Dowis Refutes Dawkins

[ERayR]

[media=]

How many times are you going to link this "evolution made easy" tripe to me? I got it the first time and the second and the third,etc. Stop patronizing me.

Danielwoods:

I love fruit flies, they have so many generations per year (Wiki says 10 days for one generation so that's 36 generations a year?) Now compared to higher level organisms which generations are about an average 20 years per? So, if we were to compare, and we've been studying fruit flies (genetically) since 1987 to now, about 26 years at 36 generations a year, so about 936 generations. Which would equal, about 18,720 years of generations for the higher level organisms. Yet, in all that time, we observe, if pushed beyond it's genetic limits, it dies. Mutations occur and usually kill it. This is the most common response to such genetic manipulation. You'd think that if macro-evolution were true, that the little fly would evolve some other way to survive. Now maybe we need more time. And that's one of my points. The call for more time is a plea based on faith, not evidence. The evidence seems compelling to me that in fact there is little to no macro-evolution going on, even though there are 936 generations to observe and manipulate.

See evolution in the fruit fly

http://evolution.ber.../article/evo_45

http://www.scienceda...60422121625.htm

As danielwoods said: after 936 generations they are still fruit flies. The mantra of the macro-evolutionist is that it all h append in the far distant past. Time is such a great shield and buffer.

[ERayR]

He points out that the characteristic must serve a purpose in perpetuating the organism's survival and/or reproductive success.

Let us say that Characteristic X significantly increases its ability to survive AND reproductive success over organisms which do not have that characteristic. But to get to X the organism must also develop A through W to get to X. The evolutionist now has the burden, not only to show how X is a significant contributor to survival AND reproductive success, but must identify steps A-W and demonstrate the same for each . X only survives if A through X also survives and contributes to reproductive success.

He tries to answer this objection by assertion, and giving the "green leaf" argument.

"Green leaves" fails because leaves are NOT green for any other reason than they have chlorophyll. They are not independent of each other. OK, if there actually were leaves that are green in the absence of chorophyll, they would not "attract" the chorophyll characteristic. They would be merely green. His example simply does not make sense because there is no interdependence between the two characteristics. He admits "green" does not increase the survivability of the plant at all -- only chorophyll. And green does not increase the probability of developing that characteristic. (I am repeating myself)

If we were to take the example of the bombardier beetle, where a complex defensive system developed.

Here is the link from talk.origins, attempting to explain the dribbling evolution of this system at http://www.talkorigi...bombardier.html If someone wants to tack it, let's open a new thread and see where it goes. You should easily see the flaws but I will be happy to point them out. You might start by looking at steps 4, 8 and 9. This is where the "magic wand" comes into play.

I once had a cartoon that showed a whole blackboard full of mathematical calculations with two mathematicians discussing them. The one says to the other "You might want to do something with this step other then -And then a miracle".

[ERayR]

And evolution simply postulates that the only reason you can not explain something via dribbling is because you have not dribbled long enough. Evolution is a totally reasonable science based explanation based on a large amount of collected data.

With you guys it is always "more time is needed". The big shield TIME.

What I am still scratching my head about is why it is an unreasonable explanation to some religious people...

What I am still scratching my head about is why it is an unreasonable explanation to some religious evolutionist people... to understand their dogmatic devotion to evolution certainly appears to be a religion in and of itself.

[ERayR]

Please accept about 10 more rep points from me.

[Calm]

I once had a cartoon that showed a whole blackboard full of mathematical calculations with two mathematicians discussing them. The one says to the other "You might want to do something with this step other then -And then a miracle".

am removing image due to copyright issues, here is a link to the official site of the cartoonist:

http://www.sciencecartoonsplus.com/pages/gallery.php

Edited July 24, 2013 by calmoriah

[ERayR]

I really think that evolutionists should put aside their academic arrogance and seriously examine some of the things that are out there. A place to start would be with some of the information from the ancient alien crowd, (Hey just look at the eyes roll) I do not mean their hypothesis nor their conclusions, Discard that and look at their evidences. You will find some not so compelling and explainable but there is a core, that other than a summary dismissal and the usual ridicule, if examined fairly leave some legitimate questions about macro-evolution.

If that is unacceptable then simply start searching out the anomalies with a fair and open mind. Try it it could be fun and you might learn something yourself.

[Bikeemikey]

With you guys it is always "more time is needed". The big shield TIME.

What I am still scratching my head about is why it is an unreasonable explanation to some religious evolutionist people... to understand their dogmatic devotion to evolution certainly appears to be a religion in and of itself.

With who guys? I couldn't give a fiddle about evolution. If it is a part of gods process or not is not a big deal to me...

I don't understand why religious people are making religiously motivated objections to a scientific concept.

Why is there a need to contest evolution? God has not made any specific proclamations about how he made the world.

My religion is totally un-impacted by the truth or falsity of evolution so why become so invested in rejecting the precepts evolution postulates.

[ERayR]

With who guys? I couldn't give a fiddle about evolution. If it is a part of gods process or not is not a big deal to me...

You who keep beating the "all it takes is more time" drum. If you do not want to be in the band don't beat the drum.

[Bikeemikey]

You who keep beating the "all it takes is more time" drum. If you do not want to be in the band don't beat the drum.

As I don't have a drum in this musical comedy I figured I would beat the drum that seems to fit best.

Edited July 25, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[Bikeemikey]

You who keep beating the "all it takes is more time" drum. If you do not want to be in the band don't beat the drum.

Also how about responding to the question posed: why be concerned about evolution at all?

[thesometimesaint]

As a science I am concerned with evolution just as I'm concerned with gravity. That being said my salvation depends neither on evolution nor on gravity.

Unless we're talking about intelligent falling.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/evangelical-scientists-refute-gravity-with-new-int,1778/

[thesometimesaint]

Speciation is the creation or development of a new species. Still is a micro level of change however.

For example, one of your links describes spots on the wings, and how different types of spots indicates a different species. Yet, they are still fruit flies. What is not seen in all of these experiments is new types of forms, such as a fruit fly developing a gill or a duck bill. That may sound funny, but that is exactly my point. We don't expect it because it simply isn't observed.

I've read about some birds that migrate around the globe, and as they meet up with their old relatives (some that didn't migrate), they are unable to mate with them because of their loss of that ability. Of course scientists call this speciation. New species of birds have developed. Which is fine, I agree, however they are still the same bird, and their loss of this ability to mate isn't an macro-change, but simply a micro one.

As I pointed out earlier, when pushed to it genetic limits organisms die and don't evolve.

Type is not a scientific classification of species. All humans are a type of mammal, but not all mammals are humans.

No; it is when they are pushed beyond their genetic limits. Changes in the genotype may produce a change in species, but it is not required. Once successful organisms have been pushed into extinction because of too rapid of changes in their environment.

[cdowis]

Let me clarify my previous "beetle" post.

I have nothing against conjecture. I am addressing the A thru W steps to get to X. The evolutionist, to prove step by step for complex systems, needs to identify each individual step and demonstrate that it fits into the evolution model of survival advantage for that particular characteristic in that particular organism.

So, conjecture away but address the step by step or dribbling. I propose that it is just not possible even with millions of years. It may take millions of years, but it only takes a few minutes to explain it.

[thesometimesaint]

Let me clarify my previous "beetle" post.

I have nothing against conjecture. I am addressing the A thru W steps to get to X. The evolutionist, to prove step by step for complex systems, needs to identify each individual step and demonstrate that it fits into the evolution model of survival advantage for that particular characteristic in that particular organism.

So, conjecture away but address the step by step or dribbling. I propose that it is just not possible even with millions of years. It may take millions of years, but it only takes a few minutes to explain it.

I have nothing against conjecture either. But science isn't about only conjecture. There needs to be some evidence for a claim to be accepted in science.

Say we see some one at the base of a mountain starting to hike. A little later we see him a third of the way up still hiking. Then a little later we see him hiking half way up still hiking. Then a little later we see him three quarters of the way up still hiking. Then finally at the top of the mountain at rest. Do you actually need to see every step he took before you conclude that he hiked up?

With your Bombardier Beetle example we have many intermediate(or steps) examples.

http://www.talkorigi...bombardier.html

A trait may be tied to another trait without being of survival value itself. IE; Eye color. Eye color itself has no known survival value, but is tied directly to the amount of melanin an individual has. The amount of melanin is directly tied to Vitamin D production in the skin and that does have survival value.

Edited July 25, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[cdowis]

Say we see some one at the base of a mountain starting to hike. A little later we see him a third of the way up still hiking. Then a little later we see him hiking half way up still hiking. Then a little later we see him three quarters of the way up still hiking. Then finally at the top of the mountain at rest. Do you actually need to see every step he took before you conclude that he hiked up?

You are talking about dribbling, and the evolutionists claim that complex systems can be produced step by step. I am proposing that the mountain is unclimbable, and the only way to the top is by helicopter (quantum jump). Your task is to show the step by step path (dribbling).

With your Bombardier Beetle example we have many intermediate(or steps) examples.

http://www.talkorigi...bombardier.html

I already cited this exact link as an example of faulty logic. He just threw together a bunch of ideas and facts in his narrative, hoping that we are foolish enough to notice the gaping holes. He tries to fill in the gaps with the magic wand.

Go for it! Show us what you got.

A trait may be tied to another trait without being of survival value itself. IE; Eye color. Eye color itself has no known survival value, but is tied directly to the amount of melanin an individual has. The amount of melanin is directly tied to Vitamin D production in the skin and that does have survival value.

OK, so you can take that into account in your step by step narrative -- just show how it indirectly relates to survivability. You need to build a chain with no missing links. One missing link, like one missing step going to the top of the mountain, and the whole thing collapses.

Again, it will involve some conjecture, but each link has to be present and justified as directly or indirectly related to survival, and no "magic wand" tricks.

Edited July 25, 2013 by cdowis

[thesometimesaint]

Your claim is one of irreducible complexity. That claim has thoroughly been debunked.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/punctuated-equilibrium/2011/jan/10/2

[cdowis]

Your claim is one of irreducible complexity. That claim has thoroughly been debunked.

http://www.guardian....m/2011/jan/10/2

Perhaps you can explain it to us, if you want to defend this argument. Specifically, how does it apply to our "beetle" discussion?

I will be happy to tackle it.

Edited July 25, 2013 by cdowis

[danielwoods]

Type is not a scientific classification of species. All humans are a type of mammal, but not all mammals are humans.

No; it is when they are pushed beyond their genetic limits. Changes in the genotype may produce a change in species, but it is not required. Once successful organisms have been pushed into extinction because of too rapid of changes in their environment.

Right, extinction results, not macro level changes when pushed beyond their genetics boundaries or limits.

[danielwoods]

I have nothing against conjecture either. But science isn't about only conjecture. There needs to be some evidence for a claim to be accepted in science.

Say we see some one at the base of a mountain starting to hike. A little later we see him a third of the way up still hiking. Then a little later we see him hiking half way up still hiking. Then a little later we see him three quarters of the way up still hiking. Then finally at the top of the mountain at rest. Do you actually need to see every step he took before you conclude that he hiked up?

With your Bombardier Beetle example we have many intermediate(or steps) examples.

http://www.talkorigi...bombardier.html

A trait may be tied to another trait without being of survival value itself. IE; Eye color. Eye color itself has no known survival value, but is tied directly to the amount of melanin an individual has. The amount of melanin is directly tied to Vitamin D production in the skin and that does have survival value.

Every step doesn't need to be seen. However, when not one complete macro level evolutionary chain is ever seen anywhere, at anytime for any organism. Then yes. At least one sequential evolutionary chain would be necessary to establish that it is at least a plausible extrapolation. Until that point it remains unlikely based solely on the observations that the genetics of all organisms can't handle the stress of that much change.

[thesometimesaint]

Perhaps you can explain it to us, if you want to defend this argument. Specifically, how does it apply to our "beetle" discussion?

I will be happy to tackle it.

I don't know how to say it any simpler. The argument is whether your beetle is an example of irreducible complexity(The mountain too high to climb).

It is not. As has been demonstrated there are many observed intermediate steps that give us that beetle.

I don't need to have examples of every single intermediate step. That probably isn't even possible. But we do have enough representative examples to show progression over time. That at its heart is evolution.

[cdowis]

I don't know how to say it any simpler. The argument is whether your beetle is an example of irreducible complexity(The mountain too high to climb).

It is not. As has been demonstrated there are many observed intermediate steps that give us that beetle.

I guess you have not bothered to read the previous discussion. It has not been demonstrated at all.

I don't need to have examples of every single intermediate step. That probably isn't even possible.

I agree that dribbling does not work for complex systems.

But we do have enough representative examples to show progression over time. That at its heart is evolution.

It comes down to a statement of faith ==>>

ID has been refuted (but don't ask me to explain it)

Within millions of years all things are possible (don't ask me how complex systems are dribbled)

It's impossible to explain it == I just believe in my heart.

Edited July 25, 2013 by cdowis

[Bikeemikey]

It's impossible to explain it == I just believe in my heart.

Sure... but you can also believe it in your heart based on better or worse evidences; even when such evidences are incomplete.

Evolution has a better set of evidences and more weight of scholarship behind it. Do they still rely on extrapolation beyond the evidence do arrive at their final conclusions sure... but they extrapolate beyond the evidence within the patterns they have seen.

What is so hard for a Mormon to understand about the idea that with infinite time comes infinite growth/increase? I actually find the idea very much in line with our doctrinal and theological propositions.

Again, what advantage do you gain from refuting Evolution? Im LDS and my religious belief is not impacted in anyway by the presence or absence of evolution in the world. Why is yours?

Edited July 25, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[thesometimesaint]

Every step doesn't need to be seen. However, when not one complete macro level evolutionary chain is ever seen anywhere, at anytime for any organism. Then yes. At least one sequential evolutionary chain would be necessary to establish that it is at least a plausible extrapolation. Until that point it remains unlikely based solely on the observations that the genetics of all organisms can't handle the stress of that much change.

Categorically false. The dinosaurs are still with us. We just call them fried chicken.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/12/evolutionexampl/

[ERayR]

Also how about responding to the question posed: why be concerned about evolution at all?

Because IMNSHO macro-evolution negates the fall and the need for an atonement. No fall - no atonement.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I really think that evolutionists should put aside their academic arrogance and seriously examine some of the things that are out there. A place to start would be with some of the information from the ancient alien crowd, (Hey just look at the eyes roll) I do not mean their hypothesis nor their conclusions, Discard that and look at their evidences. You will find some not so compelling and explainable but there is a core, that other than a summary dismissal and the usual ridicule, if examined fairly leave some legitimate questions about macro-evolution.

If that is unacceptable then simply start searching out the anomalies with a fair and open mind. Try it it could be fun and you might learn something yourself.

I'd like to understand this more. Do you have any place in particular I should start? And what should I be looking for in particular? Are you saying that this is evidence of past creations before Adam or something else? Thanks!