Natural selection v Intelligent design

[stevevw]

So you expect us to take Carson seriously when he dismisses evolution, yet when he shows a poor understanding of it you expect us to take his remarks as sarcasm? Special pleading, steve.

No you are painting two possible answers and restricting the other possibilities. He may believe in evolution in some form such as micro evolution but that wasn't covered in the interview because it wasn't an in depth one about evolution or creation. It was about general things about Dr Carson. He dismissed one point about what evolution claims and may have been sarcastic with just that. He seemed straight forward about the other aspects he discussed with evolution and gave detailed answers which showed he had a greater level of understanding than you or others have given credit.

steve, you were caught mashing two sources together, one a reputable science journal and another a creationist website. Should you really be pointing fingers?

No This is in your own mind and the way you perceive that anyone who disagrees is up to something or otherwise you will find someway of undermining them. You will try anything rather than deal with the facts and evidence. But still you avoid talking about the evidence from the reputable ones which supports the creationists ones anyway. Besides it wasn't just one creationists and one reputable. It was a number of reputable and one that may support creation or ID which is a completely different balance showing the majority from non religious sites.

The point is you home in on the ones you call creationists and neglect to mention the reputable ones which more or less support the creationists ones. This is the pattern I have noticed. Home is on side issues or the person. Anything to distract attention away from the truth of the evidence being presented. I do this for a reason. I post more reputable ones so that it has solid support to begin with.

But then I add a creationists or ID one as well to show you that what you often say about them isn't true. That they also have good support that is the same as the non religious sites. The other point is the creationists ones and especially the ID sites have good qualified experts who are showing the evidence based on the science and nothing else. They back up their research with scientific tests and peer reviewed open access papers.

But because some people jump on them as soon as you mention anything to do with religion they are rejected which is totally biased and unfair. So this is my way of upholding the right for them to be included as support. Yet the hypocritical thing is there has been evidence that shows that some of the so called reputable ones have been fudging the evidence and getting it wrong. But because people can sometimes also blindly believe that scientists are always right they have accepted anything they say. This has been verified by the fact that a lot of peer reviewed research has been accepted and then found to be wrong.

Of course they didn't mention it; it's irrelevant.

On what basis was it irrelevant. It was just as relevant to his evolution views as his other comment on evolution.

They use an inaccurate description. Remember, you are claiming that this guy is an expert on the evolution of the human brain.

No this is where you are changing things again. I said he was an expert on the functions of the brain. Along with his knowledge of evolution which can even be a standard knowledge he can tell better than most what it takes to evolve a brain.

Yet he doesn't even appear to know how primate lineages are related to one another. If he can be mistaken about something so basic, what leads you to believe that he could not be mistaken about something like the evolution of the human brain?

The reason I say that he was probably being sarcastic is that he shows he does know more than that basic level from the other comments he makes about mutations, protein sequences ect. That is much more detailed and knowledgeable than like you said the basic knowledge of primate lineages. He is a very intelligent man and has been recognized for this so chances are he knows more about this but choose to answer in that way because he has probably heard that line 100 times before so why not play along with it.

You are picking-and-choosing when to uphold Carson as an authority out of convenience. He apparently isn't an authority when he talks about the lineage of homo sapiens, but he is an authority when he talks about the evolution of the brain of homo sapiens? Come on, steve... that's ridiculous.

No I am going off the complete story. You are picking and choosing by the fact you want to say other aspects of what he said are irrelevant when they were important points which give a clearer picture of who he is and what he believes and knows. But this is the way those who are against God go. They try to discredit the person rather than the evidence. If he knows about how mutations and proteins work dont you think he would know about a basic aspect of evolution such as primate lineages. Even I know this as a lay person.

Like I said he covered biology as part of his degree. The thing is the ape linage is something that is a view based on observation which is not as verified as biology. So his knowledge of mutations and protein sequences and how genetics works is of greater importance for knowing the true way for which evolution works. As we have seen the evidence of lineages with evolutionary trees based on observation have been proven wrong on many occasions by the genetic evidence.

So what? I can ramble on about the processes of the brain too. (Ask me about episodic memory and the medial temporal lobes). That doesn't make me an expert on the evolution of the human brain!

But you are claiming it does by the fact that you are standing there saying Dr Carson is wrong and your opinion is right. To be able to assess that he is wrong and you are right would mean you are claiming to know better.

I'm not making Carson look dumb on this subject.

Yes you are by claiming he doesn't even know a basic tenet of evolution and allowing no other reason that he just doesn't know the basics of evolution and he is a famous scientist.

I'm merely pointing out that he is not an expert on the evolution of the human brain. In fact, I don't even think he claims to hold such expertise; you claim that he does. You seem to think that knowing something about the brain equates to knowing how it evolved. As we've already established, "brain science" is an enormous field of inquiry; being an expert in pediatric neurosurgery doesn't automatically make Carson an expert in every other area of brain research.

And you seem to think what you have done makes you an expert of all the above, ie evolution, biology, the brain, genetics and therefore making judgements about Dr Carson and what he is and isn't capable of. He doesn't need to be an expert in evolution to be able to know what it takes to evolve a brain. All he has to know is how the brain works in some detail which is the most important thing and some genetics about how mutations work which is a fairly common thing that is explained in many different areas including his biology knowledge for his degree. He is in a good position to be able to make some assessments on how a brain can evolve better than you or me and most people.

But you claim to know about this yourself and you are not an expert on evolution or biology or genetics if you say that an expert has to have a degree in biology, genetics or evolution. So what do you base your entire assertions about Dr Carson on an interview and comments from an atheists site.

Surgery

being the key word in that sentence. What techniques has pioneered to investigate the evolution of the brain? What papers has he published on that matter?

You certainly set a high bar for anyone who disagrees with evolution. If it was anyone else who agreed with evolution you would have given all sorts of allowances for their credibility. If you read what he has achieved you will see that it wasn't just about brain surgery. They were able to understand the brain better and how it works to be able to improve the techniques for brain surgery. He was the one who was able to describe how it worked for them to discover the these things. He lectures on it at uni, he is a pioneer in the area. How does a mechanic who just does surgery on a motor do that without knowing how the motor works.

That's anatomy, not phylogeny! His anatomical knowledge was never in dispute! It's his qualification as an "expert" on the evolution of the brain that is in question.

But you are now subjecting him to such a third degree about everything. His evolutionary , biological, brain knowledge and now phylogeny and any other related areas I would imagine he doesn't know which now disqualifies him from having any knowledge of how evolution works with the brain. Yet you allow yourself to be in a position to judge others without that level of knowledge. How do you know he doesn't have a basic or intermediate knowledge of all these through his biology subjects he covered with his degree.

What makes you able and him not able to know. Why is it that others who support evolution who also dont have all these high levels of qualifications be allowed to comment and not be questioned. Why is it that the many on this site are not questioned who dont have all these qualifications. It seems like you are giving anyone who disagrees with evolution a hard time and absolutely no credit at all.

steve, this is a dishonest remark, IMO. This entire discussion is about giving credit where credit is due. What should Carson be credited with? He should be credited for the expertise he genuinely possesses in paediatric neurosurgery, a field to which he has contributed substantially. He should NOT be credited for expertise he does not possess! Carson does not have any discernible expertise in the evolution of the human brain. He does not receive credit for work in a field that he is not even part of.

But this is not applied to yourself. You are the one who is saying Dr Carson is not able to know all these things. Yet you are not qualified in all the same things you subject him to. As they say it takes one to know one. This is only common sense and an assessment of what is fair and evenly applied to all. It seems you are saying that he needs to be as highly qualified in everything to do with evolution being biology, genetics, evolution itself to be able to have a knowledgeable comment. Yet you and others who are allowed to comment dont have these things yourself. The point is with giving credit where credit is due also includes putting people down beyond what they are really capable of. So in some ways you are trying your hardest to discredit Dr Carson which is also not giving credit where credit is due.

You continue to confuse the point at issue in a dishonest attempt to make it appear that I am presenting an ad hominem argument. We aren't questioning Carson's credibility as a paediatric neurosurgeon. It's his credibility as an expert on the evolution of the human brain that is in question.

All I am saying is that you are over doing it with his lack of ability to know about the evolution of the brain. He doesn't have to be an expert in all the fields to understand. He certainly knows about the brain and how it works even if its well above intermediate level and not an expert. He certainly does have a good understanding of evolution from what he has written and his biology and chemistry knowledge. He certainly doesn't have to be an expert in these fields as you are not and you seem to comment on it with some authority and many others have done the same and they dont subject others to this high level of scrutiny.

 

[stevevw]

Can we produce a dog the size of a box of tissues, or the size of a small pony, from a few breeds of wolf? Yes it's been done so many times it's accepted

Can a small mouse, grow to be a big coypu? Yes, can one evolve into a mouse that can climb trees? Yes. And over millions of generations. One evolved to come down from the trees and walk upright. The trail of bones is there for you to examine

Dog breeding shows the limits of evolution. No one disagrees that there is a form of evolution within the boundaries of a species or type of animal. But as we have found with dog breeding there are limits. The further you get away from the natural state of a species such as pure breeds in dogs with changing their original genes the more it will have a cost to the fitness.

We see this with some breeds of dogs who have been cross bred to either enhance certain features or create new breeds. Breeds such as the bulldog which were bred to bring out their flat face suffer from diseases and behavior problems brought about be selective breeding. Selective breeding is not to dissimilar to natural selection except humans are are doing the selecting instead of nature.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/dogs-that-changed-the-world-selective-breeding-problems/1281/

The tail bone of humans is not the remains of a tail from a tree animal which I assume you mean an ape. It was call a tail bone by Darwin and his supporters because they thought it was the remains (vestigial feature/organ) of a tail. But its actually our Coccyx. The coccyx is fully functional part of the system of bones, ligaments and muscles of the pelvis, that protects and supports the pelvic organs, and contributes to our upright stance and walking. It provides stable anchorage points for ligaments and muscles which is an essential function of all bones. So its a vital and useful feature we have and without it we couldn't move our lower bodies.

So where did your creator come in?

Well because there are laws, codes, systems, patterns and languages which life and nature works to this shows there is design and its not a random chance thing that we would expect to see with a naturalistic process. We would expect to see random results that are hit and miss with no intelligent organization. But the more we look into life we are finding even more complex design.

They have now found a second set of codes in our DNA. One code system hidden behind the other with both contributing to a language that adds up to making living things yet both being interlinked as well at the same time. Not just a 2 dimensional pattern but a multi dimensional patter. This is also being found with the laws of physics. They have found a possible pattern in a jewel pattern which has multi dimensional calculations which simplifies calculations of particle interactions.
http://www.wired.com/2013/12/amplituhedron-jewel-quantum-physics/

So because of these things that show design there must have been something that designed it. As a Christian I believe the creator God did this as the bible tells us of His creation and qualities that seem to match what is being seen and discovered. But of course its harder to prove God Himself than what we see of His handy work. But at the very least we have to acknowledge that there must be something magnificent that has made life because of the great complexity and amazing design we see. We can immediately acknowledge the great design of humans and when we see it we recognize the designs. Yet in life we see many of the same things but want to deny that there is a designer and try to make out that its some magical in nature itself. So we are giving the credit to the created rather than the creator.

As for scientists finding new elements, new discoveries. They dream of that. It puts them into the league of Darwin, Einstein, Newton, Galileo, J. J. Thomson. This is why they can be trusted, they compete with each other to find a new way of how everything works. Whereas, you only look to see how you can disprove to prove an ancient concept of creationism right.

I agree no one can find these things except the scientists and the science they use.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No you are painting two possible answers and restricting the other possibilities. He may believe in evolution in some form such as micro evolution but that wasn't covered in the interview because it wasn't an in depth one about evolution or creation. It was about general things about Dr Carson. He dismissed one point about what evolution claims and may have been sarcastic with just that. He seemed straight forward about the other aspects he discussed with evolution and gave detailed answers which showed he had a greater level of understanding than you or others have given credit.

Already addressed this.

No This is in your own mind and the way you perceive that anyone who disagrees is up to something or otherwise you will find someway of undermining them. You will try anything rather than deal with the facts and evidence.

More dishonesty.

The point is you home in on the ones you call creationists and neglect to mention the reputable ones which more or less support the creationists ones. This is the pattern I have noticed. Home is on side issues or the person. Anything to distract attention away from the truth of the evidence being presented. I do this for a reason. I post more reputable ones so that it has solid support to begin with.

You mean the reputable ones that don't support what you say? Those ones?

But because some people jump on them as soon as you mention anything to do with religion they are rejected which is totally biased and unfair. So this is my way of upholding the right for them to be included as support. Yet the hypocritical thing is there has been evidence that shows that some of the so called reputable ones have been fudging the evidence and getting it wrong. But because people can sometimes also blindly believe that scientists are always right they have accepted anything they say. This has been verified by the fact that a lot of peer reviewed research has been accepted and then found to be wrong.

Oh, you mean like when you blindly accepted Carson's comments regarding the evolution of the brain because you assumed that a neurosurgeon ought to know?

No this is where you are changing things again. I said he was an expert on the functions of the brain. Along with his knowledge of evolution which can even be a standard knowledge he can tell better than most what it takes to evolve a brain.

No, he doesn't! We've already established this. I don't know why you persist in assuming that Carson possesses such knowledge when he clearly does not.

The reason I say that he was probably being sarcastic is that he shows he does know more than that basic level from the other comments he makes about mutations, protein sequences ect. That is much more detailed and knowledgeable than like you said the basic knowledge of primate lineages. He is a very intelligent man and has been recognized for this so chances are he knows more about this but choose to answer in that way because he has probably heard that line 100 times before so why not play along with it.

Special pleading.

No I am going off the complete story. You are picking and choosing by the fact you want to say other aspects of what he said are irrelevant when they were important points which give a clearer picture of who he is and what he believes and knows. But this is the way those who are against God go. They try to discredit the person rather than the evidence.

steve, stop being dishonest.

If he knows about how mutations and proteins work dont you think he would know about a basic aspect of evolution such as primate lineages. Even I know this as a lay person.

No, we don't glean that from his comments.

But you are claiming it does by the fact that you are standing there saying Dr Carson is wrong and your opinion is right. To be able to assess that he is wrong and you are right would mean you are claiming to know better.

That I understand evolution better than he apparently does, given his comments? Yes, that appears to be the case. However, like Carson, I don't possess any specific expertise on the evolution of the brain.

Yes you are by claiming he doesn't even know a basic tenet of evolution and allowing no other reason that he just doesn't know the basics of evolution and he is a famous scientist.

Yes, based on his comments, his understanding of evolution seems lacking.

And you seem to think what you have done makes you an expert of all the above, ie evolution, biology, the brain, genetics and therefore making judgements about Dr Carson and what he is and isn't capable of. He doesn't need to be an expert in evolution to be able to know what it takes to evolve a brain.

Truly facepalm-worthy.

All he has to know is how the brain works in some detail which is the most important thing and some genetics about how mutations work which is a fairly common thing that is explained in many different areas including his biology knowledge for his degree. He is in a good position to be able to make some assessments on how a brain can evolve better than you or me and most people.

No, he isn't. We've already established this!!!!

But you claim to know about this yourself and you are not an expert on evolution or biology or genetics if you say that an expert has to have a degree in biology, genetics or evolution. So what do you base your entire assertions about Dr Carson on an interview and comments from an atheists site.

More dishonesty from you.

You certainly set a high bar for anyone who disagrees with evolution.

You think requiring that they understand evolution is setting the bar high? Perhaps I should adopt your low standards?

If it was anyone else who agreed with evolution you would have given all sorts of allowances for their credibility. If you read what he has achieved you will see that it wasn't just about brain surgery. They were able to understand the brain better and how it works to be able to improve the techniques for brain surgery. He was the one who was able to describe how it worked for them to discover the these things. He lectures on it at uni, he is a pioneer in the area. How does a mechanic who just does surgery on a motor do that without knowing how the motor works.

Irrelevant.

But you are now subjecting him to such a third degree about everything. His evolutionary , biological, brain knowledge and now phylogeny and any other related areas I would imagine he doesn't know which now disqualifies him from having any knowledge of how evolution works with the brain. Yet you allow yourself to be in a position to judge others without that level of knowledge. How do you know he doesn't have a basic or intermediate knowledge of all these through his biology subjects he covered with his degree.

Because of his comments. My goodness, do you read before hitting the 'Reply' button?

But this is not applied to yourself. You are the one who is saying Dr Carson is not able to know all these things. Yet you are not qualified in all the same things you subject him to. As they say it takes one to know one. This is only common sense and an assessment of what is fair and evenly applied to all. It seems you are saying that he needs to be as highly qualified in everything to do with evolution being biology, genetics, evolution itself to be able to have a knowledgeable comment. Yet you and others who are allowed to comment dont have these things yourself.

