Many IDist don't have a problem with monophyletic origin of organisms.
No Admittance:
I have no idea why you linked me to this article.
The same criticism can account for the rest of the links, although I wouldn't mind discussing the rest if you guys disagree.
Wesley said:
This thread would be a suitable place to collect more instances of ID advocate use of the concept of "evidence against evolution".
Nelson:
I agree. Here is my contribution to the contrary point:
ID as a mechanism for evolution:
http://www.idthink.net
Here are articles that discuss:
A Teleological Hypothesis Regarding the Degradosome Machine
Reviewing Simon Conway Morris' Ideas in Relation to Front-Loaded Evolution
New Views on Evolution
The Universal Genetic Code
Designing Evolution Through Deamination Part 1 and 2
Also from the Discovery Institute:
Intelligent Design and Creationism just aren't the same:
http://www.discovery.org/viewDB....id=1329
Intelligent Design can offer Fresh Ideas on Evolution:
http://www.discovery.org/viewDB....id=1313
Intelligent Design is not Creationism:
http://www.discovery.org/viewDB....&id=286
Shapiro's thoughts on evolution:
http://bmb.bsd.uchicago.edu/jShapiro.html
Stanely Salthe:
http://www.nbi.dk/~natphil/salthe/
--------------
Nelson Alonso
|
