Dowis Refutes Dawkins

[Alvino]

Princess kisses frog and frog turns into a prince = fairy tale. frog + several million years, frog turns into prince = science. Time is the revered magic ingredient that answers all questions and objections.

Oh, I didn't realize you didn't even know what evolution was. I won't use my time to correct such basic lack of knowledge in biology, sorry.

[Stargazer]

Dawkins is an idiot in my view.

He is also a coward, as he refuses to debate creationists publicly.

He's going to get such a shock when he wakes up dead one of these days.

He may be an idiot, but refusal to debate creationists publicly is not, in and of itself, evidence of cowardice.

I would refuse to debate creationists publicly. It is not out of cowardice. It is out of the conviction that it is impossible to debate with people who will deny plain historical data, such as the fossil record.

It happens that I identify with Intelligent Design.

[cdowis]

We are talking about evolution which happens through thousands of years, right? Not about a fetus's heart having to work or the fetus dies.

You do understand that dribbling (step by step) allows millions of years to work, but jackpot (quantum jumping) does not. That was Dawkin's point.

While the heart may allow, for example, thousands of year to increase efficience, to go from an open system to a closed system does not.

Those are two different things and two things irreducible complexity supporters often mix together.

That's nice.

We are talking about functionality of systems -- heart lung, symbiotic relationships, etc. "Irreducible complexity" is exactly the opposite, and is somebody's else's argument.

Edited July 22, 2013 by cdowis

[Brian 2.0]

While the heart may allow, for example, thousands of year to increase efficience, to go from an open system to a closed system does not.

Alivo, don't "waste your breath" trying to show how this actually can happen. This evidence has been provided a number of times in this thread how this is not a "quantum jump" so Dowis can look back whenever s/he feels the need to bring this up again.

This thread reminds me of the lead character in Memento. The same point brought up every fifteen posts as if the previous 15 posts never happened.

Edited July 22, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[cdowis]

Maybe you are looking for the wrong thing. None of the articles or experiments were designed to persuade you / convince you "special creation" is not real.

OK, for the purposes of this discussion, they are interesting but moot. They do not exclude a Designer.

Science can't do this because special creation does not make any falsifiable predictions. Creationists in general, look at what is and then explain why God would have done it this way. There is nothing wrong with this per se, but this is not science.

It is falsifiable when it is demonstrated that functions could not be delivered by evolution, but are present anyway. Dawkins dismisses such evidence as "failure to imagine". The response is basically if one only had a great imagination, they could figure out on how it was done.

In this case, evolution works well within a limited sphere, but once you throw it into (complex) systems, it fails.

Evolution on the other hand requires things to be a certain way.

Based on the theory of evolution scientists were able to make predictions about these things long before methods were discovered allowing us to prove them or disprove them. From the article you were looking at:

"The most probable result is that the DNA sequences coding for these proteins should be radically different. This would be a resounding falsification of macroevolution, and it would be very strong evidence that chimpanzees and humans are not closely genealogically related. Of course, the potential falsifications for prediction 4.1 also apply to DNA sequences. "

I have already present a possibility in a previous post (replicating design). (See my comments below)

And that brings us to the whale and the bovine (cow). How do their genetic similiarity bring us to a theory of the evolution of the whale. Just another of those "lack of imagination" issues.

Again, there are countless ways to code for these proteins. Evolutionary theory requires it to be a certain way, makes the prediction, studies the genes and they are exactly as evolutional theory requires. In science this is very strong evidence for your theory (and if we were talking about something as mundane as nuclear fusion in the sun, you would accept this science).

OK, evoution works, in conjunction with a Designer who uses replicating designs.

Again this doesn't persuade you because you can come up with some reason God did it this way,

Well, we have "sufficient imagination".

but the difference is this: Creationism did not make a falsifiable prediction here. There were no Creationists predicting the protein code would be like this. Indeed if the proteins were not coded like this would you accept that as evidence that God didn't create us? If the experiment came out any other way, the theory of evolution would have been dealt a major major setback. If the experiment came out any other way, would you have changed your mind about God creating us?

Sigh. It would bring the "replicating" design theory into question. We can already see that the Designer did not design each organism completely independent from the others. We see this in the similarity of functionally similar parts. The Designer replicated aspects of DNA. Evolutionists prefer that he designed each one completely independently so that he would not "fool" them (again, Dawkins' argument).

And if it did not work out, you are saying that the evolutionists would not have found an explanation, like Dawkins' "insufficient imagination"? Or they would have closed the whole evolution show down, turning the dept of evolution to the dept of theology?

Edited July 22, 2013 by cdowis

[SeekingUnderstanding]

No. The coding is indicative of intelligence, and if it was largely different for similar functions, it would be interesting to study why, but wouldn't change the fact that it was created by an intelligent source.

Thank you for answering that question. This is key to understanding why science can't provide evidence for creationism or its variants.

"Informed" is an interesting term. I would say that my spiritual experiences give a foundation to my philosophical views, which I use to interpret the evidence. All evidence must be interpreted. And is done so through our own philosophical point of view. If one believes that we have all evolved from common ancestors, then looking at similarities in proteins is compelling evidence for that person (as an example). I agree with you, that if Creationism or ID can't make falsifiable predictions it is useless to science.

This is true to a point. Philosophically speaking, the only thing I can really be sure of is that my mind exists in some form. Everything else is interpretation based on some framework of belief. From that standpoint, all beliefs are equally valid / faith dependent If, however, we assume that the scientific method is valid, and that other entities exist, then we can favor certain theories over others. Aristotelian physics was the reining interpretation for thousands of years. Once people started testing it using physical experiments, the evidence did not support Aristotle's views and they were abandoned. This is how science works. It requires us to be willing to shed long held beliefs about something if better evidence comes along.

The belief in common descent requires and predicts many very specific things. To date there is no scientific evidence that contradicts this. We have talked about just one teeny protein in this thread, but the evidence is overwhelming. Note, this doesn't mean that God didn't create each species individually. It just means that if he did, the method he chose to use is not scientifically distinguishable from common descent. So out of the literally countless ways that he could have chosen to put us together, the method he used looks exactly like evolution.

Let's put it another way. The "tree of life" or the evolutionary tree, was created by a man using morphology quite a while before even proteins were understood, right? Morphology uses similarity of structure, to classify organisms. This system then creates the evolutionary tree, which we then look at and say, wow, the morphological structure is similar to small "random" coding differences! I don't think it's revolutionary or anything surprising to observe that the coding (which directs the growth and design of the creature) would have similar differences to the morphology.

There is a lot here. Evolutionary science is vast and to understand it is helpful to talk specifics. You specifically pulled a quote from here which talks specifically about the coding for a particular protein. This is not talking about any morphological structure. This protein is used and essential in aerobic respiration. It's use does not vary across organisms. It serves the same purpose in your cells as it does in bacteria. There is no reason why a human couldn't use the exact same protein that the bacteria does. So if God was using similar parts for similar functions we could predict that he would use the same protein across all organisms. This is almost what we see. What we see is a similar protein across all organisms with some small functionally irrelevant changes. What's interesting about these changes is that they fall out onto the evolutionary tree. That is Human's proteins are an almost identical match to Chimpanzee's. A human's protein is also more similar to a rabbits than a bird. Penguins and chickens are more similar to each other than a frog. The further back on the evolutionary tree you go, the more random changes there are. This is not changes to morphology. These changes do not provide any advantage or disadvantage. If God wanted he could have used the same protein in all organisms or different functionally equivalent proteins in all organisms. The way that God chose to do it though was a way that is indistinguishable from common descent. Hence the mutations that early mammals got in this protein are passed on to all mammals. Look at this slide for an illustration from my link in my previous comment: The length of each branch are proportional to the differences between the two proteins. I honestly don't know how you can honestly look at this and say that this is not evidence for common descent. I can understand you not being convinced by it, or believing God must have had his reasons, but this is compelling.

I agree, macro-evolution is irrelevant to making predictions and real life decisions as well.

I said nothing of the sort. Also macro evolution and micro evolution are identical. The only difference is the time involved.

However, if the digital code that life depends on is not derived from a natural source, don't you think that assuming a common ancestor might also be flawed?

I can fully accept that the digital code might not be from a natural source. It doesn't change any of the large body of evidence that shows a common ancestor. I will reiterate my position stated early in the thread. The evidence points to God using evolution (assuming one believes in God). If not there must be some as yet to be discovered compelling reason that forced God to create us in a way that mimics the evidence of evolution.

[ERayR]

Oh, I didn't realize you didn't even know what evolution was. I won't use my time to correct such basic lack of knowledge in biology, sorry.

I am not sure you understand what micro-evolution, macro-evolution or have thought out the ramifications involved with these concepts. It seems that rather than try to correct your perceived lack in my knowledge you would probably be better served to use the time to do some meditation on the ramifications of macro-evolution on the fall and atonement. Then get back to me when you can be less patronizing.

[ERayR]

It doesn't change any of the large body of evidence that shows a common ancestor. I will reiterate my position stated early in the thread. The evidence points to God using evolution (assuming one believes in God). If not there must be some as yet to be discovered compelling reason that forced God to create us in a way that mimics the evidence of evolution.

The large body of evidence that shows a common ancestor is extrapolated evidence. It has not been shown that such extrapolation is accurate. The evidence that points to God using evolution is, again, extrapolated evidence.

Evolutionary theory simply is not compatible with the fall and atonement.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I am not sure you understand what micro-evolution, macro-evolution or have thought out the ramifications involved with these concepts. It seems that rather than try to correct your perceived lack in my knowledge you would probably be better served to use the time to do some meditation on the ramifications of macro-evolution on the fall and atonement. Then get back to me when you can be less patronizing.

It would appear that your religious view shapes / limits your view of macro-evolution more than "extrapolated evidence." You didn't seem to have any problems with the extrapolated evidence used to support nuclear fusion in stars. Despite the fact that we cannot replicate the fusion process that happens in stars in any laboratory.

Edited July 22, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

The large body of evidence that shows a common ancestor is extrapolated evidence. It has not been shown that such extrapolation is accurate. The evidence that points to God using evolution is, again, extrapolated evidence.

Evolutionary theory simply is not compatible with the fall and atonement.

Did you look at the image I posted above ERayR? What explanation to you provide for this other than common decent? Why does our Cytochrome c (which is functionally equivalent across all living organisms) follow the evolutionary tree. Why is it most similar to chimpanzees? Why is it more similar to mammals than birds? Why is it more similar to birds than plants? It serves the same function in all organisms? This same pattern is repeated over and over in many different areas of biology. And that doesn't even begin to touch the fossil record.

Edited July 22, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[cdowis]

Did you look at the image I posted above ERayR? What explanation to you provide for this other than common decent?

Golly, gee whiz, seekingunderstanding. You are talking about patterns here. Let's look at some possible explanations:

Hierarchy of design. (does that sound familiar?)

Fractals.

You might check out chaos theory. For example, it was recently discovered that the pattern of an entire forest can be predicted by the pattern of limbs and twigs on a single tree in that forest. Can you explain that using evolution?

Why does our Cytochrome c (which is functionally equivalent across all living organisms) follow the evolutionary tree. Why is it most similar to chimpanzees? Why is it more similar to mammals than birds? Why is it more similar to birds than plants? It serves the same function in all organisms? This same pattern is repeated over and over in many different areas of biology.

I think you forget that this is a religion forum. If you are going to ask such questions, you need to explain what you are talking about in terms understandable to the educated, intelligent person.

And that doesn't even begin to touch the fossil record.

And tell us how the fossil record refutes the model of a Designer. I personally think it fits very nicely, but educate us.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Thank you for responding to my post. I hate passive aggressiveness, so I will just let you know directly, that I will not be responding to any of your posts (after this one of course!). I don't think that we can have a meaningful dialogue, so best not to waste our time.

[cdowis]

Thank you for responding to my post. I hate passive aggressiveness, so I will just let you know directly, that I will not be responding to any of your posts (after this one of course!). I don't think that we can have a meaningful dialogue, so best not to waste our time.

OK, you asked a question and I answered. This forum has an ignore function, so you can easily skip past my posts.

You might want to check out the Social Hall.

Edited July 22, 2013 by cdowis

[thesometimesaint]

No. The coding is indicative of intelligence, and if it was largely different for similar functions, it would be interesting to study why, but wouldn't change the fact that it was created by an intelligent source.

"Informed" is an interesting term. I would say that my spiritual experiences give a foundation to my philosophical views, which I use to interpret the evidence. All evidence must be interpreted. And is done so through our own philosophical point of view. If one believes that we have all evolved from common ancestors, then looking at similarities in proteins is compelling evidence for that person (as an example). I agree with you, that if Creationism or ID can't make falsifiable predictions it is useless to science.

I honestly don't know what creationists predict to find in these situations, and I'm not quite sure it matters. What I do understand though is that similarities between similar designs isn't something to be surprised at. For example, we build bridges, and they all have similar structure, because they do similar things.

If we don't find similar coding, is creationism false? I wouldn't think so, as I answered above.

I'm not convinced that it would have pronounced evolution dead, because of the other plausible answers that the imaginative evolutionist would come up with.

The conclusion that, these noted differences only indicate evolution would be correct if there is an actual evolutionary tree.

Let's put it another way. The "tree of life" or the evolutionary tree, was created by a man using morphology quite a while before even proteins were understood, right? Morphology uses similarity of structure, to classify organisms. This system then creates the evolutionary tree, which we then look at and say, wow, the morphological structure is similar to small "random" coding differences! I don't think it's revolutionary or anything surprising to observe that the coding (which directs the growth and design of the creature) would have similar differences to the morphology.

I agree, macro-evolution is irrelevant to making predictions and real life decisions as well.

However, if the digital code that life depends on is not derived from a natural source, don't you think that assuming a common ancestor might also be flawed?

Intelligent design is just creationism warmed over.

[cdowis]

Intelligent design is just creationism warmed over.

Most creationists is pretty simplistic, using "poof".

Intelligent design is more sophisticated, and allows evolution as a tool in the creation process.

(Hopefully you are ignoring this post.)

[ERayR]

It would appear that your religious view shapes / limits your view of macro-evolution more than "extrapolated evidence." You didn't seem to have any problems with the extrapolated evidence used to support nuclear fusion in stars. Despite the fact that we cannot replicate the fusion process that happens in stars in any laboratory.

You have no idea what my views are and yes my religious views shapes my views. If my religious views did not affect/shape my world view there would be no need to have them. Nuclear fusion and macro-evolution are not really comparable.

It would appear that your view of evolution shapes/limits your religious views. That is sad.

[ERayR]

Did you look at the image I posted above ERayR? What explanation to you provide for this other than common decent? Why does our Cytochrome c (which is functionally equivalent across all living organisms) follow the evolutionary tree. Why is it most similar to chimpanzees? Why is it more similar to mammals than birds? Why is it more similar to birds than plants? It serves the same function in all organisms? This same pattern is repeated over and over in many different areas of biology. And that doesn't even begin to touch the fossil record.

Yes I looked at the image you posted. Creation by a creator can provide for this. Life created for a particular environment would necessitate many similarities.

Have you considered the incompatibility of macro-evolution with the fall and the atonement?

[ERayR]

Thank you for responding to my post. I hate passive aggressiveness, so I will just let you know directly, that I will not be responding to any of your posts (after this one of course!). I don't think that we can have a meaningful dialogue, so best not to waste our time.

Won't or can't answer the posts.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

You have no idea what my views are and yes my religious views shapes my views. If my religious views did not affect/shape my world view there would be no need to have them. Nuclear fusion and macro-evolution are not really comparable.

Based on this statement and others I infer that your rejection of macro-evolution is not based on the science but based on religious conviction (you accept extrapolated evidence in other venues but not evolution - not because the extrapolation, but because of your religious convictions). I don't think there is anything wrong with this.

It would appear that your view of evolution shapes/limits your religious views. That is sad.

Thank you for your concern. If it is genuine, I genuinely accept it. I tend to follow Joseph Smith here: Joseph Smith said that “One of the grand fundamental principles of ‘Mormonism’ is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may”, that “We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out as true ‘Mormons’” If evolution is true, then it should be accepted regardless of whatever impacts it has.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Won't or can't answer the posts.

Are you saying you think CDowis posts have been more coherent here than yours? I'm still responding to yours aren't I? If you would like my response to something, please bring it up and I will respond as time allows.

[ERayR]

Intelligent design is just creationism warmed over.

Oh I thought it was just a devise to make evolution palatable to creationists.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Yes I looked at the image you posted. Creation by a creator can provide for this. Life created for a particular environment would necessitate many similarities.

I don't think you fully understand. Why did the Creator throw in the functionally irrelevant random changes? Why are their more random changes the further back you go on the evolutionary tree? Why are birds more similar to each other than birds to mammals?

Have you considered the incompatibility of macro-evolution with the fall and the atonement?

Quite a bit actually. As have a great many others. Look here for some:

http://bycommonconsent.com/author/stevepk/

I don't think this thread is a place to hash that one out. Perhaps a new one?

[ERayR]

Are you saying you think CDowis posts have been more coherent here than yours? I'm still responding to yours aren't I? If you would like my response to something, please bring it up and I will respond as time allows.

Nope. Your ability to extrapolate does not seem limited to evolution. All I was saying is your sudden withdrawal from discourse with him is an inability to answer his points.

[thesometimesaint]

Most creationists is pretty simplistic, using "poof".

Intelligent design is more sophisticated, and allows evolution as a tool in the creation process.

(Hopefully you are ignoring this post.)

Why should I ignore your postings? While we disagree on some things, I always find your postings interesting.

But back to your claim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pandas_text_analysis.png

[ERayR]

I don't think you fully understand. Why did the Creator throw in the functionally irrelevant random changes? Why are their more random changes the further back you go on the evolutionary tree? Why are birds more similar to each other than birds to mammals?

Quite a bit actually. As have a great many others. Look here for some:

http://bycommonconse...author/stevepk/

I don't think this thread is a place to hash that one out. Perhaps a new one?

You need not be concerned about my ability to understand. I have been told that I am a person of reasonable intelligence and I have been educated reasonably well so don't worry about my cognitive abilities. Just dumb it down a bit and I will follow.

The "irrelevant" random changes can fit very well into micro-evolution.

"Why are birds more similar to each other than birds to mammals?" Is this a trick question? Birds are birds why wouldn't they be similar?