We see devolution all the time with unintelligent causes. Animals gnaw a hole in the bottom of a jug of water and they get some water but the rest is wasted. They destroy the feedhouse door trying to get into the feed because they don’t know how to use the doorhandle. They do get fed but the feed is scattered and much is wasted. *That’s what an unintelligent cause is typically like.* Put another way, the animals won’t learn to use the doorhandle or the jug cap. But just to survive and reproduce, they might not need to.
Marcos Eberlin: Maybe one could grant the evolutionary miracle a single time, but six times?
In 1996. David Berlinski published an article in Commentary, skewering the vast public nonsense that Darwinism had become – and remained for roughly two decades, only now beginning to totter under a variety of assaults. Time to reminisce a bit.
Krauze: the organisms we have chosen to represent invertebrates, like C. elegans and D. melanogaster, are simpler than the average invertebrate. And this means that we’re likely underestimating the complexity of the last common ancestor of animals (Metazoa). … Attempts to correct for this bias has found that the last common Metazoan ancestor was surprisingly complex, seemingly ‘overdesigned’ for its simple morphology.
The new findings almost put the egg in charge of its own shape, not what anyone expected to hear.
It gets really interesting when the anti-Darwinists are not creationists but fronting various neglected ideas like epigenetics. Will they be more vicious?
Darwinism situated human beings firmly as animals, which meant what any such demotion must mean.
“A troll should never give reasons for what he ‘understands.’ What matters is the attitude.”
It’s those orchids, right? We always said, in the Uncommon Descent News virtual coffee room, it was those orchids that did in Darwin in Brazil. Oh yes, and Marcos Eberlin, of course.
The whole story leaves one wondering what role incidental factors played, over many centuries, in the constant, reversible micro-evolution of the once-iconic Darwin’s finches.
It seems that most post-Chernobyl animals “Don’t Look Any Different from Their Non-Chernobyl Counterparts. “
To find peace, he had to think carefully about the difference between the evolutionary materialist account of the human being and what he was actually experiencing.
Robert J. Marks, author with design theorist William Dembski and Winston Ewert of Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics talks with Gary Smith, author The AI Delusion, about how, in general, based data is produced Smith: Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy # 1 is that I’m going to prove what a great shot I am and so I stand […]
Just think what people will believe if we call it “evolution.” Will such a belief help or hurt recovery?
Funny how so many people, whether they agreed with Darwin or not, got it so wrong all these years … How did it get to be called “social Darwinism” anyway, as opposed to, say, “social Florence Nightingale-ism”?