Even if there was a designer, you can only explain the process of the 'design,' within the field of science, so to make Intelligent Design, a science, you are left with no results at all. We can take ants, and they can imagine that a designer designed the ant farm they live in, but unless the ants have a method to explain the designing process of the farm, then you are outside of science, and until this process is discovered, agnosticism is the best conclusion, such as what we are left with.
The problem with 'science' like Intelligent Design, is that its mostly based off of pointing out gaps within present day science, and then it tries to place God or some designer in its place. Its true that science cannot explain alot of stuff, including the cause of the origin of the universe, before the Big Bang, and biology cannot explain empirically what caused the first life one Earth, or the universe, but neither can saying a designer did it.
@KevZen2000 Actually,saying that a designer did it does expedite the question very effectively, that's why proponents of ID use this argument. You should also note that ID does contain scientific descriptions of the process of design and this video is such an attempt,perhaps incomplete or partly flawed. Even though we don't know much about our beginning, we know enough to make God at least plausible and that's all we need to get people thinking about the possibility of His existence.
"It also answers the objections to conventional theory raised by intelligent design advocates, because evolution by natural genetic engineering has the capacity to generate complex novelties. In other words, our best defense against anti-science obscurantism comes from the study of mobile DNA because that is the subject that has most significantly transformed evolution from natural history into a vibrant empirical science. "
I have no further interest in your disingenuous semantic ramblings.
Check out "obscurantism" in a dictionary.
It refers to idiots who warp reality to suit their particular perspective - it is the folly of an unjustifiable defenceless position.
You have admitted your dishonesty ("random evolution") - Ergo the veracity of any further utterance on your part is not only suspect, but decidedly unworthy of any response.
@tellnet I didn't need you to point me to a dictionary definition, my request was for you to point out how that definition applied to me. You didn't do that because you can't, you're just a venom sputter, easiest thing to be. My alleged "dishonesty" was a slip and a slip is the only thing I admitted to. Fact of the matter remains, random mutations in evolution are a busted myth, Darwin was wrong and so are you. You're free to leave this page at any time, do not feel compelled to answer back.
@tellnet Firstly, "random evolution" was a slip, I admit, I should have said "random mutations". Secondly, did you even READ the article ? That is the final conclusion of it. Natural genetic engineering answers the objections to conventional theory raised by intelligent design advocates. But what were these tenets of conventional theory ? Well, for one, the idea that mutations occurred randomly. Turns out they DON'T, they're ENGINEERED. Engineered and designed are synonymous..
Shame to see an otherwise, ostensibly intelligent individual fall prey to the American fallacy of believing there is a "controversy" regarding "creation" V evolution.
The theory of evolution refers to the criteria that formulate the accepted FACT of evolution.
Believing otherwise is indicative of an appalling ignorance.
@tellnet Speaking of ignorance, take a look at this link, where professor James Shapiro proves Darwin wrong by showing that hereditary variation arises from the NON-RANDOM action of built-in biochemical systems that mobilize DNA and carry out natural genetic ENGINEERING a.k.a. DESIGN (notice the Caps):
htt p://ww w.mobilednajournal. com/content/1/1/4
To put it shortly, the only kind of evolution that happens is the one DESIGNED to happen. No evidence exists for random evolution.
VARIATION + natural selection + time = A new, spun-off species.
Random mutation happens usually at the genetic level and with reasonably expected outcome. A person with an extra finger will have that finger on their hand.
@JoesHouses 1) Deliberate Mutation + Natural Selection + Time = Design (DNA, Business, Technology, NBA Playoffs)
2) Random Mutation + Deliberate Selection + Time = Design (Scrabble, Genetic Programs)
3) Random Mutation + Natural Selection + Time = Design (Never scientifically proven)
Hereditary variation arises from the NON-RANDOM action of built-in biochemical systems that mobilize DNA and carry out natural genetic engineering (see htt p://ww w.mobilednajournal. com/content/1/1/4).
