Erasmus, FCD
Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007
|
| Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 28 2008,13:12) | | Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 28 2008,10:02) | Don't project, Portia.
| Quote | | These "crackpots" (Berg, Schindewolf, Grasse, Goldschmidt, Bateson, Davison, Denton, Behe) have cataloged thousands of cases where empirical research has provided evidence that, A) life on earth was a planned event, and B) evolution is determined by law. |
What Law? Please tell us what exactly the law is. Enquiring minds need to know. I think you are bluffing. Or lying. Or perhaps you haven't considered the veracity of that which you say. All tantalizing possibilities, wouldn't you say?
Of course if we address your second splatter of hyperbole, then the question arises "How could one provide evidence of a planned event with no evidence of a planner or a plan?" What is the plan Dan? Take it to Stan, who gives it to the man, who puts it in a tan van? I don't think you even believe the stuff you write. |
Are you saying it is impossible to deduce that an event or an object was planned if we cannot first show evidence for a "planner"? Can't an artifact be both evidence of planning and evidence for a planner? I'll give an example: lets say you are exploring an alien planet and find no evidence for life anywhere, no bones, no fossils, nothing. You do find however complex structures that would require extensive knowledge of engineering and physics to build. Could we postulate that A) these structures were planned? and B) that there must've been some sort of planner?
As for laws; I'd suggest reading up on nomogenesis. | Quote | nomogenesis An evolutionary model holding that the direction of evolution operates to some degree by rules or laws, independently of natural selection. For a long time it was regarded as an outmoded hypothesis, but recently it has been maintained that it corresponds rather well with observations of evolution in the fossil record, and that such mechanisms as heterochrony and molecular drive would produce nomogenetic effects. See also ARISTOGENESIS; ENTELECHY; ORTHOGENESIS. link
|
Also here's a balanced review of Berg's seminal work on the subject.
Of course you could just read the book for yourself if you are so inclined. |
I'm saying that if you don't have a 'planner' then you don't have a 'plan'.
Unless you are relaxing the conventional use of planner to include events that occur as described by law-like forces. Is gravity a planner? If so then I will concede your point because it is spurious.
complex is as complex does. snowflakes are intricately detailed structures that require complex geometry to describe. Yet, they form as if by law. Fortunately we know a bit about those sorts of laws. Yet despite repeated incessant requests for you to pony up your laws, you provide none. Just wave hands and say "these guys say it's true". Why didn't you include VMartin in your list of the esteemed frustrated materialist from ATBC selectionist? Are you VMartin?
(Aside: I haven't overlooked how inconsistent your epistemology is, in one place you require atom-atom relations in a narrative of origins, in the other you are willing to squint to a 1 micron width aperture and claim that you see evidence for law-like activity behind nature. Tut tut, dear Portia, your knickers are in plain view).
the murmuring cloistered darwinian monk-prophet mynym you linked to is hardly 'balanced'. My observations of this character suggest he is about three days behind on his meds. I'll take a look, since rhetoric is entertaining I suppose I may find something of interest in his dark dank cellar of the web.
don't presume too much about what we have read, Portia. Your inability to argue your point is one thing, what others have argued is entirely a different issue.
And you have neglectfully avoided the evidence that natural selection does drive evolutionary changes. Your argument, if you were intellectually honest (you aren't, I do not think) would be an argument for the frequency of evolution by law vs evolution by RM/NS, not that RM/NS doesn't do anything.
--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK
Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG
the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat
I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles
|
