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?
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles 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
(4) need some more clarification before I can bite.
Originally posted by Halitose (4) need some more clarification before I can bite.
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.
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.
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?
Originally posted by Halitose 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?
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.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles 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.
My reason would be resilience to enviromental change.
Originally posted by Halitose My reason would be resilience to enviromental 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?
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles 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
In order to answer your question, I would need to know which "God" you are refering to in premise 1.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles 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?
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 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.
Originally posted by dj2becker 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?
Deciding 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.
Originally posted by Halitose [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]
Could we stay on topic, please? All of a sudden you are talking about fossil evidence, macro vs. microevolution, and chance.
Let us get back on track. Do you agree with (1) through (4)?
A Serious Question: Why God made DNA
06 Oct '05 15:494 edits
Back to Top