Richard Dawkins disappoints again

[Mr Darcy]

Well, I took to keeping up on my evolution once again and recently (well, last year) purchased a used copy of Dawkins' Greatest Show on Earth. Dawkins is obviously the well-known evolutionist spouting what he thinks is conclusive proof of evolution when my opinion is that it is not. Dawkins, in one of his chapters, talks about evolution we can observe (the origin of new breeds of dogs, for instance) and everything he talks about can be understood as a change within "kinds" (to use the Biblical phrase) or perhaps change within species, if you like. Then Dawkins nails it down. Dawkins suggests that if we just extrapolate the evolution he believes in will happen. Quoting Dawkins:

"What lessons do we learn from the domestication of the dog? First, the great variety among the breeds of dogs . . . demonstrates how easily it is for the non-random selection of genes – the ‘carving and whittling’ of gene pools – to produce truly dramatic changes in anatomy and behaviour, [sic] and so fast – the difference between breeds so dramatic – that you might expect their evolution to take millions of years instead of just a matter of centuries. If so much evolutionary change can be achieved in just a few centuries or even decades, just think what might be achieved in ten or a hundred million years"

Well, by golly, this evolution is sure impressive. But then again, if you extrapolate anything you are bound to find the evidence you seek. Maybe after millions of years all the dogs will be just different breeds of dogs and not undergo changes wider than that. We wouldn't know from Dawkins who just assumes evolution can produce whatever he demands. How about opera singing unicorns? Betcha evolution can produce that too if we just give it millions of years. Dawkins gives us no reason to think his extrapolate argument is correct other than assuming the fact of evolution.

In my library I have a book by Norman Macbeth who, back in the 1970s, surveys the evolutionist literature and found evolutionist Ernst Mayr who said animals have a resistance to change Mayr calls “genetic homeostasis.” Mayr is further quoted by Macbeth as saying "Obviously any drastic improvement under selection must seriously deplete the store of genetic variability. . . The most frequent correlated response of one-sided selection is a drop in general fitness. This plagues virtually every breeding experiment.” This book, quoted by lawyer Phillip Johnson in his book Darwin on Trial, should be known by Dawkins but Dawkins doesn't mention any such claims about the limits of evolution. Mayr is not the only evolutionist to point out such limits either. Why? Probably because Dawkins doesn't want to believe such limits exist. BTW Macbeth's book is Darwin Retried.

That's not the only problem with Dawkins, but that should get you going on doubts about Dawkins.

Dawkins is a textbook example of "sounds smart because he has a British accent". At the end of the day, there is really not a lot there. Never was...

 

[The Barbarian]

Makes sense.

Any idea why he would say that there are no deposits at the grand canyon? Is this not a strange response? To everything said above, his only response was "there are no deposits". But anyone with eyeballs and a brain, can see that there are deposits? What is he getting at?

My guess is that he's never been in one of those canyons and just assumed there weren't any deposits, since such deposits would invalidate his beliefs.

 

[Mr Darcy]

I blame it on politics. People are now treating scientific questions as though they can be settled by the best propaganda. We see it in climate, in the gun debate, in immigration, and so on.

And I'm ashamed to admit that it's not just the extreme right doing it these days. Not a good thing for America.

I think its going this way because governments are now so involved in our everyday lives and often base that involvement on ephemeral scientific knowledge.

Us deniers would not care about the "AGW" debate if our governments were not attempting to create laws and taxes based on this information. It would just be "science".

But they are doing that, making science highly politically charged.

 

[The Barbarian]

I think its going this way because governments are now so involved in our everyday lives and often base that involvement on ephemeral scientific knowledge.

Us deniers would not care about the "AGW" debate if our governments were not attempting to create laws and taxes based on this information. It would just be "science".

But they are doing that, making science highly politically charged.

I realize that scientific findings that might suggest to some that we have to do something, would upset anyone who thought it would get in the way of making money. Exxon, for example, even as they were denying the science, were at the same time making plans that depended on the climate getting warmer.

Which suggests they were't complete idiots, just trying to maximize profits.

And who can blame them for that?

 

[4x4toy]

 

[dcalling]

Actually, we do. As you might know, even YE creationists admit that they are strong evidence for evolution. But more impressively, we never find transitional forms where there shouldn't be any.



That and thousands of other little facts that show they didn't. Thing like genes, atavistic legs in whales, ungulate digestive systems, and of course, numerous transitional forms that only show up where evolutionary theory says they should. At some point it becomes foolish to exclaim "Ah, another coincidence!"



Rodhocetus. It's "Rodhocetus." And for example, the hoxd12 and hoxd13 genes.
https://allscienceconsidered.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/a-whale-of-a-discovery-5hoxd-genes-and-the-evolution-of-cetacean-flippers/

So my original question is "Except you don't know if those so called transitional forms are actually evolved or designed.", and I ask for actual evidence, and you answer is "we do".
But do you know any one able to repeat the same sequence of event in a lab? Scientific theories needs to be repeatable verifiable and testable (else they are just hypthesis).

Or we can even make it simpler. As you bring on hoxd12 and hoxd13. Other then the so called "statistical analysts", is there any actual testing to see under what condition can the reduction occur? Is such occurrence possible under natural conditions? Any real tests on this?

 

[dcalling]

Here is another image

Notice in the first meander at the bottom left of the image, deposits on the left, and erosion on the right. And everywhere there is a meander, we can see deposits.

There are deposits everywhere. And your response is that there are no deposits? After everything said above, this is all you can say?

Let's just talk about your image, the bigger one. Other then the tiny deposits at the bottom, where are the rest of the rock formations that supposedly got cut off by that small river? They got to go somewhere right? The higer banks looks obviousely are rocks, and are cut, not done by the depsosit and reform patter done by the soft banks of your video that explains how rivers are not straight. It is obvious that this not so straight river in the rock is not formed by the reason in your video.

This is the question to @The Barbarian as well.

 

[The Barbarian]

So my original question is "Except you don't know if those so called transitional forms are actually evolved or designed.", and I ask for actual evidence, and you answer is ...

Barbarian answers:
The existence of transitional forms between taxons. And even more convincing, the lack of any such transitional forms where the evidence says there shouldn't be any. No feathered mammals. No whales with gill arches.

Among many, many other things, most notably genetic data. The same data that will tell you about the ancestry of humans will show you common descent. And we know it works, because we can test it on organisms of known descent.

So do you know any one were able to repeat the same sequence of event in a lab as scientific theories needs to be repeatable verifiable and testable (else they are just hypthesis).

I don't think you thought that out very well. If I say that the collapsed buildings and freeway overpasses in L.A. a few years back were due to an earthquake, I can't reproduce it, but I can show you an abundance of evidence demonstrating the fact. Just as I can for transitionals, which YE creationist Kurt Wise admits are "strong evidence" for evolution.

As you bring on hoxd12 and hoxd13. Other then the so called "statistical analysys", is there any actual testing to see under what condition can the reduction occure?

Yes, we can observe the difference in gene expression for each of them. And yes, it can be done by observing natural instances of modification:
A nonsense mutation in the HOXD13 gene underlies synpolydactyly with incomplete penetrance
J Hum Genet. 2011 Oct; 56(10): 701–706.

In each case, it confirms the path of evolution for that instance.

 

[dcalling]

Barbarian answers:
The existence of transitional forms between taxons. And even more convincing, the lack of any such transitional forms where the evidence says there shouldn't be any. No feathered mammals. No whales with gill arches.

Among many, many other things, most notably genetic data. The same data that will tell you about the ancestry of humans will show you common descent. And we know it works, because we can test it on organisms of known descent.

I don't think you thought that out very well. If I say that the collapsed buildings and freeway overpasses in L.A. a few years back were due to an earthquake, I can't reproduce it, but I can show you an abundance of evidence demonstrating the fact. Just as I can for transitionals, which YE creationist Kurt Wise admits are "strong evidence" for evolution.

I think you give a a good example. But such observations is not scientific, you can only say based on the evidence it might be an earth quick, but it could also be the result of an underground nuclear blast, you don't know util you can dig deeper (so in this case, until you can dig deeper, see how the DNA can mutate under natural conditions, you can't rule out that God just designed it).

Because all your arguments on this (i.e. genetics etc), I can just say God used it as a library and keep building on the same library, just like how we software engineers reused existing libraries (so even though a python/node app looks very different than a native app, but when see all the moving pieces, they all seem from some "common ancestor".

Yes, we can observe the difference in gene expression for each of them. And yes, it can be done by observing natural instances of modification:
A nonsense mutation in the HOXD13 gene underlies synpolydactyly with incomplete penetrance
J Hum Genet. 2011 Oct; 56(10): 701–706.

In each case, it confirms the path of evolution for that instance.

I was refering to this: "Cetaceans and their common ancestor had two more alanines in this sequence than all the other mammals examined", how did they got lost? Is this possible in natural conditions? Your example only shows hoxd13 can mutate.

 

[The Barbarian]

Let's just talk about your image, the bigger one. Other then the tiny deposits at the bottom, where are the rest of the rock formations that supposedly got cut off by that small river?

That's the thing about rejuvenated rivers. Because they're uplifted and the slope is greater, they run faster. In old slow rivers, the sediment tends to remain nearby and just gets moved around and the river meanders. In rejuvenated rivers, the swifter water tends to carry it downstream.

This is why the sediment found upstream in such rivers tends to be coarse; the finer particles get worn down and swept away.

They got to go somewhere right?

Right. This is why you see a lot of deposition when the stream gets to more level ground. That's why deltas tend to form at the mouths of rivers.

The higer banks looks obviousely are rocks, and are cut, not done by the depsosit and reform patter done by the soft banks of your video that explains how rivers are not straight.

Yes. The faster-moving water just cuts deeper and deeper into the existing meanders, entrenching them, and causing the river to form steep and deep canyons.

 

[The Barbarian]

I think you give a a good example. But such observations is not scientific,

Of course, it's scientific. We see a phenomenon, and we look for evidence as to its cause. We note seismic data, the position of faults and the physics involved in failure of structures. If we have sufficient data, we conclude there was a earthquake that caused the damage. Seismologists are very good at determining such things.

you can only say based on the evidence it might be an earth quick, but it could also be the result of an underground nuclear blast,

No underground nuclear blast is that powerful. When I worked in the engineering department of an insurance company, I had to learn some principles of fire investigation. Historical events can be scientifically investigated just like any other physical phenomena.

Because all your arguments on this (i.e. genetics etc), I can just say God used it as a library and keep building on the same library

That wouldn't explain why analogous organs don't show the same transitions or genetic data. If it was a design issue, you'd expect all flying organisms to fit nicely into a single set of transitions. But that's not what we see.

I was refering to this: "Cetaceans and their common ancestor had two more alanines in this sequence than all the other mammals examined", how did they got lost?

Mutation.

Is this possible in natural conditions?

Yep.

Your example only shows hoxd13 can mutate.

All DNA can mutate. That's just a matter of physics and chemistry.

 

[Job 33:6]

Let's just talk about your image, the bigger one. Other then the tiny deposits at the bottom, where are the rest of the rock formations that supposedly got cut off by that small river? They got to go somewhere right? The higer banks looks obviousely are rocks, and are cut, not done by the depsosit and reform patter done by the soft banks of your video that explains how rivers are not straight. It is obvious that this not so straight river in the rock is not formed by the reason in your video.

This is the question to @The Barbarian as well.

You aren't even acknowledging my responses, youre just ignoring all of them.

You said there were no deposits. But there are deposits, as depicted. Do you acknowledge that you were wrong?

 

[The Barbarian]

This is a particularly silly error. The structure is a partially-eroded anticline:

 

[dcalling]

You aren't even acknowledging my responses, youre just ignoring all of them.

You said there were no deposits. But there are deposits, as depicted. Do you acknowledge that you were wrong?

I acknowledge that I was not accurate in my descriptions. All I wanted to point out is, the tiny deposits amounts to nothing with the huge cavity.

I didnt' ignore your responses, since they are so obviousely wrong in front of that picture.

 

[dcalling]

That's the thing about rejuvenated rivers. Because they're uplifted and the slope is greater, they run faster. In old slow rivers, the sediment tends to remain nearby and just gets moved around and the river meanders. In rejuvenated rivers, the swifter water tends to carry it downstream.

