"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

J C

mamolian wrote: »

Wilful ignorance abounds.. If you are seriously interested in looking for evidence of evolution.. why not pick up any modern biology journal? Or perhaps buy one of Richard Dawkins books, "The Greatest Show on Earth" springs to mind.. It has many examples of observed evolution presented in a readable format for the imbeciles.

All these are examples of evolution within Kinds and using pre-existing genetic diversity ... and Prof Dawins' 'Mount Improbable' ... is actually 'Mount Impossible' ... as it could never be 'climbed' by non-intelligently directed processes that are incapable of even producing one specific functional biomolecule ...

Materialistic Evolution is unable to even crawl out of the base-camp tent at bottom of 'Mount Impossible' ... to say nothing about getting to the top!!!:):D

... and who are the imbeciles you are referring to? ... many very intelligent people, including myself, read Evolutionist books ... God help us!!!
... and I would ask you to leave such gratuitously offensive language off this thread, irrrespective of who you were referring to!!!

... here is Prof Dawkins own assessment of his previous books on Evolution ... Preface to The Greatest Show on Earth (and emphasis mine):-

It is not the first book I have written about evolution, and I need to explain what's different about it. It could be described as my missing link.
The Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype offered an unfamiliar vision of the familiar theory of natural selection, but they didn't discuss the evidence for evolution itself.
The Blind Watchmaker, River Out of Eden and (my favourite of the three) Climbing Mount Improbable, answered questions like, 'What is the use of half an eye?' 'What is the use of half a wing?' 'How can natural selection work, given that most mutations have negative effects?' Once again, however, these three books, although they cleared away stumbling blocks, did not present the actual evidence that evolution is a fact.
My largest book, The Ancestor's Tale, laid out the full course of the history of life, as a sort of ancestor-seeking Chaucerian pilgrimage going backwards in time, but it again assumed that evolution is true.

Looking back on those books, I realized that the evidence for evolution itself was nowhere explicitly set out, and that this was a serious gap that I needed to close.

... and having read The Greatest Show on Earth ... I still haven't seen any evidence presented for Pondkind to Mankind Evolution.

Mind you, I'm not criticising Prof Dawkins, for this ... I think that the evidence simply doesn't exist!!!:)

kiffer

I've never understood why J C's thinking is so... binary. Functional vs non-functional.
Biomolecules are refered to as specific as if they are the only possible molecule that could do that job, or as if a minor variant couldn't do the job almost as well (or even better), or perhaps a different job else were in a organism.
I really don't get it...

It's like saying the odds of any specific individual winning the lotto are astronomical so it's impossible for anyone to win.

J C

kiffer wrote: »

I've never understood why J C's thinking is so... binary. Functional vs non-functional.
Biomolecules are refered to as specific as if they are the only possible molecule that could do that job, or as if a minor variant couldn't do the job almost as well (or even better), or perhaps a different job else were in a organism.
I really don't get it...

It's like saying the odds of any specific individual winning the lotto are astronomical so it's impossible for anyone to win.

... the correct analogy is like having to win the lottery with one Lottery ticket every time you set each brick when building your house ... only vastly less likely!!!

IrishKnight

J C wrote: »

... the correct analogy is like having to win the lottery with one Lottery ticket every time you set each brick when building your house ... only vastly less likely!!!

Unlikely yes, but still possible...

J C

IrishKnight wrote: »

Unlikely yes, but still possible...

... in your dreams!!!

... we are dealing here with odds that are multiple orders of magnitude greater that the number of electrons in the Big Bang Universe!!!

kiffer

IrishKnight wrote: »

Unlikely yes, but still possible...

What's interesting is that J C elected to extend the lotto metaphor rather than to address the idea that specificity was somewhat of a ruse... I guess we could also point out that you don't need to get all 6 numbers right in order to win something on the lotto...

IrishKnight

J C wrote: »

...we are dealing here with odds that are multiple orders of magnitude greater that the number of electrons in the Big Bang Universe!!!

So? Mathematically it is still possible, unlikely, but still possible. Unless the odds are 0, which they can't be, it still is possible. That's how statics works.

Nothing is impossible only mathematically improbable...

J C

IrishKnight wrote: »

So? Mathematically it is still possible, unlikely, but still possible. Unless the odds are 0, which they can't be, it still is possible. That's how statics works.

Nothing is impossible only mathematically improbable...

It becomes practically impossible ... when you consider that you need more than just one functional biomolecule ... you need thousands ... arranged in specific sequences and relationships with each other!!!:)

J C

kiffer wrote: »

What's interesting is that J C elected to extend the lotto metaphor rather than to address the idea that specificity was somewhat of a ruse... I guess we could also point out that you don't need to get all 6 numbers right in order to win something on the lotto...

You are right that specificity is a further issue ... and the full analogy is that you must win the lotto using a specific set of numbers unique to each brick ... and only that brick ... before laying each individual brick to build the house!!!:)

IrishKnight

J C wrote: »

when you consider that you need more than just one functional biomolecule ... you need thousands ... arranged in specific sequences and relationships with each other!!!:)

Well now you are talking about how life started rather than evolution. Evolution says nothing about how life started, just how it has changed over time...

kiffer

J C wrote: »

You are right that specificity is a further issue ... and the full analogy is that you must win the lotto using a specific set of numbers unique to each brick ... and only that brick ... before laying each individual brick to build the house!!!:)

but that's the thing... You don't.
There isn't just one specific clotting agent, or one specific enzyme that would work in that place, or one specific self-replicating RNA pattern, and the target itself is fuzy, you don't need to hit the perfect version, you just have to have something that fills that role just well enough...

Jammy's link addresses all of this and more... Now I'll grant that it doesn't address exactly your set of numbers / calculation, it uses a slightly different set of numbers but it addresses faults that are also evident in your calculations.

robindch

J C wrote: »

you need more than just one functional biomolecule ... you need thousands ... arranged in specific sequences and relationships with each other!!!

It's been explained to you, I suppose hundreds if not thousands of times, over the last seven years that this isn't the case.

Are you not able to remember this basic fact?

J C

kiffer wrote: »

but that's the thing... You don't.
There isn't just one specific clotting agent, or one specific enzyme that would work in that place, or one specific self-replicating RNA pattern, and the target itself is fuzy, you don't need to hit the perfect version, you just have to have something that fills that role just well enough...

Jammy's link addresses all of this and more... Now I'll grant that it doesn't address exactly your set of numbers / calculation, it uses a slightly different set of numbers but it addresses faults that are also evident in your calculations.

Oh but you do ... functional biomolecules are not like lego bricks that can be fiited together any old way and they will still work ... they must be arranged into precise arrangements and sequences that are specifically co-ordinated across time and space within the cell ... and only intelligent overview is capable of such phenomena.

Scientifically speaking I can't say it was God who did it ... but whoever it was ... they were one very omnipotent dude!!!:)

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
you need more than just one functional biomolecule ... you need thousands ... arranged in specific sequences and relationships with each other!!!


robindch
It's been explained to you, I suppose hundreds if not thousands of times, over the last seven years that this isn't the case.

Are you not able to remember this basic fact?

... so are you just one great 'monolithic' big lump of a single protein yourself, Robin???:)

... or are you (and indeed every cell in your body) made up of thousands of functional biomolecules ... arranged in specific sequences and relationships with each other ... just like I have said???

Hint ... go with the second answer!!!

IrishKnight

J C wrote: »

functional biomolecules are not like lego bricks that can be fiited together any old way and they will still work...

Just so I understand what you are saying, are you saying that proteins need to be in a specific order to work? I.E a protein with say three domains in the order A-B-C normally, will be unable to function if it was swapped around into say B-A-C or C-A-B or needed A-B-C-X, where X is from some other protein?

