tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post8901344588381411322..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Anthropomorphic Terminology: Obstacle or Enabler?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger83125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-28779047213135662492011-03-23T08:54:15.434-07:002011-03-23T08:54:15.434-07:00CH: What Misguided religion are your referring to?...CH: What Misguided religion are your referring to?<br /><br />That would be Apocalyptic theodicy, in that everyone participates in the dualistic cosmic battle of good and evil whether they admit it or even realize it. <br /><br />If Apocalyptic theodicy is true, evolution wouldn't merely an issue of being mistaken about the biological complexity we observe. It would necessarily represent either good or evil in this cosmic battle. There is no neutral ground as Apocalyptic theodicy is dualistic in this age. <br /><br />Again, we do not need to unpack this as this as Jesus was an Apocalyptic Jew. It's unclear how you can be neutral on this issue as a Christian. <br /><br />Do you deny Apocalyptic theodicy? How does the revelation of heavenly secrets it refers to fit into the traditional hierarchy of philosophy, induction and deduction? <br /><br />Either you need to indicate you're making an exception to one of the core parts of Christianity or disclose where it falls in the traditional hierarchy. Otherwise, you're disclosure is incomplete.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-76604503583650085142011-03-21T21:51:58.321-07:002011-03-21T21:51:58.321-07:00Cornelius, speaking of misguided religion: when y...Cornelius, speaking of misguided religion: when you made this claim a few months ago<br /><br /><i>Cornelius Hunter said...<br /><br />...evolutionists won the day in the Kitzmiller case. But their victory came at a cost. There were substantial legal costs, but evolutionists paid a far greater cost which can't be measured in dollars. <b>They gave up their soul.</b></i><br /><br />Who did the evolutionists give up their soul <b>to?</b>Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-33546924208880044762011-03-21T21:38:11.213-07:002011-03-21T21:38:11.213-07:00Cornelius Hunter said...
Negative Entropy:
...<i>Cornelius Hunter said...<br /><br /> Negative Entropy:<br /><br /> ===<br /> Misguided religion drives your pseudoscience and rants, and it does indeed matter.<br /> ===<br /><br /> What Misguided religion are your referring to?</i><br /><br />Yours, the one that drives you to bastardize, misrepresent, and flat out lie about actual evolutionary theory. The one that Biola requires you follow to teach there. The one the Discovery Institute has in their Wedge Strategy document.<br /><br />That one.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-27388479320737847302011-03-21T21:09:40.910-07:002011-03-21T21:09:40.910-07:00Negative Entropy:
===
Misguided religion drives y...Negative Entropy:<br /><br />===<br />Misguided religion drives your pseudoscience and rants, and it does indeed matter. <br />===<br /><br />What Misguided religion are your referring to?Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-20442666704880455672011-03-21T19:03:40.693-07:002011-03-21T19:03:40.693-07:00Sticking to the data? If evolutionists were sticki...<i>Sticking to the data? If evolutionists were sticking to the data they would not insist evolution is an undeniable fact and they wouldn't misrepresent the evidence.</i><br /><br />You misrepresent evidence then have the gall to say "evolutionists" do? I save your well-deserved adjective.<br /><br /><i>... Even now, evolutionists insist that epigenetics is simply a new wrinkle on evolution, in spite of having no detailed explanation or mechanism for how evolution would / could have created such amazing mechanisms.</i><br /><br />Nope. It is not even a wrinkle. It is just one more natural phenomenon to take into account. To creationists though, it is yet another thing to add to their list of things "evolution has not explained." As if we needed the orbits of each and every object in the universe before accepting that gravitation shapes them. That creationists, cdesign proponetsists included, would not ask for the latter shows that their opposition to evolution is plainly religious. Evidence has nothing to do with it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-51937067440009685402011-03-21T18:50:25.800-07:002011-03-21T18:50:25.800-07:00Cornelius,
1. Evolution predicted that biologica...Cornelius,<br /><br /><i> 1. Evolution predicted that biological variation does not respond to need, but rather is independent of need.</i><br /><br />Nope. Geneticists discovered, sometimes using model organisms, that <b>genetic</b> variation did not respond to need, but was random, with selection making it appear as if responding to need. All evolution means is that species come from previous species. Anything else you want to attach to it is trying to make a cartoon of evolution out of discoveries about how genetics/mutation/adaptation works, not what evolution has predicted or not. This is exactly what you do in your "failed predictions of evolution." You present whatever the authors of some work expected, their hypothesis, as a "prediction of evolution," and whatever they actually got as a failure of evolution. You are just playing equivocation fallacies on top of other rhetorical games.<br /><br /><i>2. Evolutionists resisted scientific evidence that biological variation does, in fact, respond to need.</i><br /><br />It is normal to be skeptical about something that data so far has shown to be wrong. Again. These are more geneticists, than "evolutionists." Finding phenomena such as epigenetics does not invalidate the data showing that genetic variation does not "respond" to need, but is rather filtered by need. Does it? But you rather equivocate genetic variation and biological variation. Classic creationism at its best.