Antievolution.org - Antievolution.org Discussion Board -Topic::The permenance vs. evolvability of design

beervolcano

Posts: 147
Joined: Dec. 2005

Posted: May 11 2006,10:33

{Can a Mod change my typo in the title, please?}

This is a challenge question for ID people.

Could a species be designed so that eventually it becomes two species? Or once a species has been designed (and manufactured), is that species forever fixed until it becomes extinct?

I would like ID people to explain how ID addresses this question.

If you can't tell me that, then just speculate.

You'll say something like "ID doesn't say that entire species are designed" and I'll have to ask where species come from in the first place...

We'll try to keep this going until we get some "solid answers."

Thanks.

--------------
("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."--Jonathan Swift)

Mr_Christopher

Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: May 11 2006,10:52

Quote (beervolcano @ May 11 2006,15:33)

This is a challenge question for ID people...
We'll try to keep this going until we get some "solid answers."

Just an FYI don't hold your breath waiting for those "solid answers" from the IDiots. You'll die from a lack of oxygen.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

guthrie

Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink)

Posted: May 11 2006,11:25

Its a good question.
I can think of several answers, like "Yes, of course designed creatures dont change" and then they would walk about kinds and other such non evidence based ideas that allow them to say that evolution of whatever kind isnt happening.

C.J.O'Brien

Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: May 11 2006,12:14

Larry of course didn't get it, but over on his blog, I pursued this with him on the subject of coevolution.

Basically, non-YE creationists are caught on a logical fork when they try to simultaneously admit what they call 'micro'evolution, and claim that coevolutionary relationships are too specific, or 'finely tuned' to have evolved.

If 'micro'evolution happens, then it will quickly throw such relationships out of whack, meaning that what we see today wasn't designed, it evolved, even if the 'original' relationship was designed. If 'micro'evolution, on the other hand, won't alter the relationship, then how specific could it have been in the first place? Not specific enough to be any kind of logical problem for evolution apparently.

Anyway, it's great to see the YECs in the 'big tent' make ID look stupid, talking about "kinds" and such. That's their only refuge from the question, though. Good luck getting anyone to answer it.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

beervolcano

Posts: 147
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: May 12 2006,10:39

Quote (guthrie @ May 11 2006,16:25)

Its a good question.
I can think of several answers, like "Yes, of course designed creatures dont change" and then they would walk about kinds and other such non evidence based ideas that allow them to say that evolution of whatever kind isnt happening.

Yes, but as you know, ID isn't about kinds.
biblical creationism is.

but I'd still like to know, from an ID perspective, where species come from, i.e., the origin of species

I'd like to hear from an ID person why a species cannot become two species, from an ID perspective. Why, once a species is manufactured from its design, it doesn't or cannot further speciate.

--------------
("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."--Jonathan Swift)

beervolcano

Posts: 147
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: May 12 2006,10:48

Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ May 11 2006,17:14)

Larry of course didn't get it, but over on his blog, I pursued this with him on the subject of coevolution.

Anyway, it's great to see the YECs in the 'big tent' make ID look stupid, talking about "kinds" and such. That's their only refuge from the question, though. Good luck getting anyone to answer it.

Thanks.

I don't think it takes YECs to make IDers look stupid, but it does make it easier to draw the obvious comparisons.

People like Behe though, will say that evolution happens, and mostly the way theory describes it. There are just various instances where God intervened (for some reason) to give certain bacteria flagella or to mutate a virus into a pandemic strain.

This is just a ridiculous line of thought, but it's not YEC.

But, I keep reading and hearing over and over YEC-type arguments about NS and naturalism, etc., from the ID crowd. They forget all about what ID was supposed to be, which is a watered-down version of creationism, and start spouting the full-blown concentrated biblical version. They just don't overtly say that it's YEC.

But still, I have NEVER heard an ID explanation for the origin of species. I just hope an ID person will explain it to me here.

--------------
("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."--Jonathan Swift)

beervolcano

Posts: 147
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: May 12 2006,11:50

I left a link to this thread in the I'm From Missouri blog and got a reply there. I would like that person to come here and discuss it, but whatever. (I don't like the 3 inch width of the frame on the blogger.com comments sections.)

I left a reply saying to come here, as I will cut and paste the reply and then reply to it. Hopefully I'll get a response.

Quote

Well, beervolcano, I'm no IDer but I do have plenty of experience with designed items.

In my experience, as time passes designed items can only lose information. New information can never be gained by random deteriation combined with unnatural selection.

As time goes on, eventually you have two "kinds" of designed items.

The working kind, and the broken-down kind.

However, I think you could argue that each designed artifact is already a separate species.

After all, automobiles, airplanes, and the like can not reproduce.

This means that each individual item, even if they look exactly alike, is reproductively isolated from all others!

Isn't that the definition of a species?

In my experience, as time passes designed items can only lose information.
By what definition of information?

If a rock falls on top of a house, does the house have more or less information?

If a knife becomes rusty and dull, does it have more or less information?

If a car starts making a weird noise that it didn't make before, does the car have more or less information?

As time goes on, eventually you have two "kinds" of designed items.

The working kind, and the broken-down kind.
If it's broken and nonfunctional, then it can't pass on it's genes to the next generation. Or can it?

However, I think you could argue that each designed artifact is already a separate species.
I really thought it was obvious that when I used the term "species" that I meant a biological species composed of reproducing organisms.

This means that each individual item, even if they look exactly alike, is reproductively isolated from all others!

Isn't that the definition of a species?
Does this mean that the ID position on the origin of species is that every individual is seperately designed and wasn't born/hatched/budded from a parent?

I know this guy was probably parodying ID, but he's not far from the mark.

Please, ID people, come here and straighten me and this guy out.

--------------
("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."--Jonathan Swift)

	Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution