dvunkannon
Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008
|
| Quote (Febble @ Feb. 22 2012,03:23) | | Quote (keiths @ Feb. 22 2012,02:04) | Some good old-fashioned tard from John D:
| Quote | I agree with Tragic Mishap. I think visually when you look at something and infer that it is designed, it is because your eyes take in hundreds or even thousands of subtle features into consideration which make it nearly impossible to articulate with speech and would be incomprehensible if it even could be spelled out since the realization is made by apprehending them at the same time.
I think that instead of constantly looking for ways to formalize CSI and FCSI or whatever, more effort should be put towards showing how pursuing research from a design perspective is more rewarding. You can look at proteins and see strategies that make sense to us. This should lead to predictions about what other types of connected processes might exist and things to look for that wouldn’t be assumed from an evolutionary stand point. |
|
That's interesting because sh/e is 50% right.
It does make sense to look at a protein from a design perspective - or any biological feature from a design perspective, because there is a real sense in which biological features are designed - they are there for a functional reason.
It's just that you don't need to assume intentional design, and assuming intentional design gives us less information, not more, because it implies that the thing may be there for some private reason not available to an objective observer. |
IMHO, you can substitute the word 'functional' for 'design' in the phrase 'design perspective' and avoid a lot of hoo-haw.
--------------
I’m referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
I’m not an evolutionist, I’m a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima
|
