Comments on: As Darwin Year ends, some seek to go “beyond Darwin” http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/12/14/as-darwin-year-ends-some-seek-to-go-beyond-darwin/ Religion, faith and ethics Wed, 22 May 2013 08:44:22 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: djwray http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/12/14/as-darwin-year-ends-some-seek-to-go-beyond-darwin/comment-page-1/#comment-23127 djwray Wed, 23 Dec 2009 02:46:03 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/?p=10509#comment-23127 To claim that Darwin could not explain underlying order and patterns found in nature is putting a huge burden on Charles Darwin, who never claimed to have a "theory of everything". People don't understand that there is more to this debate than just Darwinian evolution and God. D J Wray http://www.atotalawareness.com To claim that Darwin could not explain underlying order and patterns found in nature is putting a huge burden on Charles Darwin, who never claimed to have a “theory of everything”. People don’t understand that there is more to this debate than just Darwinian evolution and God.

D J Wray
http://www.atotalawareness.com

]]> By: oranpf http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/12/14/as-darwin-year-ends-some-seek-to-go-beyond-darwin/comment-page-1/#comment-23041 oranpf Wed, 16 Dec 2009 00:14:56 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/?p=10509#comment-23041 Same old slop. They try to rephrase it to make it sound new. They call us "neo-atheists" as a way to denigrate the ancient tradition of laughing at the fool who comes down from the mountain babbling about his hallucinations. Same old slop. They try to rephrase it to make it sound new. They call us “neo-atheists” as a way to denigrate the ancient tradition of laughing at the fool who comes down from the mountain babbling about his hallucinations.

]]> By: IanKemmish http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/12/14/as-darwin-year-ends-some-seek-to-go-beyond-darwin/comment-page-1/#comment-23031 IanKemmish Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:57:34 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/?p=10509#comment-23031 You lost me at "you can begin to question the fact that evolution is unpredictable." Who ever said that evolution is unpredictable? Evolution is an optimisation process for non-linear systems that happens to be very robust at finding locally optimal solutions. If such a solution exists, evolution will very likely find it sooner or later. That's hardly what "unpreditable" means in the mouths of coffee table book authors. Asking why many species have similar eyes (while many others don't) is no different to asking why all Formula 1 cars look alike (while Le Mans cars look different). You lost me at “you can begin to question the fact that evolution is unpredictable.” Who ever said that evolution is unpredictable? Evolution is an optimisation process for non-linear systems that happens to be very robust at finding locally optimal solutions. If such a solution exists, evolution will very likely find it sooner or later. That’s hardly what “unpreditable” means in the mouths of coffee table book authors.

Asking why many species have similar eyes (while many others don’t) is no different to asking why all Formula 1 cars look alike (while Le Mans cars look different).

]]> By: defcon86 http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/12/14/as-darwin-year-ends-some-seek-to-go-beyond-darwin/comment-page-1/#comment-23022 defcon86 Tue, 15 Dec 2009 02:47:27 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/?p=10509#comment-23022 Evolution can't explain patterns in nature? Absolute bunk. There is a reason why common forms of animal exist in nature. Because not all forms are equal in utility or success. Natural selection shows how certain aspects will be more successful in lifeforms, hence these aspects are likely to be more common. So a scientist claiming that evolution doesn't explain convergent evolution is just as odd as a scientist saying that evolution as a process is random. This has nothing to do with going 'beyond' Darwin. This is probably just another attempt to insert the concepts of design into evolutionary theory. Design implies designer. Designer implies supernatural. Supernatural implies religion. If so, its been tried before. And people are wise to it. Evolution can’t explain patterns in nature? Absolute bunk.

There is a reason why common forms of animal exist in nature. Because not all forms are equal in utility or success. Natural selection shows how certain aspects will be more successful in lifeforms, hence these aspects are likely to be more common.

So a scientist claiming that evolution doesn’t explain convergent evolution is just as odd as a scientist saying that evolution as a process is random.

This has nothing to do with going ‘beyond’ Darwin.

This is probably just another attempt to insert the concepts of design into evolutionary theory. Design implies designer. Designer implies supernatural. Supernatural implies religion.

If so, its been tried before. And people are wise to it.

]]> By: davidcochran http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/12/14/as-darwin-year-ends-some-seek-to-go-beyond-darwin/comment-page-1/#comment-23017 davidcochran Mon, 14 Dec 2009 19:30:22 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/?p=10509#comment-23017 I would like to see the interviews, which are said to be on page two, but I cannot see the link to it. I would like to see the interviews, which are said to be on page two, but I cannot see the link to it.

]]>