Richard Dawkins: How Could Anyone “Possibly Doubt the Fact of Evolution”

_{Cornelius Hunter

February 27, 2014

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Evolutionists like to say that there are mountains of evidence for evolution, but what is the best evidence? What would make a creationist think twice? Twenty five seconds into this video evolutionist Richard Dawkins answers this question. His killer evidence is the congruence between the genes of different plants and animals. Compare the genes across a range of species and you’ll see a “perfect hierarchy, a perfect family tree.” In fact, you’ll see the same result for evolutionary trees using just single genes—the so-called gene trees. It works “with every gene you do separately.” Read more

Comments

Gene duplication can create a new body plan? Hey that is something that can be tested. Are they? On another note how did they determine that gene duplication is a blind watchmaker process? Double-headed coin flip?Joe_{March 1, 2014
March
03
Mar
1
01
2014
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT}

Jaceli123 By the way. I find it odd that the youtuber guy that posted that video would refer to Sternberg, of all people on this topic, as a buffoon. Considering R.Sternberg's a bio excerpt (my emphasis) and how it relates directly to the topic: "I hold a Ph.D. in Biology (Molecular Evolution) from Florida International University and a Ph.D. in Systems Science (Theoretical Biology) from Binghamton University. From 2001-2007, I served as a staff scientist at the National Center for Biotechnology Information, and from 2001-2007 I was a Research Associate at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History." - http://www.richardsternberg.com/biography.php Not arguing from authority, but at least demonstrating an unjustified attack on Sternberg. Man! Give a brother a break! He already lost his job for being a scientist that allows questions on a matter.JGuy_{March 1, 2014
March
03
Mar
1
01
2014
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT}

One thing he does claim is that Gene Duplication can create new body plans.
Yeah, whatever. If he said that then I've got a bridge to sell him. It is worse than unproven. It is intellectually irresponsible. People who make those kinds of mental leaps eventually fall and get hurt. Let's see . . . I have an instruction manual that tells me how to build a tool, say, a hammer or a drill. I make a copy of those particular pages and now, ta-da!, I have . . . wait for it! . . . two copies of an instruction set that tells me how to build the tool. Wonderful. Now what?Eric Anderson_{March 1, 2014
March
03
Mar
1
01
2014
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT}

Agreed, and BTW I just watched a cool video by James Shapiro. he says that natural selection is a purifier. Not a creator of something new. My question is why they don't debate him more than us. If another evolutionary biologist says that the very mechanism that all of evolutionary science is based on is only a purifier or a variation system why not debate him. That's the problem with todays science is that they don't want to move on. Lecture by James Shapiro http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZOkfjuXDg4 Great lecture. I think of it as a update on what brave evolutionary scientist are trying to changing normal evolutionary thinking. One thing he does claim is that Gene Duplication can create new body plans.Jaceli123_{March 1, 2014
March
03
Mar
1
01
2014
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT}

The problem for Darwinists is not to explain why a particular protein may multiple inherent functions (multi-functionality is a design feature by the way), the problem for Darwinists is to demonstrate that Darwinian processes can generate even a single protein of a single function, (which is much less of a threshold than demonstrating the origination of a single protein with multiple inherent functions embedded within it):bornagain77_{March 1, 2014
March
03
Mar
1
01
2014
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT}

Ok cool I just looked at some articles on Bio-Complexity and its very interesting. Anyway thanks BA77 for those links.Jaceli123_{March 1, 2014
March
03
Mar
1
01
2014
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT}

Belgian Waffle - Douglas Axe - January 18, 2013 Excerpt:,, an article from Ghent University in Belgium claims a recent scientific paper has rescued evolutionary theory by solving the problem of evolutionary innovation.,,, Here's the concession: "An important unanswered question in Darwin's theory of evolution is how new characteristics seem to appear out of nowhere." Hmmm. Yes, I can see how this could be a problem for a theory of biological origins.,, ,,,here's the plain statement: "The preduplication [i.e., ancestral] ancMalS enzyme was multifunctional and already contained the different activities found in the postduplication [i.e., evolved] enzymes, albeit at a lower level." So, all we have here is a demonstration of what we already knew -- that evolution can adjust somewhat the relative preferences enzymes show for the molecules they already work on. Those aren't new activities, though, and this isn't a new result either. What would be really new and welcome would be for evolutionary biologists to begin taking the word new seriously. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/01/belgian_waffle068421.html Following the Evidence Where It Leads: Observations on Dembski's Exchange with Shapiro - Ann Gauger - January 2012 Excerpt: So far, our research indicates that genuine innovation, a change to a function not already pre-existent in a protein, is beyond the reach of natural processes, even when the starting proteins are very similar in structure. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/01/observations_re055171.html Show Me: A Challenge for Martin Poenie - Douglas Axe August 16, 2013 Excerpt: Poenie want to be free to appeal to evolutionary processes for explaining past events without shouldering any responsibility for demonstrating that these processes actually work in the present. That clearly isn't valid. Unless we want to rewrite the rules of science, we have to assume that what doesn't work didn't work. It isn't valid to think that evolution did create new enzymes if it hasn't been demonstrated that it can create new enzymes. And if Poenie really thinks this has been done, then I'd like to present him with an opportunity to prove it. He says, "Recombination can do all the things that Axe thinks are impossible." Can it really? Please show me, Martin! I'll send you a strain of E. coli that lacks the bioF gene, and you show me how recombination, or any other natural process operating in that strain, can create a new gene that does the job of bioF within a few billion years. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/08/a_challenge_for075611.html "Biologist Douglas Axe on Evolution's (non) Ability to Produce New (Protein) Functions " - video Quote: It turns out once you get above the number six [changes in amino acids] -- and even at lower numbers actually -- but once you get above the number six you can pretty decisively rule out an evolutionary transition because it would take far more time than there is on planet Earth and larger populations than there are on planet Earth. http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2012-10-15T16_05_14-07_00 Doug Axe PhD. on the Rarity and 'non-Evolvability' of Functional Proteins - video (notes in video description) http://www.metacafe.com/watch/9243592/bornagain77_{March 1, 2014
March
03
Mar
1
01
2014
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT}

