Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Here’s That New Study Demonstrating the Inheritance of Directed Change

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Ever since Darwin, evolutionists have resisted the idea of directed change. The twentieth century’s neo Darwinism codified the idea that biological variation must be random with respect to need. And with that codification came certainty. As Jacques Monod unequivocally proclaimed in 1971:  Read more

Comments
That “ongoing debate” is mainly due to evolutionists resisting the science because it is fundamentally at odds with their theory.
Give it a few decades and it will be spun as having been part and parcel of the original theory all along.Mung
September 21, 2014
September
09
Sep
21
21
2014
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PST
Dionisio
Would it make more sense in OOL discussions to try explaining how we got the finch to begin with, while letting the serious scientists continue their intensive research on the adaptability mechanisms associated with “change in finch beak sizes” ?
I think the problem there would be that we'd be accused of 'moving the goal posts'. If we shift the topic from evolution to origin-of-life, we might be conceding the argument. As I see it, when the evidence is merely that finch beaks changed over time, this does not permit an extrapolation to common descent via Darwinian (or natural evolutionary) processes. A lot more evidence than that is needed -- so OOL discussions don't need to be addressed at that point.Silver Asiatic
September 21, 2014
September
09
Sep
21
21
2014
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PST
#2 Silver Asiatic
It’s rhetorical trickery.
Got it. Thank you. Would it make more sense in OOL discussions to try explaining how we got the finch to begin with, while letting the serious scientists continue their intensive research on the adaptability mechanisms associated with “change in finch beak sizes” ? After all, when philosophizing about science, it might help to remember two fundamental principles for serious research: "where's the beef?" and "show me the money!" :)Dionisio
September 21, 2014
September
09
Sep
21
21
2014
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PST
Dionisio - yes, exactly. When making grand claims about how there is supposedly "no evidence of design", the term evolution is used to mean the development of all biological nature from the first life form via a natural, unguided, blind process. When biological facts show this idea to be impossible, then the term evolution is changed to mean "change in finch beak sizes". That is supposedly the proof of all evolutionary claims. If you can show that a finch's beak changed a little over time, that supposedly means that bacteria eventually changed enough to become human beings. It's rhetorical trickery.Silver Asiatic
September 21, 2014
September
09
Sep
21
21
2014
05:31 AM
5
05
31
AM
PST
We need to drop the metaphysics and dogma. Yes organisms adapt and change—in that sense evolution is true. But that is a very different kind of evolution than how the term is normally understood. Let’s narrow the scope of the term “evolution” to what we know from science.
Does this somehow relate to the famous Galapagos finch adaptability mechanisms?Dionisio
September 21, 2014
September
09
Sep
21
21
2014
04:32 AM
4
04
32
AM
PST

Leave a Reply