tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post693210685569950543..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Desert Mice Fur Changes Color to Match the TerrainUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-77001696275829861052017-01-30T19:24:01.929-08:002017-01-30T19:24:01.929-08:00Hey t horton ghostrider - would those mutations of...Hey t horton ghostrider - would those mutations of genes supposedly causing the fur to modify color, are those mutations correlated or uncorrelated? Also do you know which genes mutate to cause fur to change?MSEEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05482232168982031574noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-17407179770991516612017-01-07T10:49:14.486-08:002017-01-07T10:49:14.486-08:00bFast:
If NDE can at least prove that random muta...bFast:<br /><br /><i>If NDE can at least prove that random mutation is a feasible explanation, that would be great. 'Seems that they haven't.</i><br /><br />Right. There is no reason to think RM+NS could not be the mechanism, but it also could have been directed mutations. Evolutionary claims to the contrary (that the evidence and analysis prove RM+NS is the mechanism) are theory-laden and circular.<br /><br />Gould writes about evolutionists and their "honest moments" in Chapter 15, "Death and Transfiguration," pp. 240-1, *The Flamingo's Smile*.<br /><br />Evolutionists resist such honesty with the knee-jerk "quote mine" rejoinder. Unfortunately Gould's sentiment accurately characterizes the evolutionist's handling of the scientific evidence, which is contrary to their theory. The evidence is manipulated, and only on rare occasion does the truth slip out that the empirical data contradicts the theory.<br /><br />To justify their silly "quote mine" defense, evolutionists say it omits the fact that Gould remained an evolutionist--that any such evidential problem was not a show stopper for Gould, but instead that he believed there were solutions to the problems.<br /><br />This is a strawman canard. No one ever said Gould doubted there were solutions. That misses the point entirely (strangely enough).Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-32822987120067322492017-01-06T22:51:50.044-08:002017-01-06T22:51:50.044-08:00Dr. Hunter, intriguing article, and very correct. ...Dr. Hunter, intriguing article, and very correct. If NDE can at least prove that random mutation is a feasible explanation, that would be great. 'Seems that they haven't.<br /><br />You said that Steven J. Gould said, "In their “honest moments..." Where is a citation for that? I find Gould to be one of the most honest secuarlists, but he also wrote a lot of stuff.bFasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13584931926133025618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-34363673653117959942017-01-05T06:45:44.394-08:002017-01-05T06:45:44.394-08:00Tsk, tsk, making accusations without supporting th...Tsk, tsk, making accusations without supporting them is a sure sign you are lying.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-63618992557648729062017-01-04T21:15:01.600-08:002017-01-04T21:15:01.600-08:00Good thread.
many places show this mouse thing. In...Good thread.<br />many places show this mouse thing. In Hawaii, I think, it goes on .<br />Its fine if selection controls mice colouring . camaflouge is a real need and so really is relevant to survival. biology teaches this.<br />The genes changing is not demanding evolutiuonism but could be other things.<br />Micro evolution does not equal macro evolution.<br /><br />Its a interesting point about the white underbelly.<br />Creationists already have belief in colour change. its people. Yet not from selection. these mice are not as profound as peoples colour origins.<br />Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-28976792739431782852017-01-04T18:45:59.116-08:002017-01-04T18:45:59.116-08:00Tsk tsk. Misrepresenting such a clean, easy to re...Tsk tsk. Misrepresenting such a clean, easy to read and understand paper. 2017 is looking pretty grim for the DI and the ID-Creationists already.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-70484759541069840362017-01-04T18:06:53.698-08:002017-01-04T18:06:53.698-08:00It's still a mouse! There is no evolution what...It's still a mouse! There is no evolution whatsoever. This proves only how flawed their thinking is.Peter Wadeckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00396555091658593382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-54021299181958206042017-01-04T11:39:25.355-08:002017-01-04T11:39:25.355-08:00Well if you define evolution as a change in allele...Well if you define evolution as a change in allele frequency over time within a population, then this is a good example of that.<br /><br />The problem is people like Carroll think the opposition says that can't happen with the fixity of species and all. Fixed means fixed- no variation.<br /><br />So once they have that straw man firmly erected they can make that triumphant statement. And, to them, once you have allowed for a change in allele frequency then there isn't anything stopping the process from producing the diversity of life.<br /><br />"Show us the barrier!" they mightily exclaim, never realizing that science requires them to make a positive case, which they can't.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.com