101. Cataloguing every species on earth

Comment #39691 by devolved on May 11, 2007 at 2:34 pm

"From previous experience, I find that your CMI links are a waste of reading time, so why not cut it out and just tell us why there are no humans and dinosaurs fossilised together? Why are there no humans in rocks older than a few hundred thousand years of age?"

1. So when presented with a scientific challenge you dismiss it by calling it a 'waste of time'.
2. You presume but cannot prove that there are rocks 'older than a few hundred thousand years old'.
3. "..tell us why there are no humans and dinosaurs fossilised together"
With pleasure, follow the link unless you've already closed your mind to the possibility that you could be wrong in which case it would be a waste of time (but for the wrong reason)

http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter15.pdf

4. "Where is the evidence that endosymbiosis is in trouble?"
here-

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3888

"When our hominid fossils numbered in the single digits *, scientists placed them in a neat linear line. As more hominid fossils revealed more diverse morphologies**, and many leads turned into dead ends (literally, lineages that went extinct), the hominid family tree became a necessarily more complex*** - and more accurate - representation of our ancestors****."
* This is a belief based upon a highly questionable interpretation of data
** as above
*** as above
**** as above

The Renault Scenic on my drive looks very much like my neighbour's Citroen Picasso. One did not evolve from the other. They were both designed. The paragraph above presumes evolution as true then sets out to use the data to prove the belief by interpreting the data to fit the presupposition.

102. Cataloguing every species on earth

Comment #39621 by devolved on May 11, 2007 at 10:33 am

The link below shows who is doing bad science.

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2891

103. Cataloguing every species on earth

Comment #39351 by devolved on May 10, 2007 at 11:47 am

Ooops another big hole appearing in the evolutionary story. Look at this link

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5067

104. Massachusetts Proposes Stem Cell Research Grants

Comment #38889 by devolved on May 9, 2007 at 12:07 pm

I've extracted the following extract as an example of someone opposed to stem cell research:

The ESCR debate of the moral question is remarkable to me for two reasons. First, how could those who are pro-abortion feel the need to defend the act of cutting up a human embryo to farm it for its cells? Second, how could those who are pro-life countenance the thought? The answer to both is the same: To a large degree, neither side seems to understand the moral logic of its views.

An action is unethical when it violates a moral rule. Car theft is wrong because it violates a larger principle: It's wrong to steal another's property. That same rule has other applications, however. The moral principle covering car theft equally covers plagiarism. If someone objects to car theft, but condones her own theft of another's ideas, it's fair to question her commitment to the broader principle: Stealing is wrong. It begins to look like emotions and personal preferences are driving her choices, not moral thinking. The moral logic pertaining to any pre-born human life can be stated simply. It's wrong to kill innocent human beings. Both abortion and ESCR kill innocent human beings. Therefore, both abortion and ESCR are wrong. Pro-lifers, presumably, affirm this moral equation. Pro-choicers, by and large, deny it because of the second premise. To them, no bona fide human being is sacrificed, just a "clump of cells."

The full argument can be followed on the following web link

http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6691

105. Sam Harris in conversation with Oliver McTernan

Comment #38855 by devolved on May 9, 2007 at 10:28 am

Did you hear about the atheist who believed he existed without any supernatural means of support? How deluded can you get?

106. My response to the GOP evolution question

Comment #37925 by devolved on May 6, 2007 at 10:06 am

Another man says, "I am the messenger of God. God is very powerful. He has the power of life and death. God rewards obedience and loyalty. God says you should give some of your money to Him. If you do this, good things will happen to you. You will be protected, now and in the future, by the power of God. No harm will come to you, or your loved ones. I am the servant of God. I will collect your gift to God once a week, on His behalf."

The weakness of this argument is that it fails to distinguish between what a man may say and what God says. Anyone who opens a Bible and reads the words of Jesus will quickly find that he taught his followers that they would receive exactly the same treatment as he got; namely opposition, abuse, persecution and worse.

107. Science and fiction

Comment #37570 by devolved on May 5, 2007 at 2:00 am

I'm pleased if David Cameron is advocating the end to the monopoly of faith based evolutionary teaching dominating the science curricula. The Bible describes faith as, "…being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see."

This description exactly fits evolution for two reasons. First because believers hope that science will ultimately provide proof to support what they believe, namely that "all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form". Of course it's impossible to do science in the past so that hope cannot be fulfilled.

Second because the evolutionary process cannot be seen to be at work in operational science (science that uses observable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable experimentation). The main scientific objection to the General Theory of Evolution is not that changes occur through time, and neither is it about the size of the change. The key issue is the type of change required — to change microbes into men requires changes that increase the genetic information content, from over half a million DNA 'letters' of even the 'simplest' self-reproducing organism to three billion 'letters' (stored in each human cell nucleus).

By contrast Natural selection is really a very straight-forward, commonsense insight. An organism may possess some inheritable trait or character which, in a given environment, gives that organism a greater chance of passing on all of its genes to the next generation (compared with those of its fellows which don't have it). Over succeeding generations that trait or character has a good chance of becoming more widespread in that population.

What's the difference between Evolution and Natural Selection? ""Natural selection involves merely the shuffling, rearrangement and degeneration of existing genetic information, whereas (over time) evolution requires encyclopaedic quantities of new information to be produced by unintelligent, natural processes—information coding for new types of organs, limbs, physiologies, etc."

108. When Seeing Is Disbelieving

Comment #36953 by devolved on May 2, 2007 at 11:03 pm

Thank you all for a series of thoughtful posts none of which questioned my integrity or ability to think.

One of you commented, "That's great, but the geologists didn't say "oh hey lets come up with some evidence for evolution!" they came to their conclusions about the age of the earth independantly and Evolution happened to fit that evidence better than any other theorey we have."

I think you'll find that Hutton and Lyle did exactly what you claim they didn't do.

I am frequently challenged "Where's the proof". Well here it is:

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4172/

I do appreciate your willingness to debate with me in this way. I find it both stimulating and very useful. Thank you.

109. When Seeing Is Disbelieving

Comment #36829 by devolved on May 2, 2007 at 1:13 pm

Thank you for your various responses. I have responded to four of them.

Most of my adult life I would have described myself as either agnostic or atheist. More recently I am 'poacher turned gamekeeper'. It does give me the advantage of seeing both sides. If anyone is genuinely interested in good science I invite you to read on. I make no apology for pointing you to a creationist website.

"I don't think you belong in this free-thinking oasis."
So is RichardDawkins.net a club that only permits people who agree with him? If you don't like what I post you're not bound to respond. If I'm excluded from the site so be it but if I'm not I may continue asking awkward questions. If you are so sure that you are right that you have no need to examine contrary arguments and evidence it does you no credit as a 'free-thinker'.

