More Excuses for Cambrian Non-Evolution

I’m supposing that Joshua and Mung might not agree on what “Darwinian” means. Is Jonathan Losos a Darwinian? What are the criteria?

Incidentally, that’s a great book. Lots of interesting experimental evolutionary biology, though it isn’t clear what Mung sees in it.

1 Like

Have Coyne and Dawkins abandoned Neo Darwinism at this point?

Yes, they use the term evolution for anything to do with evolutionary science. You should try it. Just say evolution with a lowercase e. No need to mention Charles Darwin any more. He’s been dead a long time so won’t mind at all. And don’t need to a Theistic in front of evolution either as evolution is neutral on the existence of God or not.

1 Like

Coyne does use the term Darwinism sometimes still. It would be great if he stopped altogether.

okay, I’ll tell him to stop. :star_struck:

1 Like

5 posts were split to a new topic: Why Venerate Darwin?

Blah blah blah

You would do well to provide MORE adjectives than fewer when corresponding with YECs.

Be nice.

I will when Patrick stops telling me ways to describe Evolution which, if I followed them, are guaranteed to harm your labors here.

You don’t have to listen to @patrick. Just don’t say “blah blah” to anyone.

In what sense am I an anti-evolutionist?

I see pan-adaptationism. Pure Darwinism from decades ago. The kind Joshua seems to think no longer exists in science.

Do you affirm common descent @Mung?

1 Like

Yes, I affirm common descent as the current best explanation we have for the hierarchical distribution of characters/traits we observe among extant species.

Do you agree that it looks like humans share common ancestors with the great apes?

Do you agree that none of the ID arguments have succeeded scientifically?

If so, I apologize and retract my statement. I misunderstood you. I am not sure if I understand some of your other posts, and may ask a few more clarification questions.

I may be a critic of certain arguments but that doesn’t make me anti-evolution. I have no issues with common descent of humans either. Your question about ID arguments is unrelated to whether or not I am anti-evolution, unless you see being pro-ID as being anti-evolution. I am pro-ID but I am not always in favor of the arguments I see. I commented unfavorably on Eric’s (mis)use of “Mutual Information” over at UD.

More on point for this thread, I don’t think evolutionists should get away with claiming that evolution is true therefore we don’t need to provide the details of how it happened. Better to admit ignorance than feign understanding. I’m sure you would agree. :slight_smile:

1 Like

Okay, so you affirm common descent but are ID friendly and ID critical.

Show me the link to this? I’m curious? Have you seen the exchanges with @EricMH here on this?

I can agree with that if it really is ignorance. To often, ignorance in the ID opponent is mistaken for ignorance among evolutionary scientists. In this case, you’d have specific precisely the part we do not know. We know much more than the ENV article seems to realize.

1 Like

A historian would say Napoleon invading Russia is true. At the same time, a historian would not be able to map every single step that Napoleon took marching across Russia. Does the historian need to map every spot where Napoleon touched Russia in order to confidently state that Napoleon invaded Russia?


No. Do you think this is at all analogous to the absence of detail by evolutionists? How do we know Napoleon invaded Russia? If historians lacked that detail then they would not be so confidant that he actually did invade Russia. Some people think that evolution is a cause. It isn’t.

1 Like

@mung, is this a helpful middle ground for you? (Would God's Guidance Be DNA-Detectable?)