1. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    06 Oct '05 15:494 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
  2. Standard memberHalitose
    I stink, ergo I am
    On the rebound
    Joined
    14 Jul '05
    Moves
    4464
    06 Oct '05 15:52
    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.
  3. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    06 Oct '05 15:551 edit
    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.
  4. Standard memberHalitose
    I stink, ergo I am
    On the rebound
    Joined
    14 Jul '05
    Moves
    4464
    06 Oct '05 16:02
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    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.
    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?
  5. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    06 Oct '05 16:072 edits
    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.
  6. Standard memberHalitose
    I stink, ergo I am
    On the rebound
    Joined
    14 Jul '05
    Moves
    4464
    06 Oct '05 16:20
    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.
  7. Standard memberroyalchicken
    CHAOS GHOST!!!
    Elsewhere
    Joined
    29 Nov '02
    Moves
    17317
    06 Oct '05 16:26
    Doesn't JA control the environmental change, given that JA is generally seen to be omnipotent?
  8. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    06 Oct '05 16:282 edits
    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?
  9. Standard memberdj2becker
    Tiger's ghost
    Shetland cemetery
    Joined
    01 Oct '04
    Moves
    11860
    06 Oct '05 18:51
    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.
  10. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    06 Oct '05 19:04
    Originally posted by dj2becker
    In order to answer your question, I would need to know which "God" you are refering to in premise 1.
    The God depicted in the Old Testament is the one I had in mind. You are free to substitute any of your choice.
  11. Standard memberdj2becker
    Tiger's ghost
    Shetland cemetery
    Joined
    01 Oct '04
    Moves
    11860
    06 Oct '05 19:09
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    The God depicted in the Old Testament is the one I had in mind. You are free to substitute any of your choice.
    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?
  12. Standard memberHalitose
    I stink, ergo I am
    On the rebound
    Joined
    14 Jul '05
    Moves
    4464
    06 Oct '05 19:12
    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.
  13. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    06 Oct '05 19:131 edit
    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.
  14. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    06 Oct '05 19:161 edit
    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)?
  15. Standard memberHalitose
    I stink, ergo I am
    On the rebound
    Joined
    14 Jul '05
    Moves
    4464
    06 Oct '05 19:18
    Originally posted by royalchicken
    Doesn't JA control the environmental change, given that JA is generally seen to be omnipotent?
    Omnipotence is not necissarily synonymous with pantheism. It is possible for the environment to change because of the forces of nature, no?
Back to Top