<br /><br /><i>3. I summarized this as follows: "Ironically, what the science is telling us is that biological adaptation, in spite of evolutionary theory, in fact does respond to environmental challenges."</i><br /><br />Another case of the equivocation fallacy. Of course biological adaptation responds to environmental challenges. It is the underlying mutational process, and its resulting phenotypic variation, that was found to be independent of environmental challenges. This might have lead to confusion about whether inheritable phenotypic traits could come from anything but genetic variation. But that is far from being a "prediction of evolution." You might be able to find quotes making such a claim. But using them to purposely equivocate genetic variation and its implications, with biological adaptation, is plainly dishonest. You sure have to know better.<br /><br /><i>4. Evolutionsts say I am misrepresenting evolution.</i><br /><br />Well, I just showed beyond <b>reasonable</b> doubt that you do.<br /><br /><i>Day after day, this is what evolution is all about. Double talk, canards, rewriting history, hypocrisy, etc.</i><br /><br />Well, seems like these adjectives apply to you and not to the evil evolutionists of your machinations.<br /><br /><b>Misguided religion drives your pseudoscience and rants, and it does indeed matter.</b>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-70028087099270403472011-03-21T13:07:09.176-07:002011-03-21T13:07:09.176-07:00You have just admitted that there was ongoing rese...You have just admitted that there was ongoing research over the question whether variation was dependent or independent of need and to what extend since the time of Darwin. So why would most of the evolutionary biologists in face of contradicting evidence claim that "all" variation was independent of need? They would have nothing to gain from such a position. Even if we accept your claim about the underlying metaphysics of evolutionary biology it would be completely irrelevant to these metaphysics one way or the other.second opinionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17790522541732472791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-26594560236518301452011-03-21T08:45:47.519-07:002011-03-21T08:45:47.519-07:00second opinion:
===
The claim that biological var...second opinion:<br /><br />===<br />The claim that biological variation does not respond need was to derived from observations because variation did not seem to be dependent. And experiments to demonstrate otherwise largely failed. The famous example for that failure Lysenko comes to mind.<br />===<br /><br />There was evidence on both sides. Paul Kammerer's work comes to mind for ealy in the century. There were others later in the century. All were rejected, at least partly, for being "the wrong answer." <br /><br /><br />===<br />Secondly there was no known mechanism. (It is interesting to note that some of the epigenetic mechanisms were discovered before it was discovered that these changes could be inherited.)<br />===<br /><br />It is astonishing to hear an evolutionist complain about lack of mechanism. If ever there was a theory that lacked a mechanism, it is evolution. That there was no known mechanism for adaptive change, say in the early 20th c, simply reflects the fact that so little was understood, period. If you have empirical evidence for adaptive change, and you have no known mechanism, then maybe that should raise a flag for you that genetics is more complicated.<br /><br />Evolutionists adopted mutation. They embarked on mutation experiments to see what it could do, but mutation was soon found to be impotent. That didn't bother evolutionists too much.<br /><br /><br />===<br />What is a little bit discerning about the whole issue is that you who beats the empiricism drum so loudly then accuse evolutionary biologists for sticking to the data. <br />===<br /><br />Sticking to the data? If evolutionists were sticking to the data they would not insist evolution is an undeniable fact and they wouldn't misrepresent the evidence. Regarding epigenetics, evolutionists did not stick to the data, they resisted it. Even now, evolutionists insist that epigenetics is simply a new wrinkle on evolution, in spite of having no detailed explanation or mechanism for how evolution would / could have created such amazing mechanisms.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-69705852638873090982011-03-21T06:21:07.440-07:002011-03-21T06:21:07.440-07:00Cornelius Hunter: Anthropomorphic Terminology: Obs...<b>Cornelius Hunter</b>: <i>Anthropomorphic Terminology: Obstacle or Enabler? </i><br /><br />http://tinyurl.com/25eqf84Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-10591962052120658502011-03-21T02:21:35.944-07:002011-03-21T02:21:35.944-07:00Cornelius Hunter
"1. Evolution predicted tha...Cornelius Hunter<br /><br />"1. Evolution predicted that biological variation does not respond to need, but rather is independent of need."<br /><br />The claim that biological variation does not respond need was to derived from observations because variation did not seem to be dependent. And experiments to demonstrate otherwise largely failed. The famous example for that failure Lysenko comes to mind. Secondly there was no known mechanism. (It is interesting to note that some of the epigenetic mechanisms were discovered before it was discovered that these changes could be inherited.)<br /><br />What is a little bit discerning about the whole issue is that you who beats the empiricism drum so loudly then accuse evolutionary biologists for sticking to the data.second opinionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17790522541732472791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-65737088458109889662011-03-20T20:17:00.057-07:002011-03-20T20:17:00.057-07:00Cornelius Hunter said...
Regarding your example, ...<i>Cornelius Hunter said...<br /><br />Regarding your example, of course evolutionists predicted that "all" biological variation was random with respect to the organism’s need. It is ludicrous to read back into their writings, and into their opposition to the evidence, anything different. </i><br /><br />LOL! So no scientists anywhere actually said ALL biological variation was random with respect to the organism’s need. That was just Corneilus Hunter <b>"reading into"</b> their writings.<br /><br />I guess you won't mind if we "read back into" your writing then CH. We see a pathetic, small minded man spreading whatever falsehoods he can against science to prop up his weak faith. It is ludicrous to read back into your writings, with their dishonest misrepresentation of the actual scientific evidence, anything different.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-74478228597131269272011-03-20T19:17:09.019-07:002011-03-20T19:17:09.019-07:00second opinion:
===
Look, I'm not interested ...second opinion:<br /><br />===<br />Look, I'm not interested in playing rhetorical games. I'm interested in the argument. If you present something and I have the feeling that you might have a point but you are not representing the ToE properly I'm just asking questions to clarify the issue. And if I don't think you have a point but you are misrepresenting the ToE I'm asking questions to find out where this comes from. <br /><br />The start of the conversation was that I admittedly provokingly accused you of misrepresenting the ToE. And then you ask how. But you did not really want to know that which is kind of clear from your reaction in this post. <br />===<br /><br />The problem is evolutionists utterly fail to reckon with the evidence. When you examine the evidence and how it compares with their theory, they accuse you of having ulterior motives, misrepresenting evolutionary thinking, abusing science, and so forth. These are not only false, contrived accusations, but they are precisely what evolutionists do.<br /><br />Regarding your example, of course evolutionists predicted that "all" biological variation was random with respect to the organism’s need. It is ludicrous to read back into their writings, and into their opposition to the evidence, anything different.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-34268191885665340262011-03-20T16:53:38.088-07:002011-03-20T16:53:38.088-07:00Look, I'm not interested in playing rhetorical...Look, I'm not interested in playing rhetorical games. I'm interested in the argument. If you present something and I have the feeling that you might have a point but you are not representing the ToE properly I'm just asking questions to clarify the issue. And if I don't think you have a point but you are misrepresenting the ToE I'm asking questions to find out where this comes from. <br /><br />The start of the conversation was that I admittedly provokingly accused you of misrepresenting the ToE. And then you ask how. But you did not really want to know that which is kind of clear from your reaction in this post.second opinionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17790522541732472791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-57595435562859322322011-03-20T16:51:16.503-07:002011-03-20T16:51:16.503-07:00Cornelius Hunter said...
second opinion:
...<i>Cornelius Hunter said...<br /><br /> second opinion:<br /><br /> OK, so let's recap:<br /><br /> 1. Evolution predicted that biological variation does not respond to need, but rather is independent of need.<br /><br /> 2. Evolutionists resisted scientific evidence that biological variation does, in fact, respond to need.<br /><br /> 3. I summarized this as follows: "Ironically, what the science is telling us is that biological adaptation, in spite of evolutionary theory, in fact does respond to environmental challenges."<br /><br /> 4. Evolutionsts say I am misrepresenting evolution.</i><br /><br />1. Misrepresentation of actual evolutionary theory as Pedant has already pointed out.<br /><br />2. Outright lie<br /><br />3. Repeat of the misrepresentation<br /><br />4. Demonstrably true<br /><br /><i> Day after day, this is what evolution is all about. Double talk, canards, rewriting history, hypocrisy, etc.</i><br /><br />Pathetic Cornelius. Just pathetic. Jesus must be so proud of you.<br /><br />When can we expect you to provide your definitions of 'fact' and 'theory', and give us your understanding of the difference between the two?Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-58304444021030231152011-03-20T16:17:05.843-07:002011-03-20T16:17:05.843-07:00second opinion:
OK, so let's recap:
1. Evolu...second opinion:<br /><br />OK, so let's recap:<br /><br />1. Evolution predicted that biological variation does not respond to need, but rather is independent of need.<br /><br />2. Evolutionists resisted scientific evidence that biological variation does, in fact, respond to need.<br /><br />3. I summarized this as follows: "Ironically, what the science is telling us is that biological adaptation, in spite of evolutionary theory, in fact does respond to environmental challenges."<br /><br />4. Evolutionsts say I am misrepresenting evolution.<br /><br />Day after day, this is what evolution is all about. Double talk, canards, rewriting history, hypocrisy, etc.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-56414461304630417442011-03-20T15:32:40.262-07:002011-03-20T15:32:40.262-07:00I was going to accuse you of making an argument fr...I was going to accuse you of making an argument from authority but instead I'm just going to say Ronald Fisher died 1962. So why should I care what he said? But he still did not use the word "all".second opinionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17790522541732472791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-58708149028718215682011-03-20T15:13:20.749-07:002011-03-20T15:13:20.749-07:00second opinion:
===
It is far from pathetic but d...second opinion:<br /><br />===<br />It is far from pathetic but demonstrates an important difference in how we see the world. When you say "evolutionists who stated that variation is independent of need" you nearly subconsciously insert the word "all" to mean "evolutionists who stated that all variation is independent of need". And even if evolutionary biologists were using that word it would not have any bearing on what the theory says.<br />===<br /><br />No, it is pathetic. You are accusing me of misrepresenting evolution when, in fact, you are misrepresenting evolution. The idea that Ronald Fisher, when he wrote:<br /><br />###<br />The essence of Darwinian evolution is that populations [adapt] by producing mutations that are random with respect to the organism’s need, that is those that have random direction in phenotypic space<br />###<br /><br />really did not mean to make such a broad, sweeping statement. And when evolutionists resisted the evidence for adaptive variation, that really didn't matter.<br /><br />You're accusing me of exactly what you are doing. Such hypocrisy is standard procedure with evolutionists.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-85623995501020554242011-03-20T14:50:37.623-07:002011-03-20T14:50:37.623-07:00It is far from pathetic but demonstrates an import...It is far from pathetic but demonstrates an important difference in how we see the world. When you say "evolutionists who stated that variation is independent of need" you nearly subconsciously insert the word "all" to mean "evolutionists who stated that <b>all</b> variation is independent of need". And even if evolutionary biologists were using that word it would not have any bearing on what the theory says.second opinionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17790522541732472791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-75460559626941467792011-03-20T14:35:41.691-07:002011-03-20T14:35:41.691-07:00second opinion:
===
What is the fact:
1) The ToE ...second opinion:<br /><br />===<br />What is the fact:<br />1) The ToE says that biological adaptation due to evolutionary processes does not respond to environmental challenges.<br />2) The ToE does not claim that all biological adaption is due to evolutionary processes. <br />===<br /><br />This is pathetic. You accuse me of misrepresenting evolution, and as an example you use my statement that "what the science is telling us is that biological adaptation, in spite of evolutionary theory, in fact does respond to environmental challenges." And you provide the above commentary which incredibly tries to locate adaptive variation and adaptive mutations outside of evolutionary theory. Do I really need to once again cite the various major 20th c evolutionists who repeatedly and unequivocally stated that variation (yes *the* variation that occurs, and which is supposed to provide the fuel for selection to work its magic) is independent of need?<br /><br />Once again, when you repeat back to evolutionists what their theory says, they resist. They are their own judge.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-14746632310030448292011-03-20T06:07:24.925-07:002011-03-20T06:07:24.925-07:00Louis Savain: What is there that needs supporting?...