Sarky

This thread reminds me of Garfield Minus Garfield. It's hilarious for a while, but eventually you end up feeling sorry for the guy.

mamolian

Think I'll go re-watch "Why do people laugh at creationists" videos on youtube.
Far better use of my time than responding to someone who has no intention of educating himself past the "goddunnitdontchaknowbrah".

Fiiiiiiiiveeee minutes ^_____________^

J C

mamolian wrote: »

Think I'll go re-watch "Why do people laugh at creationists" videos on youtube.
Far better use of my time than responding to someone who has no intention of educating himself past the "goddunnitdontchaknowbrah".

Fiiiiiiiiveeee minutes ^_____________^

... people laugh at things that make them uncomfortable ... like the fact that Creation Science is valid ... and has shown there is no evidence for Pondkind to Mankind Evolution.
... even Prof Dawkins admits as much ...or if there is such evidence, it has eluded him in his writings!!!

robindch

J C wrote: »

I have never misquoted anybody ... I always quote them exactly and precisely.

J C wrote: »

there is no evidence for Pondkind to Mankind Evolution. ... even Prof Dawkins admits as much ...or if there is such evidence, it has eluded him in his writings!!!

JC - lying makes baby Jesus cry.

Sarky

He's only lying in order to save our souls from the horrors of logical deduction based on the overwhelming observation of evidence. Jesus doesn't mind THAT kind of deceit. He seems to approve wholeheartedly of trying to dupe people as long as it's in His name.

J C

robindch wrote: »

JC - lying makes baby Jesus cry.

Firstly Jesus isn't a baby ... He is the Second Person of the Triune Creator God of the Universe.

Secondly, I'm not lying ... and I quoted Prof Dawkins exactly and precisely.

Prof Dawkins did indeed admit that he hadn't presented the evidence for Evolution ... which part of the good professors statement that "I realized that the evidence for evolution itself was nowhere explicitly set out." are you disagreeing with???

Here is the full quote again (emphasis mine):-

"It is not the first book I have written about evolution, and I need to explain what's different about it. It could be described as my missing link. The Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype offered an unfamiliar vision of the familiar theory of natural selection, but they didn't discuss the evidence for evolution itself. My next three books, in their different ways, sought to identify, and dissolve, the main barriers to understanding. These books, The Blind Watchmaker, River Out of Eden and (my favourite of the three) Climbing Mount Improbable, answered questions like, 'What is the use of half an eye?' 'What is the use of half a wing?' 'How can natural selection work, given that most mutations have negative effects?' Once again, however, these three books, although they cleared away stumbling blocks, did not present the actual evidence that evolution is a fact. My largest book, The Ancestor's Tale, laid out the full course of the history of life, as a sort of ancestor-seeking Chaucerian pilgrimage going backwards in time, but it again assumed that evolution is true.
Looking back on those books, I realized that the evidence for evolution itself was nowhere explicitly set out, and that this was a serious gap that I needed to close.

... so he wrote at least six books ... and yet, on his own admission, he didn't present the evidence for Evolution ... which leads me to the reasonable conclusion that the evidence simply doesn't exist.

... and if you know differently ... then please, by all means, present the evidence!!!

... and stop lying about me lying ... and Jesus being a baby!!!

Don't be so disingenuous, J C. There's a difference between claiming

a) Prof. Dawkins admitted there is no evidence for "Pondkind to Mankind evolution" (as you said), and
b) Prof. Dawkins admitted that he hadn't explicitly set out all of the evidence for evolution (as Dawkins said).

As robindch said, lies make the baby Jesus cry.

Delirium

You realise that quote you posted is an explanation by Dawkins as to what lead him to write "the Greatest Show on Earth". His book that sets out the evidence for evolution.

J C

gvn wrote: »

Don't be so disingenuous, J C. There's a difference between claiming

a) Prof. Dawkins admitted there is no evidence for "Pondkind to Mankind evolution" (as you said), and
b) Prof. Dawkins admitted that he hadn't explicitly set out all of the evidence for evolution (as Dawkins said).

As robindch said, lies make the baby Jesus cry.

Your're the one misquoting both myself and Prof Dawkins ... I never said that Prof Dawkins admitted there is no evidence for "Pondkind to Mankind evolution" ...
I myself said that there is no evidence for "Pondkind to Mankind evolution" and I went on to say that Prof Dawkins admits as much ... but I qualified this statement by saying that if there is such evidence, it has eluded him in his writings ... which he has admitted!!
... I also said that he "did indeed admit that he hadn't presented the evidence for Evolution" ... which is quite true.

and Prof Dawkins didn't just admit that he hadn't explicitly set out all of the evidence for evolution ... he didn't use the word 'all' ...
... what he said was that he "didn't discuss the evidence for evolution" ...
... that he "did not present the actual evidence that evolution is a fact" ...
... that he "assumed that evolution is true" ...
... that "the evidence for evolution itself was nowhere explicitly set out"

... I have asked for the evidence for 'Pondkind to Mankind' Evolution ... ye guys haven't provided it ... Prof Dawkins has said that he hasn't provided it ... so would somebody please 'stop beating about the bush' ... and provide it ... or else simply tell us that it isn't available at present.

Turtwig

Richard Dawkins wrote: »

JC...is...talking...crap

Oh..

IrishKnight

J C wrote: »

I have asked for the evidence for 'Pondkind to Mankind' Evolution ...

Here you go On the Origin of Species

J C

koth wrote: »

You realise that quote you posted is an explanation by Dawkins as to what lead him to write "the Greatest Show on Earth". His book that sets out the evidence for evolution.

I have read it and I don't see the evidence for Evolution ... but maybe I missed something ... so where is the specific evidence for 'Pondkind to Mankind' Evolution in this book?

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by Richard Dawkins
JC...is...talking...crap

Malty_T
Oh..

... and I'm one of his biggest fans ... I always buy his books ... I genuinely do like reading them ... I disagree with most of what he has to say ... but I freely admit that the man has got style ... and is an 'original thinker' ... which I admire in anybody!!!

He certainly has done wonders for science ... and its accessibility ...
Undoubtedly, he is the reason for many young people choosing a career in science ... and, in fairness, he has also done wonders for popularising Evolution ... pity we don't have him with us on 'our side of the fence'!!!!!:eek:

... I'm living in hope though ... that he might!!!!:)

Delirium

J C wrote: »

I have read it and I don't see the evidence for Evolution ... but maybe I missed something ... so where is the specific evidence for 'Pondkind to Mankind' Evolution in this book?

I was commenting on your misunderstanding of the quote that you posted.

As to the evidence in the book, I couldn't comment on that as I haven't read it yet.

IrishKnight

J C wrote: »

Here is the full quote again (emphasis mine):-

"It is not the first book I have written about evolution, and I need to explain what's different about it. It could be described as my missing link. The Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype offered an unfamiliar vision of the familiar theory of natural selection, but they didn't discuss the evidence for evolution itself. My next three books, in their different ways, sought to identify, and dissolve, the main barriers to understanding. These books, The Blind Watchmaker, River Out of Eden and (my favourite of the three) Climbing Mount Improbable, answered questions like, 'What is the use of half an eye?' 'What is the use of half a wing?' 'How can natural selection work, given that most mutations have negative effects?' Once again, however, these three books, although they cleared away stumbling blocks, did not present the actual evidence that evolution is a fact. My largest book, The Ancestor's Tale, laid out the full course of the history of life, as a sort of ancestor-seeking Chaucerian pilgrimage going backwards in time, but it again assumed that evolution is true.

Looking back on those books, I realized that the evidence for evolution itself was nowhere explicitly set out, and that this was a serious gap that I needed to close.

Could you quote the first paragraph of the preface you took that from? Specifically the last line of said paragraph?