tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post3869602493244871923..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Hibernation: Evolution Confirmed AgainUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger56125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-50782943070233923482010-06-02T20:57:38.256-07:002010-06-02T20:57:38.256-07:00Derick:
====
CH: "So you say your theology p...Derick:<br /><br />====<br />CH: "So you say your theology plays no role, and yet you cite metaphysically-laden arguments such as pseudogenes"<br /><br />I apologize Cornelius, for a moment I mistook Intelligent Design for a scientific proposition; I forgot that any argument against it is 'metaphysical' by default.<br />====<br /><br />Except that I didn't say that.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-66783732725835710902010-06-02T20:40:29.530-07:002010-06-02T20:40:29.530-07:00===
Derick: The problem with ID as a scientific pr...===<br />Derick: The problem with ID as a scientific proposition is that, unlike common ancestry, it could conceivably explain anything: "Well, the designer could have made it that way for a for some odd reason. the IDer works in mysterious ways." That does not make it a better 'explanation.'<br />===<br /><br />Cornelius: "Yet more metaphysics. You seem to be so deep in that you're unaware of it."<br /><br />-------------<br /><br />How exactly is pointing out the fact that ID makes no falsifiable scientific predictions 'deep' in metaphysics?Derick Childresshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04957020457782757629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-74260925449461778542010-06-02T20:15:49.305-07:002010-06-02T20:15:49.305-07:00CH: "So you say your theology plays no role, ...CH: "So you say your theology plays no role, and yet you cite metaphysically-laden arguments such as pseudogenes"<br /><br />I apologize Cornelius, for a moment I mistook Intelligent Design for a scientific proposition; I forgot that any argument against it is 'metaphysical' by default.<br /><br />Cornelius, you seem to be a very intelligent man. But you continuously make the error of thinking that anything that has a metaphysical *implication* is necessarily a metaphysical question, or is arrived at by metaphysical reasoning. That is not the case at all.<br /><br />For example, the statement: "Jesus Christ rose from the grave on the third day after his death on the cross," Is a 100% empirical question; that is, it, in principle, could be tested scientifically. You could conceivably find evidence that says 'Yes he did' or 'no he didn't'. A time machine would settle the question definitively. Now, the implications of that statement *are* metaphysical; but the question of *whether or not* it happened is entirely empirical.<br /><br />I used to consider ID a valid scientific hypothesis; but the more I hear proponents respond "Who says God couldn't have just made it that way?" as a rebuttal to all arguments, the less I'm inclined to consider it so.Derick Childresshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04957020457782757629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-39993918572317456822010-06-02T19:50:22.737-07:002010-06-02T19:50:22.737-07:00CH:No problem. How wrong to think they are anythin...CH:No problem. How wrong to think they are anything but fulfilled predictions."<br />------------------------------<br /><br />I never insinuated they were 'fulfilled' predictions or anything of the sort.<br /><br />------------------------------<br /><br />CH: "Substantial differences between the human and chimp y-chromosome which were unexpected? "<br /><br />------------------------------<br /><br />An evolutionary NON-prediction is not the same as an evolutionary FAILED prediction; But I don't know what book on evolution you're reading if you think that evolution doesn't predict differences in the DNA of different species.<br /><br />I'm halfway expecting one of your future articles to elaborate on how the current stock market value is yet another failed prediction of evolution.Derick Childresshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04957020457782757629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-88657173454309322182010-06-01T22:37:10.152-07:002010-06-01T22:37:10.152-07:00Derick:
====
As for your 'scientific straw me...Derick:<br /><br />====<br />As for your 'scientific straw men'; I don't think anything could illustrate it better than your article on whale evolution on June 1st. You paint the picture of a scientific community befuddled by the fact that the ancestors of whales evolved at an irregular pace. As Zachriel pointed out, even Darwin predicted this:<br /><br />"...it is probable that the periods, during which each {species} underwent modification, though many and long as measured by years, have been short in comparison with the periods during which each remained in an unchanged condition."<br /><br />Incredibly, you have taken a fulfilled prediction of evolution, and classified it as a falsified prediction. Frankly, it's embarrassing to watch a fellow Christian spew such distorted thinking. If you're going to point out failed predictions of evolutionary theory, fine, I'm sure there are plenty; the pace of whale evolution certainly isn't one, and neither are the differences in the human and chimp y-chromosome, nor is 'complexity', or just about anything else you've written about lately. <br />====<br /><br />This illustrates the degree to which evolution is protected. Complexity for which evolution has no explanation? No problem. Substantial differences between the human and chimp y-chromosome which were unexpected? No problem. How wrong to think they are anything but fulfilled predictions.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-76479166824746140272010-06-01T22:05:14.704-07:002010-06-01T22:05:14.704-07:00Derick:
