RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (618) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Posts: 5347
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2012,11:12   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 16 2012,10:25)

Please explain (simply) how

<blockquote>Gross imperfection at the molecular level presents a conundrum for the traditional paradigms of natural theology as well as for recent assertions of ID, but it is consistent with the notion of <b>nonsentient contrivance by evolutionary forces</b>.</blockquote>

Unless you choose to argue that evolution is an intelligence, then this paper doesn't help you.

I would personally argue that evolution is a design system and I think that most here would agree provided that 'design' is defined very specifically.  But it sure isn't intelligent.

As far as this paper, you might consider that it's something called a "review paper".  You not being familiar with scientific publishing, I will explain.

In this paper, the author does no unique experiments or observations.  Instead, the author collects the research from other unique experiments/observations and combines related ones into a single paper.  

These are very good for showing things like safety of GM organisms or why "intelligent design" isn't.

It really doesn't help you.  I'll also point out that, unlike your paper, this one is concise, explains itself very well, and has copious references to the actual experiments and observations that support the statements in the paper (something you really ought to consider).

I don't know why I'm explaining this to you, I know you don't care to actually understand what science really is.

Your opinion was actually very helpful. It is certainly not an ordinary PNAS article. And I doubt that it helps the theory any. I was just wondering what Wesley sees in it, with no harm adding your thoughts. Personally, I would not even want to have to attempt showing that evolution is intelligent, the theory is simply not made for answering that question. A cell normally has two types of intelligence, not one. Not all the intelligence can be said to have "evolved" it developed. Without a model to clearly separate out the different kinds of intelligence, there is at best a big-fuzzy incomplete answer.

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

  18527 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (618) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]