Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Letter at The Guardian: Darwin got sexual selection wrong

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The Guardian doesn’t seem to be letting up: Having already published a critique of Darwinism, they continue question Darwin. Here’s a letter they published, critiquing his sexual selection theory:

The question isn’t whether or not we need a new theory of evolution (The long read, 28 June); it’s why it has taken so long to bring the old one into the 21st century. Anchor bias, the difficulty of dislodging the first thing we learn about a topic, makes it challenging for biologists to accept and evaluate experimental data that doesn’t play by Darwin’s rules.

Natural selection had many fathers, including Darwin’s own grandfather, Erasmus. But sexual selection is exclusively Darwin’s, and is the theory most in need of a second look. The failure to update the theory of sexual selection by incorporating recent genetic breakthroughs and viewing the process through a female lens has left us with a seriously flawed theory of human evolution.

Heather Remoff, “How Charles Darwin got sexual selection wrong” at The Guardian (July 8, 2022)

Heather Remoff is the author of What’s Sex Got To Do With It? (2022).

She seems like another witness to the fact that one can question Darwin today without getting cancelled.

Darwinian evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne is, of course, not pleased: In the end, Remoff is tilting at two windmills that have already fallen. Her attack on Darwin is wrongheaded since Darwin’s correctness is not the issue in Buranyi’s piece and because female preference was already a crucial part of Darwin’s theory. And her claim that it was only the “female lens”, used recently, that helped us understand sexual selection, is also misleading. Female preference has been considered by evolutionists since 1871.Her attack on Darwin is wrongheaded since Darwin’s correctness is not the issue in Buranyi’s piece and because female preference was already a crucial part of Darwin’s theory. And her claim that it was only the “female lens”, used recently, that helped us understand sexual selection, is also misleading. Female preference has been considered by evolutionists since 1871.”

The ground is shifting under his feet.

Comments
Bob
It is not just the Christian that has proven important, but Judaeo-Christian for ID.
I have not seen it said that ID is Judaeo-Christian. But there is also the Judaeo-Islamic view also. The Koran celebrates Moses wife as a prophetess having received a revelation from God.
Those women are celebrated in Judaism, which is rooted in respect for women, not controlling them or seeing them as less than men.
Rabbis have said that women are barred from receiving higher education. They declared that college education for girls is “dangerous” and “against the Torah,” and that “no girls attending our school are allowed to study and get a degree,”
Satmar women are required to cover their necklines fully, and to wear long sleeves, long, conservative skirts, and full stockings. Whereas married Orthodox Jewish women do not show their hair in public, in Satmar, this is taken a step further: Satmar women shave their heads after their weddings, and wear a wig or other covering over their heads, while some cover the wig with a small hat or scarf
You also stated
In countries where something other than Judaeo-Christian, women were never given the chance to do anything.
That's the feminist view, but I wouldn't say that being a wife and a mother is "doing nothing".Silver Asiatic
July 14, 2022
July
07
Jul
14
14
2022
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT
Jerry at 78, You can be the civil one. You can do it, and maybe a few others. I'm a moderator on another board and I see people acting like 5 year olds in a playground. The board is still there, but the ones who can't control themselves have been kicked out.relatd
July 14, 2022
July
07
Jul
14
14
2022
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT
Alan Fox has disappeared from this thread and his attempt to have a discussion. I understand the chances of having a civil discussion is almost impossible here as it would be on any forum he would suggest. But if ever such a discussion takes place, I would ask him to answer the objections to naturalized Evolution that are in the current thread. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-phys-org-uncharted-genetic-territory-offers-insight-into-human-specific-proteins This thread is on humans but the answers everyone seems to want are in every species, some of which might be much easier to analyze than humans. Prediction: few are interested in a civil discussion so it won’t happen. It definitely cannot happen here.jerry
July 14, 2022
July
07
Jul
14
14
2022
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT
@Seversky Post #2 "How do we know Darwin was wrong about sexual selection and Roughgarden and Remoff are right?" An EXCELLENT question and a problematic one. Why, if this is science, can't we do an experiment and repeat it 15 times and either verify or falsify the hypothesis?!! See. This is the problem with so much of Darwinism. You can't test it. You can't verify/falsify it. People take certain data and interpret it within the evolution paradigm and say "See? Now we have evidence." But they don't. It's just their just so story to explain the data within the paradigm - which itself has yet to be verified. There are too many problems with that evolution cannot adequately explain or cannot be adequately demonstrated to say that the paradigm has been validated. How do we know? Very good question indeed! Keep on thinking about that Sev!tjguy
July 13, 2022
July
07
Jul
13
13
2022
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT
It is not just the Christian that has proven important, but Judaeo-Christian for ID. Severing the root of Christianity has caused numerous problems. When the root is remembered, greater scientific freedom arises for both men and women who were created to be scientists. Islamic countries do not allow women to succeed at anything. The same holds true for most socialist/communist countries where men rule. Hindus and Buddhists both put men above women. Judaism has 7 prophetesses; Sarah, Miriam, Deborah, Hannah, Abigail, Huldah and Esther. Those women are celebrated in Judaism, which is rooted in respect for women, not controlling them or seeing them as less than men. Jewish tradition holds that God chose the rib for a reason, rather than some other bone. Had God chosen the foot, man would have crushed and held back woman. Had God chosen the head, woman would have led. God chose the rib so man and woman would be equal and a completion of each other. There have been tremendous advancements by women who were Jews and Christians. In countries where something other than Judaeo-Christian, women were never given the chance to do anything.BobRyan
July 13, 2022
July
07
Jul
13
13
2022
01:32 AM
1
01
32
AM
PDT
"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." - Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, p. 1 Design is the default view. Dawkins makes that perfectly clear in the beginning of his book. What he calls "apparent design" requires an explanation.
Many of these billions of nerve cells [in the human brain] have each more than a thousand 'electric wires' connecting them to other neurons. Moreover, at the molecular genetic level, every single one of more than a trillion cells in the body contains about a thousand times as much precisely-coded digital information as my entire computer. The complexity of living organisms is matched by the elegant efficiency of their apparent design. If anyone doesn't agree that this amount of complex design cries out for an explanation, I give up. Blind Watchmaker - preface
The "elegant efficiency" of "this amount of complex design" is perfectly obvious to Richard Dawkins. So, the ID position is the default, intuitive view. The mindless-evolutionary position has to climb up a very steep mountain of improbability. It has to have extraordinary evidence. Instead, the evolution view is weak, contradictory, patched-up with ad-hoc notions and mysteries. But evolutionists remain defiant. They will wait for their view, alone, to be validated. lf there were no religious and metaphysical consequences, it would be easy for scientists to admit that the elegantly-efficient complex apparent-design, is actually real evidence of design. But people will be brought face-to-face with the evidence and still back away. The ID view is not only the default, common-sense, intuitive view - but it's supported by evidence. It's the strongest proposal and more and more people are recognizing that.Silver Asiatic
July 12, 2022
July
07
Jul
12
12
2022
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT
Evolution by means of blind and mindless processes is beyond fringe. It's a full-blown cult. The dead links are just personal pages. I understand that your tactic is to attack the messengers and ignore the science and evidence, but you don't have to be so blatant about it! The home page for Code Biology is fully referenced. And that site has information on all the codes LCD listed. That was the point, Alan.ET
July 12, 2022
July
07
Jul
12
12
2022
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT
codebiology.org, Alan
Lot of dead links at that site. Even that of Barbieri himself. Looks a bit fringe.Alan Fox
July 12, 2022
July
07
Jul
12
12
2022
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT
Jerry states: "Aside: I believe keeping religion out of ID is the best course for getting ID accepted." Well first, as pointed out, you can't even 'do science' without first assuming some essential Judeo-Christian presuppositions to be true, and secondly, perhaps you first ought to convince atheists to keep their 'religion' out of Darwinism before you try to tell Christians to keep their religion out of ID? In other words, although Darwinists, (and others), will often falsely claim that theology, ("especially" Christianity), has no place in science, it turns out that evolutionary biology itself is crucially dependent on faulty theological presuppositions,
Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin's Use of Theology in the Origin of Species - May 2011 Excerpt: The Origin supplies abundant evidence of theology in action; as Dilley observes: I have argued that, in the first edition of the Origin, Darwin drew upon at least the following positiva theological claims in his case for descent with modification (and against special creation):?1. Human beings are not justified in believing that God creates in ways analogous to the intellectual powers of the human mind. 2. A God who is free to create as He wishes would create new biological limbs de novo rather than from a common pattern. 3. A respectable deity would create biological structures in accord with a human conception of the 'simplest mode' to accomplish the functions of these structures. 4. God would only create the minimum structure required for a given part's function. 5. God does not provide false empirical information about the origins of organisms. 6. God impressed the laws of nature on matter. 7. God directly created the first 'primordial' life. 8. God did not perform miracles within organic history subsequent to the creation of the first life. 9. A 'distant' God is not morally culpable for natural pain and suffering. 10. The God of special creation, who allegedly performed miracles in organic history, is not plausible given the presence of natural pain and suffering. https://evolutionnews.org/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo/ Methodological Naturalism: A Rule That No One Needs or Obeys - Paul Nelson - September 22, 2014 Excerpt: It is a little-remarked but nonetheless deeply significant irony that evolutionary biology is the most theologically entangled science going. Open a book like Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True (2009) or John Avise's Inside the Human Genome (2010), and the theology leaps off the page. A wise creator, say Coyne, Avise, and many other evolutionary biologists, would not have made this or that structure; therefore, the structure evolved by undirected processes. Coyne and Avise, like many other evolutionary theorists going back to Darwin himself, make numerous "God-wouldn't-have-done-it-that-way" arguments, thus predicating their arguments for the creative power of natural selection and random mutation on implicit theological assumptions about the character of God and what such an agent (if He existed) would or would not be likely to do.,,, ,,,with respect to one of the most famous texts in 20th-century biology, Theodosius Dobzhansky's essay "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" (1973). Although its title is widely cited as an aphorism, the text of Dobzhansky's essay is rarely read. It is, in fact, a theological treatise. As Dilley (2013, p. 774) observes: "Strikingly, all seven of Dobzhansky's arguments hinge upon claims about God's nature, actions, purposes, or duties. In fact, without God-talk, the geneticist's arguments for evolution are logically invalid. In short, theology is essential to Dobzhansky's arguments.",, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/09/methodological_1089971.html Damned if You Do and Damned if You Don't - Steve Dilley- 2019-06-02 The Problem of God-talk in Biology Textbooks Abstract: We argue that a number of biology (and evolution) textbooks face a crippling dilemma. On the one hand, significant difficulties arise if textbooks include theological claims in their case for evolution. (Such claims include, for example, ‘God would never design a suboptimal panda’s thumb, but an imperfect structure is just what we’d expect on natural selection.’) On the other hand, significant difficulties arise if textbooks exclude theological claims in their case for evolution. So, whether textbooks include or exclude theological claims, they face debilitating problems. We attempt to establish this thesis by examining 32 biology (and evolution) textbooks, including the Big 12—that is, the top four in each of the key undergraduate categories (biology majors, non-majors, and evolution courses). In Section 2 of our article, we analyze three specific types of theology these texts use to justify evolutionary theory. We argue that all face significant difficulties. In Section 3, we step back from concrete cases and, instead, explore broader problems created by having theology in general in biology textbooks. We argue that the presence of theology—of whatever kind—comes at a significant cost, one that some textbook authors are likely unwilling to pay. In Section 4, we consider the alternative: Why not simply get rid of theology? Why not just ignore it? In reply, we marshal a range of arguments why avoiding God-talk raises troubles of its own. Finally, in Section 5, we bring together the collective arguments in Sections 2-4 to argue that biology textbooks face an intractable dilemma. We underscore this difficulty by examining a common approach that some textbooks use to solve this predicament. We argue that this approach turns out to be incoherent and self-serving. The poor performance of textbooks on this point highlights just how deep the difficulty is. In the end, the overall dilemma remains. https://journals.blythinstitute.org/ojs/index.php/cbi/article/view/44
Darwinists, with their vital dependence on faulty, even false, theological presuppositions, instead of on any compelling scientific evidence, in order to try to make their case for Darwinian evolution are, as Cornelius Van Til put it, like the child who must climb up onto his father’s lap into order to slap his face.
