Can it be established using the tools of modern science that evolution is guided and has purpose and that the only tinkerer is not just blind uncaring indifferent forces and collisions?
If so, how?
If not what does that mean for ID, if anything?
81 thoughts on “What modern science has to say about guided evolution”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Shame, you might have heard a cock crow on the third….
The claim that I typically copy/quote from creationist websites is without foundation. Even worse, it’s false.
Actually you did have a way of knowing without going to any site other than TSZ and I did provide a clue. I posted a link to the debate here at TSZ. Next time ask me before trying to rip my throat out. Thank you.
Most people would have put that link in the same post they put the controversial quote. You know, for context. You know, as it was a somewhat controversial quote as you provided it.
Any particular reason you chose not to mention the link at that time?
Your side has nothing but insults and false accusations.
Congratulations.
Mung’s the smartest guy posting at TSZ, remember? At least he told us he is. So what if the topic here was “is evolution guided by an external intelligent entity?. Clever Mung found a quote to mine where he could misrepresent the views of a real scientist who was saying the exact opposite of ID claims. Isn’t Mung the most clever fellow?
Yeah, it’s the audience’s fault for not stitching together the narrative you are so generously providing.
You know when people say, it’s not you it’s me. Well, it’s you.
Channeling Joe Gallien are we now?
There are some comments in this thread that break the rule about accusing others of being dishonest. I’m leaving them here. My justification for that decision is in Moderation Issues.
Your side has nothing but lies and dishonestly mined quotes. Real congratulations.
What is your problem? If you have something to say about ID’s claims of evolution being guided by an Intelligent Designer then please say it.
Otherwise, don’t bother.
Yes, moderation here at TSZ is a joke and the people accusing me of dishonesty are liars.
In the OP I ask what it means for ID. What it seems to mean for ID is that an ID supporter when asked how evolution is guided provides links that support the mainstream narrative and fail to support ID in any way shape or form.
I guess I should just take that answer at face value.
Quote mining to give a false impression of the speaker’s views is dishonest.
You were caught blatantly quote mining.
Q.E.D.
A reminder for Patrick:
It’s in the rules and it doesn’t get any plainer than that.
I accept that you perhaps posted those links about guided evolution in error, perhaps not realizing the topic was ID guided evolution in your haste.
Would you care to post the links you would have posted had the intent of the OP been clearer in the first instance?
I’m confused. Is the topic moderation or the claims of the ID community regarding how evolution is in fact guided by an intelligent entity?
If you’d prefer to discuss moderation and the rules of the site, there are of course threads for that. But I’m hoping you’ll put the earlier misunderstandings behind us and post about how ID guides evolution.
So you’re saying we should assume your blatant quote-mining was the result of your stupidity and not duplicity?
OK, I can accept that.
But then what do we do with his statement that he’s smarter than everyone here? I mean, other than laugh at such delusion?
Chalk that up to grinding, irrevocable stupidity as well? Maybe, since he’s clearly not good at catching on, but it’s a bit hard to avoid the fact that he’s especially stupid about anything he disagrees with.
Glen Davidson
Given that there are clear violations of the rules in this thread, and given that moderator Patrick has decided that the violations of the rules are justified, my participation in this thread is at an end.
Given that there was a clear instance of dishonest quote mining and given that the quote miner was called out it’s not surprising the quote miner would lack the integrity to apologize and continue.
Exactly.
But not putting the link in with the quote at first gives Mung an excuse to accuse me of “trying to rip [his] throat out.”
I know they say “never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity” … but malice is sure a strong contender in the Mung-motivation sweepstakes this time around.
Oookaaay …
Participation “is at an end” for barely five whole hours. Some end!
Obviously Mung was just engaging in a little bit of street theater. 🙂
Mung:
OMagain:
🙂
Guided/ directed evolution is exemplified by genetic algorithms. We can observe the power of guided/ directed evolution.
Yet nowhere in biology can we observe the direction of an intelligent designer, just the environment.
Unless of course you know better?
Your strawman is duly noted, OM. And too bad you don’t have a methodology for testing unguided evolution’s ability to produce complex adaptations.
keiths:
Flint:
Science is not a purely empirical process, and hypotheses are rejected for reasons other than falsification.
Virtually any hypothesis can be rescued by the addition of ad hoc assumptions that bring it into line with the evidence. The “phlogiston has negative mass” assumption is a classic example. A similar stunt can be attempted with regard to guided evolution: “Evolution is guided, but the Guider guides in a way that makes it look unguided.”
Scientists reject these ad-hocified hypotheses not because they are falsified, but for other reasons: they aren’t parsimonious, their assumptions are unjustified, they seem less likely to be true, etc.
Lenski.
LoL! There weren’t any complex adaptations that occurred under Lenski and he hasn’t shown any of the changes were the result of unguided evolution.
Whoopsie…
keiths,
What does unguided evolution look like? If you cannot say then your post is BS