tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post113272068527294925..comments2023-11-02T07:25:45.884-05:00Comments on Mormanity - a blog for those interested in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Was It Just a Coincidence, or Design? News from Nature.comJeff Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1132867189444168382005-11-24T15:19:00.000-06:002005-11-24T15:19:00.000-06:00So-called microevolution is very relevant to issue...So-called microevolution is <I>very</I> relevant to issues of medicine, public health, pest control, and ecology. The principle of faunal succession is relevant to finding petrolium.<BR/><BR/>Of course, depending on your focus evolution may play a small role in day-to-day investigation.Jared*https://www.blogger.com/profile/04153451651313300826noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1132851156922096052005-11-24T10:52:00.000-06:002005-11-24T10:52:00.000-06:00Understanding evolution has many practical implica...Understanding evolution has many practical implications for real life. For example, I understand that Microsoft uses evolution to produce all of its software. Rather than hiring programmers, they take basic software and allow it to mutate over and over by copying it back and forth to defective hard disks that cause random bits to be flipped, skipped, or chipped. The mutated software is then automoatically tested to eliminate programs that can't run at all, and then the programs that might be functional are given to beta testers to see what they do. Potential winners are then shipped to customers, all of whom are unwitting beta testers. This explains why so manny "updates" lack previous features and have new bugs and other fatal flaws. But it's a small price to pay for evolutionary advance that ultimately might just lead to software that actually seems like some kind of intelligence was behind its design.Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1132800789993447612005-11-23T20:53:00.000-06:002005-11-23T20:53:00.000-06:00While in certain ways evolution is the cornerstone...While in certain ways evolution <I>is</I> the cornerstone of biology, it is a cornerstone in a weird way. Unlike how say thermodynamics is central in physics, but perhaps akin to GR. The fact is that most biology doesn't really make reference to evolution and rarely uses it. So it really isn't akin to physics where you're probably not going to make it far without certain aspects of physics making constant appearances.<BR/><BR/>That's not to say evolution isn't important for understanding. However I do think that perhaps some sell its explanatory importance a tad too much.Clark Goblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03876620613578404474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1132779993143225562005-11-23T15:06:00.000-06:002005-11-23T15:06:00.000-06:00I know nothing about butterfly anatomy, but it is ...I know nothing about butterfly anatomy, but it is likely that the structures responsible for the effect are slightly modified from other butterflies that lack the effect. This is a common theme in evolution.<BR/><BR/>As Clark said, scientists use teleological language as a short-cut. Adding to the (likely erroneous) sense of design is giving names to natural objects that are derived from human engineering. Cellular proteins and structures become motors, eyes become cameras, and brains become computers. These are useful analogies, but ID proponents usually conveniently leave out some of the fundamental differences.Jared*https://www.blogger.com/profile/04153451651313300826noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1132766438168871112005-11-23T11:20:00.000-06:002005-11-23T11:20:00.000-06:00People naturally use language with reference to pu...People naturally use language with reference to purpose or design. For instance when I say my car pulls right, I'm speaking as if there were designs to its actions. But of course there are not. But you are right that biologists will often use teleological language. The issue is whether these "designs" can be arrived at via informational complexity and emergence. The consensus is that they can.Clark Goblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03876620613578404474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1132748380582334122005-11-23T06:19:00.000-06:002005-11-23T06:19:00.000-06:00But the language of science is full of references ...But the language of science is full of references to purpose or design. Species are said to have developed a certain characteristic in order to cope with a certain condition. No, that can't be, according to strict evolutionary theory. Rather, the species must have, through a completely random, unconnected and purposeless series of coincidences and accidents, developed a broad diversity of genes that made them capable of inheriting numerous variations of sophisticated and complete characteristics (such as eyes, beaks, etc.) and then the external conditions must have caused some of them to die and some of them to live, passing on their already fully developed genetic traits.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1132724710806720142005-11-22T23:45:00.000-06:002005-11-22T23:45:00.000-06:00Design, when used in science, typically means util...Design, when used in science, typically means utility. It shouldn't be taken as support of ID which nearly all scientists either reject or acknowledge isn't necessary.<BR/><BR/>Given the current political climate I'm sure the word choice was unfortunate.Clark Goblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03876620613578404474noreply@blogger.com