"No fear, just confusion. Could you be clearer about in what way you think that the evidence better fits intelligent design than it does evolution? If we better understand what you believe, it makes it easier to debate it!"
This is an entirely reasonable request so I am particularly grateful for that. I am very happy to suggest that you look at the following links, one describes presuppositional bias (something we all have but don't all recognise). The FIRST LINK IS ESSENTIAL READING IF YOU STRUGGLE TO UNDERSTAND MY COMMENTS:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3830

The vital question is, when using the tools of operational science, does the evidence better fit a non-evolutionary paradigm? There are many articles but one will suffice:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/373

"Go and read "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" and then come back and apologise. It isn't testable, it isn't falsifiable and therefore it isn't science."
I couldn't agree more, it isn't testable, it isn't falsifiable and therefore it isn't science. That perfectly describes the General Theory of Evolution. (GTE) when defined by the evolutionist Gerald Kerkut as 'the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.'
Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960.]
Neither the GTE nor Supernatural Creation can be defined as science because neither meets the criterion of being testable or falsifiable.

Karl Popper as an outstanding philosopher of science clear understood the issues and Wikipedia says of him, "Some philosophers and scientists, most notably Karl Popper, have asserted that no empirical hypothesis, proposition, or theory can be considered scientific if no observation could be made which might contradict it." Evolution is a speculation about the unobservable and unrepeatable past. So too is special creation. By contrast natural selection is subject to test and falsification.

"The reason I exclude the possible of an intelligent designer is because the supposed design is so bad." This response to be fully addressed needs both a scientific and then a theological one. However I'll settle for a scientific link for the moment:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1798

110. When Seeing Is Disbelieving

Comment #36740 by devolved on May 2, 2007 at 6:05 am

"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic." (Todd, S.C., correspondence to Nature 401(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999.) Evolutionist Richard Lewontin of Harvard

1 I am surrounded by living things.
2 On every single occasion that I examine a living thing I discover through science that it has come from a previously existing living thing.
3 I choose not to exclude the possibility of an intelligent designer.
4 I discover that the very same data, evidence etc that that everyone looks at better fits a different pardigm.
5 I make this suggestion to people who don't like to debate that idea.
6 I suggest they read scientific rebuttals of thir beliefs.
7 I suggest they debate their ideas with biologists, geneticists, geologists and many others who reason that science is ill served by the arbitary of a supernatural creator.
6 They become abusive.

Great science!
What are you guys so frightened of?

111. When Seeing Is Disbelieving

Comment #36725 by devolved on May 2, 2007 at 5:18 am

"In the same way, isotopes take time to decay, rocks take time form etc. If you don't understand this then you really ought to read a basic science book."

So deep breath, here goes.

1 I believe in evolution
2 I interpret data to fit my beliefs
3 My interpretation of the data is presented as proof of what I belive.

That doesn't impress me even if it impresses those who can't be bothered to checked out the arguments of scientists who don't accept the first premise.

112. When Seeing Is Disbelieving

Comment #36722 by devolved on May 2, 2007 at 5:12 am

briancoughlanworldcitizen
Thank you for proving my point when you tell me that "Yes you can only "do sceince" in the present (for that matter you can only "do" anything in the present), but many (arguably most) of the inputs to the sceince you are "doing" must come from the past. Weather results, previous experiments, videos from voyager of the jovian system of moons etc."

113. When Seeing Is Disbelieving

Comment #36717 by devolved on May 2, 2007 at 4:50 am

"Witty comment. Perhaps you could provide some evidence to substantiate it?"

Two men are standing on Plymouth Hoe looking out to sea, each looking at the Spanish Armada through a telescope. One says "Those ships are a long way off" and the other say, "They're very close to shore".

Perhaps you are looking through the telescope the wrong way!

And how do scientists do research on events 4 billions years ago. Are they supernatural? I would have thought that you can only do science in the present and potentially the future.

114. When Seeing Is Disbelieving

Comment #36708 by devolved on May 2, 2007 at 4:19 am

"But why would nature, after spending millennia evolving highly sophisticated senses to perceive the world, build in a psychological capacity that allows us to ignore what is right in front of our eyes?"

Perhaps a belief in evolution is an example of a psychological capacity that allows us to ignore what is right in front of our eyes.

115. Why the Gods Are Not Winning

Comment #36498 by devolved on May 1, 2007 at 10:40 am

33. Comment #36491 by briancoughlanworldcitizen

Did you bother to follow the link? Perhaps you might have tried reading it first and then you would not have posted your comment.

I am neither dumb or disingenous. I do like asking questions and engaging people in debate. From many years experience I've discovered that whenever I throw mud I always end up losing ground.

Repectfully yours, devolved.

116. Why the Gods Are Not Winning

Comment #36484 by devolved on May 1, 2007 at 10:07 am

I did not suggest that atheism always leads to immorality but there is no question that Hitler's did. If you doubt that follow this link:
http://web.csustan.edu/History/Faculty/Weikart/FromDarwintoHitler.htm

The notion that Hitler was a Christian is obscene. Baynes was wrong and there are plenty of sources to show that. I know many people who have no faith in God, some very close, lifelong friends. I do not doubt that they have strong morals.

"Eugenics is not atheism." I agree.

The book of Judges describes some of the most bestial and degrading human acts ever committed. Why? Because the Bible both describes and prescribes. The section posted is an horrific example of the depravity of some human beings.

"…if you examine the religious view that only true believers go to heaven you could argue that that is survival of the fittest." It's not a doctrine found anywhere in the Bible. The only way into heaven that the Bible teaches is by the grace of God and by faith in Jesus Christ. (Ephesians chapter two, verses 8-10). The only people that could ever go to hell are those that choose it. I cannot speak for other religions.

More women than men attend Christian churches in the west – agreed. More men than women attend mosques – I wouldn't argue against that but don't have statistics. David Murrow suggests that balanced language will attract equal numbers of men and women. The message at the heart of Christianity is 'love your neighbour as yourself'. Given human nature it's not surprising that many fall short. I do.

117. Why the Gods Are Not Winning

Comment #36340 by devolved on May 1, 2007 at 12:49 am

Scottish Geologist might like to look at a book called "Why Men Hate Going To Church" by David Murrow especially page 182 where Dorothy Cassel discovered that it was her language that was turning men off.

When she introduced words like 'achievement', 'power', 'battle' and 'purpose' two things happened. The class on 'Experiencing God' doubled in size and the prportion of men attending leapt to 60%.

118. Why the Gods Are Not Winning

Comment #36335 by devolved on May 1, 2007 at 12:39 am

One of the most disturbing aspects of a book like 'The God Delusion' is the ability of an urbane, well respected and very nice Oxford Don to ignite violent passions in others.

One of the strands already emerging from the book is that 'religious people' are in some sense less intelligent. I'm not suggesting for one second that Richard proposes that notion, rather that others will draw that conclusion from his ideas.

Ideas do evolve (in a non-biological sense). Survival of the fittest may give rise to the notion of survival of the most intelligent, or survival of the master race. My parents lived through the horrors of pre-war Germany and WW2 and the outworking of atheistic ideas of making the world better by eliminating the weaker.

A few years ago when asked what were the major benefits of the French Revolution the then Chinese leader (sorry can't remember his name) wryly commented, "It's too early to say".

So beware on two counts. First if there is a God he will be having a good hearty laugh at the idea that "The Gods are not winning". The decline of religion is hardly a new phenomenon after all. Have a look at the book of Judges in the Bible. Second be very careful about claiming that atheist have attained a higher consciousness or intelligence.

119. Why the Gods Are Not Winning

Comment #36329 by devolved on May 1, 2007 at 12:03 am

"Mass rejection of the gods invariably blossoms in the context of the equally distributed prosperity and education found in almost all 1st world democracies. There are no exceptions on a national basis."

Equally distributed prosperity in Britain! You must be kidding.

120. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #36158 by devolved on April 30, 2007 at 10:37 am

Billy you ask me, "I'll ask you again. By your reasoning, do analagous structures argue for more than one creator?"

The PBS website definition:
analogous structures: Structures in different species that look alike or perform similar functions (e.g., the wings of butterflies and the wings of birds) that have evolved but do not develop from similar groups of tissues, and that have not evolved from similar structures known to be shared by common ancestors.

The Bible is clear that there is only one God who created different kinds of living creatures separately. There's no reason why the one God should not use common design principles in differently created kinds. So by my reasoning the answer is no.

You obviously wouldn't expect me to buy into any of the presppositional biases in the PBS definition.

I can't see this exchange going much further although I'd like to know more about your Christian experience and why you no longer believe.

Just about the best CMI link I can leave you with, hopefully addressing just about everything you've raised is below.

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2610/

If that doesn't satisfy you who don't you enter the lion's den and pit your considerable intellect against the creation scientists directly.

I genuinely wish you well.

121. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #36065 by devolved on April 30, 2007 at 5:12 am

So Robert follow this link and tell me what's wrong with it.

http://www.parentcompany.com/handy_dandy/hder12.htm

Neither limbo nor purgatory are found in the Bible and the Catholic Church should have never associated itself with either idea.

Billy thanks for the web link. I'm happy to read it. Please do me the courtesy of doing the same. I read every word you write and take everything you say seriously. When it comes to Bible errors you might like to read commentaries that are not inherently hostile to the the Bible. A good starting point would be the New Bible Commentary 21st Century Edition published by IVP. I hope we've established the problem caused by only reading books and articles that support what you already believe.

122. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #36048 by devolved on April 30, 2007 at 4:13 am

"Somehow creationists must swallow that all the radioisotopes in the Earth (buried in the sediment of young earth) were shuffled by the flood and arranged to be surrounded by exacting amounts of their corresponding decay product, making them appear to be in different states of decay, in an order that exactly reflected a linearly ordered strata, increasing in age with depth."

The answer is that these methods are far from infallible and are based on three arbitrary assumptions (first, a constant rate of decay, second, an isolated system in which no parent or daughter element can be added or lost, and third, a known amount of the daughter element present initially."

Robert as ever the data don't support your arguments. You interpret data to fit your world view and then claim that as proof.

123. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #36018 by devolved on April 29, 2007 at 11:22 pm

My last response to Robert and Billy

Robert claims: "As Tim has pointed out, the naturalistic and non-naturalistic paradigms of interpreting the universe are not equally valid or effective.
We fully accept that science is based on an impossible to justify presumption that there are only naturalistic explanations. However, this 'presupposition' has yielded tremendous insight into the world, and can take the credit for essentially every technological advance ever made."

1 I respect Tim's belief but disagree with his inference. If God created everything in the beginning evolutionary scientists will have wasted huge amounts of time, money and energy on pursuing the wrong explanation.
2 You are correct in saying that the paradigms are not equally effective. It's rather as if two men are standing on Plymouth Hoe looking out to sea, each looking at the Spanish Armada through a telescope. One says "Those ships are a long way off" and the other say, "They're very close to shore".
3 There is not one single technological advance that owes anything at all to a belief in evolution. I'd go further and suggest that if operational science ignored the evolutionary paradigm it would not hinder its activities.

Robert claims: "The scientific worldview is not a view which is incapable of disproof."

I don't quite know what you want to include in your 'scientific worldview'. The following link will ably demonstrate where science is and is not incapable of disproof.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3830/

Robert again: "There is a far simpler reason why anti-evolutionary intelligent design papers never meet peer-review. It is because the speculation of an unmeasurable and unspecified supernatural designer in a hypothesis makes that hypothesis non-disprovable, as no set of predictions can be made that rely on the properties of the designer, and as such any structure (however hap hazardous, wasteful or 'evolved' it looks) can be said to fit the design hypothesis."

The link above will answer this.

I appreciate your frustration at debating with someone who constantly refuses to play by your rules but I see no point in 'playing' when the dice are loaded against me before I start the game. I've spent most of my life as an atheist or agnostic.

And yes I was wrong Hoyle didn't get the Nobel prize.
So he got his math wrong. The article you pasted in makes claims about how abiogenesis worked. The Talk Origins website says: "abiogenesis Not to be confused with "spontaneous generation," it is the theory that life originally arose from non-living matter, given the proper conditions during the early earth." So we're back where we started, making claims about what happened in the past. We can all believe what we like about what happened in the past but none of use can do science there.

I'm not sure that we can make any more progress on the Anthropic Principle. Again there's a short article by Andrew Lamb you might wish to look at:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3841

Billy doesn't like evidence for fossils that forms quickly so he makes sure his definition excludes the evidence. Neat footwork there.

Billy doesn't respond to my challenge to do some real science. Let's pursue the challenge a little further. Let's get 20,000 dead frogs and we'll leave half of them out in the open and bury the rest rapidly to simulate a catastrophic burial. We'll need to spread them around the planet. Every year we'll go and look for one of the frogs we left out in the open and one we buried and see how they're doing. Neither of us will live to see the end of the experiment but I'm sure we'll have some fairly substantial evidence after 10, 30 or 60 years.

Billy seems to know the impact of a unique global catastrophe that may have happened in the past and started with a deluge that covered the entire earth for more than a year and continued to affect the entire Earth for hundreds of years thereafter.

No doubt we'll meet again elsewhere on RichardDawkins.net. I'll carry on testing my beliefs, presuppositions and interpretations of data. I hope you'll do the same.

124. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #35715 by devolved on April 28, 2007 at 1:58 pm

I've learned a lot in the last week by exchanging ideas with you all and I sense that we'll end up going round in circles soon so I'd like to summarise where I've got to in response to the debate.

First, the Anthropic Principle is a superb example of presuppositional logic at work. The idea was formulated to try and explain the paradox of an 'uncreated' universe being so finely tuned. If you presuppose that the universe could only have come into existence by entirely naturalistic means you have to defend by faith a principle incapable of any disproof. Armed with such faith it becomes possible to dismiss a Nobel Prize winning astronomer as 'wrong'! How do you know he was wrong? What was the logical flaw in his reasoning?

If there are logical flaws in the paragraph above point out the flaws using logic. "I reject what you say because it doesn't conform with my beliefs" is not a logical argument.

The Anthropic Principle also leads inexorably to science fiction tales of multi-verses where Dr Dawkins has a green moustache. Perhaps in one universe he's the Archbishop of Canterbury instead of the Archbishop of Atheism.

Second, is the presupposition that scientists who do not accept your presuppositions are pseudo-scientists. You can only claim that the evidence overwhelmingly supports the evolutionary hypothesis if you rigorously exclude the scientific work of those who don't agree with your paradigm. In this realm 'peer review' means only accepting papers that conform to the evolutionary hypothesis and systematically rejecting those that don't on philosophical grounds.

Once the unscientific presupposition of naturalism is excluded the claim that the evidence overwhelmingly supports the evolutionary hypothesis is highly questionable.

I wonder if any of you has ever critiqued a scientific paper written by a non-evolutionist and faulted it on scientific grounds? I'd love to see such a critique. Again "It's rubbish" or "I've read it and it's very poor" hardly qualifies.

I wonder if evolutionist Richard Lewontin of Harvard speaks for you when he said, "Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic." (Todd, S.C., correspondence to Nature 401(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999.)

Finally and easily the most important to me is the question of how genetic information increases. No scientist can do science in the past so I deliberately asked for scientific proof in the present.

There's been a plethora of posts to the effect 'what about the hox?', or 'please explain how they fossilised in such a short space of time!) into neat strata!' I'm pleased to be challenged.

How does a frog get fossilised? There are two possibilities (let's assume the frogs are dead). Using uniformitarian beliefs put in on the ground and wait a few thousand years for it to get covered up. Use catatastrophic beliefs and it gets near instant burial and preservation.

It's worth knowing the Doctor's view, "Bodies or bones may survive for our attention, having somehow escaped that of hyenas, burying beetles and bacteria. ….and under exceptionally lucky circumstances, soft parts too, occasionally become petrified as stone fossils that last for hundreds of millions of years." The Ancestor's Tale p16

Now the great thing is that we don't have to speculate what might have happened millions of years ago because we can do real operational, that is observable science where real experiments are carried out, and carried out again and again and shown to be true or false. There's excellent scientific evidence that a fossil can form within the span of a human lifetime.

And what about the claim that mutations are the answer? I was challenged, "Evolution is testable. You can make predictions - and they are confirmed. For example, we have one less pair of chromosomes than other primate species. How do we explain this? We can hypothesise that there could have been a fusion of two chromosomes in our recent past. We can test this by sequencing them. Chromosomes only have areas called telomeres on there ends. It turns out human chromosome 2 has internal telomeric sequences - hence 2 chromosomes fused to form no. 2 If the hypothesis failed we would have no alternative other than to reject it. Where is the preconception here."

Well here's a scientists response, "In fact human chromosome 2 does not match the two small ape chromosomes it is claimed to have fused from. There are significant differences, and what similarities there are have been highly exaggerated by those making the claim.

Incidentally, it is not the case that a correct prediction proves a theory. Even if human chromosome 2 did look just how one would expect if it were to have came about via joining of two smaller chimp chromosomes, to suggest that this proves that it came about this way is to commit a logical fallacy, the fallacy of verified prediction. In fact similarities between different kinds of creatures is evidence of a common Designer, not common ancestry—see the attached notes on homology."

Needless to say the scientist offered and provided much, much more including the notes mentioned above.

"Why did you ignore my comment on Alx-4? That is a mutation that causes an extra claw on dogs." For the simple reason that more claws is no evidence of new information. If I bought two copies of 'The God Delusion' instead of one I'd have the same stuff twice over. If you used a photocopier to make a copy of a document and it malfunctioned and printed two copies, you would not conclude that you had created new information by this accident. It is like this with the extra organs that sometimes appear on animals (and plants). There is no new information created, so it has nothing to do with evolution!


In a recent paper, evolutionist Dr George Gabor Miklos summed it up nicely when he said: 'We can go on examining natural variation at all levels ... as well as hypothesising about speciation events in bed bugs, bears and brachiopods until the planet reaches oblivion, but we still only end up with bed bugs, brachiopods and bears. None of these body plans will transform into rotifers, roundworms or rhynchocoels.'
[George L. Gabor Miklos, 'Emergence of organisational complexities during metazoan evolution: perspectives from molecular biology, palaeontology and neo-Darwinism', Mem. Assoc. Australas. Palaeontols15, 1993, p. 25]

So how do I decide? I dare to use logic and ask questions and am rewarded with abuse, character assassination, lies and snide comments but no evidence, just assertions of it. So who is doing bad science and covering it up with bad manners and bad language?

125. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #35205 by devolved on April 26, 2007 at 2:59 pm

Response to Robert Maynard (and others)

The 'General Theory of Evolution' (GTE) was defined by the evolutionist Gerald Kerkut as 'the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.'
Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960.

[Gerald A. Kerkut or G. A. Kerkut (1927 - 2004) was a noted British zoologist and physiologist. He attended the University of Cambridge from 1945 to 1952 and earned a doctorate in zoology. He went on to establish the Department of Physiology and Biochemistry at University of Southampton where he remained throughout his career. He became Professor of Physiology and Biochemistry in 1966 and went on to become the Dean of Science, Chairman of the School of Biochemical and Physiological Sciences and Head of the Department of Neurophysiology.]


You asked me to respond to your Anthropic Principle posts.

I might ask which of the many variations you think is the best. It's clear that every variation is hugely controversial and is claimed by scientists with differing presuppositions to support their own positions.

I spent some time looking at various websites. You might care to look at this one: http://www.physics.sfsu.edu/~lwilliam/sota/anth/anthropic_principle_index.html

The author displays a seemingly rare ability to see the arguments from all sides and concludes with the comment: "In the end, I suppose, it's just a matter of personal preference which theory, the God hypothesis or one of the Many Worlds cosmologies, you choose to believe in, for now."

I like the ending 'for now'. There are at least three possibilities and I'm confident that each will choose the option that confirms his own presuppositions. They are:
1. History will come to and end and all will stand before Christ
2. We'll never know the answer
3. Scientists will find convincing proof

I also note that the odds are rather longer than some (posting comments on this website) appear to suggest. Fred Hoyle calculated the odds against a simple functioning protein molecule originating by chance in some primordial soup as being the same as if you filled the whole solar system shoulder-to-shoulder with blind men and their Rubik's cubes, then expected them all to get the right solution at the same time. (Source: Fred Hoyle, 'The Big Bang in Astronomy', New Scientist, Vol.92, No. 1280, 1981, p. 527)

I want to respond to your comments about presuppositions.

I absolutely agree that scientists often start with a strong hunch and end up with good supporting evidence. However we need to travel backwards a bit (logically speaking).
You have a presupposition (that is a starting belief which is itself unprovable, thus based on faith) that there is no supernatural. Whether there is a realm of the supernatural or not, science cannot say. Science concerns itself only with the natural realm. If there is a supernatural, it comprises, by definition, phenomena beyond the readily observable and testable things of the natural realm.

I'd like to move on to your comment: "Again, you should read more books on genetics - I can't claim to be an expert on the matter, but I'll put it this way - it's one thing to say that the first organism did not have lungs like we do today, nor did it have a mouth, or intestines - but it certainly did have mechanisms for taking in energy from the environment, converting it for its own use, and excreting waste product - self-replication isn't free. It is a mistake to talk about the lung as a physiological structure - it carries out a function which has to have been present in one form or another since the very first life forms."

At some point in time we both agree that there were no life forms on our planet. Are you really claiming that the first life form "certainly did have mechanisms for taking in energy from the environment, converting it for its own use, and excreting waste product"? That's an extraordinary statement but I assume you didn't actually mean that.

However I still have to ask by what process we get from life in its first manifestation (skipping the step from an inorganic form*) to the vastly complex human being.

[*You might want to look at the follow paper though:
www.iscid.org/papers/Mullan_PrimitiveCell_112302.pdf]

It's not only creationists who doubt neo-Darwinian evolution. For example Dr Christian Schwabe from the Medical University of South Carolina (Dept. of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology), wrote: 'Control genes like homeotic genes may be the target of mutations that would conceivably change phenotypes, but one must remember that, the more central one makes changes in a complex system, the more severe the peripheral consequences become. … Homeotic changes induced in Drosophila genes have led only to monstrosities, and most experimenters do not expect to see a bee arise from their Drosophila constructs.'
(Mini Review: Schwabe, C., 1994. Theoretical limitations of molecular phylogenetics and the evolution of relaxins. Comp. Biochem. Physiol.107B:167–177).

In the search for a decisive answer to how the GTE explains ever more complex life it's not unusual to read press releases like this one:

'Biologists at the University of California, San Diego have uncovered the first genetic evidence that explains how large-scale alterations to body plans were accomplished during the early evolution of animals…. The achievement is a landmark in evolutionary biology, not only because it shows how new animal body plans could arise from a simple genetic mutation, but because it effectively answers a major criticism creationists had long leveled against evolution—the absence of a genetic mechanism that could permit animals to introduce radical new body designs.'
Ronshaugen, M, McGinnis, N, and McGinnis, W. Nature advance online publication, 6 February 2002 (DOI 10.1038/nature716)

Here's the counter from Dr David DeWitt (a biochemist and neuroscientist)

"Evolutionary biologists believe that the six-legged insect body plan evolved from crustacean-like ancestors (including creatures like shrimp) that lost the large number of legs.1 Such a radical change would require mutation(s) that result in the suppression of leg development. McGinnis and coworkers believed that they found the mutation and the gene responsible for this change. However, careful examination of their efforts reveals that the situation is much more complicated.

The scientists were investigating Ubx, a Hox gene which suppresses leg development in flies. Hox genes are master control switches that control the body plan. Specific Hox genes may control where the head forms, where limbs form, or a tail or even wings. These master switches work like circuit breakers and either turn on or turn off an array of other genes. Hox genes can be expressed in abnormal locations and either prevent development of structures or promote their development in very unusual places. For example Pax-6 expression controls the development of eyes. A fly with abnormal expression could form an eye on a leg, the antenna or even abdomen.
The researchers found that the Ubx gene from a fly completely prevented leg development while the same gene from Artemia, a brine shrimp, only suppressed leg development 15%. They then mutated the Artemia Ubx gene and found that this version was much more effective at blocking leg formation. They postulated that such a mutation probably occurred in the crustaceans that were the ancestors of six-legged insects.

The fact that scientists can significantly alter the body plan does not prove macro-evolution nor does it refute creation. Successful macro-evolution requires the addition of NEW information and NEW genes that produce NEW proteins that are found in NEW organs and systems.

For example, a single mutation that might prevent legs from forming is much different from a mutation that produces legs in the first place. Making a leg would require a large number of different genes present simultaneously. Moreover, where do the wings come from? Just because an organism loses a few legs doesn't convert a shrimp-like creature into a fly. Since crustaceans don't have wings, where does the information come from to make wings in flies?

Having the wings themselves is not even enough. Researchers in another study have found that the subcellular location of metabolic enzymes is important for the functional muscle contraction required for flight. Indeed, the metabolic enzymes must be in very close proximity with the cytoskeletal proteins that are involved in muscle contraction. If the enzymes are not in the exact location in which they are needed within the cell, the flies cannot fly. This study bears out the fact that 'the presence of active enzymes in the cell is not sufficient for muscle function; colocalization of the enzymes is required.' It also '…requires a highly organized cellular system.'

Therefore, changes in body plan—no matter how dramatic—do not automatically prove macro-evolution. Losing structures, or misplacing their development, should not be equated with the increased information that is needed to form novel structures and cellular systems."

No doubt someone will claim this counter is rubbish without proving any argument and that will say volumes about them and nothing about the quest for honest answers.

126. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #34934 by devolved on April 25, 2007 at 3:48 pm

"Well, it is more plausible because luck is simply an affectation applied to probablistic outcomes. Be fully aware that I am not speaking of luck in any mystical or karmic sense (and I imagine no other atheist would either) - luck is not something people need to have faith in - luck is merely how we can describe being the benefactor of probability."

I am profoundly grateful for this post because it gets to the heart of the matter.

Every one of us sees the world through a 'worldview' or 'paradigm'. Our views on science, religion, economics, history and all else are underpinned by presuppositions and your post is a superb example so thank you. (The philosopher of science Karl Popper wrote extensively on this and a Google search will quickly take us to our favourite encyclopaedia).