“In other words, the non-Christian needs the truth of the Christian religion in order to attack it. As a child needs to sit on the lap of its father in order to slap the father’s face, so the unbeliever, as a creature, needs God the Creator and providential controller of the universe in order to oppose this God. Without this God, the place on which he stands does not exist. He cannot stand in a vacuum.” - Cornelius Van Til, Essays on Christian Education (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company: Phillipsburg, NJ, 1979).
bornagain77
July 12, 2022
July
07
Jul
12
12
2022
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT
Jerry at 70, "I believe keeping religion out of ID is the best course for getting it accepted." Accepted by who? Atheists? Or people in general? ID makes sense, blind, unguided chance does not. And living things not only look designed, they are designed. Nothing hard about that. And right now, people are connecting ID to the Christian God. It's in the Bible - God created.relatd
July 12, 2022
July
07
Jul
12
12
2022
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT
I repeat
Before anyone gets upset, I am definitely not arguing against the Christian God. What I am saying is that ID most definitely points to a creator of the universe. The Christian God is consistent with this conclusion. But to get to the Christian God as the specific creator, one has to go way beyond what ID can conclude.
ID is compatible with the Jewish god, the Muslim god, and probably a lot of other conceptions of god. But only Christianity has a trinity and ID definitely does not point to such a God. It certainly does not rule it out and as I have said ID is consistent with such a God. But to get to the Christian God, one has to use a lot of other things besides ID to reach that conclusion. And as I have often said, when ID becomes widely accepted, the real food fight begins. There will be a debate over which versions of the creator are correct and within Christians which of the hundreds of current versions of Christianity is correct if any or maybe all are. Aside: I believe keeping religion out of ID is the best course for getting ID accepted. It seems that many do not agree since religion is a popular topic on this specific ID site. Especially Christianity.jerry
July 12, 2022
July
07
Jul
12
12
2022
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT
codebiology.org, AlanET
July 12, 2022
July
07
Jul
12
12
2022
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT
Jerry claims, "ID will go wherever the science actually goes and can change conclusions based on the evidence and logic. Nothing is locked in, especially the Christian God. Especially??? "Especially" implies that other worldviews would have a better chance at being 'locked in' to science than Christianity. This implication, whether it was intended or not by Jerry, is simply not true. Far from it. "Especially" seeing that modern science was born out of Judeo-Christian presuppositions,
“Science in its modern form arose in the Western civilization alone, among all the cultures of the world”, because only the Christian West possessed the necessary “intellectual presuppositions”. – Ian Barbour Presupposition 1: The contingency of nature “In 1277, the Etienne Tempier, the bishop of Paris, writing with support of Pope John XXI, condemned “necessarian theology” and 219 separate theses influenced by Greek philosophy about what God could and couldn’t do.”,, “The order in nature could have been otherwise (therefore) the job of the natural philosopher, (i.e. scientist), was not to ask what God must have done but (to ask) what God actually did.” Presupposition 2: The intelligibility of nature “Modern science was inspired by the conviction that the universe is the product of a rational mind who designed it to be understood and who (also) designed the human mind to understand it.” (i.e. human exceptionalism), “God created us in his own image so that we could share in his own thoughts” – Johannes Kepler Presupposition 3: Human Fallibility “Humans are vulnerable to self-deception, flights of fancy, and jumping to conclusions.”, (i.e. original sin), Scientists must therefore employ “systematic experimental methods.” (Francis Bacon’s inductive methodology) – Stephen Meyer on Intelligent Design and The Return of the God Hypothesis – Hoover Institution https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_8PPO-cAlA The Judeo-Christian Origins of Modern Science - Stephen Meyer - video - (April 2022) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ss-kzyXeqdQ
And "especially" seeing the modern science is still crucially dependent upon Judeo-Christian presuppositions,
Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21) Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics. http://www.robkoons.net/media/69b0dd04a9d2fc6dffff80b3ffffd524.pdf Physics and the Mind of God: The Templeton Prize Address – by Paul Davies – August 1995 Excerpt: “People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature-the laws of physics-are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they came from; at least they do not do so in polite company. However, even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is a rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least partly comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview.” https://www.firstthings.com/article/1995/08/003-physics-and-the-mind-of-god-the-templeton-prize-address-24
Then I would have to say that if any worldview was "especially locked in" to modern science then it would definitely have to be the Judeo-Christian worldview, and no other worldview, that was "especially locked in"
The Christian Origins of Science - Jack Kerwick - Apr 15, 2017 Excerpt: Though it will doubtless come as an enormous shock to such Christophobic atheists as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and their ilk, it is nonetheless true that one especially significant contribution that Christianity made to the world is that of science.,,, Stark is blunt: “Real science arose only once: in Europe”—in Christian Europe. “China, Islam, India, and ancient Greece and Rome each had a highly developed alchemy. But only in Europe did alchemy develop into chemistry. By the same token, many societies developed elaborate systems of astrology, but only in Europe did astrology develop into astronomy.”,,, In summation, Stark writes: “The rise of science was not an extension of classical learning. It was the natural outgrowth of Christian doctrine: nature exists because it was created by God. In order to love and honor God, it is necessary to fully appreciate the wonders of his handiwork. Because God is perfect, his handiwork functions in accord with immutable principles. By the full use of our God-given powers of reason and observation, it ought to be possible to discover these principles.” He concludes: “These were the crucial ideas that explain why science arose in Christian Europe and nowhere else.” https://townhall.com/columnists/jackkerwick/2017/04/15/the-christian-origins-of-science-n2313593
Verse:
1 Thessalonians 5:21 but test all things. Hold fast to what is good.
bornagain77
July 12, 2022
July
07
Jul
12
12
2022
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT
Not sure where you got that list from, LCD. Never heard of 1. Item 2? Gabius died not long ago and his ideas haven't caught on. Item 3 Histones are proteins rich in basic aminoacids around which DNA can spool. Involved in methylation which is another item on your list.Alan Fox
July 12, 2022
July
07
Jul
12
12
2022
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT
Yes, Alan. It's referred to as the genetic code because experimental evidence says it is a real code. And there aren't any answers in any textbooks or classes. No one knows how evolution by means of blind and mindless processes can produce anything beyond genetic diseases and deformities.ET
July 12, 2022
July
07
Jul
12
12
2022
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT
"If you are asking me to give a full account of how it functions and how it evolved, I have to disappoint you." My 2 cents. How evasive. Not disappointed. Not surprised. Andrewasauber
July 12, 2022
July
07
Jul
12
12
2022
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT
LCD
There is a real code in the cell or not ? If yes tell us the natural mechanism for building functional code.
There's a storage and retrieval system in cells, essential to reproduction and metabolism. One central aspect of that system is widely referred to as the genetic code. If you are asking me to give a full account of how it functions and how it evolved, I have to disappoint you. Enrolling in a suitable class or online course, maybe an introductory text book may help.Alan Fox
July 12, 2022
July
07
Jul
12
12
2022
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT
Yes, a lack of integrity doesn't prevent anyone from getting about, Alan. That's a good thing for you.ET
July 12, 2022
July
07
Jul
12
12
2022
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT
There wasn’t anything in the press release that supports your trope.
Luckily for me I can still manage to get about without additional support for my trope.Alan Fox
July 12, 2022
July
07
Jul
12
12
2022
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PDT
Alan Fox- Learn how to read. There wasn't anything in the press release that supports your trope.ET
July 12, 2022
July
07
Jul
12
12
2022
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT
Alan Fox Do you feel like suggesting any common ground from where we could start?
