It is car crash evolution - a car goes through a bush, hits a tree and ends up in a lake - the bush, the tree and the lake are objects of Nature but the car crash is not a natural process.
I think you need to explain in greater detail what point you are trying to make here. What is the unnatural 'car crash' part of evolution? Is it mutation? In what way is it unnatural?
When I was reading this part of Vanessa's post I assumed it was the old confusion of different meanings of the word natural. In one sense there's natural versus the supernatural (or the divine or any other synonymous label), while in another sense there's natural versus man-made or man-caused.
Another thing you could add about Professor Barnard's comments is that he doesn't seem to understand that what he's calling "chromosomal plasticity" is incredibly slow. He doesn't seem to understand that mutations, the ultimate source of his "chromosomal plasticity," occur at a rate of around 10-8 per nucleotide per generation. That means that on average only one nucleotide out of a hundred million has been affected by mutation in each newly born organism. This is why relatively long-lived species like reptiles, birds and mammals take at least 10's of thousands of years to form new species, while short-lived species like bacteria that reproduce several times per hour can form new species in very short periods of time, certainly within a human lifetime.
I'm afraid I can't go with your definition of guided. Within biology mutations are random with respect to fitness, and that's all that matters. I agree they're not random with regard to the laws of chemistry and physics, but it doesn't seem relevant.
Haven't we had this conversation before? Multiple times?
I understand the importance you place on accuracy. Please understand the importance I place on attempting to find a level of detail where I'll be understood. There's a place in this world for both approaches.
Sure you can, I do it all the time. I grant that it's tedious compared to a normal keyboard. You can find the square brackets by click on the ".?123", then on the "#+=" key.
I believe your definition of naturalism is incomplete - 'all phenomenon can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws'. It should add 'and came about by accident.'
Can you think of any accident that didn't follow the laws of nature?
The definition you gave presupposes the natural laws were in place and came from nothing.
Employing the laws of nature to figure things out no more presupposes where they came from than building a house presupposes where the lumber came from.
Nature develops life through predetermined systems. If you know of any life that came about without any predetermined system please tell me.
So just for example, you believe that the process of placental development and birth existed before mammals evolved?
I understand that you believe processes were designed before they were employed, but no evidence exists of this, and things that actually happened usually leave evidence behind. The evidence that is available indicates a process of gradual change over time, and that processes develop through a process of random mutation and selection of the more advantageous mutations by a process of natural selection.
Here's a little more help on quoting. It isn't text between square brackets that is placed in a quote box, but text between open and close quoting codes. It is the quoting codes that must be placed between square brackets. The code for shaded quoting is "qs". To begin a quoted region you say [qs], and to end a quoted region you say [/qs], which is just the same code with a slash in front of it. For example, this:
[qs]This is the text you want to quote.[/qs]
Comes out looking like this:
This is the text you want to quote.
There's a whole bunch of codes that allow you to do things as simple as italicizing to as complex as tables:
Thank you Taz for the video. It is not surprising there is civility between people who agree with each other.
I think you missed my point completely. My point wasn't about civility. My point was about humility.
I think the point Vanessa was making is that similar thinking experts in such settings generally display the same kind of humble deference seen in the video, whether the field is science or religion or economics or whatever. I recall seeing a debate between Dead Sea Scroll scholars with different areas of specialty, and it was much the same thing. I bet if you put Duane Gish (creationism) on a stage with Stephen C. Meyer (ID) that you'd get much the same kind of deferential humility.
But if you put Neil de Grasse Tyson on a stage with Duane Gish I bet you'd find little humility or deference from either side. While Tyson would likely readily concede what we do not know, he would probably be brutally assertive about what he believes we do know based upon evidence.
But while I do agree with Vanessa on this narrow point, I think your point is the more important one:
That's the point I was trying to make. Real honest to god scientists are very humble and they know exactly where the limits of their knowledge lie. Creationists act like they know everything.
Well said. Real scientists have a pretty good awareness of what they don't know. The problem with creationists and IDists is that they have no awareness of when they don't know what they're talking about, and as we've learned here over and over again, it can take forever to box a know-nothing into a corner.
OK, I'm done praying, I'll go back to sarcasm. You have such an enormous knowledge of the Cambrian Explosion that you can use your immense knowledge of this subject to prove that biologists are all wrong about biology, the subject that they know about and you don't. So please tell us, in your own words, what the C.E. actually was.
I actually thought Vanessa's provided a great example of "a great leap forward in complexity and diversity" in the Cambrian Explosion because of all the new body plans that appeared, but it doesn't align with her argument because it isn't normally considered an example of punctuated equilibrium.
I think Vanessa would be amazed if we point out to her the actual time period, like how long, the cambrian explosion actually took place.
Yes, I think you're right, but we should also tell her the history of our understanding of the Cambrian Explosion. That when first discovered it did literally look like a sudden explosion of life in Cambrian layers as compared to earlier layers, hence the name. It was only with improved dating and the discovery of softer-bodied predecessors that we came to understand how long and drawn out the Cambrian "explosion" was.