"Darwinian mechanisms are useful for explaining antibiotic resistance but not the origin of the immune system. They are OK for changing the dimensions of finch beaks but not for constructing beaks. They have some value in elucidating industrial melanism but not for engineering structural colour in moth wings." -- David Tyler
This is what might be considered the "common sense" view. A lot people with no axe to grind instinctively question the creative powers of the darwinian adaptive "mechanism".
Here.
3 comments:
No, this could more accurately be described as the clueless, argument from ignorance, approach. Tyler, like Behe, has clearly failed to read the large number of books and articles on the evolution of the immune system so believes that it could not have happened.
Tyler, apart from being yet another YEC (meaning that he denies a fairly large swathe of science), is a lecturer in Clothing Design and Technology -- meaning that he knows little or NOTHING about "the origin of the immune system", the evolution of beaks or moth wings.
Further, Tyler presents no evidence whatsoever for these ignorant assertions.
Next on the Richard K. Ball gullible science-bashing express: Satellites impossible because Professor of Basket-weaving says they'll fall down.
"believes that it could not have happened."
I can't speak for his beliefs, but, I suspect that he, like me, simply believes that the darwinian mechanism of adaptations within a species has not been demonstrated to be sufficiently creative to produce elaborate new functionality. Something else, something more, is going on.
"Tyler, apart from being yet another YEC... is a lecturer in Clothing Design and Technology".
You are a fount of knowledge -- I learn something from your posts.
" science-bashing express". Scientists need more humility as they unravel the mysteries of life. The need to hold to the neo-darwinian view more tentatively.
And how many of the thousands of books and journal articles on "darwinian mechanism of adaptations" have you read? Could it be that the reason that you have not found demonstrations of these mechanisms "creativity" simply because you have not looked hard enough?
You are simply making the same argument from ignorance that Tyler is.
"Scientists need more humility as they unravel the mysteries of life. The need to hold to the neo-darwinian view more tentatively."
Baloney!
The scientific "neo-darwinian view" has been repeatedly tested and confirmed for 150 years -- there is no need whatsoever to be 'humble' or 'tentative'.
By comparison, the creationist religious delusions of conservative Christians (starting with the Scriptural Geologists) have been repeatedly disproved for something like two centuries, but they still arrogantly cling to them.
Who is more in need of humility?
Post a Comment