While your response is appreciated, we are getting away from the idea I put forth in my original post: Perry's definition of "Darwinian Orthodoxy" is incorrect.
@JoesHouses well, I invited you before to elaborate on that, why is Perry's definition of Darwinian orthodoxy incorrect ? tell us precisely where he is wrong and what Darwinian orthodoxy actually says.
I am unfamiliar with the mechanisms of self correction and pro-active mutation that you reference. They sound like credible proposals and they come from credible sources, so I immediately find them more well considered than what Marshall has to say. I might try and read up about them, as they sound very interesting. Having correction mechanisms does not mean that they will be able to successfully correct everything thus eliminating mutations. We have immune systems but still get sick.
@ummmerrrrummm we don't get sick because we mutate, instead we heal up because we mutate, our immune system fights germs by triggering mutations within our DNA. They are not left to chance and don't occur in a million years time span, as Darwin would have us believe, they are engineered and happen in a matter of days, because our survival depends on a timely adaptation to new threats. Marshall said nothing less than what I've also said, you should watch the whole video.
@maxavail I'm not saying we get sick because we mutate. I'm saying that whilst DNA may have correction mechanisms in it as you suggest, these correction mechanisms are not enough to correct all mutations thus eliminating the possibility of mutations. I mentioned the immune system because it is analogous. So, analagously, we have an immune system, but this does not always succeed in defending against illness. The mechanisms you talk of may well be true, but are not enough to stop mutation
@ummmerrrrummm Ok, drop the random generator, it's incomplete. Here are 3 hard facts of science:
1) nobody says random mutations cannot produce improvement but the fact is they have never been observed to do so
2) all observations and experiments conducted so far have proven random mutations to cause disabilities, disease and death (see the wide range of genetic disorders)
3) all obs. & exp. have proven that DNA fights change when it doesn't induce it itself and also DNA changes pro-actively
@ummmerrrrummm (continuation)...given these 3 prerequisites, it's much more likely that improvement is never the result of randomness and experiments seem to suggest just that. Any other contrary opinion should provide documented evidence of a beneficial random mutation.
As for design faults, they always seem to reflect our insufficient knowledge since, progressively, as science discovers on, things we used to think of as faults tend to actually prove to have a very precise role in our biology.
@maxavail You are not quite arguing the same thing as Marshall. Your points are slightly better than what he is saying. I have watched this video through several times. I have encountered this video before and discussed it with someone else as well. Watch from 37 mins - roughly 47 mins - Random word generator section. His conclusion - evolution may have happened but not via random mutation, because of what his generator shows. This conclusion is faulty because his generator is inadequate.
@maxavail ummm... sorry, but I think that he is confused. He seems to make some rather misunderstood claims in this talk and I'm not sure if he is misleading people or just a little confused.
@ummmerrrrummm everyone is free to question any theory, that's what free thinking is and that's what has always driven science forward, I thought you had some specific points to make regarding his speech, like he was wrong on this or that or whatever. But you are in fact wrong to say Perry disproves evolution, he is, actually, an evolutionist, and that clearly comes out of his talk.
@maxavail err, I'm not sure what he is exactly. He's not quite an evolutionist. He doesn't really portray a good understanding of evolution. I think he tries to prove God in this talk and there is nothing wrong with that, but he misunderstands some of the aspects of evolution that he talks about.
@maxavail What is his position? You say he is an evolutionist. From my perspective, he doesn't clearly state his exact position on whether evolution happens. He tries to invoke design into evolution, if evolution occurs, but did not clarify his exact position. I'm not sure what his stance is except that God exists.
My guess is that he supports 'intelligent design'. Would this be correct?
@ummmerrrrummm His position is very explicit if you watch the entire video, not just skim through it. He quotes very well documented scientific research proving that hereditary variation arises from the non-random action of built-in biochemical systems that mobilize DNA and carry out natural genetic engineering. In other words, he says evolution is true, but that it was intelligently designed to happen and not a product of random chance.
