Darwin Apologist Writes Another Story About Nature

For those of you who are not aware, one of the leading proponents and advocate of evolution, who also attempts to use evolution as a tool against the Bible in order to try and sway people in another direction, his name of course is none other than Richard Dawkins.

He has written such books as “The God Delusion” and “The Blind Watchmaker” and his latest, “The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution.” Dawkins was asked if he would debate another author who wrote a book “Signature of the Cell” by Stephen Meyer which is a book that proposes evidence for intelligent design. Dawkins a guest on Fox News who has debated O’Reily a few times on a show called; “The Factor” refused to debate Stephen Meyer’s book. He claimed it held “no water.” A shallow response, did that mean he really believed O’Reily held a stronger argument with water? Nope!  In reality, Fox News has huge ratings, so much so, Dawkins couldn’t resist the publicity it would bring to his books so he goes on there.

What about this new book? It holds too many straw-man arguments while missing some points about creationism. For example, Dawkin attempts to prove a “bad design” in nature as evidence for evolution. …He points out this so-called; example…

“But all flightless birds including ostriches and their kind, which lost their wings a very long time ago, are clearly descended from ancestors that used them to fly. No reasonable observer should doubt the truth of that, which means that anyone who thinks about it should find it very hard — why not impossible — to doubt the fact of evolution.” (p. 345)

How can anyone doubt evolution by observing flightless birds? Wow, pretty weak evidence! For one thing, Dawkins is pointing out an example of an animal loosing information (wings). What Dawkins fails to prove is an animal gaining brand new information which is at the core of the evolutionary debate! Flightless birds isn’t contrary to the creationist model! In fact, it’s still a bird! The creationist model disagrees with one animal mutating into a totally different animal, not loosing an ability or part. This might impress Dawkins’ gullible choir but it’s not really indisputable evidence for evolution as he claims it is.

Dawkins once again points out a bad example which turned out to be more of a problem with new evidence after he wrote the book, the early pterosaur, Rhamphorhynchus, with a long tail “with the ping-pong bat at the end.” A new pterosaur fossil  does damage to the Maynard Smith hypothesis as well as Dawkin’s claims in the book. The pterosaur fossils, Darwinopterus modularis being the latest discovery with a claim of being 160 million years old which is on the young side of Rhamphorhynchus, both of these fossils have a long tail with “advanced” features in the head and neck. The evolution story now looks like the latter features arose without being driven by selection for compensation for loss of stability.

This has puzzled evolutionists as the evidence is not matching up with their story as it was reported in the BBC,  McGrath states;“But the strange thing about Darwinopterus is that it has a head and neck just like that of advanced pterosaurs, while the rest of the skeleton, including a very long tail, is identical to that of primitive forms.” So now Darwinian gradualism which Dawkins proposes in his book as evidence is replaced by a new slant to the story.

“This pattern supports the idea that modules, tightly integrated complexes of characters with discrete, semi-independent and temporally persistent histories, were the principal focus of natural selection and played a leading role in evolutionary transitions.”

The pattern points to an intelligent designer, namely God not to this “idea” which is nothing more than a story based on evidence that doesn’t hold to any pattern in evolution whether it be with Darwinian gradualism or this new line of story telling. More on this particular subject matter located in the biotic message theory, as proposed by Walter ReMine who wrote The Biotic Message.

So we see the example of flightless birds is just one of many examples which doesn’t really prove evolution at all, Dawkins was right, it’s a show but not the greatest one and it’s without the substance!

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Darwin Apologist Writes Another Story About Nature

  1. Michael’s gnome: “Dawkins was asked if he would debate another author who wrote a book “Signature of the Cell” by Stephen Meyer which is a book that proposes evidence for intelligent design. Dawkins … refused to debate Stephen Meyer’s book. He claimed it held 1no water.’”

    Too right. But the problem with debating creationists is their tactic of sliding off the question and never actually answering it. A debate where one side flouts the tules is not a debate. Dawkins has learned that.

    However, how does this introduction relate to the rest of the post?

    Michael’s puppeteer: “How can anyone doubt evolution by observing flightless birds. Wow, pretty weak evidence! For one thing, Dawkins is pointing out an example of an animal loosing [sic] information (wings) [sic] what Dawkins fails to prove is an animal gaining new information!”

    Give Michael’s puppeteer a buzzword, and he’ll carry it forever. Wings are information. Wow. Losing the ability to fly without losing the wings is losing information. Truly amazing. So a paraplegic who has lost the use of his legs has lost information. Yes, you can see it dribbling out on the ground. (With the correct faith glasses, of course.)

    As to gaining information, of course, you just haven’t been listening. Bacteria evolve entirely new proteins to digest nylon—a chemical that didn’t exist anywhere 80 years ago. Two new genes to aid cognition entered the human population 5,000 and 37,000 years ago. Rattlesnakes are in the process of evolving organs that detect infrared radiation—a capability that you and I have in a very primitive form, but they are developing specialized organs with directional capabilities. Someday they may add a lens for focusing.

    None of this, of course, involves gaining information. No, of course not. As the prophet said, there are none so blind as those who will not see. I think your blindness has lost you some information, there, Michael. Proving, perhaps, that you have de-evolved from an organism that was not sightless.

    But then, you still have to explain why the birds that can’t fly have wings in the first place. That is, you’ll have to explain who or what would create such a blatantly stupid design.

  2. It is true Richard Dawkins should not use Evolution to disprove God because if Evolution is true (which I have come to believe it is), it still makes no comments on God. Evolution, like the rest of science, is not atheistic or theistic. It it agnostic. It is God-Neutral. — The conflict between God and Evolution exists ONLY IN THE MINDS of those that have been conditioned to think that it actually exists. — And I know, I used to think that way. If you look far back enough on the comments in this blog, you will find there are comments i posted here when I used to be a Creationist.

    On the other hand, I cannot blame Dawkins for not wanting to debate Stephen Meyer. He doesn’t debate Harun Yahya either. — Dawkins does not refuse to debate because he doesn’t know his stuff. He does.

    (Richard Dawkins is a good scientist, although he is a pretty crappy philosopher. )

    He refuses to debate with people who are not taken seriously because he doesn’t want to give off the impression that a debate even exists in the scientific community that Evolution is true. — There is no debate.

  3. Michael’s source: “This has puzzled evolutionists as the evidence is not matching up with their story as it was reported in the BBC, McGrath states;“But the strange thing about Darwinopterus is that it has a head and neck just like that of advanced pterosaurs, while the rest of the skeleton, including a very long tail, is identical to that of primitive forms.” So now Darwinian gradualism which Dawkins proposes in his book as evidence is replaced by a new slant to the story.”

    Let’s see now. Creationists complain up one side and down the other about a supposed lack of “transitional” fossils—ones that have partly the charaxcteristics of an aadvanced form, and partly those of a more primitive form.’

    Now you are confronted with exactly that. The response? A complaint about lack of gradualism inthe fossils.

    The major advantage of creationism is that it can explain any result.

    This is also its major disadvantage.

    ==Soc Puppette

  4. McGrath (an actual person): ““This pattern supports the idea that modules, tightly integrated complexes of characters with discrete, semi-independent and temporally persistent histories, were the principal focus of natural selection and played a leading role in evolutionary transitions.”

    Michael (not an actual person): “The pattern points to an intelligent designer, namely God not to this ‘idea’ which is nothing more than a story based on evidence that doesn’t hold to any pattern in evolution whether it be with Darwinian gradualism or this new line of story telling.”

    Please explain how “modular evolution” points to design? What doe you not understand about the second word in that two-word phrase? You’re grasping at straws again.

    Linking of genes and traits is not a new idea. Linked genes, ones that lie close to each other (i.e., have a large cM distance) are called “cassettes.” Also, multiple genes may share the same regulator, so that the expression of each rises or falls with that of the others. Michael, if you ever understood what you are talking about, you might be dangerous. So far, you’re merely risible.

  5. Michael’s puppeteer: “How can anyone doubt evolution by observing flightless birds? Wow, pretty weak evidence! For one thing, Dawkins is pointing out an example of an animal loosing [sic] information (wings). What Dawkins fails to prove is an animal gaining brand new information which is at the core of the evolutionary debate!”

    Poor Michael. He thinks that flightless birds have a net loss of “information.” First, he is apparently unable to tell the difference between information and function. Flightless birds have lost a function. Obviously the “information” in the wings is still there. The wings are still there, and all the genes necessary to build them are still present.

    Another point, however, is more important. Kiwis and other flightless birds have lost the ability to fly. This may be said to be a loss of function. However, in doing so, they have gained the ability to run much faster than theiir ancestors, and much faster than present birds that can fly. Their legs are much stronger. For this reason, they are better able to capture prey—which do not fly.

    So why does Michael not instead say that birds that do fly have lost a function—or lost “information” as he would put it—because they can’t run as fast as the flightless birds?

    The case of the Mexican blind cavefish is instructive. Did this fish “lose” a function? We can say that they lost a sense modality that didn’t do them any good anyway in their dark environment. But evolving this loss was genetically linked to new functions that adapt them to the same environment. A major eye-development gene, Pax6, is controlled by the signaling gene Hedgehog. A change in Hedgehog switched pax6 off, preventing eye formation. But this same change in Hedgehog expression produced new sensory functions in the jaws and lateral organs of the blind fish.

    That is, the same change that “lost” a useless function also created useful new functions. Michael holds that evolution cannot gain “brand new information” (which he confuses with “function”). Well, here’s one detailed example to the contrary.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s