tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post7195471651522503998..comments2024-03-14T08:15:15.207-07:00Comments on CADRE Comments: The Evolving Nature of Evolution: Pinning Jell-O to the WallBKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01967809861892681780noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-2214905780380148502008-03-05T06:10:00.000-08:002008-03-05T06:10:00.000-08:00{{Even a YEC could believe in "evolution" if it ju...{{Even a YEC could believe in "evolution" if it just means the limited sort of change that could be considered scientifically demonstrated so far!}}<BR/><BR/>True; in fact I mentioned somewhere in these posts that many YECs have no problem accepting natural selection and even limited speciation thereby.<BR/><BR/>{{and yet you still hear things like "Darwin made it possible to be an Jason Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-91979345211705955672008-03-04T19:41:00.000-08:002008-03-04T19:41:00.000-08:00JRP: Nor is it particularly relevant to what anti-...JRP: <I>Nor is it particularly relevant to what anti-religious apologists are actually claiming about “evolution”; very few of them think that biological evolution brought effective systems into existence (particularly the system of biological evolution itself. {g})</I><BR/><BR/>Probably not when put into those terms; but then when put into terms of genuine science, there isn't much controversy Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-49871488121814763212008-02-28T09:06:00.000-08:002008-02-28T09:06:00.000-08:00{{But there's a serious point lurking underneath: ...{{But there's a serious point lurking underneath: there are people who point to limited individual pieces of evolutionary theory that are scientifically sound and then use a little oversimplifying sleight-of-hand to smuggle in a whole metaphysical system with it.}}<BR/><BR/>That happens, too; and I agree that that’s wrong to do. But it doesn’t seem very relevant to Herm’s complaint about messy Jason Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-63120761486524063522008-02-26T05:45:00.000-08:002008-02-26T05:45:00.000-08:00JRP wrote: That’s rather oversimplifying the NDT p...JRP wrote: <I>That’s rather oversimplifying the NDT position (and problems) I think. Evolution, NDT or otherwise, is a process in an already-existant system. How that system itself got into place is a whole other debate, which can’t be fairly critiqued in conflation with various biological evolutionary theories.</I><BR/><BR/>Sure, that's oversimplified ('cause it was a rather flippant retort to Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-48145903932954597392008-02-25T07:57:00.000-08:002008-02-25T07:57:00.000-08:00Anon--or Herm rather?{{Design proponents need to e...Anon--or Herm rather?<BR/><BR/>{{Design proponents need to explain all the examples of "bad" design in nature.}}<BR/><BR/>Not really, insofar as the conclusion is only about ‘design’. What you’re talking about is a whole other debate about the properties and actual intentions of the designer and the relationship to the evident system of nature. That’s extremely important, no doubt, but it isn’t Jason Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-64881183079775347782008-02-25T03:11:00.000-08:002008-02-25T03:11:00.000-08:00Anonymous: You know, this complexity argument has ...Anonymous: <I>You know, this complexity argument has never made sense to me; as someone who does a bit of design work I understand that simplicity, not complexity, is the hallmark of good design. </I><BR/><BR/>I doubt it, unless you're saying that your work consists solely in "designing" blank sheets of paper. After all, a blank page is clearly "simpler" than a page with anything on it. But of Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-23976339131274425342008-02-25T02:54:00.000-08:002008-02-25T02:54:00.000-08:00A Hermit said: Design proponents need to explain a...A Hermit said: <I>Design proponents need to explain all the examples of "bad" design in nature.</I><BR/><BR/>Well, duh: evolution of course! The problem is this unproven notion that "evolution" can magically make better things out of nothing. It's easy to understand how random evolution could start with something good and mess it up.<BR/><BR/>(Of course, your whole notion of "bad design" Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-63570160898205073472008-02-23T14:37:00.000-08:002008-02-23T14:37:00.000-08:00My apologies, I assumed you were making the usual ...My apologies, I assumed you were making the usual ID argument (though I think my point is still a valid one regarding the nature of design. Design proponents need to explain all the examples of "bad" design in nature.)<BR/><BR/>The time constraints argument isn't much better though; as I've seen it presented it confuses probabilities of random occurrences with the probabilities of natural Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-32561454732240002492008-02-22T11:06:00.000-08:002008-02-22T11:06:00.000-08:00Anon,{{You know, this complexity argument has neve...Anon,<BR/><BR/>{{You know, <B>this</B> complexity argument has never made sense to me}}<BR/><BR/>Really? Which complexity argument was I reporting? To recap: “We've only been discovering more and more layers of complexity since then, <B>adding to the time-constraints necessary for any plausible account of purely accidental development (assuming purely accidental development is even possible.)</B>Jason Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-68170542363841344212008-02-22T10:01:00.000-08:002008-02-22T10:01:00.000-08:00Jason Pratt said..."Even back then, the complexity...Jason Pratt said...<BR/><I>"Even back then, the complexity had long been daunting some pro-NDT proponents (including among the original synthesizers). We've only been discovering more and more layers of complexity since then, adding to the time-constraints necessary for any plausible account of purely accidental development (assuming purely accidental development is even possible.)"</I><BR/><BR/>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-41711398357602766052008-02-21T14:35:00.000-08:002008-02-21T14:35:00.000-08:00Herm,{{It's been thirty years since Dobzhansky mad...Herm,<BR/><BR/>{{It's been thirty years since Dobzhansky made his famous declaration: Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution}}<BR/><BR/>Even back then, the complexity had long been daunting some pro-NDT proponents (including among the original synthesizers). We've only been discovering more and more layers of complexity since then, adding to the time-constraints necessaryJason Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-15665848980836374072008-02-20T14:10:00.000-08:002008-02-20T14:10:00.000-08:00Blogger BK said..."Here's the question: what test...Blogger BK said...<BR/><BR/><I>"Here's the question: what test or combination of tests have proven the theory? My point is that the limited actual testing we have don't really prove evolution at all. Rather, most of evolutionary theory looks at facts (fossils, similarities) and explains them in light of a preconceived notion about how they came to be without ever really testing the preconceived Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-14684770999173982462008-02-19T18:42:00.000-08:002008-02-19T18:42:00.000-08:00Hermit,Here's the question: what test or combinati...Hermit,<BR/><BR/>Here's the question: what test or combination of tests have proven the theory? My point is that the limited actual testing we have don't really prove evolution at all. Rather, most of evolutionary theory looks at facts (fossils, similarities) and explains them in light of a preconceived notion about how they came to be without ever really testing the preconceived notion. <BR/><BRBKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01967809861892681780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-4628100939152880692008-02-19T18:34:00.000-08:002008-02-19T18:34:00.000-08:00Jason P., Yup, you got it. I have only pointed out...Jason P., <BR/><BR/>Yup, you got it. I have only pointed out thus far that Spilhaus' is doing what all evolutionists tend to do: assume that evolution is proven and has been tested. The simple fact is that evolution hasn't been tested. The next part of this series will demonstrate that with two analogies.BKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01967809861892681780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-74686703430397755572008-02-19T18:31:00.000-08:002008-02-19T18:31:00.000-08:00Malcolm,As I said, I think that it is entirely rea...Malcolm,<BR/><BR/>As I said, I think that it is entirely reasonable (in the sense that a person does not have to be illogical or out of his mind) to conclude that evolution is true based on what you identify. But being reasonable and being in fact true are not the same. There are reasons to doubt the evolutionary paradigm, and the point of this post is that not only has evolution not been proven,BKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01967809861892681780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-72310285492393481302008-02-19T18:28:00.000-08:002008-02-19T18:28:00.000-08:00Peter,You ask: "What kind of evidence would be suf...Peter,<BR/><BR/>You ask: "What kind of evidence would be sufficient for you to accept the evolution and common descent as a fact?"<BR/><BR/>That's really hard to say. The only answer that I can give right now is that, as my blogs in this series are seeking to point out, the evidence presented thus far isn't it. <BR/><BR/>I mean, I could ask a similar question back at you: "What kind of evidence BKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01967809861892681780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-21603792144584948892008-02-15T08:38:00.000-08:002008-02-15T08:38:00.000-08:00"evolution has not been directly scientifically co...<I>"evolution has not been directly scientifically confirmed by testing -- and we shouldn't expect that it ever can be."</I><BR/><BR/>I think this misrepresents the case; there is no way to do one single test that confirms the theory as a whole, but the accumulation of many smaller tests which each confirm different aspects of the theory make for an even stronger case for confidence in the theoryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-57298740048597990602008-02-15T08:30:00.000-08:002008-02-15T08:30:00.000-08:00Bill,Was this article about acknowledged problems ...Bill,<BR/><BR/>Was this article about acknowledged problems in testing for b.e.t. (compared to Spilhaus' statement that evolution has survived extensive testing and repeated verification)? Because some readers seem to think the article was about evolution being something we shouldn't believe in. Whereas, I recall you saying in part 1 that there was plenty of scientific evidence in favor of Jason Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-64135870903881296862008-02-15T07:24:00.000-08:002008-02-15T07:24:00.000-08:00Evolution - simply put it's change in species' mak...Evolution - simply put it's change in species' makeup over time.<BR/><BR/>Consider these facts:<BR/> - Species existed in the past that do not exist now (See the fossil record)<BR/> - Species exist now that did not exist in the past (as shown by their absence from the fossil record or at least their the older parts of it.<BR/><BR/>Therefore the species present on the earth have changed over time,Malcolmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03048098160919357897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-40601435060254809602008-02-14T17:35:00.000-08:002008-02-14T17:35:00.000-08:00Bk,What kind of evidence would be sufficient for y...Bk,<BR/><BR/>What kind of evidence would be sufficient for you to accept the evolution and common descent as a fact?Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01636524117308077140noreply@blogger.com