Home » Darwinism, Design inference, Intelligent Design, News » Jerry Coyne: The fact that a cat can’t be turned into a dog is not a serious objection to Darwinism!

Jerry Coyne: The fact that a cat can’t be turned into a dog is not a serious objection to Darwinism!

Evolution News and Views

Not for him. But, for him, what would be?

In “Understanding Bayesian Analysis, the Evolution Skeptic’s Friend” (Evolution News & Views, May 24, 2012), forensic analyst Stephen A. Batzer offers support for Bayesian analysis:

Jerry Coyne, in his polemic Why Evolution is True, scoffs at those 91 percent who find his analysis unconvincing. He writes, “True, breeders haven’t turned a cat into a dog, and laboratory studies haven’t turned a bacterium into an amoeba … but it is foolish to think that these are serious objections to natural selection.”

Of course these are, in fact, serious objections; Dr. Coyne doesn’t get to choose what data is and isn’t objectionable to others. Major speciation via undirected processes is the crux of the Darwinian narrative. If it can’t be replicated, this objection is an example of what logicians call a “defeater.” If you, an intelligent actor using skill, can’t breed a cat into a different genera, then presumably and reasonably nature can’t do this either.

Unless, of course, nature gets her a whiff of that ol’ Darwinian magic.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

5 Responses to Jerry Coyne: The fact that a cat can’t be turned into a dog is not a serious objection to Darwinism!

  1. Um, it’s not a serious objection ’cause that’s not what evolutioary theory says happened.

    I’m afraid it sounds like someone is attacking a strawman here.

  2. Those are serious objections. I.D. Is finally making some truly profound objections to evolution theory. Also, why are there still apes if we evolved from them?

  3. Of course Jerry Coyne is not a clear thinker: Evolutionists have always claimed that the difference between species can be found in the genes. The reason, for example, that humans are not chimps is because our respective genes mutated away from our supposed common ancestor. So, theoretically, science should be able to turn a human into a chimp simply by replacing the genes responsible for our separation. If evolution works forwards, then it should work backwards too.

  4. IF you could run evolution backward it would be to turn a human into the common ancestor NOT a chimp. And I don’t think it would quite work what with duplication, broken genes, transposons, ervs, etc. Also, if humans are more ‘fit’ than the common ancestor then the reverse mutations would be making a less fit lifeform which would be outcompeted probably.

  5. 5
    LuminiferousEthan

    “Also, why are there still apes if we evolved from them?”

    Well, if Americans came to America from Britain, why are there still British people around?

    It’s not that hard to understand that you will never see a cross between any two modern animals, like a cat and a dog, or a human and an ape, or a crocodile and a duck. This, would indeed, disprove evolution, as the ID’ers are so set to do.

Leave a Reply