Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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...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.
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?
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.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.
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/
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?
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 ...
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).
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?
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.
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.
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.
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,
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
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.
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.
This is a particularly silly error. The structure is a partially-eroded anticline:
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?
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.
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.
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.
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).Mutation.
Yep
All DNA can mutate. That's just a matter of physics and chemistry.
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.
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.
All your stuff are true to some degree. All DNA can mutate, but to what degree?
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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?