tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post8608848990754083779..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Reverend Jerry Coyne: Lanugo and EpistemologyUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-20072017987916443522015-04-29T19:48:35.540-07:002015-04-29T19:48:35.540-07:00"Lanugo can be explained only..."
Prett..."Lanugo can be explained only..."<br /><br />Pretty sure I spot an "only" there ;)<br /><br />That said, lanugo does seem to have some functionality, and thus is not a (purely) vestigial as Coyne suggests.Andyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10918881673638295065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-36839935235896231462014-04-12T03:51:39.336-07:002014-04-12T03:51:39.336-07:00After seeing a rising incidence of Coyne, Carroll ...After seeing a rising incidence of Coyne, Carroll et al, being addressed by posters to UD as Professors Coyne, Carroll, etc, I was greatly heartened, Cornelius, to note your refusal to cave into that kind of lese-majeste, the Lords Spiritual always having held precedence over the Lords Temporal. <br /><br />Top marks for the sincerity of your demeanour towards these august luminaries, Cornelius, with which our epoch of history has been so richly blessed. You are, indeed, a gentleman and a scholar.... though I still worry for Lord Carroll's dear, old grannie in Tipperary, fretting over his heretical waywardness.Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09157872703645656943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-66074493969182417312012-12-05T13:43:09.757-08:002012-12-05T13:43:09.757-08:00I'm an "A-darwinist" in that I am N...I'm an "A-darwinist" in that I am NOT Darwinian evolution believer because there is no evidence for it. It's sort of like an "Atheist" that has a lack of belief in God because they say there is no physical evidence for it and like the atheist who rejects my alternative explanation, I reject theirs for the exact same reason. No evidence for it. <br /><br />NONE<br /><br />If evolution was as proven as gravity, people like Coyne wouldn't be adding all those affirmations to assist in confirmation bias. <br /><br />I mean you wouldn't hear someone like that always pushing a Brand which evolution certainly is. They say it has more supporting evidence than Gravity! But you wouldn't see someone speaking the way Coyne does about throwing a Ball in the air having it come back down, after hitting the ground saying "The resulting fall back to earth can only be explained as the effect of gravity"<br /><br />Of course not. No more than you would have your opposing interlocutors saying that it is NOT how the ball came down and someone like you coming along and saying "whats your explanation for the ball falling back to earth then asshole" <br /><br />with their answer being "God did it" <br /><br />That kind of scenario is unlikely to happen at best, but Darwits would have us believe that it does all the time. <br /><br />That anyone not agreeing to their opinion must be dared into saying God did it and if they don't offer an alternative, they will get blamed for saying God did it anyway just to ridicule them because Darwits are "assholes" like thatKent Perry AKA Conspiriologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01961622731107610773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-34977738389921015542012-12-05T12:16:54.783-08:002012-12-05T12:16:54.783-08:00Mr. Hunter I got to tell ya, for many many year...Mr. Hunter I got to tell ya, for many many year's now, you have always managed to impress the hell out of me. Kent Perry AKA Conspiriologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01961622731107610773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-72338576972278433942012-12-05T12:07:56.247-08:002012-12-05T12:07:56.247-08:00Not in the context of biology "ONLY" mak...Not in the context of biology "ONLY" making sense, in the so called, divine light of evolution.<br /><br />In that context, it is easily an IF, Then ONlY IFKent Perry AKA Conspiriologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01961622731107610773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-90635916340911498182012-05-17T20:03:57.282-07:002012-05-17T20:03:57.282-07:00Ahh... the irony
By assuming such a naturalistic ...Ahh... the irony<br /><br />By assuming such a naturalistic approach aren't you biased?<br /><br />Your philosophic, or religious worldviews have nothing to do with science; instead, your worldview is fabricated by the INTERPRETATION of science and chemistry. <br /><br />The truely rational person looks at the data and compares it with the theory, NOT stretch the data so it fits the theory.<br /><br />Both "views" are based on a worldview. Evolutionists are purely naturalistic; ignorant to all other views. Creationism (if you call it that), is based on the view that a supernatural being "created" everything. <br /><br />Your argument is flawed because both sides have (in your words) the same problem. <br />So it is very arrogant to say YOUR worldview is right when in fact it contains impossible flaws such as the origin of mass, that cannot be explained through strictly scientific experiments.<br /><br />The creation worldview can explain this, but only through religion.<br /><br />So in effect, naturalism is in fact a religion because you still must believe in the supernatural (origin of life) to begin with!<br /><br />As Gareth Nelson said about stretching evidence: "'We've got to have some ancestors. We'll pick those.' Why? 'Because we know they have to be there, and these are the best candidates.' That's by and large the way it has worked. I am not exaggerating."Sethhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03739833627000240781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-14127328790753797792011-03-10T19:22:09.866-08:002011-03-10T19:22:09.866-08:00Yet, one could write a hefty tome about what it is...Yet, one could write a hefty tome about what it is about reasoning that "evolution" worshippers (*) just don't seem to understand.<br /><br />(*) Though, on deeper examination, "evolution" is only the window-dressing; what they really worship is their own self-deification. Hell! the Caesars at least had the decency to have someone else deify them.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-18175778566061694002011-03-06T21:19:45.467-08:002011-03-06T21:19:45.467-08:00I wonder what part of "fetal monkeys also dev...I wonder what part of "fetal monkeys also develop a coat of hair at about the same stage of development. Their hair, however, doesn't fall out, but hangs on to become the adult coat." science-deniers don't understand?Human Apehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14828131221696085054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-26248813127737088352011-02-05T21:50:41.778-08:002011-02-05T21:50:41.778-08:00Don't those people against evolution use the f...Don't those people against evolution use the following if/then statement:<br /><br />"If there is even a perceived gape in evolution then creationism exists." <br /><br />Now there is flawed logic on a grand scale.JJMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02346560028694531170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-66018470380668973392010-07-29T02:31:10.674-07:002010-07-29T02:31:10.674-07:00Slightly off topic.
I am no longer an evolutionist...Slightly off topic.<br />I am no longer an evolutionist after having being side-tracked by Jerry Coyne-type arguments for many years. The thinking is that if evolution causes lanugo then obviously evolution works and therefore evolution can create other species. <br /><br />The fact is that micro-evolution does happen. Small changes take place within a species but no new species is formed - there is no macro-evolution! For example - despite 500,000 generations of staph bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics - a staph is still a staph - no new species of bacteria have emerged.<br /><br />Lanugo may be an interesting discussion point but it cannot be used as evidence to support the Darwinist theory of evolution and the "origin of the species". At best Coyne's arguments may be used to support some theory about changes in the human being, but it is totally irrelevant in seriously supporting Darwin's theory. Coyne's focus is on small changes with huge implications, where Darwinism requires huge changes with huge explanations which Coyne and company cannot produce.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07367318353725683719noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-36619659495435439242010-03-10T00:19:56.220-08:002010-03-10T00:19:56.220-08:00Ilíon: "Mind, Gentle Reader, the above is not...<b>Ilíon:</b> "<i>Mind, Gentle Reader, the above is not exhaustive.</i>"<br /><br /><b>Nathaniel:</b> "<i>Nor is it very intelligently written.</i>"<br /><br />Isn't it just amazing that stupid persons (such as I) can generally be counted upon to reason more rigorously, and arrive at truth, than far more intelligent persons (such as Nathaniel)?Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-49928389097462341492010-02-12T10:21:31.180-08:002010-02-12T10:21:31.180-08:00"What you quoted of me was simply a statement..."<i>What you quoted of me was simply a statement that no one, including you, avoided answering my question.</i>"<br /><br />This should, of course, read as follows: "What you quoted of me was simply a statement that everyone, including you, avoided answering my question". Sorry, got myself a bit mixed up :)Nathanielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15049148290212621493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-63485666872190420142010-02-12T10:19:40.234-08:002010-02-12T10:19:40.234-08:00Ilíon:
"Since when do I answer to you? Since...Ilíon:<br /><br />"<i>Since when do I answer to you? Since when do you have the authority to set my agenda?</i>"<br /><br />I never claimed that you had to answer to me. What you quoted of me was simply a statement that no one, including you, avoided answering my question. I could write "Straw man:" in bold text and include this quote from you as a point under it, but I'd rather focus on the argument, not the fallacies.<br /><br />"<i>You behavior says otherwise.</i>"<br /><br />Oh yeah? What, precisely, does my behavior say? I'd like a literal transcript, if you don't mind.<br /><br />"<i>you know, the SOP of Darwinists at all times and in all places.</i>"<br /><br />Is this an invitation to start discussing <i>your</i> behavior?<br /><br />"<i>And, the illogical is, necessarily, false. Ergo, you are wrong.</i>"<br /><br />Merely stating that something is something does not make it that something. Ergo, you're wrong too. Now, can we get back to the real issue?<br /><br />"<i>This is likely related to your question-begging and special-pleading. One aspect of your "argument" amounts to asserting: "This is my 'scientific' 'explanation' -- and unless you can come up with a better one (and *I* get to decide if it's better, and my criteria is conformity with Darwinism!), then you have no right to challenge, or even disbelieve, my 'scientific' 'explanation' for lanugo."</i>"<br /><br />Another straw man "quote". What I said was that you can't claim that your "explanation" is better than mine if it isn't 1) better or 2) an <i>explanation</i> at all.<br /><br />Since you (or anyone else) still haven't actually answered my question on how, exactly, ID <i>explains</i> lanugo, my conclusion is still that evolution explains it better. You have every right to challenge this, and if you'd quoted me literally, you'd realize that I'm actually <i>asking</i> you to challenge me. You can't <i>both</i> accuse me of claiming to have the authority to demand answers <i>and</i> accuse me of not wanting answers. Like someone I know once said: "<i>This is illogical, and irrational, and invalid.</i>"<br /><br />"<i>You are *assuming* that humans are apes; and that the differences between humans and other apes are accidental (which is to say, there is no reason for them) and are of degree, rather than of kind.</i>"<br /><br />I am? That's certainly news to me. Because I could swear I've never argued anything other than that the differences between humans and our ape ancestors (because, as you surely already know, humans <i>are</i> apes) are due to natural selection, a process that incorporates "accidental" changes but that isn't, in nature, "accidental" at all.<br /><br />I don't understand why you're trying to argue against <i>two</i> different me's at the same time. You're only making it harder for yourself.<br /><br />"<i>Mind, Gentle Reader, the above is not exhaustive.</i>"<br /><br />Nor is it very intelligently written.Nathanielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15049148290212621493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-86195396416870285002010-02-10T09:01:42.887-08:002010-02-10T09:01:42.887-08:00Indeed, Mr Hunter. From my point of view, that is...Indeed, Mr Hunter. From my point of view, that is the telling point ... that neither 'modern evolutionary theory' itself, nor any specific claim of the Darwinists, can stand up to critical evaluation.<br /><br /><br />To give one minor example, were 'modern evolutionary theory' a real scientific theory which really does make falsifiable predictions (in contrast to the Just-So "post-dictions" which the Darwinists actually make), the prediction with regard to lanugo would be that the trait is even now being eliminated from the species. And, indeed, there would be surprise that natural selection hadn't eliminated it ages ago (before medical science was developed and learned of its existence). For, after all, the generation of lanugo imposes a biological cost upon the organism with no known benefit.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-84577155145329704972010-02-10T08:36:20.351-08:002010-02-10T08:36:20.351-08:00Unfortunately evolution has bred anti intellectual...Unfortunately evolution has bred anti intellectualism. Ilíon's points could be usefully directed at a great many writings of evolutionists. One could spend all day mining the evolutionist's comments for faulty reasoning and hardly scratch the surface.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-59556360947735099402010-02-10T08:20:13.459-08:002010-02-10T08:20:13.459-08:00Nathaniel: "Amusing or not, you're just o...<b>Nathaniel:</b> "<i>Amusing or not, you're just one more person avoiding the question and stalling.</i>"<br /><br />Since when do I answer to you? Since when do you have the authority to set my agenda?<br /><br /><b>Nathaniel:</b> "<i>If I'm wrong, tell me why. Enlighten me. I do want to know the truth, ...</i>"<br /><br />You behavior says otherwise.<br /><br />You're wrong because your argument is built upon equivocation of most, if not all, its key terms, and it is illogical (non-exhaustively: you seek invalidly to shift the burden of proof, you beg the question, you special plead) and, ultimately, your argument is irrational, and indeed <i>anti-rational</i> -- you know, the SOP of Darwinists at all times and in all places.<br /><br />And, the illogical is, necessarily, false. Ergo, you are wrong.<br /><br /><i><b>Seeking to shift of the burden of proof:</b></i><br /><br />This is likely related to your question-begging and special-pleading. One aspect of your "argument" amounts to asserting: "<i>This is my 'scientific' 'explanation' -- and unless you can come up with a better one (and *I* get to decide if it's better, and my criteria is conformity with Darwinism!), then you have no right to challenge, or even disbelieve, my 'scientific' 'explanation' for lanugo.</i>"<br /><br />This is illogical, and irrational, and invalid. And anti-scientific (though, science being what it is, this is the more minor flaw of your "reasoning").<br /><br /><i><b>Some examples of your equivocation:</b></i><br /><br /><i>evolution</i> -- You are using the term 'evolution' in multiple senses (I'd not be shocked to find multiple senses in the same sentence). You generally start out meaning something non-controversial, like "natural selection," or amping it up a bit, "common descent" (which you question-beg). But when you get to your "conclusion," you mean full-on "Darwinism:" which is to say, "<i>stuff happens, for no reason at all, and that 'explains' everything</i>."<br /><br /><i>explanation</i> -- You are equivocating between the way the word is used in every-day speech, in which an explanation is necessarily true, else it is no explanation at all, and the way scientists use the term, by which is meant "<i>This proposal is consistent with theory 'X,' but we have no way ever to know whether it, or the theory, is actually true</i>."<br /><br />For, after all, science doesn't deal in truth.<br /><br /><i>reason</i> -- Now *that* was funny (and on multiple levels): "<i>Only with evolution is there a </i>reason<i> for lanugo. ... The problem is that neither ID nor alien lanugo-rays explains why lanugo exists. Evolution does. It does so accurately, and it does so based on actual evidence, not just wishful thinking.</i>" Darwinistic "explanations" ("<i>stuff happens, for no reason at all</i>") are the very antithesis of <i>reason</i> and reasoned explanations or arguments.<br /><br /><i><b>Your question-begging (and burden-shifting):</b></i><br /><br />You are *assuming* that humans are apes; and that the differences between humans and other apes are <i>accidental</i> (which is to say, there is no <i>reason</i> for them) and are of degree, rather than of kind. But these assumptions are among the points of contention. <br /><br />And, since *anyone* can see that it appears to be the case that the differencee between humans and apes are of kind, and not merely of degree, the burden of proof properly lies upon you folk.<br /><br />Yet, after all, science doesn't deal in truth. So science can never *really* rise to the challenge of showing that this common-sensical perception is false. But then, there never was anything scientific about 'modern evolutionary theory.'<br /><br /><i><b>Your question-begging and special-pleading:</b></i><br /><br />As has already been pointed out, you're simply asserting <i>recapitulation</i>: you've merely tarted the old girl up a bit since Haeckel and Darwin.<br /><br /><br />Mind, Gentle Reader, the above is not exhaustive.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-31871066345203282662010-02-10T06:26:52.134-08:002010-02-10T06:26:52.134-08:00Ilíon
"That question is just too amusing ......Ilíon<br /><br />"<i>That question is just too amusing ... coming from a Darwinist.</i>"<br /><br />Amusing or not, you're just one more person avoiding the question and stalling.<br /><br />If I'm wrong, tell me why. Enlighten me. I do want to know the truth, regardless of whether it's told by Darwin or Hunter. However, so far, Darwin has spawned 150 years of scientific breakthrough, while Hunter has made some claims in his blog that "evolution's just wrooong!". You tell me who's most amusing of the two.Nathanielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15049148290212621493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-23427286895462355192010-02-09T10:57:40.219-08:002010-02-09T10:57:40.219-08:00"Not to simply "shift the blame", b..."<i>Not to simply "shift the blame", but how does ID explain lanugo? Does it even have a half-assed explanation such as "and then a miracle happened"?</i>"<br /><br />That question is just too amusing ... coming from a Darwinist.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-27599921611977371092010-02-09T08:41:30.691-08:002010-02-09T08:41:30.691-08:00Cornelius:
"I didn't know that. How does...Cornelius:<br /><br />"<i>I didn't know that. How does evolution "actually" explain lanugo? Or are you saying that "and then a mutation happened" actually explains lanugo?</i>"<br /><br />Not to simply "shift the blame", but how does ID explain lanugo? Does it even have a half-assed explanation such as "and then a miracle happened"?<br /><br />Granted, I'm not a biologist and I haven't read any particular details regarding lanugo, but the general outline seems straight-forward enough for me. At one point we had fur, and now we don't. Somewhere in between we had some fur. Since fetuses go through several stages of development that seem "odd" or "backwards", developing a light fur before turning onto the developmental track of fur-less human beings makes perfect sense. I'm sure you'll get all the scientific details if you were to, say, ask Coyne himself instead of just whining about the example he used.<br /><br />"<i>When Coyne wrote: "Now, there's no need for a human embryo to have a transitory coat of hair. After all, it's a cozy 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit in the womb. Lanugo can be explained only as a remnant of our primate ancestry" what he really meant other theories just haven't gotten around to explaining lanugo.</i>"<br /><br />That's what I would infer, yes. If ID really did explain lanugo as well (or better) as evolution, <i>then</i> you'd have grounds for disagreeing with this statement. Again, indulge me by telling me how ID explains lanugo.<br /><br />"<i>When Darwin wrote: "these analogies are utterly inexplicable if species are independent creations." he really meant other theories just haven't gotten around to explaining things.</i>"<br /><br />Of course. "Goddidit" doesn't actually explain anything, it just <i>tells</i> you what happened. Evolution can be broken down into parts, almost infinitely small, all of which can be explained and put into context. How do you break down "Goddidit"? What happened between God pointing his finger, and lanugo being a fact?<br /><br />"<i>Nathaniel this is the second time you have managed to turn upside down a crystal clear, unambiguous statement.</i>"<br /><br />So you say...<br /><br />It's also the second time <i>you</i> have failed to tell us how <i>your</i> favorite theory explains lanugo any better. If we're all just ignorant, then at least evolutionary biologists seem to be <i>closer</i> to an answer than IDists, but if you're trying to proclaim that Coyne is wrong and you're right, then you better put your money where your mouth is.Nathanielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15049148290212621493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-84050531756541720022010-02-08T00:23:28.917-08:002010-02-08T00:23:28.917-08:00Nathaniel:
==========
The meaning you seem to inf...Nathaniel:<br /><br />==========<br />The meaning you seem to infer is "evolution is the only theory that can EVER explain lanugo" which is false. Coyne didn't say or mean this, and neither did I. What I mean, and what I assume any "evolutionist" means, is that of the theories, hypotheses and ideas we have today, evolution truly is the only one that actually does explain lanugo. <br />==========<br /><br />So when Dobzhansky wrote "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" he really meant other theories just haven't gotten around to explaining things.<br /><br />When Coyne wrote: "Now, there's no need for a human embryo to have a transitory coat of hair. After all, it's a cozy 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit in the womb. Lanugo can be explained only as a remnant of our primate ancestry" what he really meant other theories just haven't gotten around to explaining lanugo<br /><br />When Darwin wrote: "these analogies are utterly inexplicable if species are independent creations." he really meant other theories just haven't gotten around to explaining things.<br /><br />Nathaniel this is the second time you have managed to turn upside down a crystal clear, unambiguous statement.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-60283352448250469992010-02-06T14:48:31.295-08:002010-02-06T14:48:31.295-08:00Nathaniel:
"evolution truly is the only one ...Nathaniel:<br /><br />"evolution truly is the only one that actually does explain lanugo ... Again, evolution is the only theory that actually explains lanugo and the reasons for why it exists. "<br /><br />I didn't know that. How does evolution "actually" explain lanugo? Or are you saying that "and then a mutation happened" actually explains lanugo?Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-2387737210113905922010-02-06T09:02:51.934-08:002010-02-06T09:02:51.934-08:00Cornelius:
The meaning you seem to infer is "...Cornelius:<br /><br />The meaning you seem to infer is "evolution is the only theory that can EVER explain lanugo" which is false. Coyne didn't say or mean this, and neither did I. What I mean, and what I assume any "evolutionist" means, is that of the theories, hypotheses and ideas we have today, evolution truly is the only one that actually does <i>explain</i> lanugo. ID, at best, claims to be a cause in a way no one can actually point to, but can't substantiate it nor even show it logically. It's just as possible that ID is responsible for lanugo as it is that the FSM created it.<br /><br />Again, evolution is the only theory that actually explains lanugo and the reasons for why it exists. If you think ID can do the same, please present your evidence or your reasoning.<br /><br />All you've done, in this article, is rail on how a misunderstood statement of Coyne's is false, yet you haven't done what every "evolutionist" waits for you to do: present actual evidence for <i>your own</i> theory.Nathanielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15049148290212621493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-66079159069196370582010-02-05T16:02:51.494-08:002010-02-05T16:02:51.494-08:00Nathaniel:
=====
However, my main argument still ...Nathaniel:<br /><br />=====<br />However, my main argument still stands. Only with evolution is there a reason for lanugo. ID could be a cause, yes, but there's absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe so, unless one religious believes ID is the answer to any question. ... In this regard, Coyne is absolutely right saying that only evolution explains lanugo.<br />=====<br /><br />I'm not quite following. Can you elaborate on why only evolution explains lanugo?<br /><br /><br />======<br />It's certainly an IF-AND-ONLY-IF-THEN statement, but that doesn't mean it's not true. <br />======<br /><br />Agreed.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-77368939698086013102010-02-04T13:16:23.036-08:002010-02-04T13:16:23.036-08:00Yes, I did read that sentence a bit too hastily. I...Yes, I did read that sentence a bit too hastily. I admit I'm wrong on that point.<br /><br />However, my main argument still stands. Only with evolution is there a <i>reason</i> for lanugo. ID could be a cause, yes, but there's absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe so, unless one religious believes ID is the answer to any question. Alien lanugo-rays is another quite plausible reason for lanugo. There's certainly no evidence against it. The problem is that neither ID nor alien lanugo-rays explains <i>why</i> lanugo exists. Evolution does. It does so accurately, and it does so based on actual evidence, not just wishful thinking.<br /><br />In this regard, Coyne is absolutely right saying that only evolution explains lanugo. It's certainly an IF-AND-ONLY-IF-THEN statement, but that doesn't mean it's not true. ID does absolutely nothing to explain lanugo. Nothing, except evolution, does.Nathanielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15049148290212621493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-68265177113046857032010-02-04T08:24:19.537-08:002010-02-04T08:24:19.537-08:00Cornelius -
"I said "Evolutionists are...Cornelius - <br /><br />"I said "Evolutionists are so blinded by the dogma they cannot even parse a sentence."<br />...<br />I am astonished."<br /><br /><br />See above response to Lars.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.com