Skip to content
Friday, May 20, 2022

Uncommon Descent

Serving The Intelligent Design Community

  • Home
  • News Desk
  • Resources
    • Frequently raised but weak arguments against Intelligent Design
    • ID Defined
    • Glossary
    • Archive of Posts by Michael Behe
    • Darwinian Debating Devices
  • Archives
  • Comment Policy
    • Moderation
    • Put a Sock In It
  • About
    • Contact Us
    • Privacy Policy
  • Home
  • Gustavo Deco

Tag: Gustavo Deco

Informatics Intelligent Design Mind Neuroscience

At Mind Matters News: GWT: A leading consciousness theory depends on information theory

If information flow in the brain is “largely unconstrained” by anatomical wiring, it’s easy to understand why we sense that we have “minds” apart from our brains.

Posted on October 15, 2021October 15, 2021 Author News Comment(1)

Advertisements

Meta

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org

Search

Advertisements

Meta

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org

Donate

Help us to continue generating quality content and reliable website service.

Recent Comments

  • ET Chimps and humans are allegedly >98% genetically similar. Yet evolutionary biologists have been unable to link that slight genetic difference... – How could we test universal common...
  • martin_r Hickson, It is as if you are a bot generating random phrases using key words. Don't be ridiculous, Hickson ...... – How could we test universal common...
  • JVL ET: Natural selection is a process of ELIMINATION. It is non-random only in that not all variants have the same... – Casey Luskin at Hillfaith: Using the...
  • ET Jholo: Hmmm. So, evolution is wrong because scientists haven’t been able to detail all of the mechanisms involved. Your cowardly... – How could we test universal common...
  • ET Great. JVL doesn't have any idea what a scientific theory is. He is too afraid to pick up pro-ID literature... – Casey Luskin at Hillfaith: Using the...
  • relatd JVL at 63, Not fair? The 'leave more offspring' idea does not mean the previous version disappears. We have people... – Casey Luskin at Hillfaith: Using the...
  • JVL ET: Nope, just as archaeologists eliminated nature as a cause for Stonehenge, so it is with the explanatory filter. Please... – Casey Luskin at Hillfaith: Using the...
  • JHolo Hmmm. So, evolution is wrong because scientists haven't been able to detail all of the mechanisms involved. ID is right,... – How could we test universal common...
  • ET JVL- Natural selection is a process of ELIMINATION. It is non-random only in that not all variants have the same... – Casey Luskin at Hillfaith: Using the...
  • ET JVL: The ID argument actually is: the natural, unguided processes are highly, highly, highly unlikely to have done it. That’s... – Casey Luskin at Hillfaith: Using the...
  • ET JHolo: If common descent is true, which Behe agrees with, we would expect to see the type of rankings of... – How could we test universal common...
  • ET Wow. MECHANISMS determine patterns, people. Common design easily explains the genetic, anatomical and physiological similarities. Linnaean classification was based on... – How could we test universal common...
  • ET There aren’t any known naturalistic mechanisms capable of universal common descent. Fred Hickson: Read what you wrote, ET. It makes... – How could we test universal common...
  • JVL Relatd: Imagine a bunch of random elements doing random things, and then, after millions of years, one gets an unspecified... – Casey Luskin at Hillfaith: Using the...
  • relatd JVL at 60, No way that this explains anything. Imagine a bunch of random elements doing random things, and then,... – Casey Luskin at Hillfaith: Using the...
  • Fred Hickson Taking a weekend break. Will look in next week. – Casey Luskin at Hillfaith: Using the...
  • JVL But a purely random process would not result in cumulaative change. Cumulative change happens (see Lenski’s LTEE) ergo evolution is... – Casey Luskin at Hillfaith: Using the...
  • Fred Hickson Silver AsiaticHe’s saying “the creationist argument” (assuming he includes ID in this)fair assumption is like the first example. Probability is... – Casey Luskin at Hillfaith: Using the...
  • JVL Silver Asiatic: So, ID says highly unlikely because a certain number of mutations are needed Needed for what? If, for... – Casey Luskin at Hillfaith: Using the...
  • Silver Asiatic In fairness, FH (@24) - you have already denied that blind, unguided naturalistic mechanisms (and that's what we mean by... – How could we test universal common...
  • Fred Hickson Just a small point of fact: ...he’s just repeating Dawkins’ Weasel program, which supposedly was not an analogy for evolution,... – Casey Luskin at Hillfaith: Using the...
Copyright © 2022 Uncommon Descent. All rights reserved.
Theme: Newspaper Plus by ThemeCentury. Powered by WordPress.