Now Evolution Must Have Evolved Different Functions Simultaneously in the Same Protein http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/12/now-evolution-must-have-evolved.htmlbornagain77_{March 1, 2014
March
03
Mar
1
01
2014
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT}

Thanks for the response and the articles: TGuy and BA77. C0nc0rdance did make some claims that pissed me off.If Darwinist are so reasonable they shouldn't be calling them buffoons or any names like that. Sorry I linked a video but that was the only way I could show you some models in the video because they didn't include citations. Here's the articles he cites I found one he cited here on UD but I couldn't find the others he cited on the website. Papers: One Fold Many Functions http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12206759 Rapid Evolution of functional domain family http://stke.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sigtrans;2/87/ra50 Anyway thought you guys would like to see the papers he's claiming off of.Jaceli123_{March 1, 2014
March
03
Mar
1
01
2014
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT}

Now Evolution Must Have Evolved Different Functions Simultaneously in the Same Protein - Cornelius Hunter - Dec. 1, 2012 Excerpt: In one study evolutionists estimated the number of attempts that evolution could possibly have to construct a new protein. Their upper limit was 10^43. The lower limit was 10^21. These estimates are optimistic for several reasons, but in any case they fall short of the various estimates of how many attempts would be required to find a small protein. One study concluded that 10^63 attempts would be required for a relatively short protein. And a similar result (10^65 attempts required) was obtained by comparing protein sequences. Another study found that 10^64 to 10^77 attempts are required. And another study concluded that 10^70 attempts would be required. In that case the protein was only a part of a larger protein which otherwise was intact, thus making the search easier. These estimates are roughly in the same ballpark, and compared to the first study giving the number of attempts possible, you have a deficit ranging from 20 to 56 orders of magnitude. Of course it gets much worse for longer proteins. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/12/now-evolution-must-have-evolved.html?showComment=1354423575480#c6691708341503051454 Proteins Did Not Evolve Even According to the Evolutionist’s Own Calculations but so What, Evolution is a Fact - Cornelius Hunter - July 2011 Excerpt: For instance, in one case evolutionists concluded that the number of evolutionary experiments required to evolve their protein (actually it was to evolve only part of a protein and only part of its function) is 10^70 (a one with 70 zeros following it). Yet elsewhere evolutionists computed that the maximum number of evolutionary experiments possible is only 10^43. Even here, giving the evolutionists every advantage, evolution falls short by 27 orders of magnitude. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/07/response-to-comments-proteins-did-not.html Here Are Those Two Protein Evolution Falsifications That Have Evolutionists Rewriting Their Script - Cornelius Hunter - March 2012 Excerpt: Several different studies indicate that, at a minimum, about 10^70 (a one followed by 70 zeros) evolutionary experiments would be needed to get close enough to a workable protein design before evolutionary mechanisms could take over and establish the protein in a population. For instance, one study concluded that 10^63 attempts would be required for a relatively short protein. And a similar result (10^65 attempts required) was obtained by comparing protein sequences. Another study found that 10^64 to 10^77 attempts are required, and another study concluded that 10^70 attempts would be required. This requirement for 10^70 evolutionary experiments is far greater than what evolution could accomplish. Even evolutionists have had to admit that evolution could only have a maximum of 10^43 such experiments. It is important to understand how tiny this number is compared to 10^70. 10^43 is not more than half of 10^70. It is not even close to half. 10^43 is an astronomically tiny sliver of 10^70. Furthermore, the estimate of 10^43 is, itself, entirely unrealistic. For instance, it assume the entire history of the Earth is available, rather than the limited time window that evolution actually would have had. Even more importantly, it assumes the pre existence of bacteria and, yes, proteins. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/03/here-are-those-two-protein-evolution.html Correcting Four Misconceptions about my 2004 Article in JMB — May 4th, 2011 by Douglas Axe http://www.biologicinstitute.org/post/19310918874/correcting-four-misconceptions-about-my-2004-article-in ID Scientist Douglas Axe Responds to His Critics - June 2011 - Audio Podcast http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2011-06-01T15_59_43-07_00 Can Even One Polymer Become a Protein in 13 billion Years? – Dr. Douglas Axe, Biologic Institute - audio http://radiomaria.us/discoveringintelligentdesign/2013/06/20/june-20-2013-can-even-one-polymer-become-a-protein-in-13-billion-years-dr-douglas-axe-biologic-institute/bornagain77_{March 1, 2014
March
03
Mar
1
01
2014
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT}

