Drs. Pitman, Rosenhouse and Matzke Fascinating debate on molecular evolution. I …

Comment on Dr. Nick Matzke Explains the Evolution of Complexity by george.

Drs. Pitman, Rosenhouse and Matzke

Fascinating debate on molecular evolution. I am pleased to see experts, rather than just rhetoricians such as myself, comment on scientific matters pertaining to evolution.

@ Dr. Pitman

“You mistakenly assume that human languages evolve via the same mechanism as Darwinian evolution. They do not.”

Dr. Pitman, you are the one that introduced the language metaphor to compare probabilities of genetic sequence space for new functional complexity. You are hoisting yourself on your own petard my friend!

george Also Commented

Dr. Nick Matzke Explains the Evolution of Complexity
@ Dr. Pitman

Any possibility you could publish your paper or research, or guest lecture at the the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis? Like Bob Helm suggested, it seems to me this is the route you are going to have to go to test your ideas and have them scrutinized by those outside the narrow creationist corridor.

Dr. Nick Matzke Explains the Evolution of Complexity
@ Dr. Pitman

Yes I understand the difference between the development of language vs. evolution. . I just don’t see the relevance of three dimensional molecular evolution compared to the hypothetical random combination of letters to form meaningful words, as a analogy. Thank you for your further explanation in any case

I do applaud you for bringing Drs. Rosenhouse and Matzke to the debate. This has really raised the quality of the discussion and shows your willingness to listen and debate with other experts in the field. Kudos to you 🙂

Dr. Nick Matzke Explains the Evolution of Complexity
@ Ron

“The ‘debate’ was like watching two individuals debate the origin of a motor car parked in front of them. Each had his imagination, philosophy, and supposition. Except if the car could talk it would say, first, you both were not there and so are badly off track.”

Interesting analogy. Presumably one of your hypothetical debaters is a creationist, Dr. Pitman? Are you saying that Dr. Pitman is off track because he is a YLC and I presume you might be a YEC? Please elaborate in order that the readers can understand who the individuals are in your analogy.

Recent Comments by george

Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@ Dr. Pitman

How did you make the segue from the creation story to Alexander the Great as historical science? What am I missing here – did someone actually witness the creation story and write about it?

Let’s try to stay inside the ball park on analogies shall we?

Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
“Again, why do you believe that Alexander the Great really did the various things that historians claim he did.”

Who said I did?

History is often recorded by the victors who may well gild the lily. Different historians may say different things about him. Some may have been eye witnesses, some may have not relying on hearsay. Some may have had a bias. Take all history with a grain of salt by considering the sources and margin for error I say.

However you’re not just talking about claims of the Bible, you’re talking about the claims of EGW. Do you have some empirical proof that she actually visited those worlds she described? If so where is your corroborating evidence of any sort? In short is your belief about EGW’s vision of extra terrestial based on any science whatsoever?

Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith

Have you ever read how much resistance Darwin faced when Origin of Species was first published? Many of the scientific establishment opposed him. In fact I have read that natural selection did not become a centerpiece of modern evolutionary biology until the 1930’s and 1940’s.

Darwin, like Pasteur has stood the test of time, notwithstanding the lack of initial scientific consensus. Who knows, perhaps one day YEC or YLC may ascend to the scientific pantheon? Have to find evidence for 6 day creation and how biodiversity emanated from the Ark though 🙂
Until then, I’m afraid they are just so stories.

Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
Did you notice that you have unilaterally used the analogy of Alexander the Great of which I have never studied or alluded to?

Are you equating EGW’s vision of extra terrestrial life to a battle on earth? Proverbial apples and oranges, but your silence and evasion of the science behind EGW’s vision is deafening.

Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@ Bob and Sean

Is EGW’s vision scientific? Is it corroborated or falsifiable?

Ask yourselves honestly why you believe in it. If it is because of your faith that is fine, but if it has some scientific, empirical basis, as Dr. Pitman likes to tote, you need to establish that basis. Otherwise it is a ‘just so’ theological story.

Also, I think a couple of my previous comments on this topic never made it out of the cyber editing room. I didn’t think they were offensive so I’m not sure why they were not posted. 🙂