No, no, and no. For his comment to be knowledgeable, he needs to demonstrate that actually understands what evolution is. His comments suggest that he doesn't.

The point is with giving credit where credit is due also includes putting people down beyond what they are really capable of. So in some ways you are trying your hardest to discredit Dr Carson which is also not giving credit where credit is due.

More dishonesty. I am giving credit where credit is due. As I said in my previous comment, Carson doesn't deserve credit for expertise he does not possess.

All I am saying is that you are over doing it with his lack of ability to know about the evolution of the brain. He doesn't have to be an expert in all the fields to understand. He certainly knows about the brain and how it works even if its well above intermediate level and not an expert.

As we already established, that is not germane to the point at issue.

He certainly does have a good understanding of evolution from what he has written and his biology and chemistry knowledge.

The evidence suggests otherwise.

He certainly doesn't have to be an expert in these fields as you are not and you seem to comment on it with some authority and many others have done the same and they dont subject others to this high level of scrutiny.

Since when does the incredulity of one man, who doesn't work in the relevant field, outweigh the published work of the countless scientists working in that field? If you want to know about the evolution of the brain, you don't go seeking a paediatric neurosurgeon, particularly one who doesn't understand evolution.

 

[stevevw]

Just because we are reaching a point where discovering is getting harder, you can't just throw in a creator as the answer. As for the number of scientists who support the creator theory. That's a clear win for evolution.So you claim a creator made it happen. How was the creator created?A creator created the first cell skin, and from there we know how everything followed. 100% not the god of any bible so no idea why you suggest it. Take all the gaps in how life on Earth kicked off, not evolution, and claim it was a creator. Until scientists prove you wrong, and you'll have painted yourself into an even small corner.

I agree so we have to do some investigation. But in some ways even the scientists are saying that something pretty weird is going on and its hard for even science to answer the questions. Not because they dont know yet but because the evidence suggests that the answer will be something beyond the normal logic and the maths for the way we calculate the science for everything else we do. So because of this they come up with their ideas of hologram worlds and multiverses, worm holes and string theory ect. These things help address the evidence they see in an indirect way. But so can the idea of a ID or creator God or a supernatural being from another dimension who we havnt come to know yet. If this is the case scientist shouldn't be so quick to dismiss God as one of the possibilities as He also fits the evidence indirectly.

 

[stevevw]

You mean the reputable ones that don't support what you say? Those ones?

I dont know you didn't even look at them so how do you know. You stated I posted a creationists one and a reputable one. In which I stated I posted more than one reputable one. Did you even look at any of them. Oh thats right your still holding some site I posted a long time ago against me because of some imaginary misunderstanding I had.

No, he doesn't! We've already established this. I don't know why you persist in assuming that Carson possesses such knowledge when he clearly does not.

Special pleading.

steve, stop being dishonest.

No, we don't glean that from his comments.

That I understand evolution better than he apparently does, given his comments? Yes, that appears to be the case. However, like Carson, I don't possess any specific expertise on the evolution of the brain.

Yes, based on his comments, his understanding of evolution seems lacking.

Can you post some evidence for this

More dishonesty from you.

OK lets keep things on track and get back to the facts. Heres what Dr Carson said again so you can verify things and heres the support I posted for what he said (for which you avoided and didn't reply or comment on) just in case you want to change the subject again.

Now Dr Carson said the following which shows he knows more about evolution that you are saying.
billions of neurons, hundreds of billions of interconnections, the ability to process more than 2 million bits of information in one second. That is an amazingly complex organism."

"And to say that that just came about sort of randomly by various mutations over the course of time, when as I just said mutations tend to lead to degeneration rather than improvement, just doesn’t make any sense," said Dr. Carson. "So, the very things that they claim are evidence for evolution are the very things that damn the theory."

"You can see that you have a very complex, sophisticated coding mechanism for different amino acids and various sequences that give you millions of different genetic instruction – very much like computer programming, which uses a series of zeros and ones and different sequences, it gives you very specific information about what that computer is to do."

"Well this [human genome] is at least twice that complex," he said. "Instead of just 2 digits, we’ve got 4 digits, repeating in different sequences but always resulting in the same thing unless there is a mutation. And if there is a mutation, it tends to be toward degeneration rather than improvement."

Now heres the support I posted which shows what Dr Carson is saying is well supported by the experts for which most are non creationists as you said. This shows there wasn't just one creationists link and one reputable link but many reputable links and one creationists/ID link. Not that the reputable ones or creationists ones mean that any are automatically right or wrong. But its your insistence that is making things divisive and discriminating.

Stability effects of mutations and protein evolvability. October 2009
Excerpt: The accepted paradigm that proteins can tolerate nearly any amino acid substitution has been replaced by the view that the deleterious effects of mutations, and especially their tendency to undermine the thermodynamic and kinetic stability of protein, is a major constraint on protein evolvability,,
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19765975 (Non creationists)
the discovery of numerous dedicated biochemical systems for restructuring DNA molecules.(107–110) Genetic change is almost always the result of cellular action on the genome. These natural processes are analogous to human genetic engineering,,, (Page 14) Genome change arises as a consequence of natural genetic engineering, not from accidents.
http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Shapiro2009.AnnNYAcadSciMS.RevisitingCentral Dogma.pdf (non creationists and in fact a supporter of evolution)

New Research on Epistatic Interactions Shows “Overwhelmingly Negative” Fitness Costs and Limits to Evolution
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/new_research_on_epistatic_inte047151.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110602143202.htm (non creationists and supports what evolutionnews is saying. Thats why I posted them together)

At least 80% of the mutations had a significant negative effect on fitness, whereas none of the mutations had a significant positive effect.
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/1998, Genetica, Elena et al.pdf (non creationists)

Genetics Is Too Complex for Evolutionists to Fake It Anymore
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/04/genetics_is_too071621.html
Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds: Doug Axe:
Excerpt: this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10^77, adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15321723 (non creationists)

So as you can see I have posted 5 non creationists sites and one creationists site being evolutionnews.org. But the creationists site use non creationists links to prove their case if you look. Even so the non creationists sites verify what the creationist site says anyway if you bother to check them out. So how about you debate the evidence this time rather than undermine the person or organization.

You think requiring that they understand evolution is setting the bar high? Perhaps I should adopt your low standards?

This is that twisting of the truth again that you use. Where did I say this that "just understanding evolution and nothing else" as setting the bar high. Either you are not paying any attention or you are purposely trying to confuse the issues to take things away from the truth. I said quite clearly that you are setting the bar very high for anyone who disagrees with you and Darwinian evolution. You are doing this by saying that Dr Carson or anyone else who disagrees has to be an expert on evolution, before they can know anything about evolution or make a comment.

Dr Carson doesn't have to be an expert on evolution to make a comment. He doesn't have to have gone to uni and get a degree in biology or evolution to know about evolution. After all you havnt and you claim to know that he is wrong. How do you know Dr Carson is wrong about evolution. Can you post some evidence for this besides your own opinion. Can we have some expert opinion besides yours.

Irrelevant.

How is it irrelevant when you said that he didn't know much about the way the brain works because he was only a neurosurgeon. This shows that he knows about how the brain works and proves you are wrong. You seem to pick what you want to see and respond to.

Because of his comments. My goodness, do you read before hitting the 'Reply' button?

This has a familiar ring about it like going around in circles. We know that and I know what you have decided made Dr Carson not know about evolution. But I am challenging you on that and you havnt answered those other things I have posted which show you are wrong. When you say by what he said you are using the one comment he said about we came from apes. I said this was more than likely because he was being sarcastic and he actually knew the evolutionary view of common decent. Even lay people know this by the tree that Darwin built and he would have seen this. Otherwise you are bringing a great doctor who is known for his abilities down to a primary school level.

So I posted the other comments he said about evolution which I have done a few times and which you have ignored. These other comments show he knows more than a primary school level of evolution when he is talking about mutations and protein sequences ect. So his comments show he does understand more than you say if you take all of them into consideration.

But as usual evolutionists ignore the details and pick and choose what they want to focus on to make their case. They also do this to try and degenerate the person as much as possible because if they can cast doubts on his credibility then they can make a case for his comments being unreliable and wrong. When you also add that he studied biology and chemistry as part of his degrees then you have to say he must have a pretty good knowledge of evolution.

No, no, and no. For his comment to be knowledgeable, he needs to demonstrate that actually understands what evolution is. His comments suggest that he doesn't.

In what way did his comment show he didn't understand evolution. Can you be specific.

More dishonesty.

I am now noticing you are bringing up my integrity and honesty now. You are now accusing me of lying for which I dont appreciate but it is not a surprise as this is another way of undermining the person and the truth. The bast form of defense is attack but in this case its attacking the person rather than the evidence as usual. Soon there will be more accusations as this seems to be the tactic as time goes by.

I am giving credit where credit is due. As I said in my previous comment, Carson doesn't deserve credit for expertise he does not possess.

It just seems you have set your mind on Dr Carson being dumb in basic evolution based on one comment. This wouldn't hold up in court and is a flimsy thing to base such a big assertion on. Especially when there is other evidence that shows the opposite that you chose not to look at and consider.

As we already established, that is not germane to the point at issue.

Umm this shows how you change the goal posts all the time. It was relevant a few posts back when you said he isn't an expert because of his credentials. What was it being a brain surgeon doesn't mean he is an expert of brain evolution from memory.

The evidence suggests otherwise.

OK lets look at the evidence of his comments. Against proving he knows about how evolution works - Dr Carson said in one comment yeah you win and we came from monkeys which seemed to indicate a sarcastic comment to a journo who gave a sarcastic question.

For proving he has knowledge about evolution. Dr Carson commented on the complexity of the brain and gave a good description of that. He teaches how the brain works. He done biology and chemistry at university. He said in that same interview in summary.

That our genomes is a complex, sophisticated coding mechanism for different amino acids and various sequences that give you millions of different genetic instruction. "Well this [human genome] is at least twice that complex," he said. "Instead of just 2 digits, we’ve got 4 digits, repeating in different sequences but always resulting in the same thing unless there is a mutation. And if there is a mutation, it tends to be toward degeneration rather than improvement."

Now that is explaining the very heart of what evolution is about. Not just an off the cuff remark about monkeys but going into the guts of what the process is about. If he understands this surely he understands other basics of evolution that dont take as much knowledge.

Since when does the incredulity of one man, who doesn't work in the relevant field, outweigh the published work of the countless scientists working in that field? If you want to know about the evolution of the brain, you don't go seeking a paediatric neurosurgeon, particularly one who doesn't understand evolution.

It doesn't but it certainly doesn't mean he doesn't know about evolution. I posted support from the experts which backed up what he said anyway. So those experts you talk about agree with him anyway. But I can see your going back to his qualifications again now. So does that mean that anyone who isn't an expert with Uni level degrees in biology, genetics and evolution cant know about evolution and cant make qualified comments on it.

Anyway as I said before it seems to be going around in circles again and we would have to agree to disagree which is OK. It has slipped off the topic a bit in trying to defend a mans reputation. But that happens and there's no harm done. I like debating with you as it keeps me on my toes and I do learn a lot despite you thinking otherwise. Anyway I am sure we are dominating the debate and people are getting tired of the same old thing being debated over and over so it maybe good to move onto something else.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I dont know you didn't even look at them so how do you know. You stated I posted a creationists one and a reputable one. In which I stated I posted more than one reputable one. Did you even look at any of them. Oh thats right your still holding some site I posted a long time ago against me because of some imaginary misunderstanding I had.

Yes, you did, and when we examined them together we found that they don't support what you're claiming.

Can you post some evidence for this

I already have!!!!

OK lets keep things on track and get back to the facts. Heres what Dr Carson said again so you can verify things and heres the support I posted for what he said (for which you avoided and didn't reply or comment on) just in case you want to change the subject again.

Actually, I did address it, noting that it was irrelevant.

So as you can see I have posted 5 non creationists sites and one creationists site being evolutionnews.org. But the creationists site use non creationists links to prove their case if you look. Even so the non creationists sites verify what the creationist site says anyway if you bother to check them out. So how about you debate the evidence this time rather than undermine the person or organization.

You have become increasingly dishonest throughout this conversation.

This is that twisting of the truth again that you use. Where did I say this that "just understanding evolution and nothing else" as setting the bar high. Either you are not paying any attention or you are purposely trying to confuse the issues to take things away from the truth.

Me twisting the truth? Look in the mirror, steve.

I said quite clearly that you are setting the bar very high for anyone who disagrees with you and Darwinian evolution.

At the minimum, they need to understand evolution. It only seems like a high bar to those who don't understand evolution but still want to criticise it, like you.

You are doing this by saying that Dr Carson or anyone else who disagrees has to be an expert on evolution, before they can know anything about evolution or make a comment.

More dishonesty from you.

Dr Carson doesn't have to be an expert on evolution to make a comment.

No, he doesn't have to be an expert to make a comment. He can make an uneducated comment. But then why should his comment count for anything?

He doesn't have to have gone to uni and get a degree in biology or evolution to know about evolution. After all you havnt and you claim to know that he is wrong.

At this point, it's abundantly clear that you don't even read the posts you respond to. I have studied it in university. You even asked me about this previously and I informed you that I had studied evolution in university. As I said, you don't listen.

How do you know Dr Carson is wrong about evolution. Can you post some evidence for this besides your own opinion.

I already have!!!

Can we have some expert opinion besides yours.

I already posted this and you ignored it: http://scholar.lmgtfy.co/?q=brain+evolution

How is it irrelevant when you said that he didn't know much about the way the brain works because he was only a neurosurgeon.

That's NOT what I said.

This has a familar ring about it like going around in circles. We know that and I know what you have decided made Dr Carson not know about evolution. But I am challenging you on that and you havnt answered those other things I have posted which show you are wrong. When you say by what he said you are using the one comment he said about we came from apes.

I am using more than that. But you ignored those points.

I said this was more than likely because he was being sarcastic and he actually knew the evolutionary view of common decent. Even lay people know this by the tree that Darwin built and he would have seen this. Otherwise you are bringing a great doctor who is known for his abilities down to a primary school level.

Yes, you tried to explain it away by claiming that he was sarcastic. There's no evidence that he was being sarcastic.

So I posted the other comments he said about evolution which I have done a few times and which you have ignored. These other comments show he knows more than a primary school level of evolution when he is talking about mutations and protein sequences ect. So his comments show he does understand more than you say if you take all of them into consideration.

So what? You talk about mutations, but you don't understand evolution.

But as usual evolutionists ignore the details and pick and choose what they want to focus on to make their case. They also do this to try and degenerate the person as much as possible because if they can cast doubts on his credibility then they can make a case for his comments being unreliable and wrong. When you also add that he studied biology and chemistry as part of his degrees then you have to say he must have a pretty good knowledge of evolution.

Yet the evidence suggests otherwise.

In what way did his comment show he didn't understand evolution.

I've already addressed this. If you want to know, go back and re-read the posts you didn't read before hitting 'Reply' (i.e., all of them).

I am now noticing you are bringing up my integrity and honesty now. You are now accusing me of lying for which I dont appreciate but it is not a surprise as this is another way of undermining the person and the truth. The bast form of defense is attack but in this case its attacking the person rather than the evidence as usual. Soon there will be more accusations as this seems to be the tactic as time goes by.

Yes, your conduct is getting worse. You know that I've posted evidence that casts doubt on Carson's understanding of evolution, yet here you pretend that no such evidence has been presented. You know that I am not attacking Carson's character, and yet you are claiming that this is what I am doing. You know that I have addressed your links on various occasions, and yet you pretend like I never have.

 

[pshun2404]

Steve, he must ignore or discard the facts of scientists that find contrarity with his indoctrination, it is a form of stacking the deck. Objective observations even by other non-Creationist scientists are not allowed in his programming. He is not trained to actually utilize true critical thought. The fact that more and more scientists (even many EBs) are coming to these conclusions) MUST BE denied systematically in order to support the weaknesses of the favored theory of the pedagoguery (just like in the days of the Clovis only theory, which has now been disputed).

Here are some others...

Rick Durrett and Deena Schmidt in "Waiting for Two Mutations: With Applications to Regulatory Sequence Evolution and the Limits of Darwinian Evolution," Genetics 180 (2008) found that "In a human population, to obtain only two simultaneous mutations via Darwinian evolution would take > 100 million years..." which they admitted was "very unlikely to occur on a reasonable timescale." Now admittedly they did not say IMPOSSIBLE but it is far outside the alleged accepted range of probability estimated by EBs in light of the fact that the real number required is far more than two...also remember they believe in Evolution but are beginning to doubt some aspects of "DARWIN's" version of the theory.

In Douglas Axe's, "The Limits of Complex Adaptation: An Analysis Based on a Simple Model of Structured Bacterial Populations," BIO-Complexity 2010 (4), Axe calculated that when a "multi-mutation feature" requires more than six mutations before giving any benefit, it is unlikely to arise even in the whole history of the Earth.