Jaceli123 He should publish an official response, but probably not a sound bite on youtube. If he's open to review of his own claims, he maybe should do a write-up on his blog. Anyway. I didn't listen carefully to it, but an example of what to look for is something like one of the comments claims to point out - essentially that Sternberg said certain details on his points that were not acknowledged or understood. His calling Sternberg a baffoon and Meyer a slimey weazels doesn't help his case. He said of Axe that he gets a small measure of grudging respect. Why grudging?JGuy_{March 1, 2014
March
03
Mar
1
01
2014
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT}

as to:
"Only materialistic explanations accepted. No philosophical or theistic terminology is allowed."
You are aware that materialism is a philosophy, not a science, aren't you?
One day a group of scientists got together and decided that man had come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one scientist to go and tell Him that they were done with Him. The scientist walked up to God and said, "God, we've decided that we no longer need you. We're to the point that we can clone people and do many miraculous things, so why don't you just go on and get lost." God listened very patiently and kindly to the man and after the scientist was done talking, God said, "Very well, how about this, let's say we have a man making contest." To which the scientist replied, "OK, great!" But God added, "Now, we're going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam." The scientist said, "Sure, no problem" and bent down and grabbed himself a handful of dirt. God just looked at him and said, "No, no, no. You go get your own dirt!" http://www.getyourowndirt.com/
bornagain77_{March 1, 2014
March
03
Mar
1
01
2014
03:26 AM
3
03
26
AM
PDT}

Bending rules for animal propulsion Animal propulsors such as wings and fins bend during motion and these bending patterns are believed to contribute to the high efficiency of animal movements compared with those of man-made designs. However, efforts to implement flexible designs have been met with contradictory performance results. Consequently, there is no clear understanding of the role played by propulsor flexibility or, more fundamentally, how flexible propulsors should be designed for optimal performance. Here we demonstrate that during steady-state motion by a wide range of animals, from fruit flies to humpback whales, operating in either air or water, natural propulsors bend in similar ways within a highly predictable range of characteristic motions. By providing empirical design criteria derived from natural propulsors that have convergently arrived at a limited design space, these results provide a new framework from which to understand and design flexible propulsors.
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140218/ncomms4293/full/ncomms4293.html please, can someone out there explain to me how in the world those mechanisms "appeared" ? Only materialistic explanations accepted. No philosophical or theistic terminology is allowed. Just answer the question using purely scientific concepts. I look forward to read some reasonably logic explanations.Dionisio_{March 1, 2014
March
03
Mar
1
01
2014
03:02 AM
3
03
02
AM
PDT}

Have you guys heard if the youtuber c0nc0rdance. He made a video of him claiming that he refute doug axes protein models claiming their not like the original ones. Video: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0MHAO4JE0G0 Any way I was hoping we could discuss the papers he cites in the video and claims he makes. Also are there any other papers that come to the same conclusion that are not ID?Jaceli123_{February 28, 2014
February
02
Feb
28
28
2014
07:03 PM
7
07
03
PM
PDT}

'Random' Mutations practically non-existent:
How life changes itself: the Read-Write (RW) genome. – 2013 Excerpt: Research dating back to the 1930s has shown that genetic change is the result of cell-mediated processes, not simply accidents or damage to the DNA. This cell-active view of genome change applies to all scales of DNA sequence variation, from point mutations to large-scale genome rearrangements and whole genome duplications (WGDs). This conceptual change to active cell inscriptions controlling RW genome functions has profound implications for all areas of the life sciences. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23876611 Shapiro on Random Mutation: “What I ask others interested in evolution to give up is the notion of random accidental mutation.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-shapiro/jerry-coyne-fails-to-unde_b_1411144.html
Natural Selection grossly inadequate for the job at hand:
Evolution Vs Genetic Entropy (Kimura’s Distribution)– Andy McIntosh – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028086/ The GS Principle (The Genetic Selection Principle) – Abel – 2009 Excerpt: The GS Principle, sometimes called “The 2nd Law of Biology,” states that selection must occur at the molecular/genetic level, not just at the fittest phenotypic/organismic level, to produce and explain life.,,, Natural selection cannot operate at the genetic level. http://www.bioscience.org/2009/v14/af/3426/fulltext.htm
Origin Of Life research is a pipe dream:
"We have not the slightest chance for the chemical evolutionary origin of even the simplest of cells". Origin Of Life? - Probability Of Protein And The Information Of DNA - Dean Kenyon - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VhR2BHhxeo
The Fossil Record looks nothing like Darwinists imagine it to be:
“What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin, and the continual divergence of major lineages into the morphospace between distinct adaptive types.” Robert L Carroll (born 1938) – vertebrate paleontologist who specialises in Paleozoic and Mesozoic amphibians “In virtually all cases a new taxon appears for the first time in the fossil record with most definitive features already present, and practically no known stem-group forms.” Fossils and Evolution, TS Kemp – Curator of Zoological Collections, Oxford University, Oxford Uni Press, p246, 1999
Unfathomed levels of integrated complex information that our best computer programmers can only dream of emulating:
Systems biology: Untangling the protein web - July 2009 Excerpt: Vidal thinks that technological improvements — especially in nanotechnology, to generate more data, and microscopy, to explore interaction inside cells, along with increased computer power — are required to push systems biology forward. "Combine all this and you can start to think that maybe some of the information flow can be captured," he says. But when it comes to figuring out the best way to explore information flow in cells, Tyers jokes that it is like comparing different degrees of infinity. "The interesting point coming out of all these studies is how complex these systems are — the different feedback loops and how they cross-regulate each other and adapt to perturbations are only just becoming apparent," he says. "The simple pathway models are a gross oversimplification of what is actually happening." http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v460/n7253/full/460415a.html
Consciousness:
Mind and Cosmos - Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False - Thomas Nagel Excerpt: If materialism cannot accommodate consciousness and other mind-related aspects of reality, then we must abandon a purely materialist understanding of nature in general, extending to biology, evolutionary theory, and cosmology. Since minds are features of biological systems that have developed through evolution, the standard materialist version of evolutionary biology is fundamentally incomplete. And the cosmological history that led to the origin of life and the coming into existence of the conditions for evolution cannot be a merely materialist history. http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199919758.do
the real question should be, "How Could Anyone “Possibly Doubt the Fact of Intelligent Design?” Verse and Music:
Proverbs 21:30 No wisdom, no understanding, and no counsel will prevail against the LORD. Red - Feed The Machine http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zj2uZO7xnus
bornagain77_{February 28, 2014
February
02
Feb
28
28
2014
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT}

