Why ID nor Darwinism works (Introduction)

by David Turell , Monday, June 09, 2014, 01:35 (3821 days ago) @ romansh


> Rom: Nowhere does the author dismiss ID. He does dismiss the ability of ID to explain stuff.-I consider this a dismissal:-"the work of the most rigorous ID proponents like Bill Dembski and David Berlinski is mathematical. They labor hard to explain why complicated things are statistically impossible. Such statistical exploration is indeed useful. But telling us why something cannot be does not tell us why it is." 
> 
> Rom: He then goes onto say evolution has no explanatory capability:-> >>neither can Darwinism explain how things come to be .. it offers random mistakes filtered by natural selection which is just another layer of randomness (which makes no sense at all). The details of why random mistakes would show up in a useful progression such that tremendously complicated structures get built up are never provided, nor explained, nor quantified in any way that science demands. -
> Rom: Intuitively makes sense ... balderdash!-Tell me how Darwinian evolution works, especially faced with the Cambrian explosion evidence. I believe we evolved, but I am not convinced of any specific mechanism.-> 
> >> Nor is it at all clear how each mistake could provide instant benefits even though a fully functional transformation remains in the distant future.-> Rom;This person has no clue ... and you think it is evenhanded?-How carefully have you read the criticisms of Darwin theory? Punctuated equilibrium and exaptations are neat terms that imply a solution to the author's comment but really offer no clear answer. I suggest reading David Stove's Darwinian Fairytails, 1995 or any of Michael Denton's works.