|
Jhud -> RE: Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria (4/18/2008 1:41:42 PM)
|
quote:
I should have been more specific. I don’t mean before you were participating in any part of the thread, but before you got involved in the discussion that took up basically the entire second page, in which I was challenging Bettawrekonize and then you to provide an example of a specific anatomical structure which had been found whose existence had been predicted by creationism or ID but not evolution. Neither you nor Betta could provide one, and eventually we got onto the topic of whether the feathers found in amber could be considered “proto-feathers” or not. I didn’t really want to discuss that, but I answered your points about at anyway because you seemed to consider it an important aspect of the debate. But on the last page, when I tried to get back to the point I had been making with you and Bettawrekonize before you started challenging me about what the feathers in amber were, you called it a “red herring”. Do you remember what I’m talking about now?
I think this has been explained; one of the reasons ID wouldn't predict a 'specific structure' or claim to, is because structures according to ID aren't dependent necessarily on what preceded them. It's rather like predicting what the subject of an artist's next work would be - almost impossible to do, because an artist, being an intelligent designer, is free to create whatever he or she wishes.
Understanding this concept explains why evolutionists are 'shocked' when they discover that comb jellies are genetically older than sponges, because the expectation in evolution is that evolved structures build on those that came before; that generally speaking you must have simple structures before you have more complex ones. ID however is not surprised by such findings because the paradigm doesn't require such limitations.
ID is primarily a detection schema; it doesn't ask "What can a designer produce?", it asks, "If the origin of structure is unknown, can we detect if it was designed?" and proffers that based on certain criteria, yes we can.
Indeed, one doesn't even have to argue for ID to say that 'birds didn't evolve from dinosaurs' - it's not an either/or option.
quote:
What I see here is that when you bring up a new topic like this, such as whether or not the feathers in amber can be considered proto-feathers, or why I seemed particularly concerned with “scoring points” in our debate here, there are two possible ways this can go. In the case of this thread, when I attempted to respond to the new topic you’d brought up, you accused me of being unable to stay on topic. One the other hand, if I attempt to return to the point I was making before you brought up your new topic the way I did in the “what are birds” thread, you call it a red herring. It’s a pretty good catch-22 you’ve come up with here—whether someone discusses the new topic you’ve brought up or they try to return to the original topic, either way you have an excuse to refuse to discuss it any further and/or make ad hominem attacks.
One of the first things I said after you started down the creation/prediction etc. bunny trail was this:
It seems to me the primary point remains - feathers, as a structure, appear fully formed in the history of life, and speculation about 'proto-feathers' remain just that, speculation.
I said that for a very specific reason – the conversation was veering off-topic.
I have come to see topics as very important things around here, despite the fact they are rarely followed in the science forum. The reason they are important is because without them, every conversation ends up being exactly the same. Nothing new or of worth gets added. Not only that, but they are useless scientifically, they are useless rhetorically, and they are useless practically. I don’t know about you, but I don’t like to waste my time doing useless things.
And that is one of the benefits of science – it deals very specifically with a very narrow subject in a very well defined way, according to a specific methodology.
Occasionally, that specific research breaks out into some wholly new idea – or, more likely, the ongoing accumulation of data forms a picture of some reality about the natural world. This kind of thinking requires discipline, and jumping from subject to subject, topic to topic, with no relation to what is actually being considered is antagonistic to science. It doesn’t prove anything.
quote:
This is how I predict it will go if a post a new thread about the topic I mentioned here. Your prediction that by your standards, I “won’t be able to stick to my own topic”, certainly suggests that. All you have to do is bring up a new argument in a thread, and then you’ll have an excuse to claim this if I try to answer your new argument or if I try to stay with my original point. Do you think you’ll be doing that again?
What ‘new argument’ did I bring up here? All I did was try to answer your OP, which apparently you had no real interest in after all.
|
|
|
|