as to:
"How Could Anyone “Possibly Doubt the Fact of Evolution?”"
Let's see, let me count a few ways: No mathematical basis:
Oxford University Seeks Mathemagician — May 5th, 2011 by Douglas Axe Excerpt: “Grand theories in physics are usually expressed in mathematics. Newton’s mechanics and Einstein’s theory of special relativity are essentially equations. Words are needed only to interpret the terms. Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection has obstinately remained in words since 1859.”… http://biologicinstitute.org/2011/05/05/oxford-university-seeks-mathemagician/ Active Information in Metabiology – Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, Robert J. Marks II – 2013 Except page 9: Chaitin states [3], “For many years I have thought that it is a mathematical scandal that we do not have proof that Darwinian evolution works.” In fact, mathematics has consistently demonstrated that undirected Darwinian evolution does not work. http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2013.4/BIO-C.2013.4 HISTORY OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY – WISTAR DESTROYS EVOLUTION Excerpt: A number of mathematicians, familiar with the biological problems, spoke at that 1966 Wistar Institute,, For example, Murray Eden showed that it would be impossible for even a single ordered pair of genes to be produced by DNA mutations in the bacteria, E. coli,—with 5 billion years in which to produce it! His estimate was based on 5 trillion tons of the bacteria covering the planet to a depth of nearly an inch during that 5 billion years. He then explained that the genes of E. coli contain over a trillion (10^12) bits of data. That is the number 10 followed by 12 zeros. *Eden then showed the mathematical impossibility of protein forming by chance. http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/20hist12.htm Darwin’s Doubt – Chapter 12 – Complex Adaptations and the Neo-Darwinian Math – Dr. Paul Giem – video http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/
No Empirical Support:
“The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/ Where’s the substantiating evidence for neo-Darwinism? https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q-PBeQELzT4pkgxB2ZOxGxwv6ynOixfzqzsFlCJ9jrw/edit Waiting Longer for Two Mutations – Michael J. Behe Excerpt: Citing malaria literature sources (White 2004) I had noted that the de novo appearance of chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium falciparum was an event of probability of 1 in 10^20. I then wrote that ‘for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would have to wait 100 million times 10 million years’ (1 quadrillion years)(Behe 2007) (because that is the extrapolated time that it would take to produce 10^20 humans). Durrett and Schmidt (2008, p. 1507) retort that my number ‘is 5 million times larger than the calculation we have just given’ using their model (which nonetheless “using their model” gives a prohibitively long waiting time of 216 million years). Their criticism compares apples to oranges. My figure of 10^20 is an empirical statistic from the literature; it is not, as their calculation is, a theoretical estimate from a population genetics model. http://www.discovery.org/a/9461 Don’t Mess With ID (Overview of Behe’s ‘Edge of Evolution’ and Durrett and Schmidt’s paper at the 20:00 minute mark) – Paul Giem – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JeYJ29-I7o
bornagain77_{February 28, 2014
February
02
Feb
28
28
2014
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT}

Dawkins invokes a line of reasoning for scientific evidence. Not scientific evidence. Poor soul misunderstands the vigour of science relating to conclusions. Comparing things and reasoning about why they look alike is not science. Its guessing without imagination. A creator would make biology just as it is found on the atomic level today. Why not? Why should God make everything so different at basic levels of life. He doesn't do that for physics?Robert Byers_{February 27, 2014
February
02
Feb
27
27
2014
10:15 PM
10
10
15
PM
PDT}

