Inference and its role in NS (General)

by dhw, Monday, January 24, 2011, 19:55 (5053 days ago) @ xeno6696

dhw: 1) if organisms don't adapt to the conditions they will die (selective pressure); 2) some organisms adapt/change/innovate; 3) those that have changed appropriately survive (natural selection). Phase 2 is the one that causes us all the problems. -I shan't quote all of your response, because I agree with most of what you say, and indeed it echoes and illustrates the above schema. The difference between us is encapsulated in two statements of yours and one of David's:-MATT: As far as natural selection is concerned, it does not matter whether or not we know exactly how the bacteria did what it did.-DAVID: New genetics, same species. Microevolution, and it doesn't prove macroevolution.-MATT: In the Dawkins view, your question gets pushed all the way back to abiogenesis...-The crux of the matter is why we're having this discussion at all, and my reason (David's as well, I presume) is the issue of chance v. design, and hence the existence or non-existence of a designer. Do we believe that chance could assemble the ingredients for life (abiogenesis) and for the mechanisms of adaptation and innovation (micro and macro evolution) without which evolution could not take place? How these mechanisms function "doesn't matter" for NS, and it "doesn't matter" if you are only concerned with why evolution happens. It does matter if you are arguing for or against design. David has posted article after article, emphasizing the complexities and the still unsolved mysteries which for him reinforce the design argument. That is why the attempt to synonymize evolution and natural selection ... i.e. to exclude the huge questions raised by these mechanisms ... is not acceptable to anyone who takes evolution and the design issue seriously.-You have concluded by saying that unfortunately you "will have to wait for biologists to answer these questions more completely." So will I. But they matter.