tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506870823292198189.post2459863824092440510..comments2023-09-16T09:31:23.577-04:00Comments on Please be patient, I am evolving as fast as I can!: Arguments XXV - Weaknesses and FlawsTed Herrlichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03194189686075222808noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506870823292198189.post-31963569860376222872009-04-13T17:46:00.000-04:002009-04-13T17:46:00.000-04:00Well, Behe said explicitly he accepts common desce...Well, Behe said explicitly he accepts common descent and an old earth (it is so fun to point that out to his fans). Dembski seems to believe in an old Earth but not common descent. So sometimes their personal opinions do come through.<BR/><BR/>I'd disagree with your assessment though: Those disagreements are genuine controversies. The reason that the DI doesn't care about them is because they all only make sense as issues to discuss in the context of evolution. If one is arguing about how much neutral drift matters that doesn't help the DI at all because it isn't something one can point to and say Goddidit.Joshuahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00637936588223855248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506870823292198189.post-13948513595570732232009-04-12T22:24:00.000-04:002009-04-12T22:24:00.000-04:00Joshua, I doubt you will ever pin down Casey Lus...Joshua,<BR/> I doubt you will ever pin down Casey Luskin. The DI has never admitted to any age of the Earth issues because they are trying to have this 'big tent' approach for all those opposing evolution. The DI, and Casey is nothing more than one of their mouthpieces, will never settle on that issue.<BR/> Sure there are lots of issues about the details of many parts of evolution, but that doesn't mean the theory of the source of controversy, and it also doesn't mean the details are controversial. Just because different groups of scientists are working on different approaches and don't agree doesn't make it controversial. This is how science works and how science is advanced.Ted Herrlichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03194189686075222808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506870823292198189.post-2976000155535641312009-04-12T19:44:00.000-04:002009-04-12T19:44:00.000-04:00Overall, a good point, but a few quick points:Firs...Overall, a good point, but a few quick points:<BR/><BR/>First, Casey Luskin is not as far as I'm aware a Biblical literalist. (He might be, but I've never seen any indication that he is. It would be nice to pin him down on the age of the Earth at minimum)<BR/><BR/>Also, there are genuine open issues in evolution which we can't completely explain: We have a rough idea how sex evolved but not very good details. We also don't have a good understanding of how much the founder effect influences speciation. Similarly, it is unclear how much of evolution is due to neutral drift.<BR/><BR/>The key issue is that all of these are issues within the broader theory that have a genuine degree of controversy. But these are never the issues that teach-the-controversy people want. Why not? It couldn't be that it has something to do with the complete acceptance of the basics of evolution by everyone discussing these questions, now could it?Joshuahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00637936588223855248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506870823292198189.post-33973778054406410602009-04-10T17:47:00.000-04:002009-04-10T17:47:00.000-04:00Let me add a bit of rigor to the relationship betw...Let me add a bit of rigor to the relationship between Newtonian mechanics and relativity and quantum mechanics:<BR/><BR/>We say that in the low energy limit, or in the limit of v<<c (relative speeds are much less than the speed of light), special relativity looks like Newtonian mechanics. Similarly, from quantum mechanics we get Newtonian mechanics when we average over distances much larger than the wavelength of the wave function for the system.<BR/><BR/>I can't quite wrap my head around how that applies to the theory of evolution and natural selection...maybe because a lot of the things we see in the living world don't fall neatly out of rigorous equations. Still, some things do.<BR/><BR/>I suppose we could say that an ideal version of evolution by natural selection would apply when the generation time is much less than rate of change of the environment, and probably something to do with how the alleles are distributed in the population, and the variation of the alleles available, and maybe there would be some assumptions about how the likelihood of mutations relates to variations in phenotypes, the degree of isolation of populations during a speciation "event," the timescale of the speciation "events", etc...yeah, I've never really given that type of thing any thought.<BR/><BR/>But we can reasonably expect that any better theories about the diversity of life would include the modern theory of evolution as a special case or a limiting case. That doesn't mean that the modern theory is "flawed." It just means it's a "good approximation."<BR/><BR/>Also, it is true that once life is in place, natural selection pretty much <I>must</I> take place, regardless of how the life started. So the particulars of abiogenesis can't overrule natural selection. However, I do think it's a safe assumption that natural selection plays some role in the original transition from non-life to life. That also doesn't demonstrate a "flaw" in natural selection, rather it demonstrates "exciting research opportunities."Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12648619372494022931noreply@blogger.com