@maxavail So, a version of intelligent design would be the best description of his understanding, as I suggested may be.
I have watched this video on more than one occasion. I struggle with his grasp of the terminology and his descriptions. Some of his simple analogies just don't stand up, whilst his conclusions are often based on faulty assumptions and misunderstandings.
@ummmerrrrummm Like I've said, you're welcome to elaborate and not simply stick to general verdicts. Point out his mistakes, so we may also know them.
@maxavail One mistake would be his random mutation generator that can be found on cosmic fingerprints. He thinks that this generator represents evolution well, but this generator fails to take into account various hugely important mechanisms. If we reproduced each time we mutated we would eventually see a trend towards degredation as the generator shows. But evolution proposes that non-beneficial mutations generally die off, because they make organisms less likely to survive. (cont)
@ummmerrrrummm (cont) So if we say the original sentence on the generator = the parent, & each mutation = a newborn organism (because we do not mutate during life - mutations occur in conception/reproduction). 1 non-beneficial mutation on the mutator = 1 disadvantaged newborn. This newborn is likely to die off as a result. We begin again at the parent. have another go... many bad mutations will occur and many will die.. so we keep returning to the parent sentence... (cont)
@ummmerrrrummm (cont) eventually, one mutation from the parent sentence may make some sense and be a fit rather than a hinderance. This mutated sentence will survive and will begin to have offspring that may mutate. From here, only the successful mutations will see the sentence survive... all the unsuccessful mutations will die off. We see change occur in the sentence where, success survives and detrimental mutations die. So his generator leaves out the 'natural selection' part of evolution.
@ummmerrrrummm Indeed, his mutation generator leaves out natural selection but that is actually its only fault. The main argument it's making is that you cannot change a sentence one letter at a time, in other words you cannot make a meaningful change in DNA if you only allow one random change to occur at a time. DNA annihilates (corrects) one letter meaningless changes. But orthodox darwinism only allows precisely one letter changes at a time, which experiments have shown to be unfeasible.
@maxavail The omission of natural selection though, is like omitting the fermentation process in wine making and just pushing the grapes straight into the bottle. You get a bottle of grapes, not a bottle of wine. You need an adequate illustration/analogy to get adequate results. You can indeed change a sentence one letter at a time, why shouldn't you? DNA research reveals that in reproduction several differences/mutations/copying errors will generally occur, not just one at a time as you say.
@ummmerrrrummm The reason why you cannot change one letter at a time is (as I've said before) the existence of correction mechanisms within DNA that eliminate errors (see Barbara McClintock). The only way to make meaningful mutations within DNA is if DNA changes on its own accord, at sentence level (change of words AND grammar), using built-in biochemical systems that mobilize DNA and carry out natural genetic engineering. DNA mutates itself pro-actively, not passively (see James Shapiro).
@maxavail Your interpretation is slightly better than the one he presents in the video. He presents this generator as being very representative of the whole understanding of evolution, which it is not as it lacks the hugely important mechanism of natural selection. What you are arguing is actually slightly different to what he claims in the video, so he is actually wrong in his statements. However, what you argue is still not quite right either.
"randomness" does play a part in Darwinian evolution but is not the key component that Perry uses in his inaccurate description of "Darwinian Orthodoxy." No need to change your FM dial.
"If you cross out Darwinian..." Let's not cross it out. My initial post is in response to Perry's definition of "Darwinian Orthodoxy."
And the "rampant disease" within the practitioners of Abrahamic Mythology is their inability to deal with facts.
@JoesHouses Joe, would you care to explain exactly what's your take on Darwinian Orthodoxy and why randomness is not a key point ? And later, perhaps you can take a look at this link, where James Shapiro proves Darwin wrong by showing that hereditary variation arises from the non-random action of built-in biochemical systems that mobilize DNA and carry out natural genetic engineering.
@maxavail VARIATION + natural selection + time = A new, spun-off species.
Random mutation happens usually at the genetic level and with reasonably expected outcome. A person with an extra finger will have that finger on their hand.
That's incorrect. Random genetic walk is not directed in anyway. And if some one were to flip the argument and make randomness sound good for evolution, you would change your tune like an FM dial.
Darwinian evolution is a mindless, random process. The entire reason that random mutations are so heavily stressed is because of scientific naturalism and the fact that design is trying to be explained away as apparent, not actual. If you cross out Darwinian and just leave evolution, then you are right, it has nothing to do with "random". But that isn't Neo-Darwinian evolution, which is still the mainstream evolutionary view, and a rampant disease within science if you ask me.
Even if there was a designer, you can only explain the process of the 'design,' within the field of science, so to make Intelligent Design, a science, you are left with no results at all. We can take ants, and they can imagine that a designer designed the ant farm they live in, but unless the ants have a method to explain the designing process of the farm, then you are outside of science, and until this process is discovered, agnosticism is the best conclusion, such as what we are left with.
KevZen2000 1 month ago
The problem with 'science' like Intelligent Design, is that its mostly based off of pointing out gaps within present day science, and then it tries to place God or some designer in its place. Its true that science cannot explain alot of stuff, including the cause of the origin of the universe, before the Big Bang, and biology cannot explain empirically what caused the first life one Earth, or the universe, but neither can saying a designer did it.
KevZen2000 1 month ago
@KevZen2000 Actually,saying that a designer did it does expedite the question very effectively, that's why proponents of ID use this argument. You should also note that ID does contain scientific descriptions of the process of design and this video is such an attempt,perhaps incomplete or partly flawed. Even though we don't know much about our beginning, we know enough to make God at least plausible and that's all we need to get people thinking about the possibility of His existence.
maxavail 1 month ago
@maxavail
COPIED and PASTED:
"It also answers the objections to conventional theory raised by intelligent design advocates, because evolution by natural genetic engineering has the capacity to generate complex novelties. In other words, our best defense against anti-science obscurantism comes from the study of mobile DNA because that is the subject that has most significantly transformed evolution from natural history into a vibrant empirical science. "
.
"obscurantism" refers to YOU.
tellnet 1 month ago
@tellnet why does it refer to me ? do you have arguments for that ? don't make a fool of yourself. explain if you have any arguments.
maxavail 1 month ago
@maxavail
I have no further interest in your disingenuous semantic ramblings.
Check out "obscurantism" in a dictionary.
It refers to idiots who warp reality to suit their particular perspective - it is the folly of an unjustifiable defenceless position.
You have admitted your dishonesty ("random evolution") - Ergo the veracity of any further utterance on your part is not only suspect, but decidedly unworthy of any response.
GET AN EDUCATION.
tellnet 1 month ago
@tellnet I didn't need you to point me to a dictionary definition, my request was for you to point out how that definition applied to me. You didn't do that because you can't, you're just a venom sputter, easiest thing to be. My alleged "dishonesty" was a slip and a slip is the only thing I admitted to. Fact of the matter remains, random mutations in evolution are a busted myth, Darwin was wrong and so are you. You're free to leave this page at any time, do not feel compelled to answer back.
maxavail 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
You are a typical creationist LIAR.
The ONLY place in that article where the word DESIGN appears is in the following sentence:
"It also answers the objections to conventional theory raised by intelligent design advocates"
You are willfully ignorant.
And....
There is no such thing as "random evolution".
GET AN EDUCATION.
tellnet 1 month ago
@tellnet Firstly, "random evolution" was a slip, I admit, I should have said "random mutations". Secondly, did you even READ the article ? That is the final conclusion of it. Natural genetic engineering answers the objections to conventional theory raised by intelligent design advocates. But what were these tenets of conventional theory ? Well, for one, the idea that mutations occurred randomly. Turns out they DON'T, they're ENGINEERED. Engineered and designed are synonymous..
maxavail 1 month ago
Shame to see an otherwise, ostensibly intelligent individual fall prey to the American fallacy of believing there is a "controversy" regarding "creation" V evolution.
The theory of evolution refers to the criteria that formulate the accepted FACT of evolution.
Believing otherwise is indicative of an appalling ignorance.
tellnet 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@tellnet Speaking of ignorance, take a look at this link, where professor James Shapiro proves Darwin wrong by showing that hereditary variation arises from the NON-RANDOM action of built-in biochemical systems that mobilize DNA and carry out natural genetic ENGINEERING a.k.a. DESIGN (notice the Caps):
htt p://ww w.mobilednajournal. com/content/1/1/4
To put it shortly, the only kind of evolution that happens is the one DESIGNED to happen. No evidence exists for random evolution.
maxavail 1 month ago
VARIATION + natural selection + time = A new, spun-off species.
Random mutation happens usually at the genetic level and with reasonably expected outcome. A person with an extra finger will have that finger on their hand.
Joe
JoesHouses 3 months ago
@JoesHouses 1) Deliberate Mutation + Natural Selection + Time = Design (DNA, Business, Technology, NBA Playoffs)
2) Random Mutation + Deliberate Selection + Time = Design (Scrabble, Genetic Programs)
3) Random Mutation + Natural Selection + Time = Design (Never scientifically proven)
Hereditary variation arises from the NON-RANDOM action of built-in biochemical systems that mobilize DNA and carry out natural genetic engineering (see htt p://ww w.mobilednajournal. com/content/1/1/4).
maxavail 3 months ago
@maxavail If all of this equals design. Why are there so many design faults?
ummmerrrrummm 3 months ago
@maxavail
While your response is appreciated, we are getting away from the idea I put forth in my original post: Perry's definition of "Darwinian Orthodoxy" is incorrect.
You can see his slide at 35'16"
Joe
JoesHouses 3 months ago
@JoesHouses well, I invited you before to elaborate on that, why is Perry's definition of Darwinian orthodoxy incorrect ? tell us precisely where he is wrong and what Darwinian orthodoxy actually says.
maxavail 3 months ago
I am unfamiliar with the mechanisms of self correction and pro-active mutation that you reference. They sound like credible proposals and they come from credible sources, so I immediately find them more well considered than what Marshall has to say. I might try and read up about them, as they sound very interesting. Having correction mechanisms does not mean that they will be able to successfully correct everything thus eliminating mutations. We have immune systems but still get sick.
ummmerrrrummm 3 months ago
@ummmerrrrummm we don't get sick because we mutate, instead we heal up because we mutate, our immune system fights germs by triggering mutations within our DNA. They are not left to chance and don't occur in a million years time span, as Darwin would have us believe, they are engineered and happen in a matter of days, because our survival depends on a timely adaptation to new threats. Marshall said nothing less than what I've also said, you should watch the whole video.
maxavail 3 months ago
@maxavail I'm not saying we get sick because we mutate. I'm saying that whilst DNA may have correction mechanisms in it as you suggest, these correction mechanisms are not enough to correct all mutations thus eliminating the possibility of mutations. I mentioned the immune system because it is analogous. So, analagously, we have an immune system, but this does not always succeed in defending against illness. The mechanisms you talk of may well be true, but are not enough to stop mutation
ummmerrrrummm 3 months ago
@ummmerrrrummm Ok, drop the random generator, it's incomplete. Here are 3 hard facts of science:
1) nobody says random mutations cannot produce improvement but the fact is they have never been observed to do so
2) all observations and experiments conducted so far have proven random mutations to cause disabilities, disease and death (see the wide range of genetic disorders)
3) all obs. & exp. have proven that DNA fights change when it doesn't induce it itself and also DNA changes pro-actively
maxavail 3 months ago
@ummmerrrrummm (continuation)...given these 3 prerequisites, it's much more likely that improvement is never the result of randomness and experiments seem to suggest just that. Any other contrary opinion should provide documented evidence of a beneficial random mutation.
As for design faults, they always seem to reflect our insufficient knowledge since, progressively, as science discovers on, things we used to think of as faults tend to actually prove to have a very precise role in our biology.
maxavail 3 months ago
@maxavail You are not quite arguing the same thing as Marshall. Your points are slightly better than what he is saying. I have watched this video through several times. I have encountered this video before and discussed it with someone else as well. Watch from 37 mins - roughly 47 mins - Random word generator section. His conclusion - evolution may have happened but not via random mutation, because of what his generator shows. This conclusion is faulty because his generator is inadequate.
ummmerrrrummm 3 months ago
This guy is unbelievable
ummmerrrrummm 4 months ago
@ummmerrrrummm you mean in the sense that he cannot be believed or simply amazing ?
maxavail 4 months ago
@maxavail ummm... sorry, but I think that he is confused. He seems to make some rather misunderstood claims in this talk and I'm not sure if he is misleading people or just a little confused.
ummmerrrrummm 4 months ago
@ummmerrrrummm you're welcome to elaborate on that.
maxavail 4 months ago
@maxavail well, he's trying to discredit or disprove evolution and the majority of the talk seems to be an effort to do this.
ummmerrrrummm 4 months ago
@ummmerrrrummm everyone is free to question any theory, that's what free thinking is and that's what has always driven science forward, I thought you had some specific points to make regarding his speech, like he was wrong on this or that or whatever. But you are in fact wrong to say Perry disproves evolution, he is, actually, an evolutionist, and that clearly comes out of his talk.
maxavail 4 months ago
@maxavail err, I'm not sure what he is exactly. He's not quite an evolutionist. He doesn't really portray a good understanding of evolution. I think he tries to prove God in this talk and there is nothing wrong with that, but he misunderstands some of the aspects of evolution that he talks about.
ummmerrrrummm 4 months ago
@maxavail What is his position? You say he is an evolutionist. From my perspective, he doesn't clearly state his exact position on whether evolution happens. He tries to invoke design into evolution, if evolution occurs, but did not clarify his exact position. I'm not sure what his stance is except that God exists.
My guess is that he supports 'intelligent design'. Would this be correct?
ummmerrrrummm 4 months ago
@ummmerrrrummm His position is very explicit if you watch the entire video, not just skim through it. He quotes very well documented scientific research proving that hereditary variation arises from the non-random action of built-in biochemical systems that mobilize DNA and carry out natural genetic engineering. In other words, he says evolution is true, but that it was intelligently designed to happen and not a product of random chance.
maxavail 4 months ago
@maxavail So, a version of intelligent design would be the best description of his understanding, as I suggested may be.
I have watched this video on more than one occasion. I struggle with his grasp of the terminology and his descriptions. Some of his simple analogies just don't stand up, whilst his conclusions are often based on faulty assumptions and misunderstandings.
ummmerrrrummm 4 months ago
@ummmerrrrummm Like I've said, you're welcome to elaborate and not simply stick to general verdicts. Point out his mistakes, so we may also know them.
maxavail 4 months ago
@maxavail One mistake would be his random mutation generator that can be found on cosmic fingerprints. He thinks that this generator represents evolution well, but this generator fails to take into account various hugely important mechanisms. If we reproduced each time we mutated we would eventually see a trend towards degredation as the generator shows. But evolution proposes that non-beneficial mutations generally die off, because they make organisms less likely to survive. (cont)
ummmerrrrummm 4 months ago
@ummmerrrrummm (cont) So if we say the original sentence on the generator = the parent, & each mutation = a newborn organism (because we do not mutate during life - mutations occur in conception/reproduction). 1 non-beneficial mutation on the mutator = 1 disadvantaged newborn. This newborn is likely to die off as a result. We begin again at the parent. have another go... many bad mutations will occur and many will die.. so we keep returning to the parent sentence... (cont)
ummmerrrrummm 4 months ago
@ummmerrrrummm (cont) eventually, one mutation from the parent sentence may make some sense and be a fit rather than a hinderance. This mutated sentence will survive and will begin to have offspring that may mutate. From here, only the successful mutations will see the sentence survive... all the unsuccessful mutations will die off. We see change occur in the sentence where, success survives and detrimental mutations die. So his generator leaves out the 'natural selection' part of evolution.
ummmerrrrummm 4 months ago
@ummmerrrrummm Indeed, his mutation generator leaves out natural selection but that is actually its only fault. The main argument it's making is that you cannot change a sentence one letter at a time, in other words you cannot make a meaningful change in DNA if you only allow one random change to occur at a time. DNA annihilates (corrects) one letter meaningless changes. But orthodox darwinism only allows precisely one letter changes at a time, which experiments have shown to be unfeasible.
maxavail 4 months ago
@maxavail The omission of natural selection though, is like omitting the fermentation process in wine making and just pushing the grapes straight into the bottle. You get a bottle of grapes, not a bottle of wine. You need an adequate illustration/analogy to get adequate results. You can indeed change a sentence one letter at a time, why shouldn't you? DNA research reveals that in reproduction several differences/mutations/copying errors will generally occur, not just one at a time as you say.
ummmerrrrummm 4 months ago
@ummmerrrrummm The reason why you cannot change one letter at a time is (as I've said before) the existence of correction mechanisms within DNA that eliminate errors (see Barbara McClintock). The only way to make meaningful mutations within DNA is if DNA changes on its own accord, at sentence level (change of words AND grammar), using built-in biochemical systems that mobilize DNA and carry out natural genetic engineering. DNA mutates itself pro-actively, not passively (see James Shapiro).
maxavail 3 months ago
@maxavail Your interpretation is slightly better than the one he presents in the video. He presents this generator as being very representative of the whole understanding of evolution, which it is not as it lacks the hugely important mechanism of natural selection. What you are arguing is actually slightly different to what he claims in the video, so he is actually wrong in his statements. However, what you argue is still not quite right either.
ummmerrrrummm 3 months ago
@ummmerrrrummm why is it not quite right either ?
maxavail 3 months ago
@circusOFprecision
"randomness" does play a part in Darwinian evolution but is not the key component that Perry uses in his inaccurate description of "Darwinian Orthodoxy." No need to change your FM dial.
"If you cross out Darwinian..." Let's not cross it out. My initial post is in response to Perry's definition of "Darwinian Orthodoxy."
And the "rampant disease" within the practitioners of Abrahamic Mythology is their inability to deal with facts.
Joe
JoesHouses 4 months ago
@JoesHouses Joe, would you care to explain exactly what's your take on Darwinian Orthodoxy and why randomness is not a key point ? And later, perhaps you can take a look at this link, where James Shapiro proves Darwin wrong by showing that hereditary variation arises from the non-random action of built-in biochemical systems that mobilize DNA and carry out natural genetic engineering.
htt p://ww w.mobilednajournal. com/content/1/1/4
maxavail 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@maxavail VARIATION + natural selection + time = A new, spun-off species.
Random mutation happens usually at the genetic level and with reasonably expected outcome. A person with an extra finger will have that finger on their hand.
Joe
JoesHouses 3 months ago
This discussion is based on a false premise.
Of the two principals of Darwinian evolution, neither has to do with "random".
Joe
JoesHouses 8 months ago
@JoesHouses
That's incorrect. Random genetic walk is not directed in anyway. And if some one were to flip the argument and make randomness sound good for evolution, you would change your tune like an FM dial.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
@JoesHouses
Darwinian evolution is a mindless, random process. The entire reason that random mutations are so heavily stressed is because of scientific naturalism and the fact that design is trying to be explained away as apparent, not actual. If you cross out Darwinian and just leave evolution, then you are right, it has nothing to do with "random". But that isn't Neo-Darwinian evolution, which is still the mainstream evolutionary view, and a rampant disease within science if you ask me.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
Poor attempt
dasparkylad 8 months ago
@dasparkylad whatever...
maxavail 8 months ago
@dasparkylad
Have a better one?
circusOFprecision 4 months ago