He provided empirical evidence for his conclusion from experimental research he had already published in the Journal of Molecular Biology. He also found that only one in 1074 amino-acid sequences yields functional protein folds (Douglas Axe, "Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds," Journal of Molecular Biology 341 (2004):1295-1315; Douglas Axe, "Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors," Journal of Molecular Biology 301 (2000): 585-95).

Ann Gauger, Stephanie Ebnet, Pamela F. Fahey, and Ralph Seelke, "Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness," BIO-Complexity 2010 (2): 1-9, discovered that in reality the mere conversion of one enzyme into a variant form requires no less than "seven" SIMULTANEOUS changes which they admit clearly exceeds the probabilistic resources available for evolution within the limitations of time when compared to the assumed length of earth’s history, let alone the alleged history bequeathed to the length of time life evolved which is even less. Now that's three sets of scientists (Non-Cs and non-IDs) who have reached the same conclusion.

One idea essential for so long is called a "classic sweep", a process "in which a new, strongly beneficial mutation increases in frequency to fixation in the population." Evolutionist researchers Hernandez, Ryan D., Joanna L. Kelley, Eyal Elyashiv, S. Cord Melton, Adam Auton, Gilean McVean who went looking for classic sweeps in humans reported their findings in Science. Why? "To evaluate the importance of classic sweeps in shaping human diversity, we analyzed resequencing data for 179 human genomes from four populations...In humans, the effects of sweeps are expected to persist for approximately 10,000 generations or about 250,000 years." These Evolutionists identified "more than 2000 genes as potential targets of positive selection in the human genome". They anticipated they would find that "diversity patterns in about 10% of the human genome have been affected by linkage to recent sweeps."

They concluded "In contrast to expectation," their test detected nothing, but they could not quite bring themselves to say it. They said there was a "paucity of classic sweeps revealed by our findings". They "were too infrequent within the past 250,000 years to have had discernible effects on genomic diversity." In other words, "Classic sweeps were not a dominant mode of human adaptation over the past 250,000 years." 18 February 2011, "Classic Selective Sweeps Were Rare in Recent Human Evolution", Science, Vol. 331, no. 6019, pp. 920-924. (See, also "1000 Genomes Project", Guy Sella and Molly Przeworski).

Based on these that many other studies (some of which you provided that I am sure neither Arche or Paulm have read) it is apparently becoming clear that even on this level, far less complex and organized than the human brain (which actually the development of the modern brain has depended on), that the standard mantra of the indoctrinated EBs (not all by far) does not fit reality. For it to have come about their way there just has not been enough time in the Universe.

Again these are all non-Creationist and non-ID scientists, but remember what I just said (and try to be patient), these demonstrable, observable, test results must be either ignored, discredited, or discarded for an Arche or Paulm to maintain their position (a stand totally against true critical thought which considers ALL the evidence for and against before reaching an objective conclusion). Truth has nothing to do with it no matter how much evidence is produced. They have already made up their minds, why confuse them with the facts?

Keep up the good work...

Paul

 

[pshun2404]

How rare is the possibility of just one beneficial development from mutation? Scientists have done the math. I have been told (yes it is hearsay because I no longer remember the study) that taking into account that


a) any inheritable mutations can only take place in the sex-cells or process of inheriting specific genetic information, and

b) that they must be great enough to be able to overcome the organisms natural ability to correct and heal itself (which admittedly many mutations do)



Scientists chose a bacteria with a reproductive cycle of only one day, with as many as five large mutations present in that organism’s genetically inheritable material. After various theoretical constructs and conditions were tested, the effective probability turned out to be around 1 in 10 to the 22nd power. It turns out, that even if such an effective mutation could by chance happen in our Universe, it would happen only this once in over 200 billion years (way outside the estimated age of the Universe). Needless to say, they were shocked! So they repeated the analysis, only to come out with approximately the same range of random coincidence. So in my opinion (that’s all this is) the accepted explanation drilled and repeated through University simply fails in light of all the actual evidence provided above. If the limits on probability are so great regarding it happening so few times, the unlikelihood must then be multiplied by the billions of life forms and the millions of species just here in our time which then must be multiplied by all estimated times…it just is NOT so…

Simply put no single mutation, or set of mutations, has EVER been so large and numerous that it has been known to start a new type of creature! Variations within the same species yes but a new kind of animal? NO! Not ever! All evidence produced by scientists declares otherwise….

 

[stevevw]

Yes, your conduct is getting worse. You know that I've posted evidence that casts doubt on Carson's understanding of evolution, yet here you pretend that no such evidence has been presented. You know that I am not attacking Carson's character, and yet you are claiming that this is what I am doing. You know that I have addressed your links on various occasions, and yet you pretend like I never have.

Look I started to reply as I felt that I should defend my integrity against what I consider false accusations made towards me without any foundation. I also wanted to defend Dr Carson as I feel you are being overly critical on both of us and judging us too harshly just because we disagree with you and evolution. But hey what does it matter. Believe me I am not the least bit worried about being proven wrong because its not a matter of life or death with this debating. But I like to be proven wrong with the evidence and not just unsupported attacks on the person. So I guess I'm seeing that this is your tactic and I'm not going to get around that and discuss the facts.

I dont think in the time we have debated we have actually gone into any detail about evolution. In detail I mean discussing the guts of how evolution works with the genetics through mutations and natural selection and not the superficial of evolution like observational evidence which can be up for some interpretation. This is the only way you can truly find the facts about evolution. Its all been about the persons involved. Now it is going around in the same circles and hitting brick walls so there is no point anymore.

We may be able to debate something different in the future but if you keep on doing the same thing there is no point. So why step into my conversations and tell me I'm wrong and to prove what I say anymore. When I do you dismiss it anyway with some reason that I dont understand or know what I am talking about which just wastes my time in researching the evidence I post. That doesn't make any sense to want to join in the debate apart from taking an opportunity to show someone up.

The best way to prove a point is through the evidence and if its good enough then there can be no comeback unless there is good counter evidence. At the end of the day its only a debate on a topic like anything else and doesn't need to get personal.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Look I started to reply as I felt that I should defend my integrity against what I consider false accusations made towards me without any foundation. I also wanted to defend Dr Carson as I feel you are being overly critical on both of us and judging us too harshly just because we disagree with you and evolution. But hey what does it matter.

Believe me I am not the least bit worried about being proven wrong because its not a matter of life or death with this debating. But I like to be proven wrong with the evidence and not just unsupported attacks on the person. So I guess I'm seeing that this is your tactic and I'm not going to get around that and discuss the facts.

That's exactly what I did: I supported my criticism of your argument with evidence showing that Carson's understanding of evolution was questionable (1, 2, 3). You ignored the bulk of it and tried to explain one piece of evidence away by claiming that Carson was being "sarcastic," though there is no evidence that that was the case. Now you are pretending that I never presented any evidence at all and that I just attacked his character. That's dishonest.

As I have repeatedly clarified, Carson's character is not in question; his expertise as a neurosurgeon is not in question; his anatomical knowledge is not in question. Whether Carson can legitimately be considered an expert on the evolution of the brain is the point at issue. He can't because (1) although a background in neurosurgery, neurology, and neuropsychology doesn't preclude expertise in the phylogeny of the brain, it also doesn't guarantee it; (2) because his understanding of evolution appears to be inadequate; and (3) because he doesn't work in a relevant field to claim such expertise.

None of these are attacks on Carson's character. As we established earlier, this is about giving credit where credit is due. What should Carson be credited with? He should be credited for the expertise he genuinely possesses in paediatric neurosurgery, a field to which he has contributed substantially. He should NOT be credited for expertise he does not possess! Carson does not have any discernible expertise in the evolution of the human brain. He does not receive credit for work in a field that he is not even part of.

In summary, in portraying Carson as an authority on this matter, you wrongly assumed that neurosurgical expertise somehow makes him an expert on what would be required for the brain to evolve. Yet based on his publication record, Carson has never done any research on the phylogeny of the brain, and he also appears to lack an adequate understanding of how evolution works. Taken together, Carson is not an authority on this topic.

I dont think in the time we have debated we have actually gone into any detail about evolution.

Yes, we have, but you don't listen, so why should I bother?

Now it is going around in the same circles and hitting brick walls so there is no point anymore. We may be able to debate something different in the future but if you keep on doing the same thing there is no point. So why step into my conversations and tell me I'm wrong and to prove what I say anymore. When I do you dismiss it anyway with some reason that I dont understand or know what I am talking about which just wastes my time in researching the evidence I post.

