Intelligent, Open-minded People And A Change Of Worldview

I just learned of a computer science professor from Yale University, David Gelernter, who has reached a position that design, not Darwinism, is the most likely explanation for life as we know it. In the spring of this year, Gelernter published an article entitled “Giving Up Darwin” in the Claremont Review of Books.

I haven’t read the whole thing yet, but the review is of the book by Stephen C. Meyer entitled Darwin’s Doubt.

As I understand it, neither the author of the book nor the author of the article is close to being a Christian. Rather, they have studied Darwin’s theories in light of the latest scientific and mathematical evidence, and they have reached the conclusion that intelligent design, not chance, explains life.

Here’s a small excerpt of Gelernter’s review:

There’s no reason to doubt that Darwin successfully explained the small adjustments by which an organism adapts to local circumstances: changes to fur density or wing style or beak shape. Yet there are many reasons to doubt whether he can answer the hard questions and explain the big picture—not the fine-tuning of existing species but the emergence of new ones. The origin of species is exactly what Darwin cannot explain.

Stephen Meyer’s thoughtful and meticulous Darwin’s Doubt (2013) convinced me that Darwin has failed. He cannot answer the big question. Two other books are also essential: The Deniable Darwin and Other Essays (2009), by David Berlinski, and Debating Darwin’s Doubt (2015), an anthology edited by David Klinghoffer, which collects some of the arguments Meyer’s book stirred up. These three form a fateful battle group that most people would rather ignore. Bringing to bear the work of many dozen scientists over many decades, Meyer, who after a stint as a geophysicist in Dallas earned a Ph.D. in History and Philosophy of Science from Cambridge and now directs the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, disassembles the theory of evolution piece by piece. Darwin’s Doubt is one of the most important books in a generation. Few open-minded people will finish it with their faith in Darwin intact.

I was especially interested in this last statement: Few open-minded people will finish it with their faith in Darwin intact.

Just recently I have realized how close-minded many die-hard atheists are. Their mindset is seen in a couple ways:

1) If certain people or institutes, known for a belief in intelligent design, take a view, they are, without further investigation, dismissed. Clearly, without listening to any argumentation or examining any research or data, they are declared as “not scientific” simply because they have reached a conclusion that differs from Darwinism. In other words, the only science is science that supports a preconceived view. This is the definition of close-minded.

2) Staying away from any group or organization that is “biased,” meaning ones that take a view contrary to the standard view taught in elementary school.

In other words, there are people who will only accept views that support their own. All others are immediately labeled fictitious or pseudo-science or weak because they are “faith based.”

In contrast, David Gelernter reached his conclusions because of science and math and facts and logic. He has no “crutch,” no ax to grind, no Bible to support. He is, from all appearances, a scholar who approached a subject with an open mind and it turned his thinking upside down.

I find it ironic that once upon a time, Darwin’s views required open-minded people to consider his theory, whereas the close-minded ones refused to look at his evidence.

Now the positions are reversed. In place of open-minded people, Darwinism is supported by close-minded people who refuse to see what molecular biology and the understanding of DNA have shown us.

I haven’t finished Gelernter’s paper or listened to the available discussions, but what I have read shows me that this man did not close his eyes when he saw things that threatened what he had believed since his youth.

Here’s another scholar who brings up this same problem of the close-minded approach taken today toward Darwinian theory. It’s only 5 minutes and is fairly easy to understand. The last line is the one that brings the point home.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://rebeccaluellamiller.wordpress.com/2019/10/15/intelligent-open-minded-people-and-a-change-of-worldview/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

59 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. “Now the positions are reversed. In place of open-minded people, Darwinism is supported by close-minded people who refuse to see what molecular biology and the understanding of DNA have shown us.”

    Oh give it a break Becky. These guys are stand-alone creationists or intelligent designers who are a very small minority and have no scientific papers providing contrary evidence to Darwin’s work.

