The janitor has arrived.
These are your categories, not mine. What on earth is miraculous but still just natural?
Here you cite two scientists on opposite sides and ask me to “choose differently” from one or the other. I am closer to Behe with respect to ID than Swamidass, for sure, but I may disagree with Mike on a first pair, based on your representation. I don’t share Josh’s position on a first pair, not precisely.
Whatever my personal beliefs, the population genetics shows that it is possible (not proven) for us to have come from a de novo first pair under certain assumptions, or at 2 million years without those assumptions. But that has nothing to do with ID. That was a direct response to claims by population geneticists that we could not have come from two, framed as a refutation of “The Myth of Eve.”
The evidence about common descent I have described above, and elsewhere the evidence for intelligent design, at least in part. It is not my job to explain myself to you all over again, George. We have exchanged posts for close to a year. These matters have been discussed. IMHO you are being obtuse. Give it a rest.
And you do owe me an apology for equating me with any kind of anti-science type.
@colewd you are making unreasonable requests. Such examples are legion in the sciencific literature; it’s not necessary they be reproduced for you here.
Hang on, I’m still cleaning up Greg’s mess.
Wait … Seriously?!?
Not sure they are Dan. The unreasonable request was made of me and I don’t intend to engage anymore.
OK, one problem solved.
@gbrooks9 I’m not aware of the history of this discussion, but our guest is asking you to give it a rest. That’s fair. Please do.
I also disagree with Dr. Gauger in general about ID, but I’m not qualified to criticize her knowledge of biochemistry. Are you?
Start by acknowledging where you think she is correct. The opinions you call anti-science are the very opinions she was invited here to express, and she should be allowed to express them without insult. In that respect, I think an appology would be a nice gesture.
George is badgering Ann like Tim is badgering me. It should be safe on this site to be agnostic on a complex scientific issue. In many cases the opponents are ignorant of the complexity involved. They believe that answer is straight forward and it is not.
It is my understanding that he genuinely believes Adam and Eve were made by special creation.
I have never asked him if he thinks all Christians should feel compelled by scripture… but i have assumed it.
LOL! Bill is being “badgered” because he was asked for his opinion if he thinks tigers and house cats are related. That is such complex science issue that 99.9999% of people asked would have no problems answering but poor Bill feels too much pressure. Apparently the question is not straightforward enough for a simple YES or NO answer.
I’d love to see Badgered Bill have to defend a thesis or submit a science paper for critical peer review.
This cannot be right. Are you serious @Agauger? How do you know?
This quote comes from Allen not Ann.
There are several people here who could benefit from learning the difference between argument and criticism
Know what? I did not say anything in the post you just commented on. Certainly nothing about Greg. I don’t know Greg from Adam.
Last things first, as Ive said, I can and will apologize when I understand what I’m apologizing for.
In your last post you said I was being obtuse and that you didnt owe me an explanation, implying that we’ve discussed this subject at length.
1] We have exchanged views over an extended period, but not regarding this specific topic: what part of the animal kingdom can be said to have evolved instead of miraculously and specially created?
2] In this thread, your views have been equated with Behe’s… but in actuality, Behe’s views are not the same as yours. He has never proposed a de novo Adam/Eve. And you have never asserted a universe likened to a “God-designed Pool Shot” scenario.
2] You object to my terminology, which is fair enough, but after i explain my meaning i think you will see that I used these terms to embrace my understanding of your views, rather than to veil your views.
3] My category “Miraculous-but-still-only-Natural” was necessitated by the realization that you dont actually embrace Behe’s position:
He describes God as embuing the natural operations of the Universe with divine design (which explicitly makes cosmic operations as miraculous/divine in nature).
But, additionally, unlike the usual views of miraculous activities, he considers the operations of the Universe to be as lawful as a complex pool shot (even if the designer is God).
@Agauger, Behe’s description very much differs from your writings in that you implicitly assert that some Speciation, even by means of divinely guided natural laws, is not possible.
4] So the question is not about de novo Adam/Eve (which you and Joshua agree about). The question is, where exactly do you embrace Speciation of any kind?!
a] Joshua (@swamidass) says other than Adam/Eve, humans evolved from primates.
b] Joshua says non-primates evolved from mammals.
c] Joshua says mammals, like reptiles and amphibians, evolved from tetrapods.
d] And that tetrapods evolved from fish.
So, if you were able to comfortably agree with [b], [c] and [d] - - with the proviso that all these chains of Speciation were designed, and leaving aside point [a] for now (about primates) - - then i can humbly and eagerly apologize.
I have just now come to your posting.
I will break off if Dr @Agauger insists. At the very least i have better explained the information i would need to be able to apologize intelligently.
Asking for clarification on a matter ducked, side-stepped and evaded does not qualify as badgering.
I agree. That is how I understood Joshua’s position.
George, you have already been corrected here on this, by more than one person. Behe offers this as a logical possibility. He does not affirm it as his own personal position. He says that maybe evolution is the result of a perfect cosmic pool shot; he doesn’t say whether or not he believes that to be the case. He leaves the question open.