I've already suggested that a more productive use of your time would be to actually study the subject matter you are critiquing. Instead, you prefer to "research" on creationist blogs and then bloviate about it here.

 

[stevevw]

Steve, he must ignore or discard the facts of scientists that find contrarity with his indoctrination, it is a form of stacking the deck. Objective observations even by other non-Creationist scientists are not allowed in his programming. He is not trained to actually utilize true critical thought. The fact that more and more scientists (even many EBs) are coming to these conclusions) MUST BE denied systematically in order to support the weaknesses of the favored theory of the pedagoguery (just like in the days of the Clovis only theory, which has now been disputed).

And some of that evidence may still support evolution in some way but it is calling for a rethink because of new discoveries with areas such as HGT, epigentics and developmental evolution. At the very least it casts doubt on mutations and natural selection being the driving force for change alone. In fact the other things mentioned may have just as much if not more of a driving force behind changes in animals. Like you have said more and more evidence and scientists are coming out saying this.

Here are some others...

Rick Durrett and Deena Schmidt in "Waiting for Two Mutations: With Applications to Regulatory Sequence Evolution and the Limits of Darwinian Evolution," Genetics 180 (2008) found that "In a human population, to obtain only two simultaneous mutations via Darwinian evolution would take > 100 million years..." which they admitted was "very unlikely to occur on a reasonable timescale." Now admittedly they did not say IMPOSSIBLE but it is far outside the alleged accepted range of probability estimated by EBs in light of the fact that the real number required is far more than two...also remember they believe in Evolution but are beginning to doubt some aspects of "DARWIN's" version of the theory.

In Douglas Axe's, "The Limits of Complex Adaptation: An Analysis Based on a Simple Model of Structured Bacterial Populations," BIO-Complexity 2010 (4), Axe calculated that when a "multi-mutation feature" requires more than six mutations before giving any benefit, it is unlikely to arise even in the whole history of the Earth.

He provided empirical evidence for his conclusion from experimental research he had already published in the Journal of Molecular Biology. He also found that only one in 1074 amino-acid sequences yields functional protein folds (Douglas Axe, "Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds," Journal of Molecular Biology 341 (2004):1295-1315; Douglas Axe, "Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors," Journal of Molecular Biology 301 (2000): 585-95).

Ann Gauger, Stephanie Ebnet, Pamela F. Fahey, and Ralph Seelke, "Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness," BIO-Complexity 2010 (2): 1-9, discovered that in reality the mere conversion of one enzyme into a variant form requires no less than "seven" SIMULTANEOUS changes which they admit clearly exceeds the probabilistic resources available for evolution within the limitations of time when compared to the assumed length of earth’s history, let alone the alleged history bequeathed to the length of time life evolved which is even less. Now that's three sets of scientists (Non-Cs and non-IDs) who have reached the same conclusion.

One idea essential for so long is called a "classic sweep", a process "in which a new, strongly beneficial mutation increases in frequency to fixation in the population." Evolutionist researchers Hernandez, Ryan D., Joanna L. Kelley, Eyal Elyashiv, S. Cord Melton, Adam Auton, Gilean McVean who went looking for classic sweeps in humans reported their findings in Science. Why? "To evaluate the importance of classic sweeps in shaping human diversity, we analyzed resequencing data for 179 human genomes from four populations...In humans, the effects of sweeps are expected to persist for approximately 10,000 generations or about 250,000 years." These Evolutionists identified "more than 2000 genes as potential targets of positive selection in the human genome". They anticipated they would find that "diversity patterns in about 10% of the human genome have been affected by linkage to recent sweeps."

They concluded "In contrast to expectation," their test detected nothing, but they could not quite bring themselves to say it. They said there was a "paucity of classic sweeps revealed by our findings". They "were too infrequent within the past 250,000 years to have had discernible effects on genomic diversity." In other words, "Classic sweeps were not a dominant mode of human adaptation over the past 250,000 years." 18 February 2011, "Classic Selective Sweeps Were Rare in Recent Human Evolution", Science, Vol. 331, no. 6019, pp. 920-924. (See, also "1000 Genomes Project", Guy Sella and Molly Przeworski).

Based on these that many other studies (some of which you provided that I am sure neither Arche or Paulm have read) it is apparently becoming clear that even on this level, far less complex and organized than the human brain (which actually the development of the modern brain has depended on), that the standard mantra of the indoctrinated EBs (not all by far) does not fit reality. For it to have come about their way there just has not been enough time in the Universe.

Again these are all non-Creationist and non-ID scientists, but remember what I just said (and try to be patient), these demonstrable, observable, test results must be either ignored, discredited, or discarded for an Arche or Paulm to maintain their position (a stand totally against true critical thought which considers ALL the evidence for and against before reaching an objective conclusion). Truth has nothing to do with it no matter how much evidence is produced. They have already made up their minds, why confuse them with the facts?

Keep up the good work...

Paul

Thanks and I agree with what you have said.

 

[stevevw]

That's exactly what I did: I supported my criticism of your argument with evidence showing that Carson's understanding of evolution was questionable (1, 2, 3). You ignored the bulk of it and tried to explain one piece of evidence away by claiming that Carson was being "sarcastic," though there is no evidence that that was the case. Now you are pretending that I never presented any evidence at all and that I just attacked his character. That's dishonest.

As I have repeatedly clarified, Carson's character is not in question; his expertise as a neurosurgeon is not in question; his anatomical knowledge is not in question. Whether Carson can legitimately be considered an expert on the evolution of the brain is the point at issue. He can't because (1) although a background in neurosurgery, neurology, and neuropsychology doesn't preclude expertise in the phylogeny of the brain, it also doesn't guarantee it; (2) because his understanding of evolution appears to be inadequate; and (3) because he doesn't work in a relevant field to claim such expertise.

None of these are attacks on Carson's character. As we established earlier, this is about giving credit where credit is due. What should Carson be credited with? He should be credited for the expertise he genuinely possesses in paediatric neurosurgery, a field to which he has contributed substantially. He should NOT be credited for expertise he does not possess! Carson does not have any discernible expertise in the evolution of the human brain. He does not receive credit for work in a field that he is not even part of.

In summary, in portraying Carson as an authority on this matter, you wrongly assumed that neurosurgical expertise somehow makes him an expert on what would be required for the brain to evolve. Yet based on his publication record, Carson has never done any research on the phylogeny of the brain, and he also appears to lack an adequate understanding of how evolution works. Taken together, Carson is not an authority on this topic.

Yes, we have, but you don't listen, so why should I bother?

I've already suggested that a more productive use of your time would be to actually study the subject matter you are critiquing. Instead, you prefer to "research" on creationist blogs and then bloviate about it here.

OK well on this matter I would like to quote the good Dr Carson.
“You know what? You win.”

“I believe I came from God, and you believe you came from a monkey, and you’ve convinced me you’re right.”

 

[Archaeopteryx]

OK well on this matter I would like to quote the good Dr Carson.
“You know what? You win.”

“I believe I came from God, and you believe you came from a monkey, and you’ve convinced me you’re right.”

Quoting Carson's strawman back to me only reinforces the point I was making.

 

[stevevw]

Quoting Carson's strawman back to me only reinforces the point I was making.

Actually I was thinking about this and if you listen to the actual speech where the quote comes from you can hear it in better context. Dr Carson makes the monkey quote in response to an atheist who he said was ridiculing him and believers. As he said this guy kept being obnoxious and rude and was putting down those who believe in God and His creation. So Dr Carson has said you know what you've convinced me you came from a monkey and I came from God. So in the correct context Dr Carson was being sarcastic and returning a jibe to the atheists for the constant ridicule he was getting and it wasn't a serious reply. He was giving the atheists some of his own medicine by inferring he was a monkey. Thats why the audience laughed because it was a joke.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Actually I was thinking about this and if you listen to the actual speech where the quote comes from you can hear it in better context. Dr Carson makes the monkey quote in response to an atheist who he said was ridiculing him and believers. As he said this guy kept being obnoxious and rude and was putting down those who believe in God and His creation. So Dr Carson has said you know what you've convinced me you came from a monkey and I came from God. So in the correct context Dr Carson was being sarcastic and returning a jibe to the atheists for the constant ridicule he was getting and it wasn't a serious reply. He was giving the atheists some of his own medicine by inferring he was a monkey. Thats why the audience laughed because it was a joke.

A joke that shows he does not understand that human beings are NOT descended from monkeys. The audience laughed because the audience presumably thinks that evolutionary theory posits that human beings are descended from monkeys. It doesn't. Carson should know better, but apparently doesn't, or if he does, then he is misrepresenting evolution. Please note that this isn't the only evidence that brings Carson's understanding of evolution into doubt. More salient examples are found in his other comments, but you haven't bothered to address these.

 

[stevevw]

A joke that shows he does not understand that human beings are NOT descended from monkeys. The audience laughed because the audience presumably thinks that evolutionary theory posits that human beings are descended from monkeys. It doesn't. Carson should know better, but apparently doesn't, or if he does, then he is misrepresenting evolution. Please note that this isn't the only evidence that brings Carson's understanding of evolution into doubt. More salient examples are found in his other comments, but you haven't bothered to address these.

The audience laughed because it was a joke. The only ones who are making it a point are you and an atheists site who have it in for those who believe in God. I cant see any problem anywhere else and there are about half a dozen other sites who bring up his speech at the faith and freedom coalition convention.
http://www.politibrew.com/politics/2636-ben-carson-speech-at-the-faith-freedom-coalition-full-speech

As far as the other comments I cant see any other problems. Your first point (1) The wikipedia comments dont imply anything wrong about his ability to understand evolution. The comment you posted where he talks about finding it hard to believe that our ability to rationalize, plan, think and have a moral sense of right and wrong couldn't have just happened by evolution. This doesn't mean he doesn't understand evolution. This is a common view which is part of the view of how can random mutations evolve complex abilities. Thoughts are also connected to biological processes so its quite a complex ability and he cant understand how it can happen by evolution thats all.

What you have to understand is Dr Carson has already shown that he understands how mutations and natural selection works and how precise combinations of protein sequences have to come together exactly to make our different features. From this he can then know the difficulties random mutations would have in building complex structures. This has been verified by several supports I have posted and paulm50 has posted as well.

For your number (2) point you have linked the Pathos site which I have already discussed about the monkey comment. Along with that you link the CNN article on Dr Carson's interview at the Discovery institute about his life and beliefs on evolution. There is nothing in here I can see as a problem. In fact this is the interview I was saying included his comments which show he has a good understanding of how mutations and protein sequences work and how he finds it hard to believe that our complex genomes could have just evolved by random mutations. He likens this to a complex computer code except even more complex that has a specific code of millions of different genetic instructions.

Plus on top of this if you have listened to the complete interview you will find he does support natural selection. He just disagrees with how much it can influence how creatures can change. This is also supported by scientists and peer reviewed work. But you didn't include all this because you chose to only pick out bits you wanted to use that you thought showed him in a bad light.

The last point number (3) I think you are referring to the Washington post article. There is nothing wrong in here. The university wrote a letter saying they had concerns about Dr Carson speaking at the Uni. Not because they said he didn't know about evolution. But because they said he said that those who believe in evolution were immoral which he didn't say and they had taken what he said in an interview and twisted it out of context. If you care to check the facts.

Never the less it had nothing to do with knowledge about evolution itself. The rest of the letter was to do with how the Uni supported science and that having a person who doesn't support what they believe was a concern. Once again this had nothing to do with his knowledge of evolution. He may have known everything that believed and supported it but just chose not to believe and agree with it. But certainly there is nothing in this article that states he doesn't know anything about evolution from the University.

So when you break all this down the evidence is flimsy and really clutching at straws. But this is to be expected. You will put the microscope on anyone who disagrees with evolution and try to strip them down looking for the smallest bit of reason as to why they are not credible. Yet once again I have to emphasize that you overlook much of the evidence at the same time in doing this. By missing out the rest of the Discovery interview you missed vital comments about his beliefs and knowledge on evolution. This had some detail about the genetic processes of evolution through mutations and protein sequences. This seems to have more substance than the monkey comment but you dont mention it. To be fair you should have included this as well.

Earlier you stated in those comments you linked where you kept saying Dr Carson is not an expert on evolution but he is a brain surgeon. This was one of your reasons why Dr Carson didn't know about evolution though you had no evidence and were just assuming. I said then if this is the case then none of use can comment of this topic because none of us are experts in that we haven't gone to uni to get a degree in biology, genetics or evolution. Then you later said you dont have to be an expert on evolution to comment but you need to understand it for which I agree. So you kept changing the goal posts and this is why I said you are going out of your way to prove Dr Carson wrong for some reason.

So your main evidence for saying Dr Carson doesn't understand evolution seems to be based mainly around the monkey comment which was highlighted on an atheists site and no where else. Why should we even take this atheists sites opinion as valid anyway when you have said yourself that using pro religious sites are not credible presumably because they may be biased. So why should we accept a biased atheists site who seems to be the only ones focusing on making an issue about a monkey comment form Dr Carson that everyone else seemed to think was a joke and funny.

Lastly I will have to emphasize again that Dr Carson did study Biology and chemistry at university level as part of his degree which is covered in the degree for being a neurosurgeon. He helped pioneer new techniques in surgery of the brain and understanding the way the brain functions. Not only has he the knowledge of the brain but he has been the one that has pioneered the new knowledge in understanding the functions of the brain. He also give lectures and teaches others how the brain functions and has written over 100 publications about the brain and its related areas. So the evidence does show he knows about the brain and evolution enough to make the conclusions he came to and other evidence form other experts supports this.

Surely you cant deny his training in biology and chemistry hasn't given him some knowledge of evolution. Surely you cant deny that his comments on mutations and protein sequences doesn't show he has some understanding of how evolution works at a genetic level which is more important than anything else. And surely you cant deny that he has some good understanding of how the brain works. You have no real basis for attacking Dr Carson's credibility and it wouldn't stand up in a court of law.

Carson has performed operations which have greatly expanded scientific knowledge of the brain and its functions.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3404707133.html

I am only commenting on this as I want to support Dr Carson. As I said I am not worried for what you think of me. But if you still want to believe that Dr Carson doesn't know anything about evolution then I cant do much more on this debate because it will just keep hitting the same point. You see it your way and I see it mine.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The audience laughed because it was a joke. The only ones who are making it a point are you and an atheists site who have it in for those who believe in God. I cant see any problem anywhere else and there are about half a dozen other sites who bring up his speech at the faith and freedom coalition convention.
http://www.politibrew.com/politics/2636-ben-carson-speech-at-the-faith-freedom-coalition-full-speech

Yes, a joke that betrays a lack of understanding. Either Carson seriously believes that evolution posits that we came from monkeys, or he doesn't, and he was therefore misrepresenting evolution. Pick your poison.

As far as the other comments I cant see any other problems. Your first point (1) The wikipedia comments dont imply anything wrong about his ability to understand evolution. The comment you posted where he talks about finding it hard to believe that our ability to rationalize, plan, think and have a moral sense of right and wrong could have just happened by evolution.

No, steve, that's not what he said. He said that he couldn't believe that our ability to rationalize, think, and plan, and have a moral sense of what's right and wrong, just appeared" (emphasis added). If that's what he thinks evolution means, that it entails that complex traits "just appeared," then he doesn't understand it adequately.

What you have to understand is Dr Carson has already shown that he understands how mutations and natural selection works and how precise combinations of protein sequences have to come together exactly to make our different features. From this he can then know the difficulties random mutations would have in building complex structures. This has been verified by several supports I have posted and paulm50 has posted as well.

He spoke about mutations? So what?

For your number (2) point you have linked the Pathos site which I have already discussed. Along with that you link the CNN article on Dr Carson's interview at the Discovery institute about his life and beliefs on evolution. There is nothing in here I can see as a problem.

The problem is that Carson is conflating evolution with two other questions: (1) why is there something rather than nothing?, and (2) how did life arise from non-life? These are not questions that evolutionary theory even attempts to answer. Carson apparently doesn't know this, or he does, in which case he is knowingly misrepresenting the theory. Again, pick your poison: is it ignorance or is it misrepresentation?

In fact this is the interview I was saying included his comments which show he has a good understanding of how mutations and protein sequences work and how he thinks that our complex genomes could have just evolved by random mutations. He likens this to a complex computer code except even more complex that has a specific code of millions of different genetic instructions.

Again, so what? You seem to be bamboozled by his ability to draw on the language of biology to make silly arguments against evolution. In this respect, Carson is no different to any other creationist who borrows selectively the language of a particular field to ineffectually argue against findings from that field. In essence, you're argument boils down to: "But he's using sciencey words!" If you think that everyone who uses sciencey words has a cogent point to make, then you are liable to be duped very easily.

Plus on top of this if you have listened to the complete interview you will find he does support natural selection. He just disagrees with how much it can influence how creatures can change. This is also supported by scientists and peer reviewed work.

No, it's not, steve. Did you watch the video I linked to on micro- versus marco-evolution? I doubt it.

But you didn't include all this because you chose to only pick out bits you wanted to use that you thought showed him in a bad light.

You're essentially complaining that I focused on the most relevant bits: the bits that show that Carson's understanding of evolution is questionable.

The last point number (3) I think you are referring to the Washington post article. There is nothing wrong in here. The university wrote a letter saying they had concerns about Dr Carson speaking at the Uni. Not because they said he didn't know about evolution. But because they said he said that those who believe in evolution were immoral which he didn't say and they had taken what he said in an interview and twisted it out of context. If you care to check the facts.

Nope, I wasn't referring to the Washington Post article in (3). I was referring to the fact that Carson doesn't work in the relevant field to be considered an expert on the evolution of the brain.

So when you break all this down the evidence is flimsy and really clutching at straws.

Says the guy who selectively interpreted Carson's comments as "sarcasm."

But this is to be expected. You will put the microscope on anyone who disagrees with evolution and try to strip them down looking for the smallest bit of reason as to why they are not credible. Yet once again I have to emphasize that you overlook much of the evidence at the same time in doing this. By missing out the rest of the Discovery interview you missed vital comments about his beliefs and knowledge on evolution. This had some detail about the genetic processes of evolution through mutations and protein sequences. This seems to have more substance than the monkey comment but you dont mention it. To be fair you should have included this as well.

Go ahead, include it. It really makes no difference: Carson still doesn't evince an adequate understanding of evolution, much less the evolution of the brain.

Earlier you stated in those comments you linked where you kept saying Dr Carson is not an expert on evolution but he is a brain surgeon. This was one of your reasons why Dr Carson didn't know about evolution though you had no evidence and were just assuming. I said then if this is the case then none of use can comment of this topic because none of us are experts in that we haven't gone to uni to get a degree in biology, genetics or evolution. Then you later said you dont have to be an expert on evolution to comment but you need to understand it for which I agree. So you kept changing the goal posts and this is why I said you are going out of your way to prove Dr Carson wrong for some reason.

steve, you really don't listen. I'm tired of having to constantly address your misconceptions and misrepresentations. This is precisely why I am "dismissive" of your posts: because you don't listen. I never claimed that a basic understanding of evolution requires one to have studied it formally at university. I even clarified this point previously when you asked me whether I had studied it at university. You then accused me of setting the bar too high for critics of evolution. I don't think that requiring critics of evolution to actually understand the theory they are critiquing is setting the bar too high, but I can understand how such a standard would be inconvenient to those who don't understand evolution but still want their criticisms to be taken seriously.

So your main evidence for saying Dr Carson doesn't understand evolution seems to be based mainly around the monkey comment which was highlighted on an atheists site and no where else.

No, that's not the main piece of evidence and it wasn't just featured on Patheos. It was originally from YouTube. I even linked to the YouTube video and noted this point in my next comment:

The original source is not Patheos, but YouTube. You can watch it for yourself. Although cnsnews reported it, you can listen to him for yourself: the audio is available at the Discovery Institute, a notorious creationist outfit.

This is yet another example of you not listening. So don't complain when I give your posts the level of respect they have rightly earned.

Why should we even take this atheists sites opinion as valid anyway when you have said yourself that using pro religious sites are not credible presumably because they may be biased. So why should we accept a biased atheists site who seems to be the only ones focusing on making an issue about a monkey comment form Dr Carson that everyone else seemed to think was a joke and funny.

You have some nerve, steve, to ignore the fact - evident to everyone reading this - that the original source was not an atheist site, but YouTube.

So why should we accept a biased atheists site who seems to be the only ones focusing on making an issue about a monkey comment form Dr Carson that everyone else seemed to think was a joke and funny.

The joke is only funny if you believe that hominid evolution entails that human beings must have descended from monkeys, which reinforces my point: Carson's "joke" betrays an inaccurate understanding of hominid evolution.

Lastly I will have to emphasize again that Dr Carson did study Biology and chemistry at university level as part of his degree which is covered in the degree for being a neurosurgeon. He helped pioneer new techniques in surgery of the brain and understanding the way the brain functions. Not only has he the knowledge of the brain but he has been the one that has pioneered the new knowledge in understanding the functions of the brain. He also give lectures and teaches others how the brain functions and has written over 100 publications about the brain and its related areas. So the evidence does show he knows about the brain and evolution enough to make the conclusions he came to and other evidence form other experts supports this.

So what? As I have already emphasised previously, having a background in neurosurgery, neurology, or neuropsychology doesn't preclude expertise in the evolution of the brain, but it also doesn't guarantee it! Based on his publication record, Carson has no discernible expertise in the evolution of the brain. Based on his comments, he has a poor understanding of evolution. Taken together, he is NOT an authority on this topic.

 

[stevevw]

For anyone who expresses incredulity about the developmental complexity of some organ, especially the brain, I would suggest a little comparative neurobiology, starting with our closest genetic relatives (e.g. other Primates) and moving out to more distant relations, looking at the structure and complexity of the brain and nervous system, and the environmental context. This will provide clear 'snapshots' of the many levels of structural and functional complexity that provide a good comparison to the progressive stages of increasing complexity through evolution. The evolutionary stages are not identical to the differences between living species today, but there are strong similarities. By examining less complex neurological structures, one can see which changes are required in which areas to produce the next level of complexity; the analogy with evolutionary changes becomes more apparent, and viewing the full range of complexity in all the stages currently available in living creatures gives a good idea of how over deep time (i.e. billions of years), small changes can accumulate to produce surprising complexity from relatively simple beginnings.

Now this is the type of reply I would expect from someone who supports evolution and is willing to get involved in debating the detail and not just dismissing things. It explains things and it sounds logical and at least we have something to be challenged with. Archaeopteryx could take some lessons from this even though I disagree with your view.

The problem I find with this line of thinking is that it sounds logical but it isn't practical. You could apply the same logic to ID. Just like with motorized machines we can have different levels of motors in different machines. From a simple hand powered winch model to a little more complex watch motor then lawn mower and right up to a modern complex hi tech engine. Yet all are designed and have elements of design just like life is in varying degrees. But the more damning evidence against this is the lack of testable evidence for showing that mutations and natural selection can achieve upward increases in complexity. The tests show it is more or less impossible and that rather an increase in complexity and ability there is a decrease in info and fitness.

The Limits of Complex Adaptation: An Analysis Based on a Simple Model of Structured Bacterial Populations
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.4
The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8597.abstract
Most mutations in the genes of the Salmonella bacterium have a surprisingly small negative impact on bacterial fitness.
http://phys.org/news/2010-11-unexpectedly-small-effects-mutations-bacteria.html
So the evidence is showing the opposite for this. So your argument is a good logical one based on observations. But observations are not good evidence and can be misinterpreted. This can happen a lot in evolution such as with the fossil records as well. What may look like a transition fossil to one person may be a variation within the same species to another person. This has been found with the Skulls they found at Dmanisi Georgia. They found 5 skulls together with the same amount of variation as several species that had names in the past from Africa and around the world. This showed they may have been to quick to make new species out of every different skull they found in the past. That those different skulls were not new species but variations of the same species. This suddenly wiped out several species that scientists had named and therefore some of the transitions as well.

A haul of fossils found in Georgia suggests that half a dozen species of early human ancestor were actually all Homo erectus.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/17/skull-homo-erectus-human-evolution

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The incredulity of one man, who isn't even an authority on this subject, apparently outweighs the scientific work dedicated to improving our understanding of the brain's evolution. Some of this work is summarised in this book (Principles of Brain Evolution) by Georg F. Striedter.

 

[pshun2404]

Striedter's book is an excellent text Arch but it only addresses matters concerning already extant brains. It speaks to the diversity between species and changes within given already extant species.

So right there it does not even address the point that was made by Steve's reference to the opinion of Carson. I think you just pulled this one out of a hat. Even Striedter recognizes the processes governing these "within each species" changes are driven by laws and principles that govern the changes (so much more there than simple mutation plus natural selection)...

Carson denies nothing about the neurobiology of the brain or its physiology and in fact makes mention as part of his point that the developmental complexity is great, in fact thats his point he uses to support his view...that it is far too complex to support the time line of the current developmental view...he also knows full well that there are different brains in different species and that these already extant brains have developed further and thus evolved...

Your point makes no sense

Paul