Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

2009 Darwin Day Videos, University of Chicago

arroba Email

The University of Chicago has released some videos of the lectures given on Darwin Day 2009: 

Jerry Coyne (University of Chicago)–Speciation: Problems and Prospects

Paul Sereno (University of Chicago)–Dinosaurs: Phylogenetic Reconstruction from Darwin to the Present

David Jablonski (University of Chicago)–Paleontology and Evolutionary Biology: The Revitalized Partnership

Neil Shubin (University of Chicago)–Great Transformations in Life: Insights from Genes & Fossils

Robert J. Richards (University of Chicago)–Darwin’s Biology of Intelligent Design

All, so smart. The implications and metaphors must be obvious to everyone! toc
"It would seem that Shubin’s talk answers your challenge" When I get more time I will watch some of these videos but what in Shubin's lecture points to a specific mechanism for the "supposed" transition. Just because something appeared after another does not point to any specific method for the appearance of the subsequent organism. Tiktaalik does not point to any mechanism for its appearance. What you are saying is that the sequences are not inconsistent with naturalistic evolution. Such a claim is not support for any specific mechanism. jerry
The evidence is that tetrapod limbs evolved from the ray-lobed fins of fish. CDORMAN: this is a classic case of priori assumption & circular reasoning. You have to make homology king, and ignore analogy, or in other words, what evolutionist call convergent evolution. The subject of homology is filled with these assumptions and double standards concerning homology vs analogy. Example: Wings of Bats, birds and insects are not homologous so therefore, they must be analogous. You see, the goal post is interchangeable and therefore requires these presumptions. THEMAYAN
It would seem that Shubin's talk answers your challenge. The evidence is that tetrapod limbs evolved from the ray-lobed fins of fish. There is both paleontological evidence (Tiktaalik) and developmental biological evidence (AER and ZPA expression, for example) that tetrapods evolved from fish. How is it that this does not support macro evolution? I also don't see how this conflicts with intelligence design. Do you think it does? What does ID say in contradiction to this argument about the origin of tetrapod limbs? It seems that some people think that if ID is correct that, for example, land animals could not have evolved from fish, but I really don't see the conflict. cdorman
And if anyone wants to quibble over what macro evolution means, use the definition that many use here, that is macro evolution is the origin of complex novel capabilities or something similar. jerry
Here's a challenge sight unseen. I have not seen any of the videos but will challenge anyone who believes in naturalistic evolution to watch any of the videos and show how it supports naturalistic evolution. If no one can point to anything in any of these videos that support their position, then what does that say about what they believe? I read Coyne's and Dawkin's latest books and could find nothing that supported the concept of macro evolution by naturalistic means. So without watching any of these videos, does it sound like hubris to say that these too will fail to support macro evolution. Should be a slam dunk. After all you would want to bring your best stuff when honoring the patron saint of naturalistic evolution. jerry

Leave a Reply