(un)Intelligent Design. — OZONE Asylum, home of the Mad Scientists

Philosophy and other Silliness

(un)Intelligent Design.

This page's ID: 28922

Edit Post

Who can edit a post?	The poster and administrators may edit a post. The poster can only edit it for a short while after the initial post.

Your User Name:
Your Password:
Login Options:	Remember Me On This Computer

Your Text: Insert Slimies » Insert UBB Code » Close Last Tag \| All Tags UBB Help	@webshaman Please spare the [i]ad hominem[/i]. I didn't say i agree with Intelligent Design. I'm trying to advocate from a neutral stand. Please respect that. Evolution is not random chance. Evolution can be more easily defined as the process that acts over randomness. A selection of the existing mutations. [quote](meaning that, for example, in water, if you have a streamlined form, you will have more efficient movement than the opposite, which gives an advantage above and beyond a form that is in every other way similar except for being streamlined)[/quote] A streamlined body isn't a good thing by itself. Randomness only, cannot justify it. What will justify the streamlined body, is the benefits it begets, and if it can beget them. But no planning towards it, or to those benefits is ever made. In fact. You HAVE randomness and mutations without having evolution or selection. And i'm strictly only talking about evolution. Darwin himself, on the "Origin of Species", was self-critical, as the true scientist (and free thinker) he was. He saw a problem with the immense and unjustifiable variety and diversity of the fauna of certain fossil eras, and also, he did have an enormous problem with the complexity of the eye and the way vision affected everything physical in the animal and floral world. He saw those as arguments of creationism. Neo-creationists, use them several times, if you care to read about it, and neo-darwinists try to debate them, in books such as "Seven Deadly Colours" by Andrew Parker. There are still 2 other movements. There is Intelligent Design, and the other one, Neo-Lamarckism, which has gained a second breath with recent discoveries. Intelligent design has one severe problem. It is highly an antropic point of view. And if you start allowing those into scientific debates, there is no limit. Still.. they have something with which they can prove their point. This little guy here, was what the people of the ID movement were looking for: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagellum [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Flagella.png/300px-Flagella.png[/img] As the emergence of a flagellum could not be explained by evolution. They presented it as being something with complex parts which were useless when separated, and chance would not bring them together. Mind you it is possible. But very very unlikely. It would be an immense energy gap for an evolutionary jump. Like a chemical reaction you know? Molecules don't know they are getting the better off of a reaction: they just do it. If they can. And they go back and forth all the time. It isn't exactly random, and that's why you need extreme energies to force molecules into some forms. And then sometimes, molecules find they LOVE to be in some of those low-energy-hard-to-reach forms and stay there. Or they just get trapped in those. There is a beautiful parallel between chemical reactions and life. =P But this idea wasn't well accepted, of course. Still, it left a bit of a dent, and outdated as most of the opinions in this thread are, they are a result of this dent. Why, i can think of an argument against it right now. The flagellum could have taken billions of years to evolve on another planet, and then came to earth on the wrecks of that planet. Or better yet, since we're talking about probability, mere chance, even if astronomical, made the flagellum evolve hours after life appeared in the primordial soup. [quote]The car is a very poor example, because it does not possess the ability to reproduce and change of and by itself. The only change that will come to it, is either through the forces of the environment (corrosion, wear and tear, etc, which is basically negative) and from humans themselves, the creators.[/quote] Im sorry you think so. This is clearly on of those "looking at the finger pointing at the moon" cases. Then i hope you can disregard the car example and concentrate on everything else. You have a tendency to use the "if i prove the other guy is wrong, then i am right" debate strategy. As you could see, i'm using that now. I haven't defended ID, instead, i tried to clarify on what i think are your misconceptions. Not that they are entirely wrong, but sometimes [url="http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22556281-661,00.html"]"the ballerina is really spinning both ways"[/url] ;) [i]~this is not a signature~[/i] [small](Edited by [url=http://www.ozoneasylum.com/user/1639]Arthemis[/url] on 11-28-2007 12:03)[/small] Loading...
Options:	Enable Slimies Enable Linkwords

« Backwards — Onwards »

Show Forum Drop Down Menu