Even if you believe in natural selection or assert its reality there is no way to know if ANY instance of human breeding of animals, on the farm or a kennel or in a science lab, produces any knowledge about what happened in the wild in the lost past or even today that could support natural selection.
We have no idea if what is produced would be in anyway comparable to what would happen in nature. Survivors of animal husbandry which are allowed to go on to breed are determined by the breeder, which ones are to die are also selected by the breeder for his purposes which, in every case, are not in the interests of the animals he kills and, ultimately, not even the ones he allows to live to breed.
We have every reason to be skeptical of that producing the same thing as would happen in nature, it's quite possible that the animals that Darwin and later Darwinists would deem "fittest" or "superior" would anywhere from often to always not be the same who would survive and breed in greater numbers in the wild. The same is true for plants produced by selective breeding and hybridization. In some cases, human selective breeding produces types that have distinct and, in many cases, serious problems, in not a few instances, that includes sterility or an inability to have offspring.
The use of animal breeding as a sort of model of natural selection was inept for a number of reasons. One, if your object is to support a non-teleological ideology in regard to nature is so glaringly obvious that I'm amazed it, alone, didn't generate a huge literature of disconfirmation of Darwinism as invented by Darwin, resting so heavily on the alleged evidence of animal husbandry, something taken up by, first, eugenics and, unsurprisingly, considering what I point out about the motives of animal husbandry, above, eugenics-genocide.
EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENS IN SUCH ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, SELECTIVE PLANT BREEDING, IS AN INTENTIONAL ACT BY HUMAN BEINGS WHO HAVE A GOAL IN DOING IT. It is a supreme example of intentional teleology. The sought ends are an intrinsic part of it, those engaged in it will often change their methods if their ends are not produced by their program of animal breeding.
It's the same idiotic claims made about such things as the production of synthetic DNA in labs in the delusion that abiogenesis can tell you anything reliably believed about the origin of life on Earth. That claim, so often made is scientists synthesizing DNA or whatever is "a way to disprove intelligent design". The fact is ANY SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENT IS A PRODUCT OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN FOR THAT REASON, ALONE, YOU CAN'T POSSIBLY USE IT TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE SAME THING WOULD HAPPEN WITHOUT INTELLIGENT DESIGN. Even if you succeed in synthesizing something you can peddle, universally as "artificial life" you have merely proven that it can be done through intelligent design, you may have rightly been taken as having added to the side of a balance on behalf of intelligent design.
You would have the same success as baking a cake to prove that cakes come about through random chance events. What's unintelligent is asserting you have done the opposite of what you actually did.
You can't even strengthen the case against intelligent design that through experiments that don't work because they were, as well, the result of intelligent design. Making mistakes, experiments that produce null results or results that weren't anticipated are also acts of intelligent design.
No comments:
Post a Comment