tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post7415941194175006771..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Here’s Darwin’s Solution for Convergent Evolution: Like Two Inventors “Independently Hit on the Very Same Invention”Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger450125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-26854829484449174302014-03-25T19:54:20.024-07:002014-03-25T19:54:20.024-07:00Scott: So, apparently, you have a designer that ju...Scott: So, apparently, you have a designer that just so happens to know exactly which protein out of a supposed astronomical number would result in just the right features, yet you lack an explanation as to how it came to posses this knowledge.<br /><br />Nic: As we believe God to be the origin of everything, it only follows that as the originator and creator of the very proteins in question, obviously he would know which ones to use and where.<br /><br />Nic: Arguments such as these should embarrass you, really. You call this scientific and intellectual? Outrageously funny.<br /><br />Some designer that “just was”, compile with the knowledge of exactly which protein out of a supposed astronomical number would result in just the right features, already present, serves no explanatory purpose. This is because one could more efficiently state that organisms “just appeared”, complete with the knowledge of exactly which protein out of a supposed astronomical number would result in just the right features, already present. <br /><br />You’ve merely pushed the very same problem into an inexplicable mind that exists in an inexplicable realm. <br /><br />IOW, all you’ve done is pushed the food around on your plate, then claimed you ate it. Yet, it still right there staring you in the face. And my argument should embarrass me?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-69969413904756869752014-03-17T12:28:24.725-07:002014-03-17T12:28:24.725-07:00eklektos
eklektos
Dawkins can write a diatribe ag...<b>eklektos</b><br /><br /><b>eklektos</b><br /><i>Dawkins can write a diatribe against Christianity and make money off it, that's just truth telling. <br />Stephen Myers writes a book criticizing the Darwinian religion and gets paid for it and he's wicked.</i><br /><br />That is an example of religion encompassing any and all things ,Nic. <br /><br />You hit all the talking points,eklektos. Been reading your comments for a while, but you have yet to present an actual alternative to the evolutionary theory. How things work. Any chance that might be forthcoming? Are there physical constants? Can we use logic or does the immaterial violate the law of non contradiction too?<br /><br /><br />velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-40776453859744911602014-03-17T06:25:08.386-07:002014-03-17T06:25:08.386-07:00natschuster: Bu you don't need macroevolution ...<b>natschuster</b>: <i>Bu you don't need macroevolution to understand antibiotic resistance. </i><br /><br /> Perhaps not, but you do need it to understand macroevolution. <br /><br /><b>natschuster</b>: <i>Has anyone ever seen a bacteria evolve into something that didn't look and act like the original bacteria? </i><br /><br />Depends what you mean by "look like" and "act like". Bacteria have evolved to be larger ("look like"), and have adapted the ability to consume food sources they didn't have before ("act like"). <br /><br />If you mean have we seen bacteria evolve into puppies, well, no. But that would falsify the theory of evolution. <br /><br /><b>natschuster</b>: <i>Does this mean that evolution is no longer happening? </i><br /><br />The evolution of antibiotic resistance is evolution. The changes in finch beaks is evolution. So, yes. Evolution is still happening. <br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-86360027858349202902014-03-16T21:45:42.848-07:002014-03-16T21:45:42.848-07:00Scott: Nic denied thinking everything was religiou...Scott: Nic denied thinking everything was religious. However, he suggested that evolution was religious because we must have "faith" in it. <br /><br />Scott: … I pointed out that explanatory scientific theories do not take the same form as religious beliefs. <b>We accept singular observations because we have good explanations as to how they were obtained. An example is that we accept observations from microscopes because we have a hard to vary explanation as to how it relays us accurate information.</b> You cannot setup a microscope any old way, or swap out any of its key parts and expect to see bacteria. <b>Good explanations prohibit things. Our explanations for how a microscope works is no exception.</b><br /><br />Scott: On the other hand, the supernatural is, <b>by its very nature, inexplicable.</b> It does not <b>necessarily prohibit anything</b>. As such, the idea that God did anything in particular is not based on a good explanation. <b>it’s based on religious faith.</b> <br /><br />Scott: "But God is supposedly <b>capable of anything logically possible</b>, including creating the very same world we observe 30 minutes ago, complete with false memories, etc."<br /><br />Nic: No, he could not as that would require that God was being deceitful. Such activity is contrary to the very nature of an omnipotent god.<br /><br />You’re making my point for me, Nic. He would indeed be capable. Believing that he wouldn’t is not based on a good explanation that necessarily prohibits it, but religious faith about God’s nature. Again that’s the significant difference between the two. <br /><br />Nic: Please tell me upon reflection you now realize what an asinine statement that is.<br /><br />Did God not realize the way he supposedly created the biosphere would result in humans developing evolutionary theory? I mean, it wouldn’t take a human rocket scientist to realize one of the consequences of creating the biosphere *in that particular way* would result in the development and wide spread acceptance of evolutionary theory. Yet, God is supposedly omnipotent, infinite being. Something doesn’t add up here. <br /><br />Note that I’m taking your arguments seriously, such as that evolutionary theory actually is wrong in reality, and I’m criticizing it based on the rest of our observations. This includes the specific way we would supposedly be wrong, as you claim, and the consciences of that being true, in reality. <br /><br />IOW, It seems that either the designer was limited in that he failed to realize the consequences of his actions (which even human beings could have realized), he’s deceitful in the same sense that creating the universe we observe 30 minutes ago would be deceitful, or he did so for reasons we cannot comprehend. But once you open the door to the latter defense, you open the very same door in regards to God creating the universe we observe 30 minutes ago for some reason we cannot comprehend, either. This is my point.<br /><br /><i>Again, preferring one bad explanation about what God might have done out of other countless variants is religious faith.</i>Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-76738609484439509512014-03-16T17:18:17.399-07:002014-03-16T17:18:17.399-07:00Watch out, Scott, you're making all of those g...Watch out, Scott, you're making all of those gods angry.Pedanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12656298969231453877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-83846822207463009932014-03-16T14:46:43.948-07:002014-03-16T14:46:43.948-07:00""natschuster: Believing that bacteria c...""natschuster: Believing that bacteria can change into blue whales has nothing to do with anti-biotic resistance." <br /><br />Modern bacteria are highly derived. However, they probably share a common ancestor with blue whales. Microevolution is a necessary part of the overall explanation."<br /><br />Does this mean that evolution is no longer happening? The idea that the present tells us about the past is no longer valid? If so, then evolution, by definition is not reproducible. Then how is it testable or falsifiable? I'm just asking.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-9248344417306196442014-03-16T14:42:03.305-07:002014-03-16T14:42:03.305-07:00ZachrielMarch 16, 2014 at 1:22 PM
""nat...ZachrielMarch 16, 2014 at 1:22 PM<br /><br />""natschuster: Have bacteria ever evolved into another species, while developing anti-biotic resistance." <br /><br />Species is not a well-defined concept for bacteria."<br /><br />Has anyone ever seen a bacteria evolve into something that didn't look and act like the original bacteria? <br /><br />natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-65475148459085327602014-03-16T14:40:38.820-07:002014-03-16T14:40:38.820-07:00eklektosFirst we'd have to know that man-made ...<i><b>eklektos</b>First we'd have to know that man-made climate change actually occurs. </i><br /><br />No, first we need to establish that a major, long-term shift in the Earth's climate is under way. Second, if it is, we need to find out how much human activity is contributing to it. Third, once we know the answers to the first two, we can decide what, if anything, we can do to prevent it or, at least, mitigate its effects.<br /><br />For this we need, amongst other experts, climatologists. If it isn't going to affect their bottom line in the next 2-3 years, private enterprise isn't interested. So it's basically down to the public sector to do anything about it.<br /><br /><i><b>eklektos</b>Evolutionary biologist don't create vaccines, molecular biologist working in the medical field on current problems do. </i><br /><br />So? I was talking about antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Evolution provides an explanation of why it happens and warns us to expect it to occur. ID doesn't.<br /><br /><i><b>eklektos</b>Evolutionary biologist by definition spend their time studying evolution. But the question is never asked whether that's a fruitful endeavor, beyond trying to prop up a materialist religion which the majority of the public rejects. </i><br /><br />Take any one of the world's religions and you'll find they're rejected by a majority of the world's population. Doesn't stop <i>them</i> being propped up by various tax breaks, concessions, special privileges, etc.<br /><br /><i><b>eklektos</b>Is that because only evolutionist are intelligent? 49% rejects evolution outright, and another 40% thinks some of evolution is true but still doesn't accept all of it. So that makes the devotees a very small minority. </i><br /><br />Successful predictions of quantum theory have been measured to an accuracy of several decimal places, yet its devotees must be an even tinier minority. You think the worth of a theory depends on the half-baked opinions of people who have only the faintest notion of what they're pontificating about?<br /><br /><i><b>eklektos</b> Now when the people who are sick of having materialist religion shoved down their throat support scientist who are opposed to Darwinism that's wrong and the scientist are just money grubbers. </i><br /><br />And what about the people who are sick of having other peoples religions, any religion, shoved down <i>their</i> throats, religions that expect a privileged place in society, political power and tax-breaks as of right? And scientists who make money exploiting ignorance when they campaign against theories which are well outside their fields of expertise should expect to take a little heat.<br /><br /><i><b>eklektos</b>You complain about science education but Darwinism has been the dominant paradigm for 80+ years in science education. We're graduating children who can't even read, write, or do math properly. Community colleges are now what High School used to be. Don't you see we have a problem </i><br /><br />Evolution has been the dominant theory in biology for the last 150-odd years. It has had little if anything to do with education policy and teaching practices, so stop trying to imply that "Darwinism" is responsible for all of societies ills.<br /><br />Public education is a great idea, in principle. Every child is entitled to at least a decent basic education regardless of personal circumstances. Privately-funded schools aren't going to do it because they can't make enough money off the poor. So it's down to society as whole to provide it through public schools. That's if you're not comfortable with only kids of wealthy parents getting the best education. I'm not but maybe you see things differently.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11311738457332907931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-52718565360377490182014-03-16T14:34:47.839-07:002014-03-16T14:34:47.839-07:00But you don't need to believe in macroevolutio...But you don't need to believe in macroevolution to know about microevolution.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-12192625811603905072014-03-16T14:32:24.275-07:002014-03-16T14:32:24.275-07:00Bu you don't need macroevolution to understand...Bu you don't need macroevolution to understand antibiotic resistance.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-13264205486636619862014-03-16T13:31:09.560-07:002014-03-16T13:31:09.560-07:00Scott,
"But God is supposedly capable of any...Scott,<br /><br />"But God is supposedly capable of anything logically possible, including creating the very same world we observe 30 minutes ago, complete with false memories, etc."<br /><br />No, he could not as that would require that God was being deceitful. Such activity is contrary to the very nature of an omnipotent god.<br /><br />"I’m not claiming that God doesn’t exist. I’m saying that God is a bad explanation, which I discard like all other bad explanations."<br /><br />Please tell me upon reflection you now realize what an asinine statement that is.<br /><br />Have to head out of town now. Will finish on a day or two.Nichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08693133888203943510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-31974056514316471992014-03-16T13:22:34.001-07:002014-03-16T13:22:34.001-07:00natschuster: Have bacteria ever evolved into anoth...<b>natschuster</b>: <i>Have bacteria ever evolved into another species, while developing anti-biotic resistance. </i><br /><br />Species is not a well-defined concept for bacteria. <br /> <br /><b>natschuster</b>: <i>Believing that bacteria can change into blue whales has nothing to do with anti-biotic resistance. </i><br /><br />Modern bacteria are highly derived. However, they probably share a common ancestor with blue whales. Microevolution is a necessary part of the overall explanation. Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-13811868992604998192014-03-16T13:19:22.075-07:002014-03-16T13:19:22.075-07:00natschuster: People have known about microevolutio...<b>natschuster</b>: <i>People have known about microevolution ever since people have been breeding animals and plants on farms. </i><br /><br />"Jacob, however, took fresh-cut branches from poplar, almond and plane trees and made white stripes on them by peeling the bark and exposing the white inner wood of the branches. Then he placed the peeled branches in all the watering troughs, so that they would be directly in front of the flocks when they came to drink. When the flocks were in heat and came to drink, they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted." — Genesis 30<br /><br /><b>natschuster</b>: <i>That's selective breeding. Didn't Darwin write about that? Didn't he write about breeding different breeds of pigeons? </i><br /><br />For much of history, people simply selected for traits they wanted without necessarily knowing that there could be long term directional change to the species. <br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-66236766269325579242014-03-16T13:09:28.924-07:002014-03-16T13:09:28.924-07:00Jeff: 1) that observed stratigraphic ranges corres...