<b>Louis Savain</b>: <i>What is there that needs supporting? </i><br /><br />Your claim that hunters and farmers have known about adaptation via selective breeding for tens of thousands of years. They selected the best in each generation, but that doesn't mean they knew that this would bring about long term evolutionary adaptation. <br /> <br /><b>Louis Savain</b>: <i>The whole point of the research conducted by Rossiter, Zhang et al, is that echolocating bats and toothed whales share common genetic material that do not fit into the nested evolutionary tree, unless one is willing to go out on limb and claim convergence of identical genetic changes in prestin used for echolocation. </i><br /><br />It's not "out on a limb" to say that natural selection leads to convergence. It's part of evolutionary theory. <br /> <br /><b>Zachriel</b>: <i>Many of the proteins involved in mammalian hearing, such as prestin are highly conserved. In other words, they have inherited almost identical genes. </i><br /><br /><b>Louis Savain</b>: <i>So what? There many more genes other than prestin that are also common to all mammals. </i><br /><br />It matters a great deal. If identical prestins are inherited, then subjected to similar selective pressures, then a similar or even identical result is plausible. This would be a question of available protein structures.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-35142932885916680042011-03-20T03:19:25.472-07:002011-03-20T03:19:25.472-07:00Cornelius Hunter
I said
"like Cornelius Hun...Cornelius Hunter<br /><br />I said<br /><br /><i>"like Cornelius Hunter does not accurately represent the ToE"</i><br /><br />you asked<br /><br /><i>How so?</i> <br /><br />I was considering to show more examples but I will just go with this one:<br /><br /><i>* Ironically, what the science is telling us is that biological adaptation, in spite of evolutionary theory, in fact does respond to environmental challenges.</i><br /><br />What is the fact:<br />1) The ToE says that biological adaptation <b>due to evolutionary processes</b> does not respond to environmental challenges.<br />2) The ToE does <b>not</b> claim that <b>all</b> biological adaption is due to evolutionary processes.second opinionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17790522541732472791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-60850998157844629152011-03-20T02:05:45.416-07:002011-03-20T02:05:45.416-07:00Scott, I'm not aware of anyone who said that n...Scott, I'm not aware of anyone who said that nothing has changed since creation.<br /><br />You said, "If the latter, this designer would need to either manipulate or compensate for evolutionary processes to ensure the particular species we still observe today retained their desired features and did not go extinct"<br /><br />? Can you clarify pleaseAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-27839357480040290812011-03-20T00:21:54.989-07:002011-03-20T00:21:54.989-07:00OK, I get it. Time for me to go. See ya.OK, I get it. Time for me to go. See ya.Rebel Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11762287159937757216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-37277632326020529442011-03-20T00:17:24.486-07:002011-03-20T00:17:24.486-07:00Louis: Liar. IDers never claimed that a designer p...Louis: Liar. IDers never claimed that a designer poofed anything into existence. That a lame strawman of your making.<br /><br />Louis,<br /><br />As I've mentioned earlier, the problem is that "design evolution" appears to be a convoluted elaboration of darwinian evolution. <br /><br />First, you've claimed the biological complexity we observe represents intentional design on the part of an intelligent agent. <br /><br />Second, would you agree that mutations do effect the biological complexly we observe, even if only negatively?<br /><br />If so, it's unclear how you can avoid the role that evolutionary processes would play without appealing to some kind of "magic" on the part of the designer. <br /><br />This is because, when we attempt to take your claim seriously, in that it is true in reality and all observations (including, at a minimum, negative effects of random mutations and natural selection) should conform with it, this would have a significant impact on the biological complexity we observe. <br /><br />For example, what we observe is that over 98% of all species that have ever existed have gone extinct, leaving only 2% that survive today. <br /><br />Is the fact that human beings are part of this 2% an undirected, natural out outcome or does it represent an intentional outcome planed by an intelligent designer? <br /><br />If the latter, this designer would need to either manipulate or compensate for evolutionary processes to ensure the particular species we still observe today retained their desired features and did not go extinct. If the former, evolutionary processes played a massive role determining which species lost features and/or ended up going extinct since they were not compensated for. <br /><br />Since you refused to respond earlier, I'll ask yet again. Can we at least agree on this?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-75841230707261378542011-03-20T00:14:34.807-07:002011-03-20T00:14:34.807-07:00Derick Childress:
===
Cornelius, I'm wonderin...Derick Childress:<br /><br />===<br />Cornelius, I'm wondering why you don't rebuke or at least distance yourself from someone as off the rails as Louis Savain? He's really not helping your case. Or, do you agree with him? Are his criticisms accurate?<br />===<br /><br />I read mainly comments made by people thoughtfully trying to make their case.<br /><br />Louis seems to equate evolution with atheism. I have written extensively in this blog and elsewhere that this is a misconception going back centuries. It could be an innocent mistake, but I also consider that it could be yet another manifestation of underlying religious influences. For example, see the penultimate paragraph here:<br /><br />http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/01/enduring-warfare-thesis-theses.htmlCornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.com