Is There Visible Proof of God?

Theology

(John Harshman) #141

Agreed. And they choose “design”, which means (by their reasoning) that they must reject common descent. They are not accurately characterizing any perspective. They present bad arguments against common descent, which hardly seems like accuracy to me.

Better than most creationists? Faint praise indeed.

Not sure what “it” is here, or how much/how little of what you’re talking about. Whatever it is, my point is that RTB is execrable on the subject of common descent, contrary to your initial statements.


(Guy Coe) #142

Yes, of course it is, to a “do or die” mentality. We can’t put up with any critique of the cogency of the evolutionary explanation, now can we.
But since the whole thing is a false dichotomy, why not actually go looking for what’s cogent in their critique?
This is why the likes of Anthony Flew, and Thomas Nagel are at least willing to credit creationist critiques with having contributed to better science.
If you want to fall victim to a false dichotomy, then go ahead and choose your poison, if you must, but just realize that choices have consequences.
The evidence does not rule God out, nor replace the need for design.


(Guy Coe) #143

Neural count is part of it, but so also is the amount of dendritic interconnectivity. Simultaneous increases in both turn a “DOS computer” into a “networked supercomputer.”


(Dale Cutler) #144

And as the likes of Dr. Rana have pointed out, evolution presumes kluging and does not look for function where it should but prematurely expects ‘vestigal’ structures and ‘junk’ DNA. Vestigial organs and structures and junk DNA have proved to be just the opposite.


(John Harshman) #145

If you’re going to start with a pronoun, you will have to quote a clear antecedent. Again, I don’t know what “it” is.

I haven’t found anything so far. What do you have?

Are they? What critiques, exactly? How have they contributed?

Which false dichotomy?

Again, I concentrate almost entirely on common descent, so I’m not sure why you’re talking about this.

I have assumed that was a reply to me, but now I’m not sure. I beg you to provide at least the context of who you’re replying to. Remember that people who read what you write don’t know in advance what you’re talking about. You must provide that information.


(Timothy Horton) #146

Science invites informed criticism of its theories. That doesn’t include the science-free Creationist nonsense you’re been providing.


(Timothy Horton) #147

Heh. You still haven’t even learned what the term “vestigial” means.


(Guy Coe) #148

My mother, who grew up in an age which was completely assured of what “vestigial” meant, had her thyroid gland irradiated in the attempt to render it permanently non-functional, by her own take charge and confident physician father, only to have that greatly complicate her physical health later in life.
Science isn’t always appropriately cautious.
The appendix, for example, was also considered “vestigial” at that time. Now we know it serves the vital function of providing safe harbor for healthy gut bacteria in the event of intestine trauma --including the overaggressive use of antibiotics.


(S. Joshua Swamidass) #149

Vestigial does not mean “without any important function.”


(Guy Coe) #150

That’s what I was responding to.


(Guy Coe) #151

At the time, it most certainly did mean that. So, who, exactly, doesn’t know its current meaning? What’s your positive definition?


(Timothy Horton) #152

Another one who doesn’t know what “vestigial” means in science.


(John Harshman) #153

You were? What was the response? (I’m not asking you just to repeat the same words, since obviously I didn’t understand what you meant. Try different words.)


(Guy Coe) #154

Ah, I see. And you are the arbiter of what’s informed? What’s the best argument you know against, say, DNA-centrism? Or, maybe just frame the controversy, and I’ll gage your level of being informed.


(Timothy Horton) #155

No, at no time did the word vestigial mean useless.

From the Biology Dictionary

Vestigial Structures Definition

Vestigial structures are various cells, tissues, and organs in a body which no longer function in the same way the ancestral form of the trait functioned. A vestigial structure can arise due to a mutation in the genome. This mutation will cause a change in the proteins that are required for the formation of the structure. Although the structure no longer functions, the prevalence of the vestigial structure may increase in the population if it is advantageous. In cave-dwelling fish, for example, the development and upkeep of eyes are an unnecessary energetic expense when there is no light. Therefore, vestigial eyes may be selected for over function eyes.

Vestigial means having lost or been degraded from the original function. There’s nothing in evolution which prevents vestigial features from picking up later secondary functions.


(Timothy Horton) #156

There is no scientific controversy over the main tenets of evolution. Religious fanatics try to pretend there is a controversy to push their political agenda but that is not the same thing.


(Guy Coe) #157

And so you’re not aware that, in past cases, scientists were performing forced sterilizations, irradiating vestigial glands, removing perfectly healthy appendices, tonsils, adenoids, uvulas, etc.?


(Dale Cutler) #158

Someone needs to give Oxford a call:

//2 Biology (of an organ or part of the body) degenerate, rudimentary, or atrophied, having become functionless in the course of evolution.
‘the vestigial wings of kiwis are entirely hidden’//

vestigial | Definition of vestigial in English by Oxford Dictionaries


(Timothy Horton) #159

That still doesn’t change the definition of the word. Duh.


(Guy Coe) #160

“D’oh” suits you better, @Timothy_Horton.