(May 25, 2016 at 5:31 pm)AAA Wrote:(May 25, 2016 at 1:44 pm)Whateverist the White Wrote: Another way to say it is that the 'design' that we see in living things shows evidence of their having been formed differently in the past. Adaptions organisms make in transforming over time show design compromises based on expedience. The giraffes crazy long nerve wouldn't have been designed like that if not for having evolved from an animal without an extremely long neck. It is evidence of evolution.
AAA, are you arguing that evolution wasn't reflected in the organisms we find today? Or are you just saying it is all God's plan/design ultimately? If you agree that organisms have the capacity to evolve over time, I have no trouble with agreeing that, yeah, that's pretty cool how animals change to better fit their environment. But does that require any designer? If no designer is involved in the actual choices, why assume a designer had to design organisms to evolve sans and input from a designer?
The long nerve is consistent with evolution, but it is not inconsistent with design. Watch that video that someone posted of Dawkins watching an anatomist dissect a giraffe laryngeal nerve. You will see a branch coming off of the nerve every time they show a close up. Are we supposed to assume that those branches are unimportant? I'm glad that you didn't design my recurrent laryngeal nerve. It wouldn't have been able to reach several of its targets.
To answer your questions, there are aspects of biology that are consistent with both the theory of evolution and ID. Also, the basic story of mutation and natural selection sounds perfectly reasonable until you start to see what exactly it needs to explain. Elaborate control mechanisms involving literally dozens of different enzymes working together is one example. I think that if evolution wasn't the answer before the question was even properly asked, we would not have attribute the powers to mutation and natural selection that we have.
Right. Agree to disagree then.
