Dowis Refutes Dawkins

[ERayR]

So you can observe its effects but not recreate it in a lab? Is that the threshold you want to stick with?

It was recreated in the creation of the atomic weapons. The sunlight thing was a poor attempt at humor.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

IMNSHO the "God used evolution" is merely a way for some to keep their cognitive dissonance from overloading and blowing a fuse.

And in my not so humble opinion, the refusal to accept evolution in order to cling to a certain interpretation of scripture is also merely a way for some to keep their cognitive dissonance from overloading and blowing a fuse.

[ERayR]

Yes, and outside it too. Just look at modern agriculture and animal husbandry.

Again see my post #34.

[ERayR]

And in my not so humble opinion, the refusal to accept evolution in order to cling to a certain interpretation of scripture is also merely a way for some to keep their cognitive dissonance from overloading and blowing a fuse.

I said I am not a young earth creationist.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

It was recreated in the creation of the atomic weapons. The sunlight thing was a poor attempt at humor.

Which is not the same as fusion in the sun. The sun actually only outputs "approximately 276.5 watts/m^3"in the center. Much different physics than a nuclear bomb no? And yet we draw certain conclusions from experiments not exactly relevant. This is very similar to what we do with evolution.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I said I am not a young earth creationist.

I wasn't trying to imply that you were. You said that evolution interfered with your interpretation of the fall.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Which is not the same as fusion in the sun. The sun actually only outputs "approximately 276.5 watts/m^3"in the center. Much different physics than a nuclear bomb no? And yet we draw certain conclusions from experiments not exactly relevant. This is very similar to what we do with evolution.

Wiki notes that this is "a power production density that more nearly approximates reptile metabolism than a thermonuclear bomb."

[thesometimesaint]

Being a farmer and rancher (in a past life) I have to agree that micro-evolution is a fact. All living organisms are changing. What can not be shown is that they are changing beyond the bounds of the species (No matter the breed a chicken is still a chicken, a pig is still a pig, etc, etc).

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/macroevolution-examples-from-the-primate-world-96679683

[Vance]

It is true there is some danger in extrapolating beyond what you can see.

Thanks for agreeing with my main point.

It is also true that evolution on a macro basis will never be recreated in a lab due to the time scales involved.

Therefore, must be accepted on FAITH. Of course, anybody that doesn't accept this new "faith" are morally inferior and must be denigrated as ignorant rubes, right?

I will also grant that there is a good deal of faith involved. That said faith is involved in everything, including faith that I am actually conversing with a person and am not connected to the matrix somewhere. At some point along the line, looking at the evidence I came to my conclusion stated above (God used evolution, or there is some compelling unknown driver that caused God to create the world using a manner that closely mimics evolution).

I don't have a problem with "God used evolution". And frankly, even if said steps were repeatable in the lab, it would not preclude "God used evolution". The intelligent application of materials and energy in the lab does not God eliminate.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Thanks for agreeing with my main point.

You're welcome!

Therefore, must be accepted on FAITH. Of course, anybody that doesn't accept this new "faith" are morally inferior and must be denigrated as ignorant rubes, right?

Just like we accept everything on FAITH. Faith that gravity works, faith in the basic physics around electricity. The same faith I have that you exist. And no I would never call you morally inferior or denigrate you as an ignorant rube. I will debate you in good fun on a message board though .

[Vance]

Yes, and outside it too. Just look at modern agriculture and animal husbandry.

So, where are the new species that can reproduce? I talking NEW species, not the use of selective breeding to get certain characteristics.

[Vance]

Have you ever observed the atoms fusing in the middle of the star?

So, how do you know they are fusing? Speculation or observation?

[Vance]

Just like we accept everything on FAITH. Faith that gravity works, faith in the basic physics around electricity. The same faith I have that you exist. And no I would never call you morally inferior or denigrate you as an ignorant rube. I will debate you in good fun on a message board though .

Hey! Cut that out!!! You are making me like you more and more.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

So, how do you know they are fusing? Speculation or observation?

I don't know, but I certainly believe that it is the best explanation we currently have available to us that explains all the evidence.

[thesometimesaint]

Thanks for agreeing with my main point. Therefore, must be accepted on FAITH. Of course, anybody that doesn't accept this new "faith" are morally inferior and must be denigrated as ignorant rubes, right? I don't have a problem with "God used evolution". And frankly, even if said steps were repeatable in the lab, it would not preclude "God used evolution". The intelligent application of materials and energy in the lab does not God eliminate.

It has nothing to do with faith. It is a matter of practicality. Long life cycled organisms are poor candidates for the lab simply because people don't live that long. Shorter life cycled complex organisms, like the fruit fly, evolve fast enough that the changes are easier to observe. Plus to subject people to experiments raises all types of ethical considerations.

Whether you are morally inferior, or not, is between you and God, and I won't address that subject.

Science by definition can not posit any God, or God like force, in solving a scientific problem.

[Brian 2.0]

Dowis... you need to acknowledge when people have answered your questions/challenges. If you have a new challenge to add to that then fine, but you can’t simply dismiss an answer to your questions by simply stating “magic” then declare victory, then switch the goalpost to something else. People trying to have a discussion with you will lose patience really quick.

You started this post with a very bold claim that YOU refuted DAWKINS and in so refuted EVOLUTION... You obviously should have expected some push back on that claim so you providing this:

A heart has a function that either works or does not work. Due to it very nature it cannot "evolve by stages" ... it does need to work immediately. Eyesight can develop as partial function, increasing acuity, but the circulatory system has no such flexibility in its development.

Evolution has met a falsifiable test, and it has failed that test. The heart is a jackpot event, no dribbling is allowed.

Now, please educate me, and show me the flaw in my reasoning.

I went on to try and show you the flaw in your reasoning... showing you exactly how such flexibility could exist between two organisms, one with no “heart” and one with the first primitive “heart” saying:

A very small organism doesn't need circulation of its nutrients -- it's all just floating around there. As it gets bigger though, things need to get around the "body" more. The first step is a small contracting muscle somewhere that would push out the nutrients around the organism (a simple pulsing object in the nutrient rich goo, no veins, open circulatory system). A larger organism that could do this would have an evolutionary advantage and that trait would be passed along...

Say we were at the point in time where that FIRST pulsing muscle mutated in an organism. That little dude would have a survival advantage over the rest, but there would be TONS of his brothers and sisters around that did NOT have the pulsing muscle and were still alive and functioning.

I meet you in the ring and confronted your point head on. But you simply dismissed my post as “magic” though I see no “magic” in this simple first step mutation. No magic at all.

But you proclaim this a knock out punch boldly asking the crowd... “anyone else??”

And since I have answered your “no heart ---> heart is impossible” claims you switch your claim to that an “open system ---> closed system” is impossible.

Then SeekingUnderstanding, who has MUCH more knowledge on this than me, and I’m assuming you (unless you are also an evolutionary biologist), he answers that challenge showing you how moving from an open system to a closed system is possible.

But instead of acknowledging that he answered your request you switch it again, claiming...

The issue is not "simple" to "complex" but the transitional forms. We need to see evolution in operation. Clearly that is not evident in modern organisms since they have already evolved a working system -- now we need to see that step by step process.

SeekingUnderstanding showed how that statement in bold is a flawed understanding of evolution. Modern organisms aren’t not the “end” of evolution. Organisms don’t evolve from “non working” to “working” systems. They are always working systems, they just evolve to work better in relation to survival.

With that in mind... these transitional forms clearly ARE evident in modern organisms. You wanted to see transitional steps in modern organisms... so here it is:

http://www.livescien...-evolution.html

This article contains references the evolving steps in the hearts of modern animals. The turtle for example...

Turtles are a curious transition — they still have three chambers, but a wall, or septum is beginning to form in the single ventricle. This change affords the turtle's body blood that is slightly richer in oxygen than the frog's.

So that fulfills that challenge, does it not?

[thesometimesaint]

So, where are the new species that can reproduce? I talking NEW species, not the use of selective breeding to get certain characteristics.

Selective breeding is just the human imposed form of natural selection.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_45

[Brian 2.0]

Therefore, must be accepted on FAITH. Of course, anybody that doesn't accept this new "faith" are morally inferior and must be denigrated as ignorant rubes, right?

Most people don't have "faith" in evolution like people have "faith" in God. It's not wise to conflate the two as they are very different. It may be the same if there was no evidence provided for evolution - if it was a theory without supporting data. But as Seeking pointed out.... It's a question of determining probability.

We start with a question:

How did we get so many different types of species?

We come up with theories:

Theory #1: God created all the species.

Theory #2: Speciation through natural selection (evolution)

We then go to the evidences for these theories.

For evolution there are countless papers and research providing supporting evidence for this theory in the fossil records, Biology and DNA analysis between species, genetic mutation, transitional and vestigial organs in current species, selective breeding, etc. All of these evidences combine to form a pretty good case for evolution against other theories. Is it 100% certain? No. But the piles of evidence supporting it provides the highest probabilty of all theories out there. So people choose to believe that.

Someone else can probably make the case for Theory #1 of "God Did It" better than I, but most I've come across isn't evidence supporting theory #1, but evidence trying to take down evolution. This thread is one of those things. The heart is being used as evidence that it could not have evolved. But I think we have shown through this thread that it can... actually ending up as evidence supporting evolution.

Those believing Theory #1 do so with FAITH. That is their "evidence for things not seen" They are believing something even though there are other higher probabilty theories out there. It certainly takes "faith" to believe something when faced with "more probable" options. A personal witness from God of it's truthfulness is evidence enough for believers to believe in a lower probabilty option, but it is very different than the process than those believing in evolution.

Like you said... there is the option of taking both theories... "God created all the species using evolution." But this thread wasn't promoting that theory, but was trying to show the flaws in evolution.

Edited July 18, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[cdowis]

Brian,

In my opinion I have made my objections sufficiently clear, but I see no effort on your part to understand them. You give me the impression that you just want to argue, and I have no interest in that.

We may be able to continue the discussion, but I suspect the price for you will be too high. You must first show that you understand the objections. You're just repeating yourself.

"Turtles are a curious transition — they still have three chambers, but a wall, or septum is beginning to form in the single ventricle. This change affords the turtle's body blood that is slightly richer in oxygen than the frog's."

You should be able to answer yourself if you were to understand my objections. What did I say?

Edited July 18, 2013 by cdowis

[Brian 2.0]

So, where are the new species that can reproduce? I talking NEW species, not the use of selective breeding to get certain characteristics.

Here's a branch off point:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/02/110217-hudson-river-pcb-fish-evolution-water/

The Atlantic tomcod (Microgadus tomcod) is a fast reproducing fast evolving fish. There is a high population of such fish in the Hudson River. But pollution of the Hudson made the waters toxic killing off the fish... but... a genetic variant occured where the toxin weren't absorbed... that fish didn't die, reproduced... and now simply years later... there is a new tomcod fish population in the Hudson river who are missing 6 base pairs of DNA, and that small change make them able to survive in the toxins.

At the same time outside of the Hudson, there are plenty of tomcod that still have those 6 base pairs. These two groups will continue to reproduced and speciate on their own and they might get to the point where biologist give that hudsom tomcod a different species name. It may be different enough now that it could get a different species name.

[Brian 2.0]

Brian,

In my opinion I have made my objections sufficiently clear, but I see no effort on your part to understand them. You give me the impression that you just want to argue, and I have no interest in that.

We may be able to continue the discussion, but I suspect the price for you will be too high. You must first show that you understand the objections. You're just repeating yourself.

Let's start again as I must have misinterpreted your objection in your post.

Could you please restate your objection?

[ERayR]

Selective breeding is just the human imposed form of natural selection.

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

Please answer the question. So, where are the new species that can reproduce?

[USU78]

Here's a branch off point:

http://news.national...volution-water/

The Atlantic tomcod (Microgadus tomcod) is a fast reproducing fast evolving fish. There is a high population of such fish in the Hudson River. But pollution of the Hudson made the waters toxic killing off the fish... but... a genetic variant occured where the toxin weren't absorbed... that fish didn't die, reproduced... and now simply years later... there is a new tomcod fish population in the Hudson river who are missing 6 base pairs of DNA, and that small change make them able to survive in the toxins.

At the same time outside of the Hudson, there are plenty of tomcod that still have those 6 base pairs. These two groups will continue to reproduced and speciate on their own and they might get to the point where biologist give that hudsom tomcod a different species name. It may be different enough now that it could get a different species name.

So . . . if somebody says they're different species, it means they're different species. Sounds kinda circular to me, but whadooeyeno?

[ERayR]

Most people don't have "faith" in evolution like people have "faith" in God. It's not wise to conflate the two as they are very different. It may be the same if there was no evidence provided for evolution - if it was a theory without supporting data. But as Seeking pointed out.... It's a question of determining probability.

You make the same mistake that all who do not have personal revelation (spiritual) experiences make. There is evidences provided it is just that you are using the wrong tools to look for it. It is like trying to build a building without learning carpenter skills.

[ERayR]

So . . . if somebody says they're different species, it means they're different species. Sounds kinda circular to me, but whadooeyeno?

It comes in real handy when you are trying to prove macro-evolution.