===
The problem with ID as a scientific p...Derick:<br /><br />===<br />The problem with ID as a scientific proposition is that, unlike common ancestry, it could conceivably explain anything: "Well, the designer could have made it that way for a for some odd reason. the IDer works in mysterious ways." That does not make it a better 'explanation.'<br />===<br /><br />Yet more metaphysics. You seem to be so deep in that you're unaware of it.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-33006788511876551782010-06-01T21:58:45.070-07:002010-06-01T21:58:45.070-07:00Derick:
====
The idea that people only accept com...Derick:<br /><br />====<br />The idea that people only accept common ancestry because of their philosophical disposition is nonsense. I accepted evolution *despite* my philosophical/theological disposition, and I must say that I consider my theological worldview more informed and consistent, not less.<br />...<br />the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution, (especially the molecular data)<br />...<br />The existence of and patterns of pseudogenes, (especially the GULO gene in humans & apes and the the mutated remains of the vitellogenin gene); ...<br />====<br /><br />So you say your theology plays no role, and yet you cite metaphysically-laden arguments such as pseudogenes. From a scientific perspective you have a successful prediction--hardly overwhelming evidence. But from a theological perspective, it becomes overwhelming because it falsifies design/creation:<br /><br />http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/06/evolutions-religion-revealed.html<br /><br />These theological arguments have been used over and over for centuries. Of course your theology is at play here.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-86399083204078936942010-06-01T19:51:31.902-07:002010-06-01T19:51:31.902-07:00Derick: the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of...Derick: the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution, (especially the molecular data)<br /><br />Cornelius: Can you give an example?<br />------------------------------------------------<br /><br />The existence of and patterns of pseudogenes, (especially the GULO gene in humans & apes and the the mutated remains of the vitellogenin gene); High synteny in closely related species; and the pattern of cytochrome C mutations in different species, are just a few that come to mind.<br /><br /> The problem with ID as a scientific proposition is that, unlike common ancestry, it could conceivably explain anything: "Well, the designer could have made it that way for a for some odd reason. the IDer works in mysterious ways." That does not make it a better 'explanation.'<br /><br />I'll be the first to admit that theology is much simpler {not necessarily better, but simpler} if God just created everything directly and Genesis is a literal account of history. And a small part of me would just love for evolution to be falsified in some way so I could go back to having an unambiguous physical 'proof' of God. But when I step back and look at the evidence from an unbiased standpoint (or as unbiased as I possibly can,) common ancestry is by far the best explanation of the what we see in nature. If God didn't ordain some process of evolution involving common ancestry to create us, He sure went well out of His way to make it look like He did.<br /><br />As for your 'scientific straw men'; I don't think anything could illustrate it better than your article on whale evolution on June 1st. You paint the picture of a scientific community befuddled by the fact that the ancestors of whales evolved at an irregular pace. As Zachriel pointed out, even Darwin predicted this:<br /><br />"...it is probable that the periods, during which each {species} underwent modification, though many and long as measured by years, have been short in comparison with the periods during which each remained in an unchanged condition."<br /><br />Incredibly, you have taken a fulfilled prediction of evolution, and classified it as a falsified prediction. Frankly, it's embarrassing to watch a fellow Christian spew such distorted thinking. If you're going to point out failed predictions of evolutionary theory, fine, I'm sure there are plenty; the pace of whale evolution certainly isn't one, and neither are the differences in the human and chimp y-chromosome, nor is 'complexity', or just about anything else you've written about lately.Derick Childresshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04957020457782757629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-81356649556411405822010-05-28T19:19:55.744-07:002010-05-28T19:19:55.744-07:00Michael says:"There is very clear evidence th...Michael says:<i>"There is very clear evidence that code based machines are exposed to signal degradation, due to natural causes & intelligent causes, but you have far to go to be convincing that degradation ultimately leads to new novel information. Evidence for the contrary is ample and agree with observations of other code based systems. For example:<br /><br />* We all know the effects of a gene pool that becomes too "shallow". Is this problem not caused by the amplification of errors that leads to predominantly undesirable modifications in the organism?"</i><br /><br />Indeed, but that is half a story. The point from the evolutionary perspective is that the imbalance between deleterious and beneficial mutations can be overcome by sufficient population size, via population genetic mechanisms based on selection. You refer to inbreeding, which is the effect of increasing homozygosity on slightly deleterious traits in non-haploid organisms. Increased genetic diversity from larger population sizes overcomes this problem - the other side of the coin that you are forgetting about.<br /><br /><i>"* We know what corrupts PC hard drives"</i><br /><br />This is a terrible analogy that I will not discuss in any depth. Computer data and DNA are not similar, nor are the processes that degrade them, nor are the effect of changes to them, nor does any population-level evolutionary process have any analogy in computing.<br /><br /><i>"* Was the e-coli benefits reported not at the cost of losing some other ability or simply caused by selective breeding that accentuated existing traits?</i>"<br /><br />You refer, I assume, to changes in citrate metabolism in E. coli from Richard Lenski's lab in a now 50,000 generation experiment. <br /><br />It is not a selective breeding programme, although the lab conditions are undoubtedly idealised. Existing traits were not simply accentuated, the strain developed the ability to metabolise a new energy source. A non-laboratory example has of course been observed in nylon-degrading bacteria. Is it not amazing that in the course of only decades, substantial changes to metabolic pathways can be observed? <br /><br />I cannot make you believe that the population-level processes of selection is what filters the genetic treasure from the trash sufficiently to not only sustain life but have it increase in complexity over billions of years. You will have to suspend your own disbelief if you wish to openly investigate the possibility. <br /><br />However, for the third time, it is the lack of specificity in gene sequences, along with the signature of primarily neutral genetic change, and the population processes that enable this change to be sustained are points that defy an interpretation of intelligent intervention for the origin and maintenance of genetics and genomes.Paul McBridehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09953009288824698018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-26450436383056820692010-05-28T18:57:14.333-07:002010-05-28T18:57:14.333-07:00Michael says:"Is there not a known ratio betw...Michael says:<i>"Is there not a known ratio between beneficial mutations vs. (uncorrected) non-beneficial mutations? What is that ration and what is the significance for the proposed mechanism of evolution? "</i><br /><br />No there is not a single ratio, although estimates have been made in some model organisms, such as Drosophila. The single ratio idea itself indicates a misunderstanding of molecular evolutionary processes. A rudimentary aspect of integrating ecology with molecular population genetics is that the proportion of beneficial mutations will depend on the fit to the environment, and the scope for beneficial mutations to occur.<br /><br />See: http://210.193.216.98/cps/rde/papp/techAdvice:techAdvice/http://www.pnas.org/content/106/32/13415.full<br />and<br />http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0060060<br />for simple demonstrations of both points respectively in garter snakes.<br /><br />Further beneficial mutations are no less likely to be corrected than non-beneficial ones, as you imply here (in fact, mutation refers to uncorrected DNA damage). It is also necessary to further break down non-beneficial mutations into effectively neutral mutations and deleterious mutations. It should be clear that mutations do not necessarily universally belong in one category, as the mutation illustrated in the first garter snake article above demonstrates.<br /><br />The significance is that although the process is complex, we can frequently observe phenomena for which the only explanation is the interaction between ecology and genetics via natural selection.Paul McBridehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09953009288824698018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-36348161056068038902010-05-28T18:10:14.428-07:002010-05-28T18:10:14.428-07:00Has any evolutionist or group ever done a probabil...Has any evolutionist or group ever done a probabilistic study, taking into account all know "mutations" into every "species" that we are certain to have existed in the time known to have been available on earth? ie. we started with such and such organism and it mutated into this taking this long, etc. until the entire available tree is mapped out. That would be interesting to see....Filhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10800945339504629586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-40382097786680435182010-05-28T07:28:52.937-07:002010-05-28T07:28:52.937-07:00Michael: I will give it more serious thought when ...<b>Michael</b>: <i>I will give it more serious thought when you can show me a single equation for "natural selection" acting on organisms that is as elegant and accurate as Newtonian or Einsteinian physics for that matter. </i><br /><br />You never acknowledged the answers you were provided to your comment.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-83373320320252422652010-05-28T06:20:17.820-07:002010-05-28T06:20:17.820-07:00I forgot to ask:
Is there not a known ratio betwe...I forgot to ask:<br /><br />Is there not a known ratio between beneficial mutations vs. (uncorrected) non-beneficial mutations? What is that ration and what is the significance for the proposed mechanism of evolution?Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12218303841952833621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-30607629651110151442010-05-28T06:14:16.547-07:002010-05-28T06:14:16.547-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12218303841952833621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-58713174842927265622010-05-28T06:00:28.584-07:002010-05-28T06:00:28.584-07:00abimer,
I am interested in having an explanation ...abimer,<br /><br />I am interested in having an explanation for the relationship between:<br /> <br />* "The observed mechanism of "natural phenomenon of known chemical reactions altering nucleotides"<br /><br />vs. <br /><br />The observed mechanism that is repairing the genetic code, by using genetic code based mechanisms.<br /><br />vs. <br /><br />The observed mechanism of genetic code that actively dictate/instruct the outcome of the chemical reaction. <br /><br />vs. <br /><br />A chemical reaction that mutate the code.<br /><br /><br />Can you critically review these relationships in relation to the above explanation you proposed?<br /><br />There is very clear evidence that code based machines are exposed to signal degradation, due to natural causes & intelligent causes, but you have far to go to be convincing that degradation ultimately leads to new novel information. Evidence for the contrary is ample and agree with observations of other code based systems. For example: <br /><br />* We all know the effects of a gene pool that becomes too "shallow". Is this problem not caused by the amplification of errors that leads to predominantly undesirable modifications in the organism? <br />* We know what corrupts PC hard drives<br />* Was the e-coli benefits reported not at the cost of losing some other ability or simply caused by selective breeding that accentuated existing traits?<br /><br />All in all. These phenomenon where code based mechanisms are at play (nature PLUS information)is vastly more different than gravity and the difference can be observed... It is CODES.<br /><br />P.S. I never excluded animals or any biological feature from causing non-natural patterns. I see all life as coding machines, some autonomous and others not.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12218303841952833621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-39497623240726634472010-05-28T03:01:21.328-07:002010-05-28T03:01:21.328-07:00P.S. Michael, I realise that you absolutely won...P.S. Michael, I realise that you absolutely won't accept that mutation, filtered by selection, could conceivably result in functional DNA and that my entire response will be wholly unsatisfactory to you. <br /><br />The only I think I would ask that you bear in mind for any response is what I have already pointed out in this thread earlier - that genes do not necessarily have high levels of ordered specification that one might expect from an intelligent code. The patterns of mutation are all over them.Paul McBridehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09953009288824698018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-32733972097854029732010-05-28T02:49:06.658-07:002010-05-28T02:49:06.658-07:00Michael says: "What you are actually getting ...Michael says: <i>"What you are actually getting at is a potential candidate for explaining the difference between the act of nature vs. the act of intelligence."</i><br /><br />Well, perhaps. But if human intelligence is considered a part of nature - an emergent property of our biochemical complexity - there is no clear distinction here. Animals can also disturb what you seem to be referring to as natural patterns e.g. beavers building dams, birds building nests etc. <br /><br /><i>"abimer, please show me the natural phenomenon that creates DNA message patterns."