Good one.
Who could doubt this in theory?
It seems to me that many have trouble actually carrying on as if it were true.
Itâs strictly true that just because something is published in a creationist journal that doesnât make it automatically wrong.
But we canât just close our eyes and pretend not to know that creationist journals are run by creationist organizations that explicitly reject even the possibility that they are wrong, and only and exclusively publish âpapersâ for the purpose of supporting and âprovingâ creationism. This is revealed by their openly declared mission statements and statements of faith.
To pick an example, this is what the AIG statement used to say:
âBy definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.â
For that reason, anything they publish is immediately extremely questionable, and rather than have to (yet again again again) go through one of their utter trash publications to correct each of itâs falsehoods, misrepresentations, misleading simplifications, quotemines, unwarranted extrapolations, and selective citations, weâre better off just asking for articles from actually reputable journals where most of this should have been caught by competent reviewers (though of course, even here we have to be somewhat vigilant, as trash is sometimes published there too). Nobody owes anyone else the time and effort it takes to read through and debunk, for the fiftieth time, the latest pile of trash compiled by a bunch of overly literalist presuppositionalists.
4 Likes
Sounds similar to this apparent quote from Hume
Well, it depends. If it was proven that random mutations can produce the same potent changes that Only additive mutations can produce, then we would not be able to differentiate between common design and common descent models. But, when it comes to whether evolution was guided versus unguided, this would still be falsifiable, as I explained before.
That is not the only definition. According to Ayala, âMutations are random or chance events because ( i ) they are rare exceptions to the fidelity of the process of DNA replication and because ( ii ) there is no way of knowing which gene will mutate in a particular cell or in a particular individual. However, the meaning of ârandomâ that is most significant for understanding the evolutionary process is ( iii ) that mutations are unoriented with respect to adaptation; they occur independently of whether or not they are beneficial or harmful to the organisms. Some are beneficial, most are not, and only the beneficial ones become incorporated in the organisms through natural selection.â
Darwinâs greatest discovery: Design without designer | PNAS
The third definition is the point of contention between @John_Harshman and I. As I told him before, God cannot guide an unguided process. This is one of the main reasons why the Universal common design and common descent must have different expectations in regards to function and adaptation.
No, it isnât. The point of contention between us is common descent, and all three definitions of ârandomâ are irrelevant to that.
I donât recall you telling me. Perhaps you told me something else that you thought was that. And it still has nothing to do with common descent vs. common design.
I donât know what that means. Neither do you.
4 Likes
Do you have a comprehension problem? Ayala and Swamidass are saying the same thing.
Additive mutations are random too!
I canât see how additive mutations would be useful in differentiating common descent from common design, since we can find (and have found) descendants from a common ancestor sharing additive mutations (mutations whose combined effect is the sum of their individual effects).
3 Likes
So you disagree with Gert Korhof and agree with @John_Harshman ?
None of that has anything to do with Gert Korthof.
2 Likes
I encourage everybody to watch this video because it also suggests that random mutations precludes common descent or is a fundamental part of the process:
Either you donât know what âprecludesâ means or you have misunderstood the video.
4 Likes
We know you cite articles you havenât read. Do you cite videos you havenât watched?
1 Like
I am converting this to a Side Conversation category, which means posts will not have to go through the approval queue, but also means that @moderators will not necessarily have as much âeyes onâ. If you see something that violates the community guidelines, please flag it rather than respond to it. That will get moderators attention and they will then have a look.
4 Likes
Here is a study that explains why Gert is right when he suggested that âevery supernatural intervention is a violation of common descent, because it means that a new irreducibly complex system in the first individual showing it was not inherited from its parentsâ:
:
âTop-down causation is an important mechanism for adaptive evolution through natural selection, where the higher-level âgoalâ is survival [32,34]. The role of top-down causation in adaptive selection is particularly evident for cases of convergent evolution. A striking example is provided by the evolution of echolocation in dolphins and bats, where over 200 genes have independently changed in the same ways to confer both species with the ability to use sonar [35]. A common high-level selection pressure (e.g., for the ability to navigate) lead independently to the same specific mutations in the DNA of both species. Convergent evolution thus provides a clear example of top-down causation via adaptive selection, where causal influences run from macroscopic environmental context to microscopic biochemical structure.â
The fossil record apparently concurs according to an Ernest Mayre quote but I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong:
âWhat one actually found was nothing but discontinuities. All species are separated from each other by bridgeless gaps; intermediates between species are not observed. ⌠The problem was even more serious at the level of the higher categories"
Except that the study does not seem to mention supernatural intervention, so I think you are reading too much into it.
2 Likes
Neither of those quotes has anything to do with the point youâre trying to make.
4 Likes
What meant by supernatural intervention is irreducible complexity, which would be Top-down causation if I am not mistaken.
I suspect you actually got this from this Luskin article, and not from anything written by Ernst Mayr.
The reasons I suspect this are:
- the ellipsis is in the same place
- youâve used Luskin as a secondary source before
- you didnât give a source
- you donât seem to know Mayr was talking about the views of others
- you badly misspelt Mayrâs name
and of course - you have been caught lying about your sources on many previous occasions. So frequently, in fact, that it is now the expectation. This is unlikely to be an exception.
You clearly havenât learnt anything from when you previously cribbed from Luskin, and you still donât seem to care whether your âquotesâ are even correct, let alone representative of the views of the person you are quoting. You couldnât even be bothered to Google your own âquoteâ to find a proper reference or the full text.
The only thing you will convince anyone of is that you are lazy, gullible and deceptive. You arenât even producing anything intelligible, let alone interesting. Stop wasting your (and our) time.
4 Likes
An irreducibly complex system evolved in Lenskiâs lab. I guess that means Lenski is God. Interesting.
4 Likes
Evolutionary biologists have already explained how irreducible complexity can arise naturally. So, yes, it is a mistake for you to read âsupernatural interventionâ into that.
3 Likes
Mistaken goes without saying. Irreducible complexity is not another term for supernatural intervention. Irreducible complexity can evolve naturally in a number of ways that you should familiarize yourself with if you want to continue talking about it.
1 Like