    Gelernter is a Jewish computer scientist who is into computations not biology and is being considered for the role of Donald Trump’s science adviser who against 97 percent of active researchers has doubted man made climate change, and that says it all about the man and his misguided views with his attitudes drawing much criticism among the scientist communities.

    Stephen C. Meyer is behind the pseudo scientific and philosophical principle of intelligent design, he found the Centre for Science and Culture of the Discovery Institute and David Berlinski is also a member who also claims that there’s no substantive evidence for anthropogenic global warming.

    For most people who are realists and understand the evidence that is presented by 97% of researchers and experts there is nothing more to be said about the global climate changes, and of course the claims made without evidence from these so called intelligent individuals regarding 150 years of biological facts of evolutionary principles that was revealed by Darwin who appears to have had more intelligence in his little finger than these dreamers have between their ears.

    Like

    • Steve, you just proved my point: because this guy associates with these poeple or belongs to that organization or doesn’t agree with the majority, we have no need to listen to them. Do you not see how close-minded this is? They don’t arrive at the conclusion your precious journal-approved scientists hold, so you dismiss them without listening to them. On what basis? On your prejudice. You’ve made up your mind and refuse to look any further than your own beliefs.

      Thanks for giving us an example of this post.

      Becky

      Like

      • No Becky, you could not be more wrong.
        The 97% of climate scientists is a figure that means absolutely nothing to you on the subject of global climate changes that is on such a massive scale that has already had disastrous consequences and is of extreme importance but does not have you concerned enough as to why this large 97% exists.

        As with the 97% of scientists that say humans and other living things have evolved over time and that it is a proven basis for much of our biological and medical understanding, but this has you totally determined that the minority group of maybe 3% creationists are more intelligent and have more expertise so they must be correct with their claims.

        You can hang on to your faithful beliefs just as long as you like Becky just like the cancer denying scientists had done, the flat Earthers and moon landing disbelievers still do but do not go through life forever with your head stuck inside this massive hole of conspiracies and ignorance and apply the rejection of scientific truths in the support of such minority groups who only care about their idealistic world and unproven doctrines that are always contrary to what is actually real.

        Like

        • Actually, I have said nothing about the intelligence or expertise of either side of the topics that divide Christians and atheists. I know a lot of atheists who think Christians are just stupid. I don’t think that about atheists at all. I think many are intelligent but are narrow in their views. They are tied to materialism and can’t allow into their worldview anything that suggests there is a spirit world they can’t see. In fact, they are relying on themselves—what they perceive and what they understand—and are unwilling (close-minded) to explore the question, What if God exists? That’s why I never get an answer from an atheists to the question, If an all powerful God exists, what couldn’t He do? Wouldn’t it be feasible for Him to create the world in a short amount of time instead of starting a process that took billions of years? Isn’t it possible? To them, it is not because there is no place in their thinking for the supernatural. They are simply closed off to that part of the world.

          Becky

          Like

          • “What if God exists? That’s why I never get an answer from an atheists to the question, If an all-powerful God exists, what couldn’t He do? Wouldn’t it be feasible for Him to create the world in a short amount of time instead of starting a process that took billions of years?”

            Of course if any god actually existed in the extreme definition of the word the god could just have the ability to ultimately do anything it wanted. I ask why we have real evidence of billions of years of Earth formation, did God want to fool us? And why would a God do that if he wanted people to worship him?

            OK lets assume there is a god, the Christian man like God if you like. The evidence that the Earth was created as written in Genesis is……?
            The answer is no evidence and of course no witnesses and so far no God has been positively identified. It is written in the Bible so that must be the evidence, right? Ok who wrote Genesis in the Bible, where and when did they learn this information and was it from a witness?

            Moses was claimed to have written Genesis 300 years after the event supposedly happened. Scholarly consensus sees Moses as a legendary figure, outside of the Bible there is no historical or independent records that could confirm that Moses existed at any time and his lifetime exploits have no evidence of really happening.