</i><br /><br />The natural phenomenon at base is mutation - which is a probabilistic chemical reaction. The most basic form of mutation, which suffices for the discussion here, is the point mutation - the single substitution of one nucleotide for another. <br /><br />The mechanisms of mutation are well understood and documented, involving, for example, tautomerization or deamination (via hydrolysis). Point mutations are often biased chemical reactions. When CG dinucleotides occur, the C is often methylated. This makes it prone to deamination, where it is replaced by T. Numerous cellular compounds including reactive oxygen species created during metabolism are also responsible for DNA damage which can result in mutation. <br /><br />In mitochondrial DNA, the effects of biased mutation via known mechanisms are obvious in biased base composition. mtDNA is interesting - it features asymmetric replication where one strand is always exposed for longer periods than the other. Because of mutation bias, this causes an accumulation of T and G on the heavy strand and of A and C on the light strand. <br /><br />Most interestingly, because we know the frequency of these mutations and because there is neither an empirical nor a theoretical basis to suggest mutations are more likely at any of the three sites in a codon - after they are simply strung together in a chain and can be read from different reading frames - we can directly observe the effects of purifying selection upon base composition in species. <br /><br />It is a ubiquitous pattern in metazoan mtDNA that the the base composition bias is strongest at the third codon position, while composition is most equal at the second position and in between at the first position. Why should this be? Well, mutations at the third codon position are far less likely to change the amino acid produced. And first position changes are far more likely to produce chemically similar amino acids. Hence, the base composition bias in mtDNA clearly and unambiguously reflects the actions of natural selection. <br /><br />Thus we can observe the natural phenomenon of known chemical reactions altering nucleotides in a DNA sequence and the natural selection acting with various strength on the population level to mutation.Paul McBridehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09953009288824698018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-32887369275887502842010-05-28T02:41:21.818-07:002010-05-28T02:41:21.818-07:00P.S.
My attempt to a definition was informed by H...P.S.<br /><br />My attempt to a definition was informed by Hubert Yockey's definition of living organisms:<br /><br />"The existence of a genome and the genetic code divides living organisms from nonliving matter. There is nothing in the physicochemical world that remotely resembles reactions being determined by a sequence and codes between sequences."<br /><br />http://www.amazon.com/Information-Theory-Evolution-Origin-Life/dp/0521802938/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1275039548&sr=8-1Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12218303841952833621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-65076230513141683992010-05-28T01:47:39.781-07:002010-05-28T01:47:39.781-07:00abimer,
Will you be able to create your own criti...abimer,<br /><br />Will you be able to create your own critical evaluation about your claim that natural selection is a force established like gravity?<br /><br />Above you make a lot of clanging noises because the math you talk about are exactly the type of math that is also used to evaluate and predict the actions of intelligent agent i.e. human populations.<br /><br />What you are actually getting at is a potential candidate for explaining the difference between the act of nature vs. the act of intelligence. <br /><br />Let my make a broad stroke attempt:<br /><br />Natural phenomenon act according to fundamental physics but intelligent agents act by altering natural patterns and the effect can be measured by information theoretic calculations.<br /><br />or<br /><br />Natural patterns only arise according to the rules of nature vs. intelligent agents alter natural patterns contrary to natural laws.<br /><br />With this said:<br />abimer, please show me the natural phenomenon that creates DNA message patterns.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12218303841952833621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-10656818246718412512010-05-27T22:41:52.846-07:002010-05-27T22:41:52.846-07:00Michael says: "You have one problem with clai...Michael says: <i>"You have one problem with claiming natural selection to be teleonomic in the same sense as a rock under influence of gravity. It is the fact that you presuppose the "force" of natural selection to be "natural" in the same sense as gravity. I will give it more serious thought when you can show me a single equation for "natural selection" acting on organisms that is as elegant and accurate as Newtonian or Einsteinian physics for that matter."</i><br /><br />There is a body of mathematics on natural selection in contemporary population genetics. There is also a body of work around stochastic fixation of neutral and nearly neutral alleles in the literature. If you want some an equation re selection, I guess the most basic one is that the probability of fixation of a mutation under selection is 2s/(1 - e^(-4Ns)), where s is the selection coefficient and N is the population size.<br /><br />I originally put quote marks around force precisely because natural selection is not a force like gravity. It is a filter. The patterns produced in a population experiencing mutation in each individual in each generation will never produce the pattern of an elegant Newtonian force nor would we expect it to. Selection is a filter reflecting the influence of heritable differences on the survival and reproduction of taxa, but let's be clear it is not a sole determinant of survival or reproduction - much of this is stochastic.Paul McBridehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09953009288824698018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-443813513536745502010-05-27T21:24:40.109-07:002010-05-27T21:24:40.109-07:00Derick:
===
the evidence is overwhelmingly in fav...Derick:<br /><br />===<br />the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution, (especially the molecular data)<br />===<br /><br />Can you give an example?Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-17970891570379128362010-05-27T20:46:42.934-07:002010-05-27T20:46:42.934-07:00Derick:
===
No matter what patterns you find in n...Derick:<br /><br />===<br />No matter what patterns you find in nature, you can always say "Well, God must have designed it that way." But if those patterns are exactly what one would have expected common ancestry to produce, You must ask yourself why that is the case. (and when I say 'what one would have expected,' I mean what real scientist would have expected, not the straw men Cornelius likes to imagine)<br />===<br /><br />What straw men are referring to?Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-85398478794986422582010-05-27T20:31:03.656-07:002010-05-27T20:31:03.656-07:00mynym:
"You start by assuming common descent...mynym:<br /><br />"You start by assuming common descent because there can never be evidence of common design of any sort according to your philosophy."<br /><br />The accusation that acceptance of common descent is based solely on philosophical motives is a recurring theme in these threads. <br /><br />I can't speak for others, but I am a conservative Christian and I fully accept common ancestry. I was a young earth creationist for most of my life, and at first, acknowledging that the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution, (especially the molecular data) was terribly difficult.<br /><br />I have always been very interested in science, and probably would have pursued paleontology had not my creationist upbringing corrupted my perception of science. (as it seems to have done to many people here)<br /><br />Since my theology (or philosophy as you might say) was married to the idea of a young earth and special creation, no amount of evidence could have changed my mind. Even when presented with molecular evidence that now seems irrefutable, In my mind I could justify ignoring it by claiming that God must have designed things that way for some reason. Perhaps He wanted to just make it look like things evolved, to test our faith. Or perhaps Satan had somehow figured out how to tinker with DNA in order to fool us. Anything but common ancestry.<br /><br />It wasn't until I realized the error in my theology that I was able to step back and evaluate all the evidence fairly, without the deep confirmation bias that had previously afflicted me. For me, it was realizing that if my faith was in alignment with the truth, then *anything* that was true was compatible with it, including evolution<br /><br />The idea that people only accept common ancestry because of their philosophical disposition is nonsense. I accepted evolution *despite* my philosophical/theological disposition, and I must say that I consider my theological worldview more informed and consistent, not less.<br /><br />No matter what patterns you find in nature, you can always say "Well, God must have designed it that way." But if those patterns are exactly what one would have expected common ancestry to produce, You must ask yourself why that is the case. (and when I say 'what one would have expected,' I mean what real scientist would have expected, not the straw men Cornelius likes to imagine)<br /><br />So the idea that everyone who accepts evolution for philosophical reasons and not because the evidence, fairly evaluated, overwhelmingly indicates such, is pure baloney. (I'm sure some people accept it for philosophical reasons; but I'm sure many more people accept creationism for philosophical reasons alone.)Derick Childresshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04957020457782757629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-62405849350233714192010-05-27T12:20:42.880-07:002010-05-27T12:20:42.880-07:00mynym: You start by assuming common descent becaus...<b>mynym</b>: <i>You start by assuming common descent because there can never be evidence of common design of any sort according to your philosophy. </i><br /><br />Of course there can, there's just no scientific evidence to support the contention.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-66250294131663984052010-05-27T12:09:00.526-07:002010-05-27T12:09:00.526-07:00We have to start by establishing Common Descent......<i>We have to start by establishing Common Descent...</i><br /><br />You start by assuming common descent because there can never be evidence of common design of any sort according to your philosophy. Even if all organisms shared a similar type of sentience to one degree or another that shaped their commonality you would still be blind to it and imagine that it was evidence of common descent. This is as it must be no matter what is observed because the impact of sentience, knowledge and teleology on reality is the equivalent of "magic" to Darwinists. <br /><br />Common descent is assumed as it must be given the rise of mechanistic philosophy in modern times, not established.mynymhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07095211421748579139noreply@blogger.com