Identity (Identity)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, August 25, 2009, 22:49 (5567 days ago) @ David Turell

What I don't understand is why David seems convinced that showing that evolution can happen in short time frames somehow makes a designer more palatable. I also don't see why beautiful and complex animal relationships also do this: . Maybe I'm just enough of a materialist that I'm missing an incredible subtlety here, but it just isn't enough to justify the belief in a creator. Just as we don't need to explain the origin of life to use evolution, we don't need to explain how clownfish and anemone became "friends." It doesn't nullify common descent or genetic transmission.
> 
> I don't know what is difficult to understand about my position. Evolution takes time. There are rates of mutation that have been calculated. Most mutations are either bad or neutral. Only some (about 30%) can be useful. Therefore, short time or long time is an important consdieration. I have noted that epigenetic changes can be an important 'short time' mechanism. The ability of RNA to manage genes in DNA is another very important consideration. The more complex the evolutionary machinery, the more it suggests a supernatural origin. Codes come from intelligence. Unless one accepts the Darwin version of DNA, no code ever pops up by chance. 
> - As dhw would likely point out, it would be proof of complexity, but not *proof* of a creator. It's still intangible. It doesn't make it any more *real,* and to me this is because it still doesn't explain anything, because no "how" is generated. To me, for this to be a valid explanation for a deity, you would be required to supply that "how," otherwise it's an explanation that doesn't really explain anything. Proof of *your* abiogenesis has just as big a mountain to climb as the scientific version, in this light. - I've said this before, but for you to claim a creator in this manner, you need to be able to account for both the immaterial and material portions of the creator. You need to be able to exactly define its limits, or you don't have proof, only an interpretation, and like I've railed against often, there is no way to prove an interpretation correct. You read nature like a book and say you see a creator. That's fine, but I have no more reason to believe it over any other interpretation. - > "symbiosis is explained adequately by selection" This declarative statement has no proof. - Natural selection just says that beneficial characteristics would be preserved; to me, that's adequate. I can also use this principle in a lab to produce results. Remember, my metaphysics must do something.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"