Evolution is all about reproduction—those that reproduce the most are the winners. And if you were paying attention in biology class you will remember that nature has many different types of reproduction designs. These reproduction subsystems, according to evolution, should align with the other biological subsystems to form a consistent evolutionary tree. This consistency is, […]
Watch out for “may have,” “might have,” “could have,” “would have,” “would have to have” … in other words, the researchers are only speculating.
Heather Zeiger (28 April 2012) explains, first, how it works here …
If Hacking or others want to put down Kuhn, they’ll have to do better than this.
“The origin of our genus, Homo, is one of the biggest mysteries facing scholars of human evolution.”
“The fetal tissues actually invade the uterine ones, much like in humans,” Blackburn says. “It’s totally unexpected.”
The ongoing debates over methodological naturalism have pointed us back to Newton’s Rules for scientific reasoning. So, thanks to Paul Halshall of Fordham University’s Modern History Sourcebook, let us cite for reference: ___________________ >> Modern History Sourcebook: Isaac Newton: The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy [Excerpts] [The Rules of Reasoning in Philosophy] RULE I We […]
It was fun. So many clever entries, so little time away from the grind …
University of Texas El Paso mathematics professor Granville Sewell wrote a paper on how the second law of thermodynamics bears on the theory of evolution. The paper was peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. But after a blogger complained the journal, Applied Mathematics Letters (AML), pulled the article, in violation of its own professional standards. That evolutionary blackball operationended […]
I’m just wondering. ID proponents have been called creationists in cheap tuxedos. Intelligent design theory has been called “intelligent design creationism.” It seems to me that to be consistent, theistic evolutionists such as Francis Collins should be called — with an obviously pejorative intent — evolutionary creationists, or perhaps creationists in expensive tuxedos. Is there […]
In the ongoing Methodological Naturalism thread, at no. 66, Dr Matzke is on record: massive observational evidence and the logic of our understanding of natural laws rules say that that miracle thing can’t happen. In short he holds that the laws of nature forbid miracles. (And recall, here, we are speaking about the late publicist […]
The Cambrian explosion is only a mystery if you are trying to explain how it could have happened absent any design in nature. Otherwise, it is just a phase in the history of life, …
Is this Devolution in Action!? Oh wait! Wasn’t that supposed to be Evo- … oh, never mind.
” … the latest new atheist trend in studying religion: The claim that analytical thinking dissipates it”
Curious that people who believe in “goodness” do not believe in God. And some of us would caution against believing anything that Daniel Dennett says in this area …