Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
With about 70 billion stars and as many as 100 million life forms (at least here on Earth), the universe is a stunningly complex place. Did all of this matter evolve independently, or was it guided by a larger force – as proponents of intelligent design believe? With the debate raging in living rooms, classrooms and courtrooms, the stakes are high when it comes to determining intelligent design’s merit.
5
8
15
11
14
12
11
9
7
7
10
8
6
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008-2010 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Natural/supernatural designers
Boy oh boy
Just when you think you have seen and heard it all, the Landon's 'eonic effect' pops up again.
So what is the eonic effect?
--
A frequently asked question is, What is the eonic effect? The term simply refers to a basic set of three turning points or transitions visible in world history, the birth of civilization, the classical period, with its remarkable so-called ‘Axial Age’
--
Of course... How could we have missed such an obvious 'effect'...
Sigh
- PvM
September 13, 2008 6:36PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Oh boy, the eonic effect
Both sides in the Darwin debate are bluffers. The point of the eonic effect is that the ONLY closely observed instance of 'evolution' is that in history itself. The relationship of 'history' and 'evolution' is tricky, yet discoverable, and in the end an immense clarification.
The eonic effect provides a real glimpse of 'evolution' at a particular stage of history/culture. And it voids the claims for natural selection.
It also flunks the design argument.
The Old Testament is a record of one aspect of the eonic effect, the Axial Age, and that period/zone of history falls into place, without design arguments!
Check out, http://eonic-effect.net
May as well get to work on it. It's the only evolution your going to discover in this century.
- nemonemini September 14, 2008 9:49AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Bluffers?
--
May as well get to work on it. It's the only evolution your going to discover in this century.
--
Ah the expected promissory note.
Thanks but no thanks, I have read about the 'eonic effect' and found it lacking in scientific relevance.
Compare this with the immense progress made by evolutionary science even in the last decade.
- PvM
September 14, 2008 10:15AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Darwinism can't explain man
Evolutionary science may have progressed but it has not explained the evolution of man, or history.
The presumption that biology explains the emergence of man is great.
It needs a new understanding
- nemonemini September 14, 2008 12:37PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Needs a new understanding?
--Landon
Evolutionary science may have progressed but it has not explained the evolution of man, or history.
--
Neither has the eonic effect really, which at best seems to be a descriptive approach to historical events. Nevertheless, all of this depends on what one means by the 'evolution of man'. Science has uncovered a vast amount of fossils and other evidence that show how man evolved form a common ancestor. Does this explain all the aspects of human evolution? I doubt it.
--Landon
The presumption that biology explains the emergence of man is great.
It needs a new understanding
--
Why?
- PvM
September 14, 2008 12:54PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Chance fallacy
--the Eonic website claims erroneously
The one thing Darwinists don’t want to find is such a non-random pattern, anywhere. The data for seeing such a pattern has reached critical mass only in our own times, and can be highlighted by simple inspection using careful periodization. The conclusion is inescapable: this structure demonstrates the existence of an evolutionary driver operating where least expected. There is nothing complex in the method. Throw a sine curve at world history. The results are direct, and show a degree of correlation we cannot ascribe to chance.
---
In fact, Darwinists are looking for non-random patterns and have found it, which is why evolutionary theory and the evidence are so exciting where the evolutionary drivers included such concepts as variation, inheritance and selection. Of course, we cannot ascribe it to chance, which is exactly what evolutionary theory suggests.
And yet the proponent of Eonic effect suggests that a 'new understanding' is needed. I agree, as far as the understanding of evolutionary theory is concerned.
- PvM
September 14, 2008 12:57PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Non-random
Dawkins has produced great confusion in the use of the word 'random'.
But Darwinian evolution is random because it refuses the idea of directionality.
The eonic effect shows us an example of evolutionary directionality.
- nemonemini September 14, 2008 2:26PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
More confusion about random
--Secrets of the genome, January 21, 2006 By John C. Landon "nemonemini"
"The work described in this book has led me to the conclusion that natural selection must work not just on each individual mutation, but also on the very mechanisms that generate genetic variation-as it does on all bio- logical functions. The research discussed in this book leads to the conclusion that mutations are not all accidents and that mutations are not always random. Our genomes, and those of other life forms, have evolved mechanisms that create different kinds of mutations in their DNA, and they reuse and adapt useful pieces of DNA, even to the point that there are genomic 'interchangeable parts.'
Biochemical mechanisms can arise that tend to focus genetic variation, resulting in "hot spots" of genetic change at certain places in the genome."
---
In a review of "Darwin In the Genome: Molecular Strategies in Biological Evolution" by Lynn Caporale
Indeed, to understand what science means by 'random' when it applies to evolutionary theory, one has to do more than claim that random must mean without pattern. Such a confusion, which could have laid to rest quickly, can cause one to hold to a flawed assumption that evolution is 'random', when all evolutionary theory (not necessarily Darwinism) observes that the source of variation is 'random' with respect to its immediate effects given an environment.
Of course, that evolutionary processes themselves can improve mechanisms of variations, or that variation comes in hot spots, is nothing new, let alone at odds with how science uses the term 'random' when it comes to evolution.
- PvM
September 14, 2008 1:12PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Non-random as long-range evolution
The sense of the 'non-random' I am talking about is a particular type of pattern, in fact. One of considerable complexity. Its characteristic is to operate over the long range beyond the level of genetic mutation.
- nemonemini September 14, 2008 2:29PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
A glimpse of evolution
It is certainly true that the eonic effect has a descriptive aspect: before explaining evolution you need to know what it is, what it 'looks like', how its 'macro' factor can be detected. Darwinism never observes deep time, and simply throws an explanation in that direction, sight unseen. The eonic effect shows an example of evolution in action
- nemonemini September 14, 2008 2:25PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Nonsense
--
Darwinism never observes deep time, and simply throws an explanation in that direction, sight unseen. The eonic effect shows an example of evolution in action
--
Darwinian theory, as part of evolutionary theory looks at much deeper time than the eonic effect could ever. And your use of the eonic effect is confusing, it does not show an example of evolution in action, it describes at best. Such are the limitations of historical processes without explanatory hypotheses. Darwinian theory has both. In fact, in some cases science has looked back hundreds of millions of years into the past.
- PvM
September 14, 2008 7:35PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.