BA77 @ 9 In a brief correspondence with Walter ReMine on some latest evidence a long time ago. He responded (close paraphrasing) by asking: why do evolutionists focus on the latest evidence? ... b/c the half-life of evolutionary evidences is about 15 years... as it soon gets invalidated...etc.. as evidence for evolution. Indeed, this has been my observation. I recall when Dawkins use to hammer on the inverted retina as bad design (which is already a bad argument)... to be thwarted with the discovery of 'fiber optic' acting cells that pass through the optic nerve fibers... to the effect of evaporating his complaint even on his own terms in one swoop. Seems to me the delays actually hurt evolutionists b/c it gives them more rope to hang themselves (their arguments) with as they invest much time & faith into those arguments. :PJGuy_{February 27, 2014
February
02
Feb
27
27
2014
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT}

#12 William J Murray
Of course it matters what he meant "privately", because that is what he meant. One can either argue against the word content in a debate or what was meant. They are not the same thing. Darwinists/materialists constantly employ arguments against words instead of what is meant simply to confuse and confound debate.
That's still a wrong point to argue against. One should object at the point when Dawkins or others equivocate between "evolution" and "theory of neo-Darwinian evolution." That was not the case here in the cited statements, though. But arguing against process of "evolution" is self-defeating since such process is not only a fact but it is one of the strongest facts supporting ID. Namely, design of irreducibly complex systems which can evolve and adapt to new challenges requires far more intelligence than merely designing static irreducibly complex systems which can't adapt to new circumstances. The fact of evolution is the best friend of ID hypothesis, not its worst enemy as Cornelius, creationists, such as Ham, and other scriptural literalists see it. Cornelius is for whatever reason trying to serve two masters, ID and creationism, and is not helping either with his alleged ID wrapped in creationist language.
That depends on what you mean by common ancestry, and whether you mean it in terms of parental lineages or in terms of the source of the information in question.
As far as any empirical evidence, information is transferred via DNA and cytoplasm, either vertically or horizontally. Note also that entire organism is constructed from its DNA and cytoplasm, hence there is no need to inject something from outside to achieve arbitrary degree of phenotypic change.
Information supplied by intelligent agency doesn't have to work its way in via lineage - it can be inserted directly via an intelligent agency and the process would still meet your definition of "evolution", but not Dawkins'.
There is no evidence of external/artificial genetic engineering in the evolution, of the kind that humans are doing now. After all, if there was, we would also find some residual artifacts of such technology. But none was ever found. Hence, that's a pure speculation, a wishful answer looking for a question. Namely, cellular biochemical networks are themselves powerful distributed self-programming computers of the same kind as networks of neurons, such as human brain. We already know that these networks are smart enough and understand physics and biochemistry in such depth to be able build live cells from simple molecules via molecular level engineering. That alone is a technological feat that our present science and technology could only dream of achieving in the future. To say nothing of combining trillions of such live cells into a harmonious whole of an organism. The intelligence and knowledge of physics and biochemistry behind such feats are beyond our imagination. Hence, these biochemical networks are far, far smarter than our present science in the domain of bio-engineering of live cells and organisms from simple molecules. There is no reason to require any additional intelligence for designs behind evolutionary changes than what these biochemical networks already demonstrate of being capable every moment in every live organism. This is precisely the objection that S.L. Talbott raises against Stephen Meyer & Discovery Institute's version of ID (article). There is no need to look for intelligence outside of the organism to account for design of novel, irreducibly complex cellular nano-technologies or CSI -- the biochemical networks of live organisms are more than intelligent enough to come up with and construct such technologies. After all, by the time you read this paragraphs, your own biochemical networks have constructed and built thousands of live cells and integrated them into your organism of 100 trillion cells, just from simple molecules. There is more intelligence in that achievement than anything our present science and biotechnology, plus brains of all the scientists in the world put together, could imagine ever equaling.nightlight_{February 27, 2014
February
02
Feb
27
27
2014
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT}

This is a common rhetorical game played with the word "evolution." Of course, Mr. Dawkins, no-one doubts the truth of "evolution" as long as it is defined very broadly and loosely, say, "change over time" or some such. This rhetorical game is a very critical part of the evolutionary storyline: 1. Make large, sweeping, grandiose claims (all life arose from a self-reproducing molecule; wings, eyes, hearts, lungs all came about by a series of mutations plus natural selection; creature x evolved into creature y; take your pick). 2. Then when anyone asks for evidence, provide something completely pedestrian (finch beaks, peppered moths, comparative anatomy, gene comparisons) as the "proof" of evolution. 3. Tack on a statement about the foolishness of anyone who would be so stupid as to question "evolution" (wink, wink, nod, nod -- meaning grand "evolution" as in #1 above), because the evidence is just so obvious (please don't notice that the only evidence offered was pedestrian stuff in #2, not #1). Dawkins knows quite well how someone could possibly "doubt the fact of evolution." Which means he is purposely being deceitful. Either that, or he really doesn't know what he is talking about. So which is it, Mr. Dawkins, are you ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but we'd rather not consider that)?Eric Anderson_{February 27, 2014
February
02
Feb
27
27
2014
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT}