Now your comment to me is based on a presupposition that I can express this way:

A I live in an amazingly complex and huge universe. I'm so lucky.
B Because I am an atheist I presuppose that nothing could have been created by
an intelligent creator because there is no supernatural.
C Therefore it must have happened as a result of luck etc.

If I were to accept your presupposition it would be akin to playing dice with someone who had loaded the dice in their favour, or phoning into a TV quiz after the competition had been decided.

Let me now express another worldview based upon a different presupposition:

A I live in an amazingly complex and huge universe. I'm so lucky.
B Because I do not discount the possibility of supernatural intelligence
I remain open to the idea of a super intelligent creator.
C Therefore I believe that life may have been created supernaturally.

Now I am as repulsed as you by the sight (and sound) of religious fundamentalists pouring out venomous and profoundly hateful stuff. I am equally repulsed by atheist fundamentalists who do exactly the same thing. I find some of the posts on this website profoundly offensive.

The physical evidence we all look at does not of itself prove* either a universe etc created solely by naturalistic processes, or a universe etc created by supernatural means. (* I use the word 'prove' here in the sense of overwhelming evidence in favour of one worldview over another).

Finally I have had many suggestions that I read books. I love reading and thoroughly enjoyed reading 'The God Delusion' a few months ago. It seems to me axiomatic (a presupposition I grant you) that we need to examine other people's ideas with some care before dismissing them.

So let me leave you all with a recommendation too. David Robertson has written a short but very well argued book called 'The Dawkins Letters'. It only costs £4.99 and the ISBN is 978 184 550 2614. Why read the book? It commends and praises what is good and points out the shortcomings and mistakes. Robertson is a Christian but not a creationist.

127. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #34631 by devolved on April 24, 2007 at 6:24 pm

Comment #34390 by Spinoza on April 24, 2007 at 12:17 am

"[quote]You can all dodge the question till the cows come home but without scientific evidence of a mechanism for adding new genetic information the evolutionary hypothesis is just that.[/quote]

What the hell do you think heterosexual procreation does?"

We'll we'd both agree on the answer. It creates babies. But unfortunately you've missed the point.

Let me give you an analogy. Imagine taking two pages, one from a history book and one from a geography book, and then putting them side by side into a photo copier. You'd end up with an identical copy.

Babies are genetic copies of their parents. The parents create a new life and they also create more of the same genetic information. Yes there's more information but it's more of the same. There isn't any new, that is different information.

The word evolution is used in two distinct ways.

First is the 'General Theory of Evolution' (GTE) defined as 'the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.'

Second evolution is defined as a change in features over time. This is a much more limited use of the word evolution and is accepted by everyone.

If evolution is true in the first way then there has to be a process that progressively increases the amount of genetic information over time. So to take just one example. If you believe in the GTE, at some point in history there was a living creature that had no genetic information for a lung. But somehow sufficient information increases led to the development of a lung that now is an organ in the baby.

I've received several suggestions of examples of genetic information increases occuring in operational science (the stuff that's going on today and involves all the rigours of science - observable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable experiments).

I'm genuinely trying to look at this question from both sides, that is those whose presuppositions lead them to believe in the GTE and those whose presuppositions lead them to believe in creation by an intelligent creator.

The difficulty of course is that when I find myself out of my depth scientifically I have to look at arguments of scientists who draw diametrically opposed conclusions from identical evidence. It ain't easy!

128. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #34375 by devolved on April 23, 2007 at 10:49 pm

'Over the past 30 to 40 years a number of new strains of food poisoning bacteria have evolved. That is before the 1970s or thereabouts, they did not exist (or were at least unknown)—now they are a threat to food safety. The evolution of these bacteria has been traced to the transfer of genetic information (toxin genes or acid resistance genes etc.) from one type of bacteria to another. And it is a similar situation for all the observed cases of evolution including mutations. They all involve either transfer of existing (i.e. created) genetic information from one to another or the loss of some pre-existing (created) genetic information.'
Published in Chemistry in Australia April 2007, pp. 19–20. Ashton, J

You can all dodge the question till the cows come home but without scientific evidence of a mechanism for adding new genetic information the evolutionary hypothesis is just that.

As for damming people's views because they're not your own what can I say? If you can't refute scientists who argue scientifically against you you have a problem.

129. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #34235 by devolved on April 23, 2007 at 3:15 pm

I am grateful to those of you who have responded to my questions. The trickle has increased into a river so forgive me for not responding individually. If I have offended you please accept my apology. My desire is to challenge you.

Essentially there are two mutually exclusive possibilities: life is the result of unplanned, unconscious force(s), or life is the result of special creation. Now it's almost certainly true to say that the prevailing paradigm in W Europe and the USA is a belief in some form of evolution over a long period of time and that somewhere along the line life appeared.

Now when someone asks the question, "Given that we all have the same evidence which paradigm does the evidence best fit?" it clearly provokes a degree of surprise and incredulity.

I have chosen to focus on one particular question, that of information. I did that because otherwise the debate would quickly spread into a myriad of questions. What I'd like to do is make some general response.

First, the anthropic principle. Someone commented: "To put this as generally as possible, the anthropic principle suggests that it is nothing but luck that puts us in a position to notice how lucky we are. If we were unlucky, we wouldn't notice our luck, because we wouldn't have any. Now let me ask why is luck a more plausible basis for life than an intelligent creator? It's definitely preferable if you are an atheist. But what if you don't believe in luck? I'm not being flippant. And even if you do believe that life is the result of luck, it takes a degree of faith at least as great in the belief that is the result of an intelligent designer.

Second, someone objected to me using the phrase 'science of the gaps' and asked for an example. A creationist would argue that there is no gap in the fossil record because it represents the result of a catastrophic global flood about 4,500 years ago. If that were the case then evolutionists would be at fault for explaining 'gaps' in the fossil record where none exist. And of course there is no proof or even evidence that life started by luck so to explain it that way is an example of 'science of the first cause gap'. What's source for the goose…..

Third, and finally, is the question of information. Richard Dawkins says, "Natural selection works because it is a cumulative one way street to improvement. It needs some luck to get it started, and the 'billions of planets' anthropic principle grants it that luck. Maybe a few later gaps in the evolutionary story also need major infusions of luck, with anthropic justification."

But is that true? One contributor replied to me, "How about gene duplication, altered distribution of HOX gene expression, unequal cross over, retroviral and transposon integration, conversion of processed pseudogenes, horizontal gene transfer etc etc. Then natural selection favouring the advantageous ones."

Well lets focus on the conversion of processed pseudogenes. There's no point me pretending that I know enough to answer this directly so I'll rely on the answer of someone who might. Here's the link. Tell me what's wrong with his argument please.

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1656

This has been my quest all along. I am open to persuasion. If the scientific people who don't accept your world view are wrong challenge then their understanding of the subjects they write on.

130. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #34080 by devolved on April 23, 2007 at 6:42 am

Comment #34069 by BillySands

"Those proposing design of things such as the bacterial flagellum were basically saying "wow that's complicated, I cant explain it. It must be god."

I've never said or believed any such thing. Show me a website that says that please. If you are going to attack my views please attack what I believe and not what someone else has claimed I believe.

"This is a poor reason to base any hypothesis on."

It would be if true.

"This idea of design appeals to personal ignorance and is nothing more than worshiping the god of the gaps."

Why does it? Just because I haven't met the person who designed and built my computer doesn't mean that I'm personally ignorant.

"You can not claim design in the universe unless you know everything about it, which none of us do."

That's an amazing statement. Why not? Do you know everything about the subjects you study? Don't you make claims without having 100% of the evidence.

"But we do progress our understanding and close those gaps."

Which gaps? The gaps that exists or those that your belief system creates?


"To sumarise, personal incredulity or current ignorance is not evidence of design."

I totally agree.


"Ask youself why you reject natural explanations and see how reasonable your views are."

I don't.

Now explain to me how luck, mutations and natural selection increase genetic information.

131. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #34066 by devolved on April 23, 2007 at 6:06 am

So Richard Dawkins believes:

"One-off events like this might be explained by the anthropic principle, along the following lines. There are [any proof?] billions of planets that have developed life at the level of bacteria, but only a fraction of these life forms ever made it across the gap to something like the eucaryotic cell. And of these, a yet smaller fraction managed to cross the later Rubicon to consciousness. If both of these are one-off events, we are not dealing with a ubiquitous and all-pervading process, as we are with ordinary, run-of-the-mill biological adaptation. The anthropic principle states that, since we are alive, eucaryotic and conscious, our planet has to be one of the intensely rare planets that has bridged all three gaps."

Well it's certainly placing a huge amount of faith on the anthropic principle.
But what is this principle and does it really justify Richard's faith in his science of the gaps?

Here's the anthropic principle more fully explained:

The Anthropic Principle which states that the universe is especially suited for the well-being of mankind, is one such assumption. As just one of hundreds of examples, consider the tides that the moon causes on earth. If the moon was closer to the earth, tides would be greatly increased. Ocean waves could sweep across the continents. The seas themselves might heat to the boiling point from the resulting friction. On the other hand, a more distant moon would reduce the tides. Marine life would be endangered by the resulting preponderance of stagnant water! Mankind would also be in trouble because the oxygen in the air we breathe is replenished by marine plants. We can conclude that the moon is in the "correct" position for man's well-being. Even such details as the mass of protons and the strength of gravity have values that give stability to the universe and thus reinforce the Anthropic Principle.

The Anthropic Principle is a powerful argument that the universe was designed. Of course, whether it is an intricate watch or a beautiful planet, any design plan requires a designer! Evolution theory believes it has an answer to "design" in biological systems by hypothesizing ongoing processes of mutation and natural selection. Living things are said to change very slowly and improve with time. There are many fundamental problems with evolution theory, not the least of which is that-in the case of the Anthropic Principle-the theory provides no answer at all.

Whether describing tides, proton mass, or the earth's position in the solar system, is not a grand design present from the very beginning? These phenomena don't mutate or change with time. The negative response of secular science to new evidence of design is interesting in that it shows the extremes to which man will go to maintain a belief in the random origin of all things. It has even been proposed that there really is an infinite number of universes, each with a completely different set of physical properties. According to such thinking, our particular universe just happens to have conditions suitable for human life, and that is why we are here to enjoy it! Of course, there is no way to detect any "other" universes or comprehend their underlying principles.

I'm grateful to those of you who reply to my comments thoughtfully and with respect. I'm particularly grateful to those who challenge my comments logically.

'The God Delusion' is meant to be about making the place a better place for people to live in. I really fail to see how unreflective and abusive attacks on people who disagree with you will bring that about. Political and religious systems that have violently persecuted people for their beliefs are evil. Please let's refrain from adding to their destructive toll by repeating their mistakes in the present or future.

132. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #34024 by devolved on April 23, 2007 at 4:20 am

Comment #34014 by Lee Harrison
"I don't actually know the hospital procedures for disposal, but assuming that incinerators are the endpoint then yes. What is there that could 'go' elsewhere?"

Duff #12 said "Most of us who come to this site believe in evolution, right?"

He's made two interesting points. Most people on the site are evolutionists, and they are believers. I'm in the position of being a backslidden evolutionist partly because Richard Dawkins writings have undermimed my belief in Darwinism. Here's a couple of things Richards has said.

"Natural selection… needs some luck to get it (life) started. Maybe a few later gaps in the evolutionary story also need major infusions of luck…" (p141 The God Deluion).

"I believe, but I cannot prove, that all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all 'design' anywhere in the universe is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection."

So I discover that far from being a scientific certainty (and I will donate £1000 to a charity of your choice if you can find me one proof that doesn't depend on presupposition) that evolution is a belief system.

Now the question is does the evidence fit the evolutionary belief system better than it fits a non-evolutionary belief system? To put that more clearly Richard is an atheist and because he is an atheist he denies (without scientific justification) anything beyond the material.

If he's wrong his limited view of the nature of the world will do enormous damage to science.

And I know that some people will react violently against this. Well I challenge them to think before they react. Whenever I throw mud at people I always end up losing ground.

And to answer your question I believe that it is wrong to deny the possibility that there is life beyond death. And if there is a just and loving God he would certainly ensure that millions of aborted babies, millions of children left to die in poverty and millions of children denied freedom would enjoy eternity with him.

133. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #34009 by devolved on April 23, 2007 at 3:12 am

Comment on #33993 by Lee Harrison

"If they actually believed that their sky fairy was merciful and loving, the fate of unbaptised babies should never have been in question."

I wonder if the real problem is that the Catholic Church decided it knew better than God the eternal destiny of children?

So what do you believe Lee? That stillborn and aborted babies end up in hospital incinerators?

134. Medicine without Evolution Make Sense?

Comment #33853 by devolved on April 22, 2007 at 8:22 am

Re #33845

Dear d4m14n

Thank you on three counts. First for the speed of your response, second for the courteous reply and third for providing the New Scientist link.

Like you I'm not a geneticist.

Here's a response that you might like to look at:

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4651/
It appears to be well informed and referenced.

I hope you don't lose your house!
Thanks again.

135. Medicine without Evolution Make Sense?

Comment #33845 by devolved on April 22, 2007 at 6:15 am

scottishgeologist asks

"How can anyone against evolution want to be a doctor in the first place?"

