06 Oct 05
4 edits
I have a question for the anti-evolutionists.
Do you agree with these premsises:
1) God designed animals
2) The presence of genes in the cells of animals is part of that design.
3) The sharing and pairing of DNA during reproduction is part of that design.
4) The possibility for imperfection during (3) is part of that design.
If you do agree with those, what do you suppose was the goal of (2) through (4), given that all designs have a purpose. Isn't it possible that evolution is God's intelligent design emerged in the physical world, a gift that he bestowed upon the living with the goal of enabling life to persist? What other purpose could he have had in mind for these aspects of his design?
If you do not agree with those, which ones do you think are incorrect?
Dr. S
06 Oct 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles(4) need some more clarification before I can bite.
I have a question for the anti-evolutionists.
Do you agree with these premsises:
1) God designed animals
2) The presence of genes in the cells of animals is part of that design.
3) The sharing and pairing of DNA during reproduction is part of that design.
4) The possibility for imperfection during (3) is part of that design.
If you do ...[text shortened]... f his design?
If you do not agree with those, which ones do you think are incorrect?
Dr. S
06 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseOK.
(4) need some more clarification before I can bite.
4a) When (3) occurs, typically one portion of one parent's DNA is paired with the corresponding portion of the other parent's. Sometimes this does not happen, and the result is a new gene that did not occur in either parent. (I should not have called this an imperfection; it could be part of a perfect design.) Or, more briefly, genetic mutation occurs.
06 Oct 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesNice dilemma you've posted here. As mutations do happen:
OK.
4a) When (3) occurs, typically one portion of one parent's DNA is paired with the corresponding portion of the other parent's. Sometimes this does not happen, and the result is a new gene that did not occur in either parent. (I should not have called this an imperfection; it could be part of a perfect design.) Or, more briefly, genetic mutation occurs.
1. They are proof of imperfect design.
2. They serve some purpose within perfect design.
I'm gonna have to stew over this for a while. I'll come back with my thought on this later. Any other takes?
06 Oct 05
2 edits
Originally posted by HalitoseYou have missed the point of my question. It is intended to be taken at face value. It is not intended as a dilemma. I am not positing that mutations indicate any imperfection and I regret using that term. I would like to grant your (2) as being true, and I'd like to know what you think the corresponding purpose is.
Nice dilemma you've posted here. As mutations do happen:
1. They are proof of imperfect design.
2. They serve some purpose within perfect design.
I'm gonna have to stew over this for a while. I'll come back with my thought on this later. Any other takes?
06 Oct 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesMy reason would be resilience to enviromental change.
You have missed the point of my question. It is intended to be taken at face value. It is not intended as a dilemma. I am not positing that mutations indicate any imperfection and I regret using that term. I would like to grant your (2) as being true, and I'd like to know what you think the corresponding purpose is.
06 Oct 05
2 edits
Originally posted by HalitoseWhat do you see as the characterizing difference between the effect of evolution and resilience to environmental change> Isn't it possible that environmental changes can be sufficiently drastic to require new speciation if life is to continue? And if so, wouldn't it be a hallmark of a good design to equip animals with this ability if the goal is, as you say, resilience to environmental change?
My reason would be resilience to enviromental change.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
06 Oct 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesIn order to answer your question, I would need to know which "God" you are refering to in premise 1.
I have a question for the anti-evolutionists.
Do you agree with these premsises:
1) God designed animals
2) The presence of genes in the cells of animals is part of that design.
3) The sharing and pairing of DNA during reproduction is part of that design.
4) The possibility for imperfection during (3) is part of that design.
If you do ...[text shortened]... f his design?
If you do not agree with those, which ones do you think are incorrect?
Dr. S
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
06 Oct 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesOK. If you had the God depicted in the Old Testament in mind are we for arguments sake going to say that the Genesis account is accurate?
The God depicted in the Old Testament is the one I had in mind. You are free to substitute any of your choice.
06 Oct 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesWhat do you see as the characterizing difference between the effect of evolution and resilience to environmental change?
What do you see as the characterizing difference between the effect of evolution and resilience to environmental change> Isn't it possible that environmental changes can be sufficiently drastic to require new speciation if life is to continue? And if so, wouldn't it be a hallmark of a good design to equip animals with this ability if the goal is, as you say, resilience to environmental change?
Theres no difference when taking it from a microevolutionary perspective. I just haven't found the indirect evidence (fossil record) for macroevolution conclusive.
Isn't it possible that environmental changes can be sufficiently drastic to require new speciation if life is to continue?
According to evolutionary theory, yes. In practice and empirical observation? I haven't found the "proof" too compeling.
And if so, wouldn't it be a hallmark of a good design to equip animals with this ability if the goal is, as you say, resilience to environmental change?
Not if it means mankind is the result of chance. But yes, the ability of creatures to adapt is certainly good design.
06 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerDeciding whether you agree with (1) through (4) doesn't require any cooperation on my part. If you'd like to assume Genesis is correct in order to figure out how to answer the question, feel free.
OK. If you had the God depicted in the Old Testament in mind are we for arguments sake going to say that the Genesis account is accurate?
06 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseCould we stay on topic, please? All of a sudden you are talking about fossil evidence, macro vs. microevolution, and chance.
[b]What do you see as the characterizing difference between the effect of evolution and resilience to environmental change?
Theres no difference when taking it from a microevolutionary perspective. I just haven't found the indirect evidence (fossil record) for macroevolution conclusive.
Isn't it possible that environmental changes can be suff ...[text shortened]... s the result of chance. But yes, the ability of creatures to adapt is certainly good design.[/b]
Let us get back on track. Do you agree with (1) through (4)?