Darwinism

BA 77 has found another vid on the Slaughter of the Dissidents that reminds us of what the sort of evo mat promotion stunts we see going on in and around UD can all too often end up as: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_nh0zDMwJA A couple of stills can help us understand what Darwinist agit-prop enabling behaviour by spreading false accusations and willful misrepresentations, demanding a ‘right’ to defame as if that is a part of free speech and the like can all too easily end up as; through, creating a toxic and deeply polarised, destructive climate in our civilisation and especially in key institutions: Something to ponder, for those who imagine there is a ‘right’ to directly participate in or enable falsely accusing Read More ›

It is sufficient that NS does not act too strongly against, not that it must act for, a particular change. Allan Miller Comment on crossposted thread, Blindwatchbreaker Allan is wrong in using the word “sufficient”. The correct statement “It is necessary but not sufficient for NS not to act too strongly” Notwithstanding Allan Miller’s wrong choice of words, he rightly echoes the words of three scientists I’ve quoted before. For evolution of complexity to happen, Natural Selection must often be inhibited, Natural Selection is not the mechanism of innovation it is the INHIBITOR. many genomic features could not have emerged without a near-complete disengagement of the power of natural selection Michael Lynch opening, The Origins of Genome Architecture and a Read More ›

Our colleague Elizabeth Liddle has described the process of human design as trial and error, tinkering and iteration. Like Dawkins, she has argued nature (like human designers) is able to construct biological designs via trial and error, tinkering and iteration. However, when nature is properly compared and contrasted with the way humans go about creating designs, it is apparent Dawkins’ claim of a blind watchmaker is false. I refer to Elizabeth’s description because she articulated some aspects of the blind watchmaker hypothesis better than Dawkins, but in so doing actually helped highlight why Dawkins’ blind watchmaker is refuted by the evidence. [this is a follow up post to Selection falsely called a mechanism when it should be called an outcome] Read More ›