It doesn’t matter what he meant privately since what he is arguing there is that there is no rational way out of concluding common past ancestry from the genetic similarity.
Of course it matters what he meant "privately", because that is what he meant. One can either argue against the word content in a debate or what was meant. They are not the same thing. Darwinists/materialists constantly employ arguments against words instead of what is meant simply to confuse and confound debate.
As to whether those changes is were results of random, aimless mutation (neo-Darwinism) or designed and guided transformation (the DNA program update, aka ID) is an unrelated question.
Unrelated only if you divorce what Dawkins means from the words he employs to convey that meaning through, and then argue about an entirely different meaning you have construed from the same words.
Which is correct. After all, we detect plagiarism (result of intelligent action) the same way.
That depends on what you mean by common ancestry, and whether you mean it in terms of parental lineages or in terms of the source of the information in question. Information supplied by intelligent agency doesn't have to work its way in via lineage - it can be inserted directly via an intelligent agency and the process would still meet your definition of "evolution", but not Dawkins'. I'm wondering what you mean by "creationism". IMO, all useful information (in any significant quantity) is created by intelligence. Whether that information is embedded at some origin point or inserted later (1) doesn't make the information less "created", and (2) doesn't contradict your definition of "evolution" above. It does, however, contradict what Dawkins means when he says "evolution".
The problem is that Cornelius is completely irrationally arguing against the first conclusion (analogous to student defending ‘Ms. teacher, I didn’t copy my essay from wikipedia; the two just happened to be independently created that way’) i.e. he is advocating creationism while mislabeling it as ID, hence he is helping neo-Darwinists discredit ID (since that’s exactly how they do it, by conflating these two positions).
I think, rather, that it is you that is employing a definition of "evolution" that, had Dawkins been using that definition, would render Mr. Hunter's points moot. When Dawkins says the evidence perfectly matches "evolutionary theory", though, he is not using "evolution" in the same trivial sense you are.William J Murray_{February 27, 2014
February
02
Feb
27
27
2014
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT}

nightlight:
Why is this a controversy? ... If Cornelius has any problem with evolution ...
I have a problem with science being abused.Cornelius Hunter_{February 27, 2014
February
02
Feb
27
27
2014
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT}

This guy has a pretty interesting video playlist debunking Darwinian claims from genetic homology Debunking Evolution-Homology http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omldwV3lFCk&feature=c4-overview&list=UU9x9UOtHy1nKswA0SWOKGeQbornagain77_{February 27, 2014
February
02
Feb
27
27
2014
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT}

Of related note: Richard Dawkins claimed that the FOXP2 gene was among ‘the most compelling evidences’ for establishing that humans evolved from monkeys, yet, as with all the other evidences offered from Darwinists, once the FOXP2 gene was critically analyzed it fell completely apart as proof for human evolution: Dawkins' Best Evidence (FOXP2 gene) Refuted - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfFZ8lCn5uU In the following paper, the paper admits that the FOXP2 gene evidence (i.e. Dawkins' 'best' evidence) is ‘tenuous’,, Human brain evolution: From gene discovery to phenotype discovery - Todd M. Preuss - February 2012 Excerpt: It is now clear that the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees are far more extensive than previously thought; their genomes are not 98% or 99% identical.,,, ,,our understanding of the relationship between genetic changes and phenotypic changes is tenuous. This is true even for the most intensively studied gene, FOXP2,, In part, the difficulty of connecting genes to phenotypes reflects our generally poor knowledge of human phenotypic specializations, as well as the difficulty of interpreting the consequences of genetic changes in species that are not amenable to invasive research. http://www.pnas.org/content/109/suppl.1/10709.full.pdf As well, the primary piece of evidence, at the Dover trial, trying to establish chimp human ancestry from SNP (Single Nucleotide Polymorphism) evidence was overturned: Dover Revisited: With Beta-Globin Pseudogene Now Found to Be Functional, an Icon of the “Junk DNA” Argument Bites the Dust - Casey Luskin - April 23, 2013 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/04/an_icon_of_the_071421.htmlbornagain77_{February 27, 2014
February
02
Feb
27
27
2014
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT}

Evolutionism posits a somewhat gradual, incremental evolution driven by culled genetic accidents. Natural selection, a process of elimination, is said to be blind, mindless and incorporates heritable random, as in happenstance/ accidental, mutations. Dawkins calls it blind watchmaker evolution. What we need is a way to model what mutations do. That is something beyond the piddly changes we observe. Changes in beak size does not explain the finch. Anti-biotic resistance does not explain bacteria. Moth coloration does not explain the moth. Changes in eye color does not explain the vision system nor the type of eye nor the organism. An albino dwarf with sickle-celled anemia is what we can get when mutations accumulate. Not quite what evolutionism requires. We need to be able to test the hypothesis that changes to genomes can account for the diversity of life starting from the first populations as Darwin saw it- simple prokaryotes. Only then could we determine if natural selection is up to the task. But thanks to the current state of biology being dominated by blind watchmaker evolution, no one has any idea what makes an organism what it is and the evidence is against the “organisms are the sum of their genome”*
To understand the challenge to the “superwatch” model by the erosion of the gene-centric view of nature, it is necessary to recall August Weismann’s seminal insight more than a century ago regarding the need for genetic determinants to specify organic form. As Weismann saw so clearly, in order to account for the unerring transmission through time with precise reduplication, for each generation of “complex contingent assemblages of matter” (superwatches), it is necessary to propose the existence of stable abstract genetic blueprints or programs in the genes- he called them “determinants”- sequestered safely in the germ plasm, away from the ever varying and destabilizing influences of the extra-genetic environment.

