|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: genetic evidence against evolution - 6/9/2008 8:20:32 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
Well common descent is nothing without reproduction and reproduction is certainly a mechanism for transferring genetic information from parent to offspring. So I don't know what the purpose of your clarification is. It is still splitting hairs as far as I can see.
Science needs to be precise.
I know, but if you are going to split hairs, it would be helpful to know what hair it is you are trying to split and why.
You object to referring to common descent as a mechanism and maybe you are right to do so. Maybe this is lax shorthand. But what terminology would you then use to refer to the mechanism that conveys a unique set of derived traits to all the descendants, and only to the descendants, of a common ancestor? What terminology would you use to refer to the mechanism that produces the phylogeny this pattern of inheritance necessarily produces?
And if "mechanism" is inappropriate terminology to refer to common descent, what is a good terminology for it?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: genetic evidence against evolution - 6/9/2008 9:44:46 PM
|
|
|
ianz
Posts: 366
Joined: 12/22/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
Well common descent is nothing without reproduction and reproduction is certainly a mechanism for transferring genetic information from parent to offspring. So I don't know what the purpose of your clarification is. It is still splitting hairs as far as I can see.
Science needs to be precise.
I know, but if you are going to split hairs, it would be helpful to know what hair it is you are trying to split and why.
You object to referring to common descent as a mechanism and maybe you are right to do so. Maybe this is lax shorthand. But what terminology would you then use to refer to the mechanism that conveys a unique set of derived traits to all the descendants, and only to the descendants, of a common ancestor? What terminology would you use to refer to the mechanism that produces the phylogeny this pattern of inheritance necessarily produces?
And if "mechanism" is inappropriate terminology to refer to common descent, what is a good terminology for it?
I think that Jhud is playing a somewhat semantic game. Jack is an ID proponent, which I am going to assume means he believes common ancestry is the correct interpretation of the evidence.
But as to whether it is the mechanism is a different story. Since ID suggests that a designer had a role (however infrequent) in the mutation process, he can't say that common descent is the mechanism. I assume that Jhud would consider that the designer is the mechanism, in as much as the designer enabled it to happen, and in some cases, directly made it happen.
Regards, Ian
|
|
|
|
|
RE: genetic evidence against evolution - 6/9/2008 10:56:59 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ianz
I think that Jhud is playing a somewhat semantic game.
My perception as well. ID proponents do tend toward viewing biology mechanistically even where that is not especially helpful.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
