Dowis Refutes Dawkins

[Brian 2.0]

Save your breath, my friend. Let's examine the premise that evolution is based solely on gradual, step-by-step processes. This is old school stuff.

Whoa. I am utterly confused by this post. We are examining the step-by-step process of going from open to a closed system. That's what you were asking about.

I understand that evolutionists have already addressed that issue (sudden jumps).

If you understand this than do you simply not believe it? This whole thread was started by you because you think the "sudden jump" to a circulatory system and respiratory system is not possible in a step by step method. That's seems to be your whole point. That's your test that falsifies evolution. If you understand that evolutionist have already addressed it, then what is your issue with how they have addressed it?

So do us a favor -- do some homework and get back to us. See if the new Darwinism offers some insight on the issue.

What homework are you wanting me to do? You specifically asked about going from an open to closed circulatory system and how that is such a big jump that it's impossible to do by steps. Then I provided those intermediate steps. Do you want me to look more into Neo Darwinism? How we've incorporated genetic into Darwin's model? What homework?

Edited July 19, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[Brian 2.0]

What do you think of this?

[media=]

Now I'm even more confused. Do you support the theory of evolution? Your original posts have been about how evolution has been FALSIFIED by the "jackpot" nature of the circulatory and respiratory system.

This link shows us some great evidences in the last few years that help VALIDATE the theory of evolution. What are you saying with posting this video?

Edited July 19, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Whoa. I am utterly confused by this post. We are examining the step-by-step process of going from open to a closed system. That's what you were asking about.

If you understand this than do you simply not believe it? This whole thread was started by you because you think the "sudden jump" from to a circulatory system and respiratory system is not possible in a step by step method. That's seems to be your whole point. That's your test that falsifies evolution. If you understand that evolutionist have already addressed it, then what is your issue with how they have addressed it?

What homework are you wanting me to do? You specifically asked about going from an open to closed circulatory system and how that is just a big jump that it's impossible to do by steps. Then I provided those intermediate steps. Do you want me to look more into Neo Darwinism? How we've incorporated genetic into Darwin's model? What homework?

The selective responses and goalpost moving make me think a productive conversation is not possible. Hopefully I'm wrong.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

What do you think of this?

This video is a very very small example of the theory of evolution in action. The theory makes real concrete predictions. Predictions which can be falsified using the scientific method and actual observations. This study doesn't prove evolution but does provide evidence that it is correct. The problem with ID and creationism for science is that they make no falsifiable predictions.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

This video is a very very small example of the theory of evolution in action. The theory makes real concrete predictions. Predictions which can be falsified using the scientific method and actual observations. This study doesn't prove evolution but does provide evidence that it is correct. The problem with ID and creationism for science is that they make no falsifiable predictions.

Just to be clear, if we couldn't show that two chromosomes fused together in the way this video shows, that would actually DISprove evolution. Nothing in ID or creationism would require the chromosomes to fuse in this manner. Indeed having a telomere section in the middle makes little sense from a design persective.

[cdowis]

Just to be clear, if we couldn't show that two chromosomes fused together in the way this video shows, that would actually DISprove evolution. Nothing in ID or creationism would require the chromosomes to fuse in this manner. Indeed having a telomere section in the middle makes little sense from a design persective.

Your assumption is that every organism is optimized, rather than replicating a design among different creatures. Replication of design is where the DNA for similar functions can duplicated/ reused in different organisms, except where changes are necessary. A designer can use this design philosophy to create multiple "products" such as a jet engine and a lawn mower, e.g. a fuel storage. It is unnecessary to design every organism from scratch.

This may explain the close DNA relationship among whales, bovines and the hippo. Otherwise one would need to explain why the whale is "related" to them by using evolution.

Edited July 19, 2013 by cdowis

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Your assumption is that every organism is optimized, rather than replicating a design among different creatures. Replication of design is where the DNA for similar functions can duplicated/ reused in different organisms, except where changes are necessary. A designer can use this design philosophy to create multiple "products" such as a jet engine and a lawn mower, e.g. a fuel storage. It is unnecessary to design every organism from scratch.

This may explain the close DNA relationship among whales, bovines and the hippo. Otherwise one would need to explain why the whale is "related" to them by using evolution.

I agree that the experiment does not disprove ID or creationism. That's the point though. Nothing can disprove them because they make no falsifiable predictions. On the other hand, evolution required the two chromosomes to be fused together and predicted the inclusion of telomeres in the middle. If God wanted to disprove evolution all He had to do was combine the genes in a way that is incompatible with evolution.

[ERayR]

Do what you will... but I'm through providing evidence for this. These sources are not crackpot anti-god websites. I'm pulling from National Geographic, BBC, all providing links to peer-reviewed journal articles. Fact check if you want, but there's no point in answering your questions when the answers get tossed aside so easily.

No the problem is with the base presumptions. All of them start with the presumption that macro-evolution is correct.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

No the problem is with the base presumptions. All of them start with the presumption that macro-evolution is correct.

You realize that's how science works right? You observe the world around you and come up with an idea or hypothesis about why things are the way they are. Based on this "presumption" you make a falsifiable prediction and do research / conduct experiments. Negative results suggest your "presumption" is bunk. 150 years of positive results and your presumption becomes a theory (like gravity or evolution).

[Brian 2.0]

No the problem is with the base presumptions. All of them start with the presumption that macro-evolution is correct.

Seeking said it already... but where is this a problem?. It's like you are saying: "The problem with this science is that it starts out with a hypothesis."

[thesometimesaint]

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

New species by definition reproduce.

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/reading-a-phylogenetic-tree-the-meaning-of-41956

[cdowis]

I agree that the experiment does not disprove ID or creationism. That's the point though. Nothing can disprove them because they make no falsifiable predictions. On the other hand, evolution required the two chromosomes to be fused together and predicted the inclusion of telomeres in the middle. If God wanted to disprove evolution all He had to do was combine the genes in a way that is incompatible with evolution.

And why would He do that?

Evolution is a tool, a hammer. Why would a carpenter disparage his hammer -- because some fool thinks that the hammer built the house rather than the carpenter?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

And why would He do that?

Evolution is a tool, a hammer. Why would a carpenter disparage his hammer -- because some fool thinks that the hammer built the house rather than the carpenter?

So God used evolution then? What of the OP?

[thesometimesaint]

So God used evolution then? What of the OP?

I believe God used evolution. We're just beginning to understand how he did it?

[cdowis]

Now I'm even more confused. Do you support the theory of evolution?

The process of evolution itself is a fact. I would say that some aspects of evolution are not.

Your original posts have been about how evolution has been FALSIFIED by the "jackpot" nature of the circulatory and respiratory system.

And then what did I say? It was meant as a talking point, not an absolute assertion. Dawkins dribbling process ( "slow, step by step") does not work for all situations.

Now, your posts deal with the problem like a plumber -- the pipes and valves, but forget that higher level organisms have a computer function. The heart, endocron, etc systems have a control function which, in many cases, are real time critical. Adjustments are made as necessary, so this is not simply pipes and valves. This is where the quantum jump applies.

This link shows us some great evidences in the last few years that help VALIDATE the theory of evolution. What are you saying with posting this video?

It means exacly what I said -- it is a talking point.

As I see it, this does not preclude design, does it. See my other posts on the design process. He gives both facts and speculation, and speculation is exactly that. I remember how the science of evolution itself evolved, with lots of such speculation which were later recanted.

Basically it does not prove what it claims to prove, but that is my view.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I believe God used evolution. We're just beginning to understand how he did it?

Which is what I stated here in this very thread. I was just suprised to see CDowis on board given his / her opening post saying (s)he disproved evolution.

Edited July 19, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[cdowis]

And was I successful?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

And was I successful?

Obviously not.

[Bikeemikey]

And was I successful?

Your question above was a reponse to the assertion that you disapproved of evolution.

Yes, you successfully disapproved of it... in so doing you also successfully confounded those who replied with a consistent inability to engage in meaningfyl debate on the issue... instead moving goalposts and asking people to save their breath.

Edited July 19, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[thesometimesaint]

Now I'm even more confused. Do you support the theory of evolution?

The process of evolution itself is a fact. I would say that some aspects of evolution are not.

Your original posts have been about how evolution has been FALSIFIED by the "jackpot" nature of the circulatory and respiratory system.

And then what did I say? It was meant as a talking point, not an absolute assertion. Dawkins dribbling process ( "slow, step by step") does not work for all situations.

Now, your posts deal with the problem like a plumber -- the pipes and valves, but forget that higher level organisms have a computer function. The heart, endocron, etc systems have a control function which, in many cases, are real time critical. Adjustments are made as necessary, so this is not simply pipes and valves. This is where the quantum jump applies.

This link shows us some great evidences in the last few years that help VALIDATE the theory of evolution. What are you saying with posting this video?

It means exacly what I said -- it is a talking point.

As I see it, this does not preclude design, does it. See my other posts on the design process. He gives both facts and speculation, and speculation is exactly that. I remember how the science of evolution itself evolved, with lots of such speculation which were later recanted.

Basically it does not prove what it claims to prove, but that is my view.

No doubt there were, are, and will be more fine tune adjustments to the theory of evolution as time goes by. But it has such wide acceptance in the sciences that I don't foresee any grand scale falsification of it.

I'm more of a punctuated equilibrium proponent myself. But again I don't believe that falsifies evolution or even that Dawkins reject it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawkins_vs._Gould

True there are many time dependent functions in higher animals. The problem comes in that those that didn't meet that dependency died before they could reproduce.

[Brian 2.0]

CDowis:

The process of evolution itself is a fact. I would say that some aspects of evolution are not.

I thought were asserting that evolution itself had been falsified based on this from you:

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

So that was just a "talking point" not an assertaion and your have falsified evolution with the heart?

Dawkins dribbling process ( "slow, step by step") does not work for all situations.

Now, your posts deal with the problem like a plumber -- the pipes and valves, but forget that higher level organisms have a computer function.

My posts deal in answering your claims. You are the one that talked about the heart. You're talking about the circulatory system and it's tie to the repiratory system. I'm dealing with it like a plumber because you asked the question and made you claim like a plumber. You were specifically talking about the circulatory and respiratory system as the "quantum jump". We showed how the respiratory system of lungs can evolve on it's own AFTER the circulatory system. You then talked about the open to closed system as the "quantum jump" then we showed how you can do that in step-by-step.

The heart, endocron, etc systems have a control function which, in many cases, are real time critical. Adjustments are made as necessary, so this is not simply pipes and valves. This is where the quantum jump applies.

So where is the quantum jump now? Human physiology as a whole? We need to talk about the evolution of the endocrine system now to appease you? Can you not see how you are changing the goalposts yet again here?

What can be answered to appease your challenge? because we've done it for your specific claims of "quantum jumps":

- Circulatory System connection with Respiratory System = shown to can evolve separately

- The Heart = shown that it can evolve from nothing to 4-chamber

- The Open to Closed System = shown that it can evolve from one to another

Each "quantum jump" you are claiming and asking for intermediate steps has been shown to not be a quantum jump, but one that can evolve in a series of small steps.

I don't think I have the patience to chase your "quantum jump" goalposts all over the field, only to have me or Seeking or someone else here, kick a ball straight through the uprights... then have you move the "quantum jump" goalpost somewhere else.

At this point I'm going to follow your own advice to me and simply "save my breath."

Edited July 19, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[Brian 2.0]

CDowis:

Now, your posts deal with the problem like a plumber -- the pipes and valves, but forget that higher level organisms have a computer function.

It you want us to explain how to make a computer, quit telling us we're missing the point when we talk about making a capitor or soldering together a motherboard... because guess what... that's how you make a computer.

Edited July 19, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[Bikeemikey]

It you want us to explain how to make a computer, quit telling us we're missing the point when we talk about making a capitor or soldering together a motherboard... because guess what... that's how you make a computer.

Probably should have just "saved your breath".

[Brian 2.0]

Probably should have just "saved your breath".

I know. Broke my own advice to myself. Dang it!

[ERayR]

You realize that's how science works right? You observe the world around you and come up with an idea or hypothesis about why things are the way they are. Based on this "presumption" you make a falsifiable prediction and do research / conduct experiments. Negative results suggest your "presumption" is bunk. 150 years of positive results and your presumption becomes a theory (like gravity or evolution).

Yes I am aware that science works on hypothesis. The problem comes when the hypothesis is declared true without falsifiable prediction (one that takes so long it can't be falsified. To my knowledge and the claims of some on this thread 150 years is way, way to short a time to prove macro-evolution. The jump from micro to macro evolution requires a great deal of faith, imagination and circular logic. It is an extrapolation that is not provable and goes way beyond the evidence.