Such carefully isolated determinants would theoretically be capable of reliably transmitting contingent order through time and specifying it reliably each generation. Thus, the modern “gene-centric” view of life was born, and with it the heroic twentieth century effort to identify Weismann’s determinants, supposed to be capable of reliably specifying in precise detail all the contingent order of the phenotype. Weismann was correct in this: the contingent view of form and indeed the entire mechanistic conception of life- the superwatch model- is critically dependent on showing that all or at least the vast majority of organic form is specified in precise detail in the genes.

Yet by the late 1980s it was becoming obvious to most genetic researchers, including myself, since my own main research interest in the ‘80s and ‘90s was human genetics, that the heroic effort to find information specifying life’s order in the genes had failed. There was no longer the slightest justification for believing there exists anything in the genome remotely resembling a program capable of specifying in detail all the complex order of the phenotype. The emerging picture made it increasingly difficult to see genes as Weismann’s “unambiguous bearers of information” or view them as the sole source of the durability and stability of organic form. It is true that genes influence every aspect of development, but influencing something is not the same as determining it. Only a small fraction of all known genes, such as the developmental fate switching genes, can be imputed to have any sort of directing or controlling influence on form generation. From being “isolated directors” of a one-way game of life, genes are now considered to be interactive players in a dynamic two-way dance of almost unfathomable complexity, as described by Keller in The Century of The Gene- Michael Denton “An Anti-Darwinian Intellectual Journey”, Uncommon Dissent (2004), pages 171-2
See also Why Is A Fly Not A Horse? You would think that answering that question what makes an organism what it is? (with science as opposed to dogmatic declaration) with be paramount to biology. Because without an answer to that question evolutionism is untestable and Dobzhansky is just question begging "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution". And that is another reason why Doug Theobald's "29+ evidences for macroevolution" is absent a mechanism and also why it fails-> there aren't any known mechanisms for producing macroevolutionary change because no one even knows what it entails. * we are just what emerges from the somehow coordinayed interactions of the matter and energy of a fertilized egg (the environemnet wouldn’t change what type of organism comes out)Joe_{February 27, 2014
February
02
Feb
27
27
2014
05:11 AM
5
05
11
AM
PDT}

One has to go no farther than echolocation found in bats and dolphins which are in unrelated lineages and live in totally separate and unique environments to know that the phylogenetic tree has some serious problems.Design_{February 27, 2014
February
02
Feb
27
27
2014
05:11 AM
5
05
11
AM
PDT}

We don't even know what makes an organism what it is. And until we know that then Dick's position is nothing but BSJoe_{February 27, 2014
February
02
Feb
27
27
2014
05:10 AM
5
05
10
AM
PDT}

Dr. Hunter, I particularly liked the microRNA's study of 'he has not found “a single example that would support the traditional tree.”',,,
Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution – Tiny molecules called microRNAs are tearing apart traditional ideas about the animal family tree. – Elie Dolgin – 27 June 2012 Excerpt: “I’ve looked at thousands of microRNA genes, and I can’t find a single example that would support the traditional tree,” he says. “…they give a totally different tree from what everyone else wants.” (Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution, Nature 486,460–462, 28 June 2012) (molecular palaeobiologist – Kevin Peterson),,, “It looks like either the mammal microRNAs evolved in a totally different way or the traditional topology is wrong. http://www.nature.com/news/phylogeny-rewriting-evolution-1.10885
And this ‘tearing apart’ includes the hypothetical chimp-human connection:
Gene Regulation Differences Between Humans, Chimpanzees Very Complex – Oct. 17, 2013 Excerpt: Although humans and chimpanzees share,, similar genomes (70% per Tomkins), previous studies have shown that the species evolved major differences in mRNA expression levels.,,, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131017144632.htm
For although the discordance between gene sequences is now known to be severe (and that is not even considering the large percentage of ORFan genes, 10 to 30%, found in each different species that is sequenced), the differences between microRNA's (and RNA's in general) are interesting for it is found that microRNAs are part of the developmental Gene Regulatory Network. microRNAs are found to be part an integral, though by no means complete, part of the highly sophisticated gene regulatory network that tells genes when to turn on and off during embryonic development.
Evolution by Splicing – Comparing gene transcripts (RNAs) from different species reveals surprising splicing diversity. – Ruth Williams – December 20, 2012 Excerpt: A major question in vertebrate evolutionary biology is “how do physical and behavioral differences arise if we have a very similar set of genes to that of the mouse, chicken, or frog?”,,, A commonly discussed mechanism was variable levels of gene expression, but both Blencowe and Chris Burge,,, found that gene expression is relatively conserved among species. On the other hand, the papers show that most alternative splicing events differ widely between even closely related species. “The alternative splicing patterns are very different even between humans and chimpanzees,” said Blencowe.,,, http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view%2FarticleNo%2F33782%2Ftitle%2FEvolution-by-Splicing%2F
Finding microRNA’s to be severely discordant with Darwinian expectations, as well as finding genetic regulatory networks, and alternative splicing patterns in general, to be unique to both chimps and humans, of which RNA’s are a major part, will be extremely problematic for Darwinists (understatement) since, number 1, ENCODE has already called for a redefinition of the concept of a gene to include RNAs,,
Landscape of transcription in human cells – Sept. 6, 2012 Excerpt: Here we report evidence that three-quarters of the human genome is capable of being transcribed, as well as observations about the range and levels of expression, localization, processing fates, regulatory regions and modifications of almost all currently annotated and thousands of previously unannotated RNAs. These observations, taken together, prompt a redefinition of the concept of a gene.,,, Isoform expression by a gene does not follow a minimalistic expression strategy, resulting in a tendency for genes to express many isoforms simultaneously, with a plateau at about 10–12 expressed isoforms per gene per cell line. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7414/full/nature11233.html Time to Redefine the Concept of a Gene? – Sept. 10, 2012 Excerpt: As detailed in my second post on alternative splicing, there is one human gene that codes for 576 different proteins, and there is one fruit fly gene that codes for 38,016 different proteins! While the fact that a single gene can code for so many proteins is truly astounding, we didn’t really know how prevalent alternative splicing is. Are there only a few genes that participate in it, or do most genes engage in it? The ENCODE data presented in reference 2 indicates that at least 75% of all genes participate in alternative splicing. They also indicate that the number of different proteins each gene makes varies significantly, with most genes producing somewhere between 2 and 25. Based on these results, it seems clear that the RNA transcripts are the real carriers of genetic information. This is why some members of the ENCODE team are arguing that an RNA transcript, not a gene, should be considered the fundamental unit of inheritance. http://networkedblogs.com/BYdo8
And number two consequences of disrupting the Gene Regulatory Networks are always catastrophically bad
A Listener's Guide to the Meyer-Marshall Debate: Focus on the Origin of Information Question -Casey Luskin - December 4, 2013 Excerpt: "There is always an observable consequence if a dGRN (developmental gene regulatory network) subcircuit is interrupted. Since these consequences are always catastrophically bad, flexibility is minimal, and since the subcircuits are all interconnected, the whole network partakes of the quality that there is only one way for things to work. And indeed the embryos of each species develop in only one way." - Eric Davidson http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/12/a_listeners_gui079811.html Darwin or Design? - Paul Nelson at Saddleback Church - Nov. 2012 - ontogenetic depth (excellent update) - video Text from one of the Saddleback slides: 1. Animal body plans are built in each generation by a stepwise process, from the fertilized egg to the many cells of the adult. The earliest stages in this process determine what follows. 2. Thus, to change -- that is, to evolve -- any body plan, mutations expressed early in development must occur, be viable, and be stably transmitted to offspring. 3. But such early-acting mutations of global effect are those least likely to be tolerated by the embryo. Losses of structures are the only exception to this otherwise universal generalization about animal development and evolution. Many species will tolerate phenotypic losses if their local (environmental) circumstances are favorable. Hence island or cave fauna often lose (for instance) wings or eyes. http://www.saddleback.com/mc/m/7ece8/
Thus the differences between supposedly closely related species are, the more we learn, found to be much more severe than Darwinists had presupposed. Moreover, the differences are of a nature that trying to 'randomly' change them in a gradual 'bottom up' Darwinian manner is 'always catastrophically bad'. Verse and Music:
Genesis 1:24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. Mandisa - Esther - Born For This - music video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxFCber4TDo
bornagain77_{February 27, 2014
February
02
Feb
27
27
2014
04:16 AM
4
04
16
AM
PDT}

"I hardly think Dawkins is employing an ID-friendly definition of the term “evolution”." It doesn't matter what he meant privately since what he is arguing there is that there is no rational way out of concluding common past ancestry from the genetic similarity. Which is correct. After all, we detect plagiarism (result of intelligent action) the same way. As to whether those changes is were results of random, aimless mutation (neo-Darwinism) or designed and guided transformation (the DNA program update, aka ID) is an unrelated question. The problem is that Cornelius is completely irrationally arguing against the first conclusion (analogous to student defending 'Ms. teacher, I didn't copy my essay from wikipedia; the two just happened to be independently created that way') i.e. he is advocating creationism while mislabeling it as ID, hence he is helping neo-Darwinists discredit ID (since that's exactly how they do it, by conflating these two positions).nightlight_{February 27, 2014
February
02
Feb
27
27
2014
03:46 AM
3
03
46
AM
PDT}

Nightlight, I hardly think Dawkins is employing an ID-friendly definition of the term "evolution". By your definition, intelligent insertions and manipulations of biological information and processes would still meet the criteria of being called part of "evolution".William J Murray_{February 27, 2014
February
02
Feb
27
27
2014
03:12 AM
3
03
12
AM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply