Forums | MacLife

I wont argue that I will argue the drive of life to survive is a cause of the speciation. Not the only cause but one of them.

Tallgeese wrote:

resedit wrote:

The seemingly relentless drive for organisms to procreate has led us to see that drive as something that life "wants."

The theory is that natural selection chooses those that want to reproduce and do reproduce, because those that produce more young will spread their genes which code the desire to reproduce.

This is why language is such a tricky thing. I used the word "drive" because using the word "want" may imply a willful decision to some. For animals which do not have free will as humans do, I would be more likely to say that the drive to reproduce is stronger in some than others and that this trait is passed on.

I just don't like phrasing like "natural selection chooses" because natural selection is not a thing or a force or a will that can choose. It's simply a description of what happens.

Thank you.

For crying out loud!

I'd simply amend that slightly that "It's simply a description of what tends to happen."

resedit wrote:

If you really wanted a definition, it would be easy for you to find. You don't want one, but rather, you want to reject whatever one I post.

That's because there is no know definition of intelligent design that involves Young Earth Creationism that come anywhere close to approaching validity in a scientific discussion.

Yes, I would not submit that evolution itself happens in an intelligent manner, but I couldn't deny the natural laws behind it happening are fairly intelligent...think about it: its much more efficient than designing each item by hand. Nevertheless, for the time being, its an idea solely rooted in philosophy.

user wrote:

Metacell wrote:

resedit wrote:

Just like I don't recall mutations and even speciation never happening being part of intelligent design.

OK, so whats the limiting factor?  Why can't teeth become scales, scales become hairs? And why is there a limiting factor?  Whats its function?

Or or you now saying intelligent design accepts evolution, but believes there's an intelligent design behind it?  Because I have no problem with that although there is no scientific basis for it (yet).

What we see in evolution is what we would expect in unintelligent, undirected development. Here's an example that I read once: When engineers design a TV, they choose to include only technology that's needed. When you open up a modern TV set, you see integrated circuits but you don't see vacuum tubes scattered about. Vacuum tubes are old technology and they aren't needed. However, in biology, we constantly see things like the appendix in humans mixed in with parts that are useful.

The interesting thing is that if you write a computer model to develop circuits by evolution, you end up getting circuits that perform the same task as one that may have been patented by an engineer 100 years ago, however, sometimes they end up being more efficient / more effective than the engineered one, and many times they will develop 'vestigial circuits' which have no apparent purpose, but remain in the overall circuit.

resedit wrote:

Metacell wrote:

resedit wrote:

Just like I don't recall mutations and even speciation never happening being part of intelligent design.

OK, so whats the limiting factor?

Irreducible complexity.

Oh right, magic.