There is a real code in the cell or not ? If yes tell us the natural mechanism for building functional code. How chemicals create syntax, semantics, and pragmatics level simultaneously for all the codes from living organisms :(I copy-paste few codes) 1. The Adhesive Code (Readies and Takeichi 1996; Shapiro and Colman 1999) 2. The Sugar Code (Gabius 2000; Gabius et al. 2002) 3. The Histone Code (Strahl and Allis 2000; Turner 2000, 2002; Gamble and Freedman 2002) 4. The Neural Transcriptional Codes (Jessell 2000; Flames et al. 2007) 5. A Regulatory Code in mammalian organogenesis (Scully and Rosenfeld 2002) 6. A Code of Post Translational Modifications (Khidekel and Hsieh-Wilson 2004) 7. A Neural Code for written words (Dehaene et al. 2005) 8. A Nuclear Receptors Combinatorial Code (Perissi and Rosenfeld 2005) 9. A Transcription Factors Code (Tootle and Rebay 2005) 10. An Acetylation Code (Knights et al. 2006) 11. An Estrogen Receptor Code (Leader et al. 2006) 12. The Metabolic Codes (Bruni 2007) 13. The RNA Codes (Faria 2007) 14. The Error-Correcting Codes (Battail 2007; Gonzalez 2008) 15. The Modular Code of the Cytoskeleton (Gimona 2008) 16. A Lipid-based Code in nuclear signaling (Maraldi 2008) 17. The Immune Self Code (Neuman 2008) 18. The Signal Transduction Codes (Faria 2008)Lieutenant Commander Data
July 12, 2022
July
07
Jul
12
12
2022
05:04 AM
5
05
04
AM
PDT
Since we are off the topic of selection, how about this to prove the Judaeo-Christian worldview of God correct. Genesis states God created all the animals before God created man as something unique in the world. After God created man, God rested from creation. The fossil records show a lot of species existed prior to man, but nothing new after man. The answer as to why there are no new animals coming into existence, since there is no evidence of speciation, is God stopped creating species after man.BobRyan
July 12, 2022
July
07
Jul
12
12
2022
01:17 AM
1
01
17
AM
PDT
@ ET A press release from 2006 saying "we didn't find stuff so it isn't there"? Might just look at the primary source and see how many positive cites it has acquired. ETA well that NBC report is a bit coy about its source. Can anyone else work out what research the article is based on? ETA2 Never mind. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Penny Might have known.Alan Fox
July 11, 2022
July
07
Jul
11
11
2022
11:07 PM
11
11
07
PM
PDT
With Michael Behe's first book, he was talking about irreducible complexity and he focused on some unique aspects in biology. Other than that, he was fully a Darwinian evolutionist. His second book looked at the Edge of Evolution - as ET explains - it's waiting time for two mutations. This is empirically measurable evidence for ID - it's not just "it's too complex". But Behe was losing confidence in what the Darwinian mechanism could produce by this time. His next book Darwin Devolves questions evolution even more since he shows that mutations mainly are damaging or breaking genes and not innovating new features. To me, this shows the power of the ID inference. Behe is moving farther from a full acceptance of evolutionary theory the more he researches it.Silver Asiatic
July 11, 2022
July
07
Jul
11
11
2022
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT
Wow:
The ID approach of “this is too complex to have happened” is not completely wrong, but ID proponents need to look at ways in which events can unfold but in stages rather than all at once. So Mike Behe’s argument about an edge to evolution and irreducible complexity isn’t an ID approach?
Again, "The ID approach of “this is too complex to have happened”" is not even wrong. ID's science is to find the IC, CSI or SC. Why isn't it up to evolutionary biologists to demonstrate that something A) can arise in stages and B) that blind and mindless processes did it? In response to Behe's "edge", a paper titled "Waiting for TWO Mutations" was published. The waiting time for two mutations puts the alleged common ancestry of chimps and humans well out of the reach of blind and mindless processes. But that is moot as the anatomical and physiological differences observed between chimps and humans isn't a matter of genetics.ET
July 11, 2022
July
07
Jul
11
11
2022
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT
Alan Fox:
This is hardly controversial. There’s plenty of evidence that mitochondria and chloroplasts had free-living bacterial ancestors.
Not really. A common design explains the similarities. And eukaryotes are much more than one prokaryote living inside of another. Also there is just as much evidence that proks are stripped-down versions of euks.
Instead, the data suggest that eukaryote cells with all their bells and whistles are probably as ancient as bacteria and archaea, and may have even appeared first, with bacteria and archaea appearing later as stripped-down versions of eukaryotes, according to David Penny, a molecular biologist at Massey University in New Zealand.
linkET
July 11, 2022
July
07
Jul
11
11
2022
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT
Alan Fox:
I seem to be mistaken and the ID approach is to ignore reality.
We are sick of your false accusations, Alan. Please tell us what reality ID ignores.ET
July 11, 2022
July
07
Jul
11
11
2022
04:19 PM
4
04
19
PM
PDT
That's fine, Relatd.Alan Fox
July 11, 2022
July
07
Jul
11
11
2022
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT
Jerry at 49, Evolution happened? Over 3 billion years? I doubt it.relatd
July 11, 2022
July
07
Jul
11
11
2022
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT
OK, Jerry, I was looking at a glorious red sunset this evening.Alan Fox
July 11, 2022
July
07
Jul
11
11
2022
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply