tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post5208556273109240734..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: The Amazing Mantis ShrimpUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-21170701678087169242009-12-30T10:36:52.575-08:002009-12-30T10:36:52.575-08:00"The difficulty with evolution is that it can..."The difficulty with evolution is that it can be used to explain anything and everything, and therefore nothing,"<br /><br />Well that's not true. Evolution could not explain the gene sequence of every animal species on the planet being unique. Or the appearance of complex creatures or features without the existence of precursors showing 'intermediate' stages of development. But this is not what we find. The gene sequences of animal species and the existence of 'intermediate' creatures and features very much supports the ideas of common descent and evolution by natural selection.<br /><br />"One of the most important assumptions is that all existing biological phenomena must have come about by evolution."<br /><br />Is there a single scientific theory which can explain existing biological phenomenon without evolution? Until there is one, evolution is all we have to work with.<br /><br />"In that respect, saying "evolution did it" is no different from saying "God did it"."<br /><br />I disagree. We are justified in assuming 'evolution did it' beacuse we know for a fact evolution happens. There is a plethora of evidence supporting it. If we say 'God did it' we are invoking an explaination which is supported by precisely no evidence, is totally speculative at best, as may not even make sense in and of itself.<br /><br />"The only way to get beyond that impasse is to test if there are limits to evolution; we are finding that there are limits."<br /><br />Are there? Such as?<br /><br />"the sequence of DNA changes from primitive hairs to feathers? No one knows."<br /><br />Not true. <br />http://ncsce.org/PDF_files/feathers/nature.pdfRitchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-65098173327730955702009-12-30T08:47:54.000-08:002009-12-30T08:47:54.000-08:00The difficulty with evolution is that it can be us...The difficulty with evolution is that it can be used to explain anything and everything, and therefore nothing, because it makes apriori philosophical assumptions. One of the most important assumptions is that all existing biological phenomena must have come about by evolution. Thus it assumes the consequent (a logical fallacy): if we see some biological feature, it must have a naturalistic, materialist, evolutionary explanation. What is disguised (usually unknowingly) in the evolutionary explanations is the hidden assumption that everything biological has the same explanation - evolution - which is always the cause. In that respect, saying "evolution did it" is no different from saying "God did it".<br /><br />The only way to get beyond that impasse is to test if there are limits to evolution; we are finding that there are limits. So, then, how do we explain those limits? Or do we resort to "evolution of the gaps" or, "I don't know how the hell it happened by evolution but evolution must be the explanation; I have faith that we will find a materialist evolutionary explanation".<br /><br />Evolution is great on potential driving forces (e.g., mechanisms of natural selection), but very very poor on mechanics. Take for instance feathers. What is the sequence of DNA changes from primitive hairs to feathers? No one knows. In fact, no one has a clue. But speculations on driving forces? oh, they are legion: gliding from trees, bigger and longer hops, faster running, extra warmth, mate selection, etc. Lots of just-so stories.<br /><br />regards,<br />#JohnJohn I.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10739187126377072292noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-30800659032244228062009-12-28T12:34:46.423-08:002009-12-28T12:34:46.423-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01906730854220009624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-36856884931651292122009-12-28T11:30:39.076-08:002009-12-28T11:30:39.076-08:00I wanted to see if design theory could behave as a...I wanted to see if design theory could behave as a scientific theory should by producing a specific, testable, falsifiable assertion of its own.<br /><br />Apparently not.<br /><br />Another example then that design theory is simply not a scientific theory.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-87904730805202004532009-12-27T22:29:14.967-08:002009-12-27T22:29:14.967-08:00Ritchie:
"What, by contrast, does design the...Ritchie:<br /><br />"What, by contrast, does design theory have to say about it? Anything at all?"<br /><br />How is that relevant?Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-29644029148152855622009-12-27T08:52:06.292-08:002009-12-27T08:52:06.292-08:00"And what does evolution have to say about th..."And what does evolution have to say about this? Only that it all evolved, somehow. Some mutations happened to occur, fantastic new designs emerged, and they stuck."<br /><br />A specific, testable assertion. As a scientific theory should.<br /><br />What, by contrast, does design theory have to say about it? Anything at all?Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.com