This is why the sediment found upstream in such rivers tends to be coarse; the finer particles get worn down and swept away.



Right. This is why you see a lot of deposition when the stream gets to more level ground. That's why deltas tend to form at the mouths of rivers.



Yes. The faster-moving water just cuts deeper and deeper into the existing meanders, entrenching them, and causing the river to form steep and deep canyons.

Here is the image https://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/colorado-river_david-morgan_istock-1980.jpg

where did all the rocks go as the water supposely cut through them?

 

[dcalling]

Of course, it's scientific. We see a phenomenon, and we look for evidence as to its cause. We note seismic data, the position of faults and the physics involved in failure of structures. If we have sufficient data, we conclude there was a earthquake that caused the damage. Seismologists are very good at determining such things.
No underground nuclear blast is that powerful. When I worked in the engineering department of an insurance company, I had to learn some principles of fire investigation. Historical events can be scientifically investigated just like any other physical phenomena.

Ever heard of the Tsar bomb? I agree with we can scientifically investigate things, but you can't claim something as fact without been able to replicate the steps of it.

You are making the same mistake most physicst did in the begining of the 1900s, they thing there is no more to discover on physics and they know it all. And there came Quantum physics.

That wouldn't explain why analogous organs don't show the same transitions or genetic data. If it was a design issue, you'd expect all flying organisms to fit nicely into a single set of transitions. But that's not what we see.

How do you argue why some software engineers design some code? There are different design principles and some times they fight each other, even on if index is 0 or 1 based.

Mutation.
Yep
All DNA can mutate. That's just a matter of physics and chemistry.

All your stuff are true to some degree. All DNA can mutate, but to what degree? They are bound by physics and chemistry (and radioactive properties).

 

[Job 33:6]

I acknowledge that I was not accurate in my descriptions. All I wanted to point out is, the tiny deposits amounts to nothing with the huge cavity.

Did you see the satellite imagery of the Colorado river delta?

 

[Job 33:6]

Prior to the construction of major dams along its route, the Colorado River fed one of the largest desert estuaries in the world. Spread across the northernmost end of the Gulf of California, the Colorado River delta’s vast riparian, freshwater, brackish, and tidal wetlands once covered 7,810 km² (1,930,000 acres)

 

[Job 33:6]

Those are clouds in the above picture. The image was literally taken from the upper atmosphere. @dcalling are you proposing that these are "tiny sediments"? Yes sediments are by definition are small, but as we can see, there are many deposited from erosion of the grand canyon.

 

[The Barbarian]

Ever heard of the Tsar bomb?

Not nearly as much energy as the last big earthquake in California.

Consider the Fukushima earthquake, which was reported to be a 9.1 quake. The effect of the quake was to move the entire island of Honshu (see the below graphic) by 2.4 meters east, and shifted the Earth on its axis between 10 and 25 cm.[1]

The amount of (surface) energy released by the quake was estimated 3.9x10^22 joules, and, if harnessed, would power the city of Los Angeles for a year. It was also equivalent to approximately 600 million times the power of the Hiroshima bomb, or 9,320 Gigatons.[2]

How much energy is that equivalent to in terms of the 50 megaton (as tested) Tsar Bomba?

It would take 186,400 Tsar Bombas to equal the amount of energy in the Fukushima earthquake.
https://www.quora.com/How-many-Tsar-bombs-would-it-take-to-equal-a-magnitude-9-earthquake

I agree with we can scientifically investigate things, but you can't claim something as fact without been able to replicate the steps of it.

Scientists can, and do. We learn about lots of things that we can't replicate, by studying the evidence they leave behind.

You are making the same mistake most physicst did in the begining of the 1900s, they thing there is no more to discover on physics and they know it all.

Sorry, the notion that "if we don't know everything, we can't know anything" doesn't work for me.

All your stuff are true to some degree. All DNA can mutate, but to what degree?

To the degree that they can change, such as we see in those hox genes.

 

[The Barbarian]

Here is the image https://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/colorado-river_david-morgan_istock-1980.jpg

where did all the rocks go as the water supposely cut through them?

Washed downstream, because of the increased flow of the river. Of what do you think the delta of the river is made?