tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post4350729460495833562..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Jerry Coyne and the Problem of EvilUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-24948469338332466542009-09-24T22:52:12.315-07:002009-09-24T22:52:12.315-07:00Anon,
I'm confused. Did you not rhetorically ...Anon,<br /><br />I'm confused. Did you not rhetorically ask: "How is it metaphysical to look at a cetacean's genome and after discovering that they have remnants of genes for producing legs and for respiring on land conclude that this is good evidence that they are descended from terrestrial organisms?"<br /><br />If you did, can you provide me with the documentation for this claim?Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17496161581317710863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-77055948513212369512009-09-24T08:39:14.178-07:002009-09-24T08:39:14.178-07:00It is my understanding that the pelvis of the whal...It is my understanding that the pelvis of the whales serves to support the reproductive organs, they currently serve another purpose. And the vestigal genes might serve some purpose not yet known. This appears to be the case with most of the junk DNA.<br /><br />1. And the transitional fossils are not actually the transitional species. The details of their anatomy make them unlikely candidates for the ancestors of modern whales. They might have the ancestral condition, but the real ancestors are still missing. This often happens with transitianl fossils. Just recently IDA was demoted from human ancestor to side branch. Archaeopteryx is no linger considered a link between theropods dinsaurs and birds because of significant differences in anatomy. The real transition is unknown.<br /><br />And there are anywhere 2 to 10 million species trhat exist now. There are anywhere from 20 million to 1 billion species that are now extinct. If each one was the product of evolution, I would expect to see a lot more transtional fossils than the 3 dozen or so known.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-58828897808559371772009-09-23T22:02:07.170-07:002009-09-23T22:02:07.170-07:00I am a bit confused, Anon. I'm not talking abo...I am a bit confused, Anon. I'm not talking about the very beginning of life i.e. X bya, but when life was branching, according to the evolutionary tale.<br /><br />So, would you like to take a crack at my challenges?Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17496161581317710863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-71567505441238448422009-09-23T09:08:07.088-07:002009-09-23T09:08:07.088-07:00Evolution only addresses the development of life. ...Evolution only addresses the development of life. It does not address origins. Yet naturalists are content with the answer "we hoep to have an answer for yuo someday" one the questions of origins. They prefer no answer to one that is not rigidly naturalistic. That's a philisophical position.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-90329009726788883072009-09-22T14:47:25.419-07:002009-09-22T14:47:25.419-07:00Anon,
Re your 3 cetacean predictions, can you pro...Anon,<br /><br />Re your 3 cetacean predictions, can you provide the conditions under which these 3 would be falsified? This would make evolution a much more robust explanation. Also, just in case evolution isn't true, then we would be more alert to this possibility. After all, isn't that what science demands?Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17496161581317710863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-4553100557906116612009-09-22T14:38:46.752-07:002009-09-22T14:38:46.752-07:00Anon,
1."Scientists should simply focus on e...Anon,<br /><br />1."Scientists should simply focus on evolution and what it predicts"<br /><br />The normally understood definition of 'predictions' - and science is no exception - are events or phenomena which WILL happen, not things which have happened. It's awfully difficult to "test" the past whe no one was there to witness it in the same way you test, say, something in the lab which can be done over and over again. You're talking about history, not science. <br /><br />So what are some testable predictions based on evolution which are yet to happen?<br /><br />2. "we can test the idea for example that the chimpanzee genome and the human genome were once both the same (in a common ancestor) and as far as I can see from testing this there are no grounds for rejecting it."<br /><br />Just how do you genetically test (and test generally) for a putative ancestor of chimps and man when it putatively died off millions of years ago? How do you falsify such a statement as yours?<br /><br />The key is not so much similarity - all things have common characteristics and a common genetic code - but proving as a matter of past history that one thing evolved from another.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17496161581317710863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-35948754228699486632009-09-21T15:31:24.081-07:002009-09-21T15:31:24.081-07:00"I have always thought that arguments about &..."I have always thought that arguments about 'bad designs' and such things were terrible."<br /><br />My concern is not so much with the evolutionists' metaphysical assumptions, but with their denial.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-2328087210250881042009-09-21T13:46:05.964-07:002009-09-21T13:46:05.964-07:00I have always thought that arguments about 'ba...I have always thought that arguments about 'bad designs' and such things were terrible. It really is not convincing to say "a designer would not have done it this way." The fact is we simply have no idea how a designer would have done it (much less one with unlimited supernatural powers we can't even imagine), and that is why I don't think design is a scientific hypothesis. Scientists should simply focus on evolution and what it predicts; transitional fossils, genomic patterns etc. We do know what evolution should look like; we can test the idea for example that the chimpanzee genome and the human genome were once both the same (in a common ancestor) and as far as I can see from testing this there are no grounds for rejecting it. Pondering how a supernatural being might have been involved in producing what we see is just impossible; there is no way to tell one way or the other.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-67390762342178974322009-09-21T12:39:28.956-07:002009-09-21T12:39:28.956-07:00"It has got nothing to do with metaphysical c..."It has got nothing to do with metaphysical claims."<br /><br />Of course it does. You cannot take a theory that has substantial scientific problems, call it true by virtue of metaphysical premises, and then say you have nothing to do with metaphysical claims.<br /><br /><br /><br />"OK, let's test the idea that cetaceans are descended from land animals.<br />Prediction 1 - We would expect their genome to show signs of prior adaptation to terrestrial life."<br /><br />That's a false retrodiction. Evolution would not be harmed if no such evidence of adaptation was found.<br /><br /><br /><br />Prediction 2 - We would expect that they still exhibit signs of terrestrial adaptation during development.<br /><br />Ditto.<br /><br /><br /><br />"common descent not rejected."<br /><br />True, because evolutionists ignore falsified predictions and substantial scientific problems.<br /><br /><br /><br />"So we do have converging lines of evidence for the idea that whales are descended from terrestrial mammals."<br /><br />True, when the evidence is carefully selected.<br /><br /><br /><br />"It's not 'proof' but it is fairly convincing, risky (and apparently rather counter-intuitive) predictions have been made and are confirmed."<br /><br />Evolution is not "fairly convincing." It is "true." Remember? Why is it that evolutionists always move the goal posts when skeptics come around?<br /><br />Please have a look at the post on the Sober paper:<br /><br />http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/06/sober-rebukes-evolutions-religion.htmlCornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-81542475249498215972009-09-21T12:01:21.671-07:002009-09-21T12:01:21.671-07:00It has got nothing to do with metaphysical claims....It has got nothing to do with metaphysical claims.<br />The hypothesis is universal common descent.<br /><br />Right, in the case of cetaceans, they are mammals and for them to be genealogically related to other mammals (and ultimately the rest of life) they would have to be descended from organisms that lived on land.<br />OK, let's test the idea that cetaceans are descended from land animals.<br />Prediction 1 - We would expect their genome to show signs of prior adaptation to terrestrial life.<br />Outcome; hypothesis confirmed, common descent not rejected.<br /><br />Prediction 2 - We would expect that they still exhibit signs of terrestrial adaptation during development.<br />Outcome; hypothesis confirmed, common descent not rejected.<br /><br />Prediction 3 - There should be a series of transitional fossils linking cetaceans to terrestrial mammals, and they should be approximately temporally arranged in the fossil record.<br />Outcome; fossils exist, hypothesis confirmed, common descent not rejected.<br /><br /><br />So we do have converging lines of evidence for the idea that whales are descended from terrestrial mammals. It's not 'proof' but it is fairly convincing, risky (and apparently rather counter-intuitive) predictions have been made and are confirmed.<br />Now, could there be some other explanation for the evidence? Sure, but nobody appears to be proposing anything here.<br /><br />And John, your first two metaphysical premises are just flat wrong, and your third one needs to be altered in order to be accurate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-74417877662385233592009-09-20T23:33:07.257-07:002009-09-20T23:33:07.257-07:00How are transitional fossils based on "metaph...How are transitional fossils based on "metaphysical premises?"<br /><br />Metaphysical premise no. 1: That things that look similar and lie vertically apart in the fossil record, must have evolved from each other.<br /><br />Metaphysical premise no. 2: That things that look similar and lie vertically apart in the fossil record, cannot be explained by any other theory apart from evolution<br /><br />Metaphysical premise no. 3: Any explanation that does not fall under the rubric of naturalism, is to be disregarded. <br /><br />While not exactly metaphysical, your statement does involve an enthymematic syllogism. As it stands your bare statement doesn’t tell you anything. It need to be filled in and should be stated as:<br /><br />1. If evolution is true then there will be transitional fossils<br />2. Look, I can see transitional fossils<br />3. Therefore, evolution is true<br /><br />But hang on. Isn’t the above conclusion an invalid on? Of course it is! It is a formal fallacy called Affirming the Consequent. There may well be other explanations why there are so-called transitional fossils apart from evolution being a fact, as I've already mentioned.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17496161581317710863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-42844280504024688102009-09-20T01:36:33.011-07:002009-09-20T01:36:33.011-07:00It is not that the probability of the evidence on ...It is not that the probability of the evidence on evolution is high, but rather that the probability of the evidence on creation is low. Therefore, this sort of evidence you cite dramatically increases the probability that evolution is true, using what Sober refers to as Darwin's Principle of reasoning.<br /><br />It increases the probability of evolution to the point that they can reasonably claim evolution is true. One point of consensus amongst evolutionists is that evolution is true, and that claim entails metaphysical premises (for example, used in interpreting the probability of the data given creation). For more explanation see this:<br /><br />http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/06/sober-rebukes-evolutions-religion.html<br /><br />If the metaphysics were left out, then evolutionists would have to use scientific reasoning. They would be left with a list of fulfilled predictions and of falsified predictions, and there would be no basis for claiming evolution is true.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-24022437941249875402009-09-20T00:53:01.723-07:002009-09-20T00:53:01.723-07:00How are transitional fossils based on "metaph...How are transitional fossils based on "metaphysical premises?" Or, for example genomic comparisons? How is it metaphysical to look at a cetacean's genome and after discovering that they have remnants of genes for producing legs and for respiring on land conclude that this is good evidence that they are descended from terrestrial organisms? Furthermore, is it metaphysical to look at the limb buds they produce during development?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com