E
edwest
Guest
Thank you.
I still think this sort of view of natural life, is a bit beneath what it actually is. Edward Feser, who has done a lot to repopularize scholastic metaphysics, has a critique of evangelical design arguments, more specifically attacking their mechanistic approach to life.It is a technology. The technology of life forms.
There are many, but mutations present an interesting problem in as much as when you have one you risk deleting information. Say you have a bacteria that has an enzyme that can digest sugar of a particular sort. It is then introduced to a new environment with far more sugar of a different type.What are they?
Not convincing in what way?This is not convincing. Bacteria can exchange bits of genetic information with different species of bacteria.
I’m not sure I understand you. Are you talking about the E. Coli experiment, or something else now?This is a recombination effect.
You made a specific claim about it being a bacterial recombination, and I’ve been asking you what you meant with that.I have. It has been criticized by others.
Then I’m not sure what you’re claiming.
IDvolution overcomes his and other ID objections.I still think this sort of view of natural life, is a bit beneath what it actually is. Edward Feser, who has done a lot to repopularize scholastic metaphysics, has a critique of evangelical design arguments, more specifically attacking their mechanistic approach to life.
Well worth a read.
Edward Feser: “Intelligent Design” theory and mechanism