In what way is there something wrong with Darwin's reasoning? Darwin
extrapolated from Malthus's hypothesis about human events to the
biological world in general. That is, he hypothesized that perhaps
all (or most) populations sharing ecological niches always and
everywhere fought to consume limited resources. If true it would be a
driving force in differential survival and differential reproduction.
In hind sight we know that Darwin's extrapolation of Malthus's
hypothesis is not true. And Darwin's assumption that favorable
mutations tend to be preserved is likewise not known to be true.
Nonetheless our hind sight doesn't turn Darwin's conjectures into
>>>>> Tony is not only well versed in geocentrism, but he also accepts
>>>>> microevolution, common descent and of course natural selection (in
>>>>> case you didn't know).
1. I never claim to be well versed in anything. Instead I repeatedly
admit my infinite ignorance.
2. While I don't like the term "microevolution," (and rarely use it)
there is little controvery about its use. It is little more than a
short hand label for any observable change from one generation to the
next. For example, the relative change in the numbers of light to
dark moths over time in a particular population.
a. I don't have to irrationally deny microevolutionary change
(as does Ray) to deny that atheists have been wholly unable to show
that such changes explain the origin of a single structure, system or
b. Ray's claim of immutability; that is, his position that
there is absolutely no change from one generation to the next is
nonsense and evidence that he is delusional.
3. Likewise there is little to upset me about the label "common
descent" since it means little more than "a set of individuals share a
common ancestor." Ray's family tree is evidence of "common descent."
a. Again I don't have to irrationally deny common descent (as does
Ray) to deny that atheists have been wholly unable to show any
continuity from extant life back to some unknown First Common
b. Ray's absolutionism in this instance makes him appear
4. While atheists have inappropriately and inaccurately
anthropomorphized "natural selection" it was neverthless a wonderfully
interesting insight on the part of Darwin. Ray's delusional denials
notwithstanding "natural selection" is nothing more than a term which
collects the process of "differential survival" and "differential
reproduction" which are quite observable.
a. Again I don't have to irrationally deny "natural
selection" (as does Ray) to point out that it is largely conservative
and has never been shown to be a force for progression, coherent
change. David Wolpert proved that all evolutionary algorithms are no
better at finding a fitness peak than a dumb, blind search.
b. Ray's denialism makes him look delusional.
>>>> Just a comment on the "Tony...accepts...common descent." What made you
>>>> conclude that?
Limited Common Descent is indisputable. I doubt the Theory of Common
Descent which claims that all species share common ancestors in a
continuous, unbroken line to the First Common Ancestor.
>>>> The best I can recall from the rare times he alludes to
>>>> his own position instead of obsessing over "Darwinism" (like you and
>>>> every other anti-evolution activist ant troll) is that he went from
>>>> YEC to OEC, then back, bypassing the more common heliocentric YEC and
>>>> going straight to geocentric YEC.
I don't obsess over Darwinism. I argue unequivocally that it is
false. Darwin admitted that the fossil record did not show the
continuity and transformationism his theory predicted. The fossil
record shows nothing new today. Lenski's 20+ year, 40,000+ generation
E coli experiment mirrors in the living world exactly what the 800
million year fossil record shows---discontinuity, stasis, and
>>>> Which strongly suggests that he
>>>> thinks that many "kinds" popped up independently from nonliving
>>>> matter, as you apparently believe. So if you have any evidence to the
>>>> contrary I'll be glad to revise my assessment.
Scripture's historical sketch of special creation of discontinuous
kinds is corroborated by the fossil record. It corroborates Special
Creation and not the ubiquitious, transformational change explained by
>>>> Though I should add that anyone who evades questions about which
>>>> "kinds" do not share common ancestors, or *when* those "kinds"
>>>> originated, can be reasonably suspected of privately accepting common
>>>> descent. Though they all have a huge incentive to never admit it.
The kinds were created approximately 6000-10000 years ago. I have
repeatedly admitted that I simply don't know how to define "kind." I
suggest that the kinds (whatever they might be) constitute the roots
of several trees of common descent. I suggest that all the
information necessary for any divergence from root to nodes was
contained in the root. This is a wild ass guess which is not
contradicted by the fossil record or the living world. Common descent
is not denied only its extent.
Our own Dr Theobald's relatively recent interesting scientific article
purports to show that several "trees" is less likely than one. As of
yet I don't have the time to adequately review his argument but intend
>>> Common descent is a matter of degree. Ray denies that any two species
>>> are related. Tony accepts that some species are related, though he will
>>> never quite say which ones. So Tony accepts common descent to a greater
>>> degree than Ray does, though not to the degree reasonable people do.
Common descent is undeniable. And limited, minor change from one
generation to the next within populations is undeniable. What I doubt
is the uwarranted extrapolations drawn from these facts.
>> CD, contrary to the belief of JH, is not "a matter of degree."
>> Rejecting the existence of CD, as I do, falsifies the matter to be
>> about degree. The fact that Tony accepts CD to any degree, like JH,
>> means he accepts the concept to exist in nature.
Ray's family tree is evidence of limited common descent.
And cichlid speciation (and their observable species flocks) is
evidence that species are not nearly as immutable as Ray believes.
Furthermore the fact that they are not immutable does not imply that
some purely naturalistic process possesed the power to create them in
the first place.
>Ray, Ray, Ray. Of course you accept common descent. You accept it within
>species only, but you do accept it. And of course it's a matter of
>degree, as you tacitly acknowledge by the phrase "to any degree". You
>try to put a sharp dividing line between within-species descent and
>across-species descent and erase all other possible lines, but that's
>just your own obsession talking, not any feature of the concept itself.
>> What Tony does not understand is that the concept and term belongs to
>> a large set of terms and concepts that describe the consequences of
>> natural agency (that is, causation that originates in and from the
>> closed system of Nature itself).
Ray is both deluded and confused. Ray has failed to show that
observable natural processes with limited causal power is incompatible
with Special Creation in particular or Dembski's ID in general.
>> Since Tony claims to be an IDist he
>> needs to adopt and accept concepts and terms that correspond to
>> Intelligent agency, not natural agency. Both are mutually exclusive.
Since Ray takes events in biological prehistory and history in
absolutist terms he assumes that everyone must do so. That I think
there is merit to Dembski's theory and that ID explains some events
does not require that I presume it explains every event.
And while Ray takes an ID absolutism with regard to the origin of
biological entities he takes a decidedly naturalistic position with
regard to the origin of the material world in general and the geologic
prehistory/history of the earth in particular. This is inconsistent,
irrational and ultimately delusional.
>You remind me of nothing so much as a Trotskyist battling a Stalinist,
>or a Homoousian fighting a Homoiousian.
>> It is manifestly unreasonable to believe species produce species based
>> on the fact that the concept of design is observed in every aspect of
This presumes that the arbitrary classification "species" also
possesses the attribute of immutability. Since we can plainly see
that population groups classified as "species" are obviously not
"immutable" Ray's whole house of cards collapses. Immutability is
the false thread that runs throughout Ray's arguments. His book
whether it ever actually arrives will, for this reason, be dead on
>Why is common descent incompatible with design?
Ray never says.