Intelligent Design, Edward Feser's views

  • Thread starter Thread starter tafan2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Depends on how quickly it happened and what their existing physiology would allow.
 
Dan123 said:
Depends on how quickly it happened and what their existing physiology would allow.
Click to expand...
If it happens slowly, do you suppose a fish like the piranha that lives in the Amazon would evolve into a cold water species such as the walleye fish that live in Canada ?
 
Techno2000 said:
What would happen to the animals in South America if the climate became just like Canada ?
Click to expand...
I suppose that you are aware that everyone who responds is making it up according to their beliefs.

Clearly things that don’t work, don’t work - the second of the two great pillars of evolutionary theories. What happens if the physiology of organic life forms does not function well in a colder climate, those creature will die. Natural selection is not an active or creative process, but is rather destructive. The Galapagos provides an excellent example of how the diversity that we found will perish with the introduction of microbes, insects and predatory animals, from which the indigenous inhabitants are unable to to defend. Extensive measures have been implemented to reverse the trend. This has been the case with human expansion across the globe, where TB and other illnesses to which the explorers and colonists had some immunity, devasted the existing local populations.

I don’t think the concept of natural selection will answer your question, which I understand has to do with the great diversity we see in nature and includes ourselves as a central part of creation.

Nor does the other second great pillar of evolutionary theories, which is that stuff happens. Random changes in the configurations of material substances, DNA in particular is said to be the engine for diversity, with natural selection the driver. Some animals have thicker skins, feathers, hair, are warm blooded, and perhaps hibernate, because they do. The cause is all about electrochemistry, the bricks and mortar coming together as we have never seen them do, creating a home.

In summary, stuff happens until it doesn’t.

As I said, you won’t get a straight answer. And unfortunately, you have to put up with what people who question evolutionary theory typically have - the belittling responses I’ve been reading here.
 
Last edited:
Aloysium said:
In summary, stuff happens until it doesn’t.

As I said, you won’t get a straight answer. And unfortunately, you have to put up with what people who question evolutionary theory typically have - the belittling responses I’ve been reading here.
Click to expand...
My answer, to my own question, would be that the South American animals couldn’t cope with the cold. Even if it took billions of years for it to slowly get cold, they would not mutate into cold resistant creatures.
 
Techno2000 said:
South American animals couldn’t cope with the cold. Even if it took billions of years for it to slowly get cold, they would not mutate into cold resistant creatures.
Click to expand...
What seems to happen is that the genome, as it interacts with other cellular processes as part of the entire organism, expresses certain parts of its code int keeping with its environment. It hereby allows for changes in the phenotype of the offspring that follow where there is a gradual change. There are also built in mechanisms that allow for change, such as the response to the arteries of the hand to cold and what occurs when we acclimatize to living in mountain areas, that are relatively quick and within a single generations. One has to consider also that the capacity that we, and to a limited extent higher functioning creatures have, to learn how to get around changes in our environment. None of this has to do with macroevolution. We’re never going to have a South American mantled howler monkey build a thatched hut and light a fire to keep its family warm, praying for a return of the warmth.
 
Last edited:
Aloysium said:
There are also built in mechanisms that allow for change, such as the response to the arteries of the hand to cold and what occurs when we acclimatize to living in mountain areas, that are relatively quick and within a single generations.
Click to expand...
Right, dogs shed a little bit in the summer to cope with a hot environment, but that is about as far as adaptations go in the real world.
 
If any of you can identify and demonstrate these boundaries present in the genetics of animals that prevent adaptation beyond certain boundaries you’ll seriously win a Nobel prize. In addition to prestige it includes a cash reward which I’m sure could help you, your families, or charity.
 
Someone else gets the prize:

Are the evo’s ready to concede? 😀

What I have been saying right along:

Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution

It is textbook biology, for example, that species with large, far-flung populations—think ants, rats, humans—will become more genetically diverse over time.
But is that true?
"The answer is no," said Stoeckle, lead author of the study, published in the journal Human Evolution.
For the planet’s 7.6 billion people, 500 million house sparrows, or 100,000 sandpipers, genetic diversity "is about the same," he told AFP.

The study’s most startling result, perhaps, is that nine out of 10 species on Earth today, including humans, came into being 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.

"This conclusion is very surprising, and I fought against it as hard as I could," Thaler told AFP.

That reaction is understandable: How does one explain the fact that 90 percent of animal life, genetically speaking, is roughly the same age? ( we know the answer here at CAF)

In analysing the barcodes across 100,000 species, the researchers found a telltale sign showing that almost all the animals emerged about the same time as humans.

And yet—another unexpected finding from the study—species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there’s nothing much in between.

“If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies,” said Thaler. “They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space.”

The absence of “in-between” species is something that also perplexed Darwin, he said.

Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
Are the evo’s ready to concede?
Click to expand...
God created a hierarchy of animals that fit in a precise niche, in a perfect food chain ecosystem. Just like the spark plugs, pistons and gears all work together, so does the ecosystem, this was clearly designed for man to be able to live on this Earth.
 
So what’s with all the extinct animals in the ground? God’s rough drafts?
 
buffalo said:
( we know the answer here at CAF )
Click to expand...
You assert the answer. Even if you can prove evolution dead wrong that doesn’t make intelligent design correct. You still have to demonstrate the validity of your theory.
 
Dan123 said:
You still have to demonstrate the validity of your theory.
Click to expand...
Hah, for a long time posters argued evo is the best explanation until something replaces it. ID is a much better explanation and is amassing more strength with every discovery.
 
do a search on prageru. That should lower the search from 7 billion to about 80.
 
In your view of things, how did white people come about? (Or, if you believe the original humans were Caucasian, any other phenotypically distinct group of humans?)
 
No human (and no modern organism, really) is “more evolved” than any other. But a literal reading of Genesis agrees with science on at least the point that all humans share common ancestry and spread out from one origin point on the planet, probably not Europe. So there has to have been at least enough adaptation during that spread to explain the wide variety of environmentally-adapted humans we now have.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top