Behe, Swamidass, and Berean

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@Mung

Science can be neither partial nor impartial.

… this HAS to be the dumbest thing I have read today…

[Mung]

@gbrooks9

… this HAS to be the dumbest thing I have read today…

Moons are partial to Earth-like bodies. Asteroids, otoh, are impartial to both moons and Earth-like bodies.

[Timothy_Horton]

@Peter_Berean

So, my earlier comment stands. See below. Note that I do include the combination you mention.

If you reject the actual scientific explanation in lieu of repeating your silly Creationist strawman your argument has already lost. Thanks for playing.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Peter_Berean please learn how to use the quote function.

[Peter_Berean]

Timothy -> Here is my complete response ->

My response -> What you are claiming above is NOTHING more than Darwinism (variation + Natural Selection), or Neo-Darwinism (a specific form of variation + NS).

So, my earlier comment stands. See below. Note that I do include the combination you mention.

Quote -> There are ONLY two core components to Naturalistic Evolution (natural selection and random-chance).

ALL of the proposed mechanisms (in Naturalistic ToE) boil down to one, or the other, or ** COMBINATIONS ** of the two.

If we reject Darwinism, we are rejecting NS as the Core mechanism for the formation of complex Traits and complex Organs.

The problem is that the core mechanism of NS is the ONLY mechanism by which ToE can even remotely claim to explain the origin of complex traits and organs…

So, if we reject NS as the sufficient mechanism, we are left with NO naturalistic mechanism for ToE to create any complex traits, organs or organisms.

The ONLY thing that is left is random-chance. Which is ridiculous (which even biologists would admit).

[Timothy_Horton]

@Peter_Berean

If we reject Darwinism, we are rejecting NS as the Core mechanism for the formation of complex Traits and complex Organs.

What reason can you give for rejecting the actual empirically observed mechanism, an iterative feedback process with a random portion (genetic variation) and a non-random portion (the feedback from selection) with each iteration carrying forward heritable traits?

Personal incredulity theater doesn’t play well around here at all I’m afraid.

[Peter_Berean]

@swamidass

It seems like we have a lot of common ground. Perhaps the real disagreement that remains is just common descent. Is that right?

I agree re common ground.

Where we differ

1. Naturalistic Universal Common Descent
2. Possibly on a Naturalistic Universal Single Tree of Life.
3. On the non-detectability of Intelligent Design
4. On the nature of science as necessarily being Atheistic/Naturalistic rather than inductive sincere Truth Seeking.
5. Possibly On the ability of naturalism to create all of the biosphere via random-chance + NS processes.

[Peter_Berean]

My apologies… how do I quote you using the quote function… I keep getting weird results when I try.

[Peter_Berean]

@Timothy_Horton

If we reject Darwinism, we are rejecting NS as the Core mechanism for the formation of complex Traits and complex Organs.

A growing number of biologists are rejecting Darwinism. That really should not be in question.
And Joshua Swamidass has mentioned that he rejects Darwinism as well (that he is NOT a Darwinist)…

Given the truth of that statement re biologists rejecting Darwinism → then my comment applies → If we reject Darwinism, we are rejecting NS as the Core mechanism for the formation of complex Traits and complex Organs.

[Patrick]

@Peter_Berean

A growing number of biologists are rejecting Darwinism.

Really? Name them.

[Peter_Berean]

@Patrick

Peter_Berean:

A growing number of biologists are rejecting Darwinism.

Really? Name them.

I am just paraphrasing a statement to me by Joshua Swamidass… I thought this was common knowledge…

[Peter_Berean]

@Timothy_Horton

Hit “reply” and you’ll first get an empty block.

Then cursor up and select the section you wish to quote. You’ll see a gray block with QUOTE appear over the highlighted text. Click the QUOTE block and the highlighted text will be transferred to the new comment block.

Be careful as trying to make quotes which include previous quotes often screws up the attribution name

You also have an EDIT feature if things go wrong which they often do.

thank you

[Patrick]

@Peter_Berean

I am just quoting a statement to me by Joshua Swamidass… I thought this was common knowledge…

The proper term is EVOLUTION. Darwinism is an ideology and not a scientific theory.

[Peter_Berean]

@Patrick

The proper term is EVOLUTION. Darwinism is an ideology and not a scientific theory.

That is interesting. Looks like different evolution-believers use different definitions for their terms (which is part of the difficulty in dialog with evolution-believers).

[Mung]

@Patrick

Really? Name them.

Really? Their names are Steve. Sheesh.

[Patrick]

@Peter_Berean

That is interesting. Looks like different evolution-believers use different definitions for their terms (which is part of the difficulty in dialog with evolution-believers).

You don’t “believe” in evolution. Evolution is the totality of all our knowledge about how life works on Earth.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Peter_Berean, note, I gave 3 definitions and explained how in each case I rejected it.

[Mung]

@Patrick

Darwinism is an ideology and not a scientific theory.

Whoo boy! Don’t let Auntyevology hear you say that! Do you deny that Darwinian evolutionary theory is scientific?

[Peter_Berean]

@Timothy_Horton

What reason can you give for rejecting the actual empirically observed mechanism, an iterative feedback process with a random portion (genetic variation) and a non-random portion (the feedback from selection) with each iteration carrying forward heritable traits?

There is (and has been) controversy in the scientific literature whether naturalistic large-scale evolution (NALSE, molecules to man) is the same in process and kind as micro-evolution.

To assume that NALSE = Darwinian micro writ large is a faith-based assumption that many scientists have questioned and challenged.

E.g., Gould, Margulis, many of the third-way scientists.

There is controversy over whether a process that changes the size of a pre-existing feature (beak sizes) has the ability to create the whole creature.

Hence the grounds for Rational Skepticism of the Atheist Creation Myth (of NALSE_evolution particularly of the Darwinian variety)