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

by David Turell , Sunday, July 10, 2011, 21:48 (4680 days ago) @ xeno6696

&#13;&#10;> From my standpoint, your argument doesn&apos;t move NS (as I know it).-We know our differences now, but my book was aiming for a relatively uneducated audience, who know a little about the original Darwin, gradual change and modification. &#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> 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 think it is kissed goodbye.-&#13;&#10; &#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> 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. -I not sure what you are after, but I was leading up to the ape discussion. The point of that paper strongly suggested from the embryologic comparison, the common ancestor might be more humanoid than simian. It is something we don&apos;t know as yet. No fossils.&#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> 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, -No we don&apos;t ever have gills. &#13;&#10;There are some folds, but they are not homolgous with gills.-> &#13;&#10;> So how does this argument negate a common ancestor of humans and apes?-It doesn&apos;t. See above.&#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> 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. -I don&apos;t believe he ever used it. I can&apos;t come up, at the moment,with the name of the associate who did. But by itself, it is absolutely an example of a tautology. -> 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.-Thank you. I used many references because I am not known as any sort of expert. &#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> 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 would disagree here. All stressors occur by chance.-> &#13;&#10;> 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.-Explained above.