Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fibrosa
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.
|
Oh yeah, well! Your argument fails because it doesn't take into account that such morphological changes could be due to the tinkering of an intelligent designer. So nyah!
Seriously, though. I really don't see how this comment responds to anything I've said, or really makes any kind of point at all. "Ah, your alternative to evolution fails because it doesn't include evolution."
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fibrosa
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.
|
Who implied that computers (or pocket watches, if you prefer) arrived by chance?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fibrosa
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.
|
Agreed. Why did you bother to quote my post if you appear to make no response to it?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fibrosa
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.
|
Algae aren't simple, nor are mammals terribly complex. That whole "golden ladder" misconcept has been out of vogue for a while, BTW. The reason pregressively new and more interesting things show up is because, just as we observe in manufacturing and technology, new information builds on previous information. "Lower" lifeforms had to be designed and tested and tweaked before "Higher" level designs could be presented and modified.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fibrosa
Basically this argument assumes it's conclusion.
|
By "this argument" do you mean your own, or your other argument that you inexplicably try to ascribe to me?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fibrosa
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.
|
Can be. Can also be attributed to common design. "Evolution! Evolution! Rah! Rah! Rah!" is not a convincing counterargument.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fibrosa
The ID response to these things? There isn't a good one.
|
Tinkering