If we were to ask 1000 doctors "Why did you become a doctor?" I suspect that most would answer to the effect that they wanted to help people and make the world a better place.

Someone trained in biology and human anatomy who loved others and wanted to make their lives more bearable may well decide to become a doctor. It is possible that such a person (and I was talking with one this morning) looks at all the same data as you do and comes to the quite rational conclusion that complex living creatures could not have been created by luck, time, natural selection and mutations.

One of the reasons for doubting what you believe (but cannot prove) is that mutations are overwhelmingly harmful. When I look at biology books and pro-evolution websites they invariably give examples of existing genetic information being re-shuffled, or genetic information being lost. Either of these may confer an advantage but neither is proof of evolution from simpler to more advance forms of life. Or to put it another way there is no increase in genetic intelligence.

I have visited the Richard Dawkins website looking for well argued, scientifically supported and politely reasoned debate. It is profoundly disappointing to discover so little science, rational thinking or courtesy. (I am not being personal).

Now you will know that Richard Dawkins has said, "I believe, but I cannot prove, that all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all "design" anywhere in the universe is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection." [Dawkins, R., quoted in: Roger Highfield, Science's scourge of believers declares his faith in Darwin, Daily Telegraph, 5 January, 2005, p.10]

And so let me challenge you to prove to me how luck, time, mutations and natural selection can increase genetic information.

I found this comment on a creationist website and it seems to sum up their arguments:

Natural selection involves merely the shuffling, rearrangement and degeneration of existing genetic information, whereas evolution requires encyclopaedic quantities of new information to be produced by unintelligent, natural processes—information coding for new types of organs, limbs, physiologies, etc.

136. Almost Human, and Sometimes Smarter

Comment #33722 by devolved on April 21, 2007 at 11:22 am

The article claims, "For some time, paleontologists and evolutionary biologists have known that chimp ancestors were the last line of today's apes to diverge from the branch that led to humans, probably six million, maybe four million years ago." Realy? How do they know that? Surely they should have said, "believed"?

After all no-one can claim to "know" what happened four-six million years ago.

Here's a letter posted on the Richard Dawkins website but no-one has responded to it yet:

Dear Richard

I'm delighted to discover RichardDawkins.Net with the strap-line "A Clear Thinking Oasis".

Obviously when you offer people the opportunity to add their comments there's a high probability that the water will get pretty muddy as all sorts of stuff is likely to get chucked in. And lots of people will want to chuck stuff in. I guess the Oasis represents a form of therapy where folks can work off steam even if their contribution isn't that profound. Still good for you for allowing it to happen.

For some time I've been challenged over the question of how we got here. Are we evolved as you claim or created as your opponents assert? There's obviously a pretty wide spectrum of ideas out there and a lot of us are seeking scientific answers.

However there's one fundamental question that you seem unwilling to address directly and that's just how information is created and increased. I know that you claim that natural selection and mutations and luck increase genetic information but saying it and proving it are hardly the same. Only God speaks things into existence (if He exists) and I'm sure you don't believe that you're God! God forbid. What a delusion that would be! (It could be the title for a book – "The God Delusion")! I wonder if anyone's thought of it?

I've read the 'God Delusion' and you seem to have some respect (but not too much) for creationists because they stick to their guns in believing the Bible to be true. The question they keep asking and everyone keeps dodging is "Where are the examples of information increases?" Let me quote from a creationist website (CMI):

"Natural selection involves merely the shuffling, rearrangement and degeneration of existing genetic information, whereas evolution requires encyclopaedic quantities of new information to be produced by unintelligent, natural processes—information coding for new types of organs, limbs, physiologies, etc."

Now there it is in a nutshell! You see I keep asking people to provide me with examples of 'new information' and all I get is examples of 'the shuffling, rearrangement and degeneration of existing genetic information'.

Of course anyone can say, "Look we're here on the planet and it's very complex so what's your problem, we're surrounded with billions upon billions of examples of highly complex living things." But we both know that's a con because claiming something to be true isn't the same as proving it to be true. And proof is what we're after isn't it? At the heart of the debate you and I have joined is the question "How did we get here?"

Isn't it great that I can write this using a computer. Mine's getting a bit long in the tooth and with several of us in the house trying to use it all at once it can be quite a problem so I've been thinking about buying a new one.

Computer shops are fascinating. Not only can you buy gleaming new black and silver boxes of amazing variety but they come with an astonishing amount of software too (far more than I've got on this pc). Just think about it, I can buy a computer fully charged up with word processing skills, spreadsheets to assist my maths, speech recognition, internet access, and so much more. There's seems to be almost no limit to human ingenuity and the ability to design more and more applications for a computer.

It's a great analogy isn't it! God speaking into existence a fully formed, completely programmed, biologically perfect, morally virus free, walking, talking, thinking computer and calling him 'Adam'. (Mac's 'Apple' is pretty basic when you compare it with God's 'Adam').

But you're going to ruin all that for me aren't you? Of course telling me that design in nature is an illusion is an interesting belief but it is only that, a belief, a presupposition one might subscribe to.

All I need is one example, just one! It shouldn't be too hard a task should it. You don't need to go back into the past. I'll settle for one example of a mutation (or luck) or natural selection creating new genetic information from the present. It must be going on all the time.

Good luck with the website.

137. Medicine without Evolution Make Sense?

Comment #33508 by devolved on April 20, 2007 at 12:53 pm

There's no question that antibiotics are one of the greatest medical discoveries ever made. They have saved lives beyond number.

But there are scientists who have methodically, carefully and most significantly, scientifically demonstrated that antibiotic resistance does not support neo-Darwian evolution.

I appreciate the antipathy many feel towards people with different worldviews but they are not stupid or blind.

The following link is worth following if you are prepared to be challenged:

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3831/

And yes it is a creationist website but if you denounce someone else's ideas without first examining them what does it say about you?

One of my lifetime lessons is that whenever I have thrown mud at people I've ended up losing ground.

So how about a scientific and philosophic exchange of ideas with vitriol or abuse?

And by the way I would strongly recommend that anyone interested in the bigger issues Richard Dawkins raises should read a quite brilliant book called 'The Dawkins Letters' by David Robertson
ISBN 9781845502614. He agrees with much of Richard's ideas but also shows his shortcomings.

138. Evolution of symbiosis

Comment #31816 by devolved on April 14, 2007 at 12:24 pm

"What could be the advantage of carrying a gene that causes one to lose the ability to reproduce at high temperatures?"

A loss of ability? So genetic information is not added but lost? So this must be an example of natural selection not evolution.

Natural selection involves merely the shuffling, rearrangement and degeneration of existing genetic information, whereas evolution requires encyclopaedic quantities of new information to be produced by unintelligent, natural processes—information coding for new types of organs, limbs, physiologies, etc.