<b>Jeff</b>: <i>1) that observed stratigraphic ranges correspond with any statistical significance with actual stratigraphic ranges </i><br /><br />Of course they do, as generations of geologists have determined, and is actually not difficult to verify yourself. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>that tree-generation rules correspond AT ALL with the actual effects of historical mutations. </i><br /><br />The tree is due to cladogenesis, not simple mutation. <br /><br /><b>Cornelius Hunter</b>: <i>CH specifically distinguished between a definition of "functional proteins" for the case where a protein is a necessary condition of a discernible biological function and the case where it doesn't. </i><br /><br />Cornelius Hunter made a claim about finding relatively short proteins. <br />http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2013/10/failure-how-evolutionists-react.html<br /><br /><br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-81048899052728702652014-03-16T10:49:14.560-07:002014-03-16T10:49:14.560-07:00Nat: And wasn't penicillin discovered by accid...Nat: And wasn't penicillin discovered by accident? No evolutionary theory was involved.<br /><br />Hopeful, the irony of Nat's wasn't lost on everyone. Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-31135459058948256312014-03-16T10:47:47.321-07:002014-03-16T10:47:47.321-07:00Scott: On the other hand, supernatural beliefs are...Scott: On the other hand, supernatural beliefs are, <b>by their very nature, inexplicable and are shallow by due to being related to the phenomena in question as part of the same claim.</b> They are bad explanations. <br /><br />Nic: Only if you strictly adhere to a naturalistic view of the world. Such adherence only become common in the last few centuries.<br /><br />Scott: Only? You just quote mined my comment to avoid the distinction presented. <br /><br />Nic: Again with the pathetically childish 'quote mine' argument. <br /><br />Scientific theories take a qualitatively different form. This distinction, which you omitted, does not depend on strictly adhering to a naturalist view of the world. <br /><br />Nic: The distinction you think you presented is of no force. Do you really think the explanations of evolution are not related to the phenomena they are attempting to explain?<br /><br />Did you actually read what I wrote?<br /><br /><i>Scientific theories are explanations about how the world works, in reality. We adopt good theories (which consist of <b>long chains of hard to vary, independently formed, explanations</b>) that have survived the most criticism. On the other hand, supernatural beliefs are, by their very nature, inexplicable and are shallow by <b>due to being related to the phenomena in question as part of the same claim.</b> They are bad explanations. </i><br /><br />All myths exhibit the same flaw. Apollo pulling the sun across the sky is only related to the sun via the myth itself. He pulls the sun across the sky because it’s part of the myth of Apollo the sun god. Hades, Persephone and Demeter causing the seasons is only related to seasons via the myth itself. They cause seasons because it’s part of the Greek myth of the seasons. Yet, in both cases the same observations (the movement of the sun and the chaining seasons) could be just as well accounted for by some other cast of gods that took their place. <br /><br />This is in contrast to our current explanation of the seasons, which represents a long chain of independently formed, hard to vary assertions about how the world works, in reality, across multiple fields. The earth's rotation is titled in respect to it's orbit around the sun. A spinning sphere retains it's tilt. Surfaces titled away from radiant heat are headed less. Along, with out theories of photons, the origin of star light (nuclear fusion), etc. There is no easy way to vary this explanation without significantly impacting it's ability to explain the seasons. If one of these links were falsified, there would be no easy way to variety this expiation. Its proponents would have no where go. <br /><br />However, if the Greeks knew it was summer in one hemisphere and winter in another, they could easily vary their myth to any annual action to account for it. For example, Demeter could have been sad due at Persephone’s annual return to Hades and pushed heat away from *her vicinity*, causing summer in one hemisphere, etc. So, even if they had known about different seasons in each hemisphere, they could have easily varied their myth to account for it. As such, they wouldn’t have gotten one jot closer the nature of the seasons. <br /><br />This shallow, easy variability is a sign of a bad explanation as It severely mitigates the ability to be improved via criticism. Of course, if you think that knowledge in specific spheres comes from authoritative sources, rather than guesses that are improved by criticism, then it would come as no surprise that you would consider shallow, easily variable explanations “good theories” because they need not be improved in the first place. Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-28316530490170055622014-03-16T10:46:46.923-07:002014-03-16T10:46:46.923-07:00Scott:“Second, you quote mined my comment, ignorin...Scott:“Second, you quote mined my comment, ignoring the distinction between scientific theories and religious beliefs."<br /><br />Nic: Don't start that whining, childish 'quote mining' crap. This is possibly the most juvenile objection I have ever heard. I only posted a portion of what you said due to character constraints. It allows you, and others to refer to the passage I'm responding to. Please just admit you have no argument and quit trying to blame it on me by whining about quote mining.<br /><br />Yet, instead of actually responding to my argument, which you conveniently omitted from your quote, you just spent an entire paragraph on how juvenile my objection supposedly was. So, apparently, I don’t have an argument because you omitted it in your quote? <br /><br />Nic: That a theory survives criticism is irrelevant to its truthfulness. Geocentric theory survived centuries of criticism. How did that end up?<br />Scott: It turned out as we would have expected, since all ideas start out as conjecture. We expect conjectured theories to incomplete and contain errors to some degree. We expect those theories to be criticized, which result in some of those errors to be found and discarded.<br />Nic: I hope you realize this response does absolutely nothing to counter my argument. <br /><br />The response that you just so happened to have quoted? Or the part of my response you ignored?<br /><br /><i>[IOW] you’re assuming the goal is to fix on a position, such as geocentric theory. […] <b>[CR] is not directed at solving the kind of problems that are solved by fixing on a position. It is concerned with the way that such positions are adopted, criticized, defended and relinquished.</b></i><br /><br />I had hoped you’d realize your mistaken assumption. No where did I suggest that criticism proves anything is true, or probability true. <br /><br />Furthermore, from the Wikipedia entry on Critical Rationalism…<br /><br /><i>William Warren Bartley compared critical rationalism to the very general philosophical approach to knowledge which he called "justificationism". Most justificationists do not know that they are justificationists. Justificationism is what Popper called a "subjectivist" view of truth, in which <b>the question of whether some statement is true, is confused with the question of whether it can be justified (established, proven, verified, warranted, made well-founded, made reliable, grounded, supported, legitimated, based on evidence) in some way.</b></i><br /><br />And I’m confused?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-84033397828287204862014-03-16T10:44:44.062-07:002014-03-16T10:44:44.062-07:00Nic: A false theory can result in accurate results...Nic: A false theory can result in accurate results. You can discover the nature of a system through evolutionary perceptions and as a result attribute its origin to evolution, when in fact its origin may have nothing to do with evolution. Can you grasp that fact?<br /><br />Scott: “Theory X might be wrong” isn’t genuine because it can be applied to absolutely any theory, including lightning, gravity, etc."<br /><br />Nic: Yes, it can, but that's the nature of theories. But the difference with the theories which have been applied to gravity etc., produce consistent results. Drop that 20 pound stone 100 times and 100 times it will drop.<br /><br />Except you do not think it will fall those 100 times merely because they fell n number of times before that. The nature of a system isn’t something you can observe. That’s my point. <br /><br />For example, if stones fall because demons pull on objects according to their mass for some unexplainable reason, they might change their mind tomorrow for some inexplicable reason as well. As such, that stones had dropped every single time we’ve observed them in the past would not necessarily lead us to think they would in the future. IOW, it’s our explanation for those observations, the universal natural law of gravity, not the observations themselves, which our expectations of the future is based on.<br /><br />Yet another example? Each and every designer we’ve ever observed has had a complex, material brain. Yet, I’m guessing this overwhelming number of observations does not lead you to universally necessitate designers as having complex maternal brains. Right?<br /><br />Nic: However, that does not deny that emotional benefits derived from a religion are empirically observable, which was my only point.<br /><br />And it rained Thursday morning where I live. So what? <br /><br />You claimed that evolutionary theory was religious. I pointed out that scientific theories take a qualitatively different form, in that they are explanations about how the world works, in reality. <br /><br />The idea that religious beliefs can have emotional benefits is not itself a religious belief unless you’re assuming these emotional benefits are somehow the direct result of and are unique to a supernatural cause. Yet, emotional benefits from secular Buddhist meditation has been tested scientifically. So, it’s unclear exactly how this advances your argument. Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-87353800572170282262014-03-16T10:39:33.115-07:002014-03-16T10:39:33.115-07:00Which God do I discard? All of them. Because they ...Which God do I discard? All of them. Because they all take the form of bad explanations. <br /><br />Again, preferring one bad explanation about what God might have done out of other countless variants is religious faith.<br /><br />Nor would it matter who conceived of them. That's yet another argument from authority. Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-50813738886159199402014-03-16T10:19:21.902-07:002014-03-16T10:19:21.902-07:00Jeff: We don't observe an historical UCA tree....Jeff: We don't observe an historical UCA tree.<br /><br />Z: No. We hypothesize the tree, make predictions, then test those predictions.<br /><br />J: We've covered this ground. You don't make hypothetico-deductive predictions from anything like hypothetico-axioms that have any plausibility. E.g., it's ridiculously over-simplistic to suppose either:<br /><br />1) that observed stratigraphic ranges correspond with any statistical significance with actual stratigraphic ranges,<br /><br />2) that actual stratigraphic ranges correspond with any statistical significance with existential ranges,<br /><br />3) that tree-generation rules correspond AT ALL with the actual effects of historical mutations.<br /><br />Moreover, you only trotted out one so-called prediction: the fishy-pod critter. But in sense did it discernibly pass the prediction. We saw that 1) & 2) above trump the ability to predict thus.<br /><br />Jeff: Which claim in that article are you talking about?<br /><br />Z: CH: The numbers don’t add up. Proteins reveal scientific problems for evolution.<br /><br />J: CH specifically distinguished between a definition of "functional proteins" for the case where a protein is a necessary condition of a discernible biological function and the case where it doesn't. You never even addressed his point in that original exchange. You just hid behind equivocal language like you always do. If you can show that CH's distinction is illusory, then do so please.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16852362499722076519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-15742665243991524752014-03-16T09:27:43.973-07:002014-03-16T09:27:43.973-07:00Have bacteria ever evolved into another species, w...Have bacteria ever evolved into another species, while developing anti-biotic resistance. No one questions that organisms can change. The question is how much can they change. Believing that bacteria can change into blue whales has nothing to do with anti-biotic resistance.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-21590139260074050392014-03-16T08:32:10.824-07:002014-03-16T08:32:10.824-07:00eklektos: But we could just as easily drop the Dar...<b>eklektos</b>: <i>But we could just as easily drop the Darwinian connotations altogether. </i><br /><br />It's exactly the "Darwinian connotations" that we can't drop. They evolve under selection, which is exactly what we meant by darwinian evolution. <br /><br />Here's an interesting tidbit you might consider. Darwin couldn't observe evolution or natural selection, or even a source of novel variation. He *inferred* microevolution, natural selection, and novelty variation, from the evidence for macroevolution. It was quite a brilliant prediction, one which has been borne out by many observations since. <br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-32961526594635860212014-03-16T05:56:28.593-07:002014-03-16T05:56:28.593-07:00natschuster: And wasn't penicillin discovered ...<b>natschuster</b>: <i>And wasn't penicillin discovered by accident? No evolutionary theory was involved. </i><br /><br />But since then infectious bacteria have evolved resistance to penicillin, and evolutionary theory is essential to understanding the problem. <br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-25367031088843024542014-03-15T21:41:27.444-07:002014-03-15T21:41:27.444-07:00eklektos
First we'd have to know that man-mad...<b>eklektos</b><br /><br /><i>First we'd have to know that man-made climate change actually occurs.</i><br /><br />First you need to know if climate change is real, then what are the most likely causes. For that your need data, which we, taxpayers,help provide as interested parties. And statistical analysis of that data. <br /><br />And for that we need climate scientists.<br /><br />Just curious what amount of money do you estimate we spend on non medical darwinian research each year?<br />velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-30285619513148815642014-03-15T21:00:02.617-07:002014-03-15T21:00:02.617-07:00Scott,
Which God? One of your own creation?Scott,<br /><br />Which God? One of your own creation?eklektoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08258828442369684175noreply@blogger.com