New/old theoretical base for intelligent design . . . and evolution

[Brightflash]

I thought I'd invite y'all to check out my latest blog post titled <a
href="http://johnscorner.blogspot.com/2009/07/new-theoretical-base-for-
intelligent.html">New theoretical base for intelligent design . . .
also incorporating evolution?</a> I think you'll find it interesting.

And then, for something I've found rather disturbing and intriguing,
both, at the same time, perhaps you'd like to read my first two posts
(more to come sometime in the future!) about Denis Lamoureux's <em><a
href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1556355815?
ie=UTF8&tag=johnscornblog-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1556355815">Evolutionary
Creation</a></em>--<a href="http://johnscorner.blogspot.com/2009/07/
denis-lamoureuxs-evolutionary-creation.html">Part I</a> and <a
href="http://johnscorner.blogspot.com/2009/07/denis-lamoureuxs-
evolutionary-creation_21.html">Part II</a>.

John Holzmann

[Rusty]

I think that the whole concept of evolution is extraordinarily complex
and dependent on qualifying terms within specified contexts. At face
value, it certainly seems possible for genetic mutations to, over
time, produce varied complexity and diverse species (and even produce
an irreducibly complex system). Yet at what point does species
extinction or mechanical breakdown trip up the process? The idea of
segregating beneficial vs. harmful mutations can also be vague since
context can sometimes determine whether or not a mutation is
beneficial or harmful. In other words, we don't necessarily know what
variation provides for better survivability until we see what member
of the species survives. In my mind, this is integrated complexity
and, as such, indicates thought and intent - attributes that only come
from a mind.

Rusty

[Heather Isenhower]

I recently encountered cladistics, the new classification system for
biological forms experts are using in place of the Linnean system. I am
sure you are knowledgeable of cladistics, but it is new to me.
Instead of groupings based on morphology (structure, appearance),
cladistics organizes life forms based on their evolutionary ancestry.
According to these experts, this type of system is necessary because it
reflects the "depth and complexity" of evolutionary progression. Well,
the diagram is, in fact very, complex and difficult to decipher. The
vertical "tree" of evolution is reformed into a wheel shape, with
diverse life forms radiating from a single trunk, the common ancestor.

When you mentioned "extraordinarily complex", I immediately thought of
the cladistics system. One major publisher is updating its high school
biology textbook by focusing on cladistics over the Linnean system
(which is covered, but in the appendix, if I remember correctly). The
authors said the update reflects the switch in lower level college
biology courses to cladistics.

Is cladistics an attempt to understand the integrated complexity you
mention, to trace the legacy of the surviving species? On the face of
it, it looks very methodical and plausible, but it could also be a
refusal to accept design and purpose. And to avoid explaining the
absence of transitional forms.

Just some thoughts about cladistics...

Heather Isenhower

[Rusty]

Heather,

NOVA covered the cladistics (and cladogram) topic several years ago.
My short take on the process is that scientists are imposing their
predisposition towards the evolutionary scenario on the data. In other
words, they arrange the fossils in the order they think they must have
evolved. Check this link from PBS
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/teachers/activities/2905_link.html

Note the following paragraph in the first student activity:
"Biological organisms are traditionally classified according to like,
or constant, characteristics. However, to show how organisms have
evolved over time to be different, scientists sometimes develop a
family tree of how they may have evolved, a method known as
cladistics. (See Activity Answer for more information.) Students will
use common nails, screws, and bolts to simulate the process of
applying cladistics to living organisms or fossil life forms. Note:
Point out that students' models will differ from how living organisms
actually evolve—the inanimate objects they will be using already have
a fixed set of traits and do not represent true biological
evolutionary relationship that living organisms exhibit."

I find it interesting that they use human artifacts (nails, screws,
and bolts) to demonstrate a classification process within an
evolutionary framework. While they admit the objects do not have a
true biological evolutionary relationship, you've gotta love the fact
that they used designed objects in their lesson.

Rusty

On Aug 17, 9:39 am, Heather Isenhower <isenhowe...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote: