Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Another Form of Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD)

arroba Email

In the Haldane thread, DaveScot responded to a comment I made with this:

On Haldane’s Dilemma, I’ve determined the evolutionist argument goes like this: Orthodox evolution theory is a fact, not a theory. Therefore Haldane’s Dilemma must be wrong.

I propose a corollary to DaveScot’s proposition:

Orthodox evolution theory is a fact, not a theory. Therefore the fossil record, common sense, and simple statistical reasoning must be wrong.

Common sense and a little elementary arithmetic suggest that: 1) given a few million years (the proposed timeframe for the mechanism of random mutation and natural selection to evolve humans from a primitive ape-like ancestor); 2) a generous assumption about generation time (let’s say, 10 years); and 3) a generous assumption about the average number of creatures in the proposed population (let’s assume millions) — random molecular events cannot possibly explain how a primitive ape-like ancestor turned into people who are capable of producing symphonies, computers and space shuttles.

The case against NeoDarwinian Evolutionary theory is a complete no-brainer, and those who insist upon defending it (NDE) are suffering from another form of ADD. They haven’t paid attention, and are the victims of A Darwinian Delusion*.

*Thanks to Richard Dawkins for the inspiration.

Gil, of course the evolutionists act that way. They have to. To do anything else would be open to the possibility that there is a God and that they are responsible for their actions. They don't want that, and so ID must be wrong. Caleb Rookwood
The point of my little rant is that one doesn’t need higher mathematics, profound technical analysis, or a Haldane’s Dilemma to figure out that what is claimed for Darwinian mechanisms could not have happened. With an awareness of the nature of DNA and the integrated functional complexity of living things, and a little math that one can do in his head, it becomes immediately obvious that the available probabilistic resources (yes, I know, natural selection throws out the bad stuff) are countless orders of magnitude (actually, orders of magnitude of orders of magnitude) out of sync with the task at hand. NDE mechanisms aren’t even in the ballpark from the get-go, so all the rest is just vanity and chasing after the wind. GilDodgen
caligula Your last comment wasn't approved. If you're getting frustrated to the point of being uncivil then it's time for you to leave again. I only resurrected you at the request of Salvador in the first place. As far as I'm concerned you contribute nothing here. DaveScot
Gil, thank you for your very clear summary. Frankly, I am tired of discussing things which should be self-evident to everybody. So many interesting, detailed and convincing arguments have been given in the ID field, and also in this blog, about the utter impossibility of natural selection to explain biological complexity even in the basic model of bacteria, where you have billions and billions of copies of the DNA which is to evolve, fast reproducing organisms and long times (billions of years). And yet, it is impossible to explain the generation of hundreds or thousands of new proteins to determine a true bacterial speciation, even in that context. But frankly, trying to explain the speciation from chimps to men, a few million years available, few copies of the DNA to evolve (you are certainly very generous in your assumptions, Gil), a very, very slow reproduction time, and one of the most amazing differences in function we can observe in nature (just think of the huge differences in brain organization and functions), well, that's beyond my ability not only to believe, but even to conceive. I can't even think of debating that, because, to paraphrase our friend Dawkins, those who believe such a thing must certainly be "ignorant, stupid or insane" (or wicked, and I would definitely consider that). gpuccio
Crucial elements are missing from your article. You forget selection. So while your argument is correct as such, it fails to describe Darwinism. You forget to tell the reader why primitive ape-like ancestors can't turn into people with a high-tech culture via adaptations. Specifically how many adaptations are needed to produce Homo sapiens from a primitive ape-like ancestor? Also, if it was biological adaptations that produced symphonies, computers and space shuttles, how many adaptations were needed for each? And if the latter are produced by biological adaptations, instead of the evolving human culture, can we expect natives of the jungle to come up with a blueprint for a novel space shuttle prototype? caligula

Leave a Reply