Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 1010011010
I thought the point of all that was that people (and all the other living things) don't participate in evolution in any significant way, either... and all the grand scale things attributed to evolution and common ancestry are instead due to a common intelligent designer. So the fact that cars can't participate in evolution is irrelevant, as the argument doesn't invoke evolution at any point (except to lampoon it).
|
Without individuals there is no evolution. The argument fails because it doesn't take into consideration that such morphological changes could be due to random mutations that are naturally selected for.
It's premise is you look at a computer and it couldn't have arrived by chance-which is exactly what Paley's argument was almost 200 years ago.
It is actually intellectually dishonest to equate evolution with this because evolution is not a random process-it works off of random mutation, yes-but natural selection is the mechanism that increases the complexity of organisms over time.
That's why if you look at the fossil record things go from simple (such as algea) to complex (such as us) over billions of years.
With ID, there isn't any real reason why this should be.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 1010011010
Cars don't evolve, yet still demonstrate morphological similiarities based on a common intelligent designer. Ergo, morphological similarities in, say, mammals could also be taken as evidence of a common intelligent designer. Cars not being able to evolve is the point.
|
Basically this argument assumes it's conclusion.
The problem with this is that animals can have children and therefore the morphological similarities can be attributed to descent with modification. Additional lines of evidence, such as DNA/Psuedogenes and retroviral inserts positively demonstrate descent with modification.
The ID response to these things? There isn't a good one.