Peez

Hi randman,

Just curious: are you planning to address the responses to your original post in this thread? I just want to know if I should keep checking. Thanks,

Peez

faded_Glory

Interesting question.

One might argue that 1) and 2) could be indistinguishable - one man's random event could in principle be another man's Act of God. However, what I have always found a strong argument for a naturalistic cause of evolution is the correlation between species distribution and paleogeography. For instance, the peculiar fauna of Australia started to develop at the same time that the continent split off from the greater Gondwana landmass and became isolated (these two events ae dated independently!). One wonders why a 'guiding power' would have timed this evolution so nicely with the isolation of the gene pool? There are many other examples of this type of correlation.

With respect to 'poofing', one argument against that is that not only would millions of species have to be 'poofed' out of the blue (and not just one or two of them, but sizeable populations to make them viable), but at the same time the natural chains of descent (even if it did not involve modification) would have to been broken millions of times too - otherwise, why don't we see many of the fossil species still around? 'Poofing' involves mass destruction of progeny at an unprecedented scale -not one Noah's Flood, but thousands...

Both 'guided evolution' and 'poofing' postulate a guiding agent of which we have no evidence. Occam's razor tells us to go with the simpler explanation. It could be wrong, but it prevents unnecessary assumptions and endless unresolvable arguments about the nature of the agent (religious wars, anyone?).

fG

randman

I guess my question goes a little deeper. Though I do not accept common descent, etc,..that doesn't mean I am not interested in it.

Behviours can be genetically hard-wired, correct? This is a process that interests me. Specifically, how this knowledge is somewhat innate. It is not learned and yet it can be as specific as to determine the life and death and specific behaviour of animals.

One area of interest is that it seems evolutionists posit environmental pressures as the need that mutations fill, but it seems that if these mutations occur, they may created the need and behaviour pattern all on their own, regardless if the parent species has a need or not.

Of course, I don't really think the complxity of life and the immense difficulties of aspects of evolution are explained by purely naturalistic practices. I think evolutionary models are sketchy at best. Nevertheless, if true, it does seem that instinct which presumably stems from mutations does create it's own behaviour patterns, and this change in behaviour pattern would be enough to create a separation if a small group all had the same genetic trait that caused the new behaviour pattern.

Jack the Bodiless

Creationist/ID claims about the knee joint were addressed and debunked by me on <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000490&p=3" target="_blank">this page</a>.
"Micro" means a little, "macro" is a lot: these are subjective terms. We've been around long enough to witness a lot of evolution in short-lived organisms, a little in long-lived organisms.

We can certainly verify (from the fossil record and from the observed pattern of physical and genetic relationships between living organisms) that common descent has occurred. We can also verify that evolution is occurring. We infer (but cannot test) that the observed process of evolution is responsible for the observed fact of common descent.

A non-evolutionary mechanism must account for the evidence of common descent, and must also take into account the fact that evolution WILL happen regardless (it's an inevitable consequence of mutation and natural selection).

Peez

However, your posts suggest that you do not understand it. In the sense that there are some behaviours that are inherited, that is correct. You are not very clear here (to say the least), but... The nuts and bolts of behaviour can be extremely complex, of course, but behaviour is a character that can be inherited. It poses no more problems than the inheritance of complex morphological traits, and the inheritance of behaviours has been observed. Is english your first language, or do you perhaps have a learning disability. There is no shame either way, but it would explain why your posts are the way they are. Now, what do you mean by an "evolutionist"? Biologists who study evolution do not think that mutations occur to fill some need. BTW, in what way are "environmental pressures" a "need"? How do mutations "created the need"? Certainly some mutations will create "behaviour patterns all on their own," if I understand you. I suspect that I know far more about the complexity of life than you do, and I see no problem with evolution by natural selection (and other processes, such as genetic drift) being responsible. As for "the immense difficulties of aspects of evolution," perhaps you could point one out. You may think so, but why should we take this opinion seriously? No offense, but I wouldn't expect a computer programmer to take my opinion of C++ seriously, because I do not know much about it. What are you trying to say? There is clearly a genetic basis to many behaviours, therefore behaviours can be changed by mutation and natural selection can work on behaviours, and behaviours can evolve. What is the problem?

While I have your attention, what about these points (among others) that I have brought up before: What potential empirical observations would be incompatible with the existence of a "higher being"? If there are none, then the hypothesis that there is a "higher being" cannot be tested scientifically (i.e. it is not science). Why do you think that so-called "irreducible complexity" could not evolve? Why do you say this when there are literally millions of such tests (all passed), and after trying to convince us that there is evidence against evolution?

Peez

[ March 26, 2002: Message edited by: Peez ]</p>