            Ok then if Moses did not exist, who wrote it? Anyone could have and Genesis is claimed to have been written from God inspired details. How can we know this, and without a known author it appears even more that this Genesis story has been made up?

            This is where your creation faith starts to fall over big time Becky, and because it is based on “faith” a term you do not truly understand, the Biblical account has far less probability and possibility than “the big bang” based solely on today’s identifiable scientific evidence.

            Liked by 1 person

          • Steve, the idea that God wanted to fool us is kind of absurd. I mean, He said over and over and over that He created the world. He never said He created the process that brought the world into being. Sees the people who are “fooled” are the ones who thought He created a means or a mechanism or a germ or a first step. Actually, no. He created the world, the heavens, the DNA, all of it, great and small.

            You state there is no evidence, and I’ll respond with a quote from the article to which I linked in this post:

            Intelligent Design, as Meyer describes it, is a simple and direct response to a specific event, the Cambrian explosion. The theory suggests that an intelligent cause intervened to create this extraordinary outburst. By “intelligent” Meyer understands “conscious”; the theory suggests nothing more about the designer. But where is the evidence? To Meyer and other proponents, that is like asking—after you have come across a tree that is split vertically down the center and half burnt up—“but where is the evidence of a lightning strike?”

            The evidence of creation, in other words, is all around you.

            Your “scholarly consensus” obviously leaves out Bible scholars. Because you will not find them claiming Moses is a mythical figure. And of course there is no “eyewitness” account of the origins of the universe or of life. That’s why God had to spell out for us that He is the source of all things. We can’t get there without revelation. We can see clearly that there is order and complexity and we can deduce that the world came from order and complexity. We can further deduce that nothing in this world comes from nothing, so the universe had to come from something. Something orderly and complex and outside ourselves. We could go on, expanding on all that we know from the evidence around us. It’s all there and confirms what God has said.

            Another amusing statement, Steve, that you who claim you don’t have faith understand faith better than I who does claim to have faith. How would that be possible?

            You continue to miss something about your science, Steve. All the research that points to a “big bang” still has no explanation what caused it. So your house of cards you’ve built without God, comes crashing down. You miss the fundamental thing: He is that cause!

            Not to mention that the creation of the universe is a one time, unrepeatable event—really the definition of a miracle. It is not something you can explain by “natural causes” because there was no nature in existence!

            Becky

            Like

          • “It’s all there and confirms what God has said.”

            God obviously had it all completely wrong, have you not read the Bible parts about the flat Earth being the centre of the universe supported by foundations so it shall not move, the firmament to separate waters above Earth, stars that will fall from the sky like fig leaves etc.

            If you use order and complexity as evidence to justify creation then these claims in the Bible are simply just as good evidence of writings by mortals who knew nothing about the universe and were not inspired by God.

            Like

          • Steve, sorry, but the Bible never claims the earth is flat. That’s something that people in a period of history believed, but it’s not in the Bible (and you would know this if you read it). Neither does it claim the earth is the center of the universe (also something from history). Do you not understand metaphor or poetry or prophecy? To take a line from the Bible without understanding the genre in which it’s written, is to misunderstand the Bible. Apparently you’ve been reading atheists who have done that because I know you didn’t find those references on your own. And good way to change the subject because you don’t want to admit that the very discoveries in nature are the evidences you say are lacking.

            Becky

            Like

  2. Meyer has released a book and he stipulates that the ”Creator” is God (Yahweh).
    Intelligent Design is a sham. Always has been and always will.
    Have you ever read the Wedge Document?
    If not, you should.

    Like

    • Well, Ark, I believe God is the designer, too, but his arguments aren’t based on the authoritative word of God. He actually arrived at this position by looking at data.

      I haven’t heard of the Wedge Document. I’ll look into it.

      Becky

      Like

      • The fact that he now cites Yahweh as the designer demonstrates just how disingenuous his arguments have been all along.

        You can find details of the Wedge Document on Wiki.

        Like

        • I looked into that Wedge Document you spoke of, but who cares if he thinks the intelligent designer is the God of the Bible? The position is intended to answer questions the evolutionists can’t and to be understood by those who don’t believe the Bible. I don’t know that his reasons for that are good ones, but that also is beside the point. What you or any open minded person should care about is his data. Who cares what source it comes from if the facts are true and accurate. And of course there’s no way to know if they are true and accurate unless you actually examine what he has to say.

          Becky

          Like

          • Nonsense! And your reply demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of what ID really is.
            His data is erroneous, and this is why open minded people reject it for the theologically inspired clap-trap that it is, and why it is not taught in schools.

            Ark

            Like

          • Here is a fascinating blog written by a qualified individual that covers many aspects of YEC. You owe it yourself – if your are open minded – to read it.
            This article is a good starting point.

            https://evograd.wordpress.com/2017/07/31/applications-of-phylogenetics-in-medicine-and-public-health/

            Like

          • I will read the article, Ark. And how about you? Did you read the article I linked to in the post, or watch the 5 minute video? Here’s the link again to the article: https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/giving-up-darwin/

            Becky

            Like

          • I have read more than enough of ID and Creationism to last a lifetime, thanks.

            It all amounts to the same thing.
            Pseudoscience punted by disingenuous and/or ignorant people.

            Like

          • That’s what I assumed. So no data for you if it comes from a creation perspective. Thanks for joining Steve and illustrating the point of this post, Ark.

            Becky

            Like

          • The data presented is either false or used in a manner to deliberately mislead.

            Like

          • Did you read it? If not, how do you know?

            Becky

            Like

          • Yes I read it.
            That’s why I stated he references and supports Meyer.

            Like

          • Furthermore, I watched Gelertner in a ”talk”.
            Creationists have no argument simply because they deny the very basics of evolution and inevitably it all whittles back to Yahweh Did It.

            Like

          • And your evidence that He didn’t do it?

            Becky

            Like

          • Evolution – No Yahweh Needed.

            Like

          • Again, evolution says nothing about the origins of life, let alone the universe. It does not answer the questions that Darwin wanted it to answer.

            Becky

            Like

          • Nobody knows the origins of life, but only the religious claim they have the answer – with no evidence to support such a preposterous claim.This is not what evolution is. I cannot believe you actually think it answers such a question, and sadly that you do fully demonstrates your ignorance of evolution.

            Like

          • My point was this: you said evolution, so no need of God. I am explaining that God goes far beyond evolution. And I’ll give you the same quote I gave Steve: ‘an intelligent cause intervened to create this extraordinary outburst []of life]. By “intelligent” Meyer understands “conscious”; the theory suggests nothing more about the designer. But where is the evidence? To Meyer and other proponents, that is like asking—after you have come across a tree that is split vertically down the center and half burnt up—“but where is the evidence of a lightning strike?” ‘

            BTW, you reject Meyer because he equates the “designer” with “Yahweh.” Gelernter specifically states that he doesn’t agree with Meyer’s conclusions.

            The point though, is that you can understand what he’s saying only if you read what he wrote.

            Becky

            Like

          • This is one of those discussions that will eventually become circular.
            So, as you are a YEC, let’s see if we can find something that we might have a fruitful discussion over.
            Provide evidence that humans and dinosaurs co existed.
            If you can, then we might move this discussion along.
            Your call …

            Like

          • Ark, you keep bring up this humans/dinosaurs issue. I don’t believe what you think I believe here. I have no interest in finding arguments to support someone else’s thesis.

            Becky

            Like

          • If you are a Young Earth Creationist then dinosaurs and humans would have had to co-exist.
            If you have a different perspective then please share it.

            Like

          • Yes, Ark, I do have a different perspective, not one that I know from the Bible, but one based on the Bible. I’m not going to share it with you. I’ve already been bitten by doing that and don’t want to give you and your atheist buddies something more to mock. Suffice it to say, I do not believe dinosaurs and humans co-existed for any length of time, nor that they were on the ark or survived the universal flood. There, I gave you things to make fun of anyway.

            Becky

            Like

          • Sorry I missed this comment and asked again in the new one.

            So if you do not beleive the dinosaur human co existence how can you be a proponent of Young Earth Creationism?
            (if I have misunderstood and you are an Old Earth Creationist then I apologise)

            Like

          • No worries. I don’t classify myself as young or old earth creationist. I know God created, but I don’t know His mechanism. I know people say “He told us it was in six days,” but I’ve posted before about how the word we translate day is at other times translated time. I’ve also pointed out that God was identifying the time periods we call days before there was a sun by which we calculate 24 hours. And finally, I’ve pointed out that the Bible tells us God is not tied to our way of thinking about time: to Him, a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like a day. So, putting all we know together, I have to conclude, we don’t actually know. If God can do the impossible, He didn’t need 6 days. He could create in 6 minutes. If He wanted to create a process for the universe to come into being, He could do that too. I have reasons for believing the creation process was not millions of years, but God didn’t say, and we should not be adamant about things that He has left shrouded in some measure of mystery. What I do know is what He said, and what is repeated throughout the Bible, God created.

            Becky

            Like

          • I have reasons for believing the creation process was not millions of years,

            So, how old do you think the earth is, give or take a few millions years?

            And as you do not consider dinosaurs and humans co existed, when do you think the dinosaurs went extinct?

            Like

          • I have no idea how old the earth is. God didn’t tell us. God also didn’t tell us when dinosaurs became extinct either. I have my idea—the one I don’t want to post so that you have blog fodder for your atheist buddies to laugh at.

            Becky

            Like

          • You may think you don’t know how old it is but in actual fact science tells us.
            And using similar dating ”we” know that dinosaurs went extinct approximately 65,000,000 years ago.

            And this is not ”some idea”, we know this because of science.

            Like

          • Ark, I find it fascinating that the people who praise science over faith because of its flexibility and willing to adjust, are some of the most adamant people when it comes to things we actually can’t know.

            The old earth proponents once thought the earth was 100 million years old. The date has been recalculated numerous times. Then carbon-14 has been exposed as a fairly unreliable method of figuring time, though that once was the go-to method. So I can’t help but wonder when “actual science” tells us how old the earth is, maybe next year, they’ll tell us something else and all the faithful followers will line up behind them and declare once again that “now we know” how old the earth is. Too many factors. All this dating assumes things to be true that we have no way to verify!

            Becky

            Like

          • Dead right Becky, as science has progressed science has adjusted the age of the Earth. The point is that it is far more reliable than what the Bible tells us and what other source is there that we can rely on?

            This is the same for everything, evolution has been adjusted over 150 years to what we have today and is far more reliable than the Bible. The information we have about the planet Earth, the stars and the universe is far more reliable than the Biblical depictions.

            Like

          • Perhaps you need to update your knowledge of how the earth is dated, Becky?

            Like

          • Are you denying that there have been various methods, some of which have been shown to be wrong? Are you saying the dating of the earth has not changed over time?

            Ark, all I’m saying is this: you claim you know, but science can change at any moment and what you know will no longer be what is the standard idea. So, in truth, you don’t know either, even though you think you do.

            Funny how Steve can agree on this point and you do not: “Dead right Becky, as science has progressed science has adjusted the age of the Earth.”

            Becky

            Like

          • Science does change. This is it’s strongest point. It changes when new evidence presents itself or is discovered.
            With this in mind, please present the evidence that demonstrates the veracity of the foundational claims of your faith.

            Like

          • So, you’re in agreement, we don’t actually know the age of the earth—I because God didn’t necessarily spell out the details that allow us to know; and you because science continues to change and might change at any point in regard to dating the earth. I’m glad we agree, even if our reasoning is different.

            As to presenting evidence for my faith—that’s complex, because my faith is in God, in His revelation, in His Son, in the work that He has done. But we’ve been talking about the existence of God, so I’ll start there. I finally found the most recent post on this subject and I’ll give you the link, but I’ve since added two more things to the list. These are all things that observing the world and making logical deductions lead to God. First https://rebeccaluellamiller.wordpress.com/2019/02/25/evidence-for-gods-existence/

            And the points I’ve added to my list later:
            1) Eyesight. If eyesight were a product of evolution, a sightless creature would have had to simultaneously evolve (mutate) by growing eyes and by developing (mutating) the brain function that would translate the light into something meaningful. Belief in a designer is far more plausible.

            2) Hearing. Same with ears and the development of brain function that translates vibration into sound.

            Becky

            Like

          • So, you’re in agreement, we don’t actually know the age of the earth

            Don’t be silly – of course we do, and the current modern scientific methods verify it.

            because God didn’t necessarily spell out the details that allow us to know;

            You have yet to present verified evidence for your god, Yahweh.
            And nothing in your link is evidence of a god let alone your god.
            Your eyesight example has been fully explained by Richard Dawkins.
            Type: Dawkins and the evolution of the eye, into the Google search bar. There at least three videos.

            Like

          • You want me to read “Applications of Phylogenetics in Medicine and Public Health”? How is this relevant to this topic?

            Becky

            Like

          • evolution

            Like

          • Again, as I commented already, creationists don’t deny micro-evolution, but there is no evidence that fish morphed into bears or penguins into dogs. This article offers no evidence to what we are talking about.

            Becky

            Like

          • Proponents of evolution do not say fish morphed into bears either. Now you are being just a little silly.
            If you want to see a good example of evolution track the evolution of whales, from land animals to when they entered the oceans.

            The site discusses comprehensive evidence to demonstrate this.

            Like

          • Please, Ark. If all life has a common ancestor, you can’t get picky about which aspect of life changed into what. And there is no evidence that demonstrates this.

            Becky

            Like

          • Again, such a response shows you do not understand evolution.
            If you take your cues from Genesis then your perspective is warped from the outset.

            Like

          • You just don’t want to accept the truth here, Ark. Yes, there is evidence of changes to a species but no evidence that one kingdom evolves into another or one class or order evolves into another. That is not even debatable. That’s what Darwin hoped to find, or that one day evidence of such would be discovered, but it hasn’t happened.

            Becky

            Like

          • Correct. For example,primordial fish do not become donkeys.,
            But one branch of land based mammals, for example, did return to the ocean and become modern whales.
            This is fact and the evidence show it.

            And it is still obvious that you do not understand evolution, and how it works.
            I suspect this is because you put your god front and centre and build everything to fit this indoctrinated paradigm.
            If you continue to blind-side yourself by reading Creationist /ID literature and not making an effort to be completely objective regarding evolution then how in Hades are you ever going to arrive at an unbiased scientific perspective?
            Meyer his already demonstrated his disengenuity by authoring a book admitting that he believes the creator in his ID universe is Yahweh.
            This throws out everything he may have previously claimed whereby Yahweh was not part of his ID worldview and thus compromising all those who rode on his coattails.

            Like

          • Really, Ark? I’m not the one saying I won’t read articles from certain organizations or individuals because of their position on intelligent design. You said it even here. You won’t even read an article about a book by someone you have dismissed. I based my post, written by someone else entirely, but you can’t get past “Meyer” and what you have decided to throw out. No matter that the author of this review clearly says he doesn’t agree with Meyer’s conclusions!

            Becky

            Like

        • OK, Ark, I muscled through the article, but I could have stopped with the first paragraph, because creationists don’t (as a group—I suppose there could be individuals who differ) reject “micro evolution.” So whoever is making the “useless” charge against evolutionary biology, isn’t doing so to say anything about the origin of species.

          I also realized your reasoning about your having “heard it all” to explain why you weren’t reading the article I linked to, is clearly faulty. This is an article that was published this year, so essentially you’re saying, nothing new has been developed, discussed, understood this year that hadn’t been in the past.

          In addition, I doubt very much if you’ve ever read a paragraph like this in any article by someone supporting intelligent design:

          Darwinian evolution is a brilliant and beautiful scientific theory. Once it was a daring guess. Today it is basic to the credo that defines the modern worldview. Accepting the theory as settled truth—no more subject to debate than the earth being round or the sky blue or force being mass times acceleration—certifies that you are devoutly orthodox in your scientific views; which in turn is an essential first step towards being taken seriously in any part of modern intellectual life. But what if Darwin was wrong?

          Becky

          Like

          • Where in the first paragraph of the article do the words ”micro biology” appear? Please quote them for me.,
            Again … he is supporting Meyer who has released a book stating that e now believes that this ”designer” is God(sic)Yahweh.
            Thus, with this admission all Meyer’s previous protestations about him not championing a religious end to his claims is nothing but disingenuity, which is the charge leveled at him all along.
            Berlinksi’s little video is waffle. He actually says nothing kin it that has not been debunked,And what ion earth was his nonsense about the Cambrian explosion? Does he not bother to update his own thinking? Perhaps if he doesn’t you should?

            This is from the current post from the same writer ….
            https://evograd.wordpress.com/2019/07/30/tomkins-on-the-human-vitellogenin-pseudogene-who-needs-signal-when-you-have-noise/

            Another example is the case of the vitellogenin-1 pseudogene, which will be the centrepiece of this blog post. Vitellogenin-1 (which I’ll call “VTG”) is a gene that encodes a protein by the same name that is a precursor of the nutritious egg yolk proteins produced by nearly all oviparous (egg laying) animals. According to evolution, the ancestors of Therian (placental+marsupial) mammals also laid eggs, as we’re ultimately descended from reptile-like creatures. So our ancestors would have likely had a functioning VTG gene. We no longer produce egg yolk to nourish our offspring, so this gene must have lost its function along the way. One way we can confirm this then, would be to find the remains of the VTG gene in our genomes, as these remains would prove that we’re descended from creatures that produced VTG – ostensibly egg-laying animals.

            This confirmation came in 2008, in a paper by Brawand et al. (2008). For more information about this, see the “vitellogenin test” section of this 2012 Biologos article by Dr. Dennis Venema.

            Like

          • Ark, I never said the words “micro biology” appeared in that article. That’s the term that people use for the type of evolution the article described.

            The quote you included in your comment is filled with terms such as nearly, likely, must have, and ostensibly. These words are hardly pointing to evidence or known fact or even data. I don’t know why you overlook such things.

            Becky

            Like

  3. I found this really interesting. Thanks for writing this!

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Apologies.. You used the term micro evolution.

    That the writer uses one or two adverbs does not in any way detract from the evidence based conclusion, and this is what you need to concentrate on:

    One way we can confirm this then, would be to find the remains of the VTG gene in our genomes, as these remains would prove that we’re descended from creatures that produced VTG – ostensibly egg-laying animals.

    This confirmation came in 2008, in a paper by Brawand et al. (2008).

    Like

    • I notice you didn’t give the link to said paper, and “one or two” adverbs can change the meaning of a sentence. In the part you quoted the word is “ostensibly.” What appears to be the case, may not actually be the case, is what that word means.

      Becky

      Like

      • I quoted from the passage I already quoted in the comment above. And once again, the evidence based conclusion is all that counts .
        I recommend you read it as many times as it takes to sink in, Becky.

        Would you like me to include the link?
        It is from the same site and the same author.

        Like

        • So, context is not important to you, Ark.

          I, on the other hand, would like to know a little more. Like the article you linked to that was all about micro-changes and nothing about the evidence that changes from one type of living being creates a new or different type of living being.

          Sure, send me the link, if you think the article addresses the concerns I’ve brought up.

          Becky

          Like


Leave A Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: