Science vs. Religion: (Chapter 4): In Conclusio (Humans)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, July 10, 2011, 16:00 (4884 days ago) @ xeno6696

I have a much better understanding of exactly how you&apos;re using arguments by chance; I&apos;m still not (fully) convinced. -There are several reasons for this:-As we just discussed, my training in molecular biology took me far enough that I have the view that Natural Selection entails the entire A-Z process of stimulus to change in the organism. So I feel strongly that your book is attacking the original Darwin theory, and not the heavily modified (evolved, HA!) theory that I learned. In this case, I absolutely agree with you. I have also subsequently agreed on your critique of Dawkins, if it is truly the case that he sticks to the original (unmodified) theory of evolution that you discuss near the end of chapter 4. -From my standpoint, your argument doesn&apos;t move NS (as I know it). -Your discussion of the attack on Gould&apos;s theory is quite interesting... and I think that all the drivers of evolution I previously discussed clearly fits PE vs. the old theory of evolution. So I&apos;m still shocked that there are scientists that don&apos;t seem to have an understanding similar to my own (or Pigliucci&apos;s, for that matter...) But I think my talk before sheds light here: PE is much more clearly a &quot;macro&quot; theory of evolution, and not one specifically of micro... but if epigenetics begins to play a more important role, I think you can kiss the old theory of gradualism goodbye overall. (I personally don&apos;t see the attachment...)-Finally, your brief discussion of how some genes are transferred only through the ovum is exactly one of the mechanisms I was looking for a few days back. If I can convince the wife I&apos;ll get a copy of Shapiro&apos;s book myself.-Your argument in genetic networks is pretty strong--however we&apos;re only just now beginning to learn about these, so as usual, I reserve my judgment here. -You close this chapter with a brief discussion of embryology... an excellent shot towards YEC that deny evolution of all kinds... but I think I need clarification on what you&apos;re discussing here. -What does an ape fetus that looks like a human fetus for a brief period of its existence have to do with evolution? All arguments I&apos;ve heard regarding embryology have always been described as anecdotal. Is there really a connection here? While its true that we briefly have gills, for example...-Is your argument that apes have the DNA to allow them to become human, only they can&apos;t because their &quot;program&quot; takes them down a different path? (genetic regulation?) So you argue from this point that the seed of being human goes back further?-So how does this argument negate a common ancestor of humans and apes?-Finally, your argument via Denton about Survival of the Fittest being tautology was heavily destroyed in the 90&apos;s. &quot;&quot;Survival of the fittest&quot; is a poor way to think about evolution. Darwin himself did not use the phrase in the first edition of Origin of Species. What Darwin said is that heritable variations lead to differential reproductive success. This is not circular or tautologous. It is a prediction that can be, and has been, experimentally verified (Weiner 1994).&quot;-In other words, Denton created a strawman. (Hence why I&apos;ve considered most ID proponents... lacking.) -Overall, this chapter is extremely well argued. Classic inductive piece, I&apos;d prefer not to see so many appeals to other ID writers (I feel they tend to weaken you more than strengthen you.) In other words, your ideas stand on their own merits, without reliance on 3rd parties. -I have a much better appreciation of your view of chance, when coupled to geological events (such as PE). These are not fallacious; they&apos;re like looking at the odds of getting the universe we have-->they are simply fact. But your view of chance as looking at evolution applies only to strict, original Darwinian thinking, and I do not think applies to Natural Selection as I currently understand it.-I think both the anthropic principle and the normal way we&apos;ve attempted abiogenesis is false however; I think we could learn more about our own universe if we studied the &quot;lifeless&quot; varieties, and don&apos;t think we should limit our attempts to construct life from scratch to presumed conditions on earth. A criticism I never brought up was on your comment that the distribution of matter in the universe is uniform: It&apos;s uniform on average. That means that there are portions that should have drastically more of some kinds and drastically less, but at this point I digress...-Your focus on the original Darwininan model is probably the strongest criticism I have, because I don&apos;t feel you&apos;re talking about the same theory that I learned. You attacked gradualism, but not anything I learned that can force speciation in < 50 years as in the Rock Wallaby experiment in HI, or in the guppy experiment you discuss.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"