Bechly in his challenge, references his contribution to the book “Theistic Evolution”, and to his chapter entitled “Does the Fossil Record Demonstrate Darwinian Evolution?” in the book “The Comprehensive Guide to Science and Faith” as containing evidence for this claim.
That’s fine, multiple hypotheses therefore exist, along with some that seem to be good ones.
I don’t think so! Please point to one unrefuted point you all have made here. Just one. Then please respond to Axe’s response to Art Hunt, which no one has done here.
Ahem. LMAO
I have no access to that, but note that he, in that same challenge, cited at least one reference that doesn’t show what he claims. I’m dubious that this non-peer-reviewed apologetics article is a vlid source of real data. But have you read it?
So you didn’t read it the first time?
So please point me to one response to Axe’s response to Art Hunt. I may have missed it, but this response you give is not that.
I don’t have either of these books, but you did make a claim that he provided no evidence. And so far, that’s an unsupported conclusion.
I’ve read Axe’s response to Art Hunt. i don’t think any additional commentary is needed. Axe’s failure to provide a reasonable answer to any of the three points speaks for itself.
You didn’t. Try harder.
You read it, didn’t like it, and therefore rejected it. It’s still a response and it reflects poorly on you that you seem to have already forgotten it took place.
And I genuinely believe that my response factually refutes Axe’s, and that any disagreement anyone might want to make indicates nothing other than their lack of comprehension.
No, I can’t be bothered elaborating. If you don’t understand how my explanation responds to and refutes Axe’s response to Art Hunt, then I don’t think I can make you. But you should stop saying that nobody has responded.
I saw what you meant. But I didn’t see any data to support your claim. Do you have any data to support this?
(It also appears what you mean as “function” may not be what Mercer means as function.)
Umm, you either have a very short memory, or are counting on the rest of us doing so. Here, for at least the third time that I have pointed it out to you, is Art Hunt’s own response:
More specifically, here is one particular point that, on its own, completely demolishes Axe’s entire argument:
No one, neither you nor anyone from the ID camp (including Axe himself) has responded to this point. Can you explain why?
So, to take an example, wings in insects doesn’t constitute a new biological system or an organic innovation? Are you serious?
Yes, I am serious. Insect wings didn’t evolve out of thin air, but were derived from per-existing biological structures.
So do they constitute something that is new? How does one define what is considered new versus something that is derivative?
‘Tis very strange, but people seem to think a claim of victory, accompanied by a refusal to discuss further, somehow accomplishes something.
Maybe you should let Axe know he’s made that mistake.
Do you really feel that any of the three answers to Art Hunt’s post are defensible?
Bechly was confused (or, more likely, attempting to move goalposts).
Grok is apparently regurgitating my posts:
Be careful what you write…
I am still waiting for you to show where Axe has agreed to further discuss the concerns @Art raised in his 2018 post (which, as it happens, was entitled “Art Hunt to Doug Axe: Invitation to Discuss”). Can you explain why Axe, for the past seven years, has refused to even acknowledge this invitation, never mind accept it?
(No, I don’t expect a meaningful answer from you. I am just rubbing your nose in the rank hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty you have been spewing on this page since the moment you arrived here.)
I did respond to your post, though. My challenge was for you all to point out any unanswered points you have made.
And I responded to Art here, have you forgotten? We had an exchange of a number of posts, and then he vanished, without addressing my latest counterpoint to him.
I did respond, I looked up spot plating, and mentioned that it would be unsuitable for antibiotic susceptibility testing if the causes of any observed reactions could be obscured like Art mentioned.
So again I ask, where have any of your points here not been responded to? Just name one. Thank you.
I’m not sure what data you have in mind, I was making a point about function being related to fitness, and that’s not going to be explained by a reading from a thermometer. It’s a point about meaning, and why the terms are related.
And again I refer to Axe’s response to Hunt’s initial article on Panda’s Thumb, which Art, and you all, refused to discuss here. When people don’t respond to your points, and raise further objections, it indicates you don’t have a good case, that you don’t have good answers. Why should Axe continue to respond to your challenges, when you are not responding to his?
And again, I gave responses to what Hunt called his principle objections, here, and he departed, without answering my latest counterpoint to him.
Yes, I think we are right and that we succeeded in showing that, and I just don’t have this need to see you agree with this.
You can state your disagreement over and over again, but for my point there is nothing left to discuss.
You seem to think we are obliged to try endlessly to convince you, and that if we can’t somehow compel you into giving written assent on this forum then we haven’t shown you to be wrong. I’m sorry but I’ve been having these discussions for too long. I give my case, explain what is wrong with Axe’s statements, and people either get it or they don’t.
Either way I just move on.