tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post4707641229800791778..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Tania Lombrozo on Evolutionary Belief and Cultural FactorsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-11055530284386301472015-07-01T21:31:15.126-07:002015-07-01T21:31:15.126-07:00these "scientists' in saying christian do...these "scientists' in saying christian doctrines are wrong aRE attacking someones faith.<br />no way around ut.<br />Well fair and square for others to defend same doctrines, especially in public institutions, .<br />Thee is not a religious neutrality in science if its saying religion in this way or that is plain wrong.<br />they fired first on fort sumpter.<br />Equal time is demanded and the peoples right. Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-88319247782322486892015-07-01T21:31:09.019-07:002015-07-01T21:31:09.019-07:00these "scientists' in saying christian do...these "scientists' in saying christian doctrines are wrong aRE attacking someones faith.<br />no way around ut.<br />Well fair and square for others to defend same doctrines, especially in public institutions, .<br />Thee is not a religious neutrality in science if its saying religion in this way or that is plain wrong.<br />they fired first on fort sumpter.<br />Equal time is demanded and the peoples right. Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-42885395241190825802015-07-01T11:38:34.303-07:002015-07-01T11:38:34.303-07:00The problem is not with Dr. Hunters statement. The...<i>The problem is not with Dr. Hunters statement. The problem is you're either ignoring or simply not comprehending that portion which qualifies the entire statement; 'biological adaptations we can observe,...'</i><br /><br />That's a pretty worthless qualifier since scientific knowledge isn't limited to just what we can see in real time. It's as dumb as claiming "given the erosion we can observe the Colorado river could never have carved the Grand Canyon" or "given the growth we can observe a mature redwood tree could never have grown from a seed".Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-63898073221973420402015-07-01T03:49:08.409-07:002015-07-01T03:49:08.409-07:00Calamity,
have you considered that self-referent...Calamity, <br /><br />have you considered that self-referential, self-undermining, self-falsifying absurdity might just be an issue?<br /><br />CH, in OP:<br /><br />>>So there are cognitive mechanisms underlying human cognition that influence our failure to accept evolution. While that seems to make sense it reminds us of that thorny problem, of which Lombrozo is happily oblivious, that these cognitive mechanisms (as well as everything else for that matter) must have been created by evolution.<br /><br />In other words, Lombrozo’s belief in evolution is, according to her own account, simply a consequence of mechanistic actions in her head and the resulting molecular states, all of which just happened to arise spontaneously by the blind interplay of chance events and natural law.<br /><br />How can Lombrozo be confident of any of her Epicurean assertions?>><br /><br />Please, think again.<br /><br />KFGEM of The Kairos Initiativehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10622199013789009422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-49602768329819919132015-07-01T02:02:18.427-07:002015-07-01T02:02:18.427-07:00Because it's not the job of scientists to tell...Because it's not the job of scientists to tell you what to believe in. Maybe Dawkins do it, but this guy is nuts.<br /><br />Like it's not the job of religious people to tell scientist what to teach in classrooms.Calamityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03247404259851404588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-71350728953092436102015-07-01T01:59:56.360-07:002015-07-01T01:59:56.360-07:00I see what you mean. But I don't want to specu...I see what you mean. But I don't want to speculate on what Mr Hunter means by " we can observe".<br /><br />It could be changes that can be witness in vivo or analyses of genoomic data.<br />But of course, there is example of evolutionary changes that are happening right now. Are they fast or slow ? That's another question.<br /><br />For Joe G : <br />I'm still clueless on what is this "built-in responses to environmental cues" and the program put inside every organism by the designer.<br /><br />It's a big claim, but with nothing backing it up. What you see happening in organism is molecular interactions.Calamityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03247404259851404588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-72372533137659370582015-06-30T22:26:34.105-07:002015-06-30T22:26:34.105-07:00Calamity
"The problem with Mr Hunter stateme...Calamity<br /><br />"The problem with Mr Hunter statement is that biological adapations are not dominated by rapid changes."<br /><br />The problem is not with Dr. Hunters statement. The problem is you're either ignoring or simply not comprehending that portion which qualifies the entire statement; 'biological adaptations we can observe,...'<br /><br />CH: "In fact biological adaptations we can observe are dominated by rapid, directed change in response to environmental challenges, not slow, random change accumulated via natural selection as evolutionary dogma had insisted."Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-36878927159165002082015-06-30T21:15:20.850-07:002015-06-30T21:15:20.850-07:00At least it shows the threat of modern creationism...At least it shows the threat of modern creationism and its popularity.<br />they notice and are afraid.<br />why do they not declare the bible is false and so presumptions of Christianity, for many, are false. In short why do they pretend they are not saying such religious faith is plain wrong? Because its not socially acceptable and it would make it worse for them tHey need christians to agree with evolution because so many are, they say, Christians.<br />who has the mental block here??Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-85949643262563790392015-06-30T09:31:52.481-07:002015-06-30T09:31:52.481-07:00Design is a natural cause. And the design is guide...Design is a natural cause. And the design is guided by its internal programming, ie "built-in responses to environmental cues", Spetner 1997. And no, those papers assume unguided evolution. They do not demonstrate it. No one can model unguided evolution. OTOH genetic and evolutionary algorithms model intelligent design evolution.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-4756106868676611582015-06-30T07:59:59.447-07:002015-06-30T07:59:59.447-07:00The problem with Mr Hunter statement is that biolo...The problem with Mr Hunter statement is that biological adapations are not <b> dominated</b> by rapid changes.<br />Most of the time evolution is a slow process. Evolution can happens really quickly if for example there is a strong selective pressure (as in the article you mentionned).<br /><br />Since you don't believe in natural causes for the evolution of organisms, maybe you could enlight us about how and when the designer decided that those lizards had to go higher up in the branches and develop bigger toes ? How would you guide that ?<br /><br />About the unscientific popular litterature I don't get it. Nature, Science, PLoS Biology, American Journal of Human Genetics, Trends in Genetics, Nucleic Acids Research, PLoS Genetics, Bioinformatics (just some examples) are all very scientific and all feature papers acknowledging "unquided evolution".<br /><br />On the other hand I don't see many "guided evolution" papers hitting the news.Calamityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03247404259851404588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-41084078739373138102015-06-30T06:03:33.162-07:002015-06-30T06:03:33.162-07:00What literature supports unguided evolution? From ...What literature supports unguided evolution? From my view only unscientific popular literature does so.<br /><br />Look up "rapid evolution in guppies"<br /><br />Then there is this:<br /><br />http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/41309/title/Rapid-Evolution-in-Real-Time/Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-74539538943448123302015-06-30T05:39:33.610-07:002015-06-30T05:39:33.610-07:00In fact biological adaptations we can observe are ...<i>In fact biological adaptations we can observe are dominated by rapid, directed change in response to environmental challenges, not slow, random change accumulated via natural selection as evolutionary dogma had insisted.</i><br />Maybe you could cite your source for that ? Because, to my knowledge of the litterature this is not accurate.<br /><br />You wrote some scientific papers 10 years ago, you should know that backing your claims with references help the reader.Calamityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03247404259851404588noreply@blogger.com