Yes, I agree with you as far as that goes (even if a random distribution randomly made genes, they would not be random after selection got done with them, except for true pseudogenes).
That was not really what I was getting at. If as you say, "we don't know initial conditions, we don't know mechanism, and we can't predict future events" then how in the world can one be so confident that it WAS random and naturalistic? Isn't it really just a choice that says more about the heart of the chooser than the voice of the evidence?
Actually, I was hoping to hear from you on this one. Weren't you the one who pointed out in another thread that much of what we call 'junk DNA' is highly conserved in humans and other critters? I think you also pointed out that if it is highly conserved, it can't be junk, it must have some function that is useful to the organism.
Maybe as you say we can't distinguish between a random and an intelligent desing event, but when with each discovery complexity and interelatedness grows, when with each discovery that which we thought was superfulous proves to be important, then I would think that at least slides the bar a little more towards the "design" rather than "random" end of the scale.
Wouldn't you agree? Is this (that is, interelated complexity could be extremely high and things thought to be junk would prove to have function.)not exactly what would be expected if the design hypothesis were correct?
posted on 02/02/2003 11:57:13 AM PST
One vase vs two facing profiles . . .
opposite conclusions - - - viewpoints (( bias )) !
Metaphysics // philosophy // psychology explains all !
posted on 02/02/2003 12:04:40 PM PST
(( Orcs of the world : : : Take note and beware. ))
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson