DR: Explanation — ” In his 1996 article, The Deniable Darwin, published in Commentary, Berlinski says he is skeptical of evolution for a number of reasons, claiming an appearance “at once” of an astonishing number of novel biological structures in the Cambrian explosion, a lack of major transitional fossils, a lack of recent significant evolution in sharks, the evolution of the eye, and a failure of evolutionary biology to explain various phenomena ranging from the sexual cannibalism of redback spiders, to why women are not born with a tail.”
Sharks inhabit a stable niche in the ecosystem. Species evolve in response to environmental change, so not all at the same rate. The slower the environmental change, the slower the evolution (and the reverse). His comment about sharks is only compelling to somebody who doesn’t understand this principle.
The Cambrian explosion is an example of the opposite situation: Rapid environmental change drives rapid evolution. If the majority of these species were invertebrates we should not expect to find remains. Even for the ones that were, animal remains are short lived in an oceanic environment.
The evolution of the eye is not considered mysterious to biologists, because there exist numerous eyes of different degrees of complexity found elsewhere in the animal kingdom, all the way down to a photosensitive patch of cells (and everything in between).
This shows that the human eye is not irreducibly complex (nor even the most complex/capable in the animal kingdom) and not only can evolve in stages, but we have living examples of those stages in modern species to look at.
DR: Alex, there are places on this earth or in it, deep in subterranean holes where creatures exist and flourish in a highly concentrated sulphuric acid environment. The “god” of evolution can do anything given enough time. Are you setting the parameters for life for evolution to function?
The reason life exists in those extreme environments is that it started out in environments much more conducive to life, then adapted to more and more extreme conditions in a gradual way. They can’t start out in those conditions because prebiotic chemical replicators, pre-bilipid membrane, were very fragile compared with the modern plant or animal cell.
DR: Alex, let it go. You are wrong to both points. I don’t believe the earth is a flat disk and the Bible doesn’t teach that.
Physician, heal thyself. I’m correct on both points but you’re either too stupid to understand my arguments or too stubborn to accept them. I understand full well you don’t believe Earth is a flat disk, but that is indeed what scripture describes. This is not a matter of contention among historians. They all agree with me, and you’re at odds with their consensus.
A bit of perspective would benefit you here: Moderate Christians see you exactly the same way that you see flat earthers. Creationists exist at a point in between flat earthers and moderates on the spectrum of Biblical claim acceptance, each one thinking they’ve got the exact right mix of science and scripture, and that the others accept either too much or too little.
DR: Alex, you didn’t answer my question: After the Big Bang, when did evolution begin to do its work?
This has become an increasingly long and tedious exchange, pardon me if I miss anything. Earth formed about 4.5 billion years ago and the furthest back we can trace the earliest forms of life is 3.7 billion years. So it began about 800,000,000 years after the Earth formed, cooled, received liquid water oceans and so forth.
“DR: For the record of the three scientists, David Berlinski and David Gelernter are Jewish.”
Indeed, there are also Jewish creationists, being that the Genesis account is found in the OT/Torah.
DR: Too bad science has not discovered a weed, some moss, a bush somewhere outside this earth. It would help your cause for evolution vs higher intelligence.
This does not address the error in Hoyle’s assumptions, it’s just a repetition of something you said before.
DR: Change my mind about what? That evolution is the overriding, god-like force that allows the world to function. Probably not!
Nobody thinks it is. It explains only one thing: How you get many species from one. It isn’t a worldview, a god concept or a religion. It doesn’t address origins. You view it in a distorted funhouse mirror/straw man sort of way that is unique to creationists.
But maybe that’s not really what this is about. Maybe you’re just lonely in the nursing home and want somebody to pay attention to you. Am I warm?