Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "CLIMBING MOUNT IMPROBABLE" - Critique
Mirabile_Auditu
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 37 (254989)
10-27-2005 2:32 AM


Figure 5-10. Dawkins mislabeled the “leaving angle”, showing the path of light INSIDE glass instead of OUTSIDE it. - Page 155
quote:
“(Sir Frederick Hoyle) is reported to have said that the evolution, by natural selection, of a complicated structure such as a protein molecule or by implication, an eye or a heart is about as likely as a hurricane’s having the luck to put together a Boeing 747 when whirling through a junkyard. If he’d said ”chance’ instead of ”natural selection’ he’d have been right.” Page 110
What Sir Hoyle said was “The spontaneous generation of a bacterium is about the same as the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard could assemble a 747 from the contents therein”. Dawkins’ first error was in substituting “protein” for “bacterium”. Complex as a protein is, a bacterium has hundreds of them in it. Secondly, “probability” is purely a matter of “chance”. Mutation “is indeed a chance process”, and ONLY mutation configures proteins and enzymes in a "step by step process" that is statistically impossible.
“Natural selection” is evolutionist’s Magic Wand.
It is a tautology. Animals that survive have been "selected," and animals that have been "selected" survive. (Or is it the other way around...)
quote:
“There can be no sudden leaps upward - no precipitous increases in ordered complexity.” - Page 91
Wherefore "Punctuated Equilibrium"? Why was this absurd contradiction to Darwin and Dawkins proposed?
quote:
- “It cannot be said often enough that Darwinian theory does not allow for getting temporarily worse in quest of a long-term goal.” P 132
P. 134 - “To say it again, going down the slopes of Mount Improbable is not allowed by Natural Selection.”
Gaining sight is cited by Dawkins and Darwin as a pinnacle of evolution. Alas blind fish in caves have lost their sight, and confounded Dawkins' insistence on what is NOT "allowed."
quote:
“All improvement (in a living cell) is therefore, in the first place lucky, which is why people mistakenly think of Darwinism as a theory of chance. But mistaken they are.” - P 82
Improvement is "lucky," but "chance" has nothing to do with "luck."
Verbal gymnastics is not science. The rebuttal is inevitably that anyone who fails to march in lockstep with this gobbledygook is "stupid" and "ignorant" and worse. RAZD is a shining example of such people.
quote:
“The fact of heredity sees to it that the accidental improvements found in each generation are accumulated over many generations. At the end of many generations of cumulative finding, a designoid object is produced which may make us gasp with admiration at the perfection of its apparent design. But it is not a real design because it has been arrived at by a completely different process (than conscious design).” - P 28
Improvements are "lucky" and "accidental" but not "chance."
What are the odds of calling such verbal gymnastics "science"?
1.000 in the biology department.
quote:
Any Designer capable of constructing the dazzling array of living things would have to be intelligent and complicated beyond all imagining. And complicated is just another word for improbable -and therefore demanding of explanation. . . . You cannot have it both ways. Either your god is capable of designing worlds and doing all the other godlike things, in which case he needs an explanation in his own right. Or he is not, in which case he cannot provide an explanation.” - P 77
Here, Dawkins confuses naturalism with the unknown and forever (on this earth) unknowable. His own lack of consistency and logic obviously escape him.
Nor is "complicated" "just another word for improbable."
Sophisticated computers are indeed "complicated" but go to a warehouse and see how many of these "improbable" devices are boxed up and ready for shipment.
Dawkins' arrogance is shared by Victor Stenger who probably spoke for both men and many of Darwin's other advocates as well: "We will become god." (And therefore in need of an explanation!)
quote:
“Darwinism uniquely DOES solve (the astronomic improbability of eyes and knees, enzymes and elbow joints . . . . by breaking the improbability up into small, manageable parts . . . and crawling up the gentle slopes, inch by million-year inch.” - P 77
Two words: Cambrian Explosion
quote:
“Could it (the exact sequence of genes which link up in a chain to make enzymes) come about by chance? Hoyle says no, and he is right. . . . What Hoyle and Wickramasinghe miss is that Darwinism is not a theory of random chance. It is a theory of random mutation plus non-random cumulative natural selection. Why, I wonder, is it so hard for even sophisticated scientists to grasp this simple point?” - P 75
Dawkins admits that selection cannot/does not/will not operate UNTIL AFTER "random mutation" has operated. Therefore "random mutations" must have produced the sequence of hemoglobin, 594 amino acids in length. There are 20 different amino acids in the human body, so the number of sequences possible is 20 to the 594th power.
Dawkins called 10 to the 20th power the "maximum amount of luck" permitted. There is an obvious conclusion here that will be denied by the David Copperfields of Darwinism.
quote:
- “In order to set natural selection going on a real planet, all that is required is the existence of inherited information.” - P 68
"Inherited information" is "all that is required." Something as "simple" as DNA, enzymes, proteins, ...
"It is safe to say that anyone who doesn't believe in evolution is either ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked." - Richard Dawkins, atheist, socialist, hate-monger

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminPhat, posted 10-27-2005 2:44 AM Mirabile_Auditu has replied
 Message 8 by Nuggin, posted 10-27-2005 11:54 AM Mirabile_Auditu has replied
 Message 9 by Cal, posted 10-27-2005 12:53 PM Mirabile_Auditu has not replied
 Message 10 by mick, posted 10-27-2005 2:38 PM Mirabile_Auditu has not replied
 Message 11 by Chiroptera, posted 10-27-2005 3:02 PM Mirabile_Auditu has not replied
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 10-27-2005 9:10 PM Mirabile_Auditu has not replied
 Message 18 by Dr Jack, posted 10-28-2005 5:13 AM Mirabile_Auditu has not replied

  
AdminPhat
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 37 (254993)
10-27-2005 2:44 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Mirabile_Auditu
10-27-2005 2:32 AM


Rework it
First off, I extend the common courtesy of welcoming you to EvC! We have some rules, as you are well aware...and I for one DO respect your raw intelligence and ability to make paragraphs out of sentences.
That being said, I will NOT promote this topic as written. You are not supposed to mention people whom do not fit your criteria of P.C.
RAZD is one of several examples of people you have cited to make a point.
Give us something to respond to. Don't give us people to attack or defend. Give us an opinion on Dawkins book. We can respond only to that.
This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 10-27-2005 12:44 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Mirabile_Auditu, posted 10-27-2005 2:32 AM Mirabile_Auditu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Mirabile_Auditu, posted 10-27-2005 7:09 AM AdminPhat has replied

  
Mirabile_Auditu
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 37 (255027)
10-27-2005 7:09 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminPhat
10-27-2005 2:44 AM


Re: Rework THIS
Your PAL, RAZD, can attack me to his heart's content, and you obviously don't have a problem with that. In fact, when I address it, one of you Gods On High instructed me to "Stop whining."
Such one-sidedness as official administrator tolerance of ad hominem attacks by RAZD on me, while addressing ME for pointing out his spiteful hatred is the arrogant hypocrisy so commonly observed in the Left.
Rework that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminPhat, posted 10-27-2005 2:44 AM AdminPhat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by AdminPhat, posted 10-27-2005 8:23 AM Mirabile_Auditu has not replied
 Message 5 by AdminNosy, posted 10-27-2005 10:38 AM Mirabile_Auditu has not replied
 Message 7 by Nuggin, posted 10-27-2005 11:49 AM Mirabile_Auditu has not replied

  
AdminPhat
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 37 (255043)
10-27-2005 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Mirabile_Auditu
10-27-2005 7:09 AM


Re: Rework THIS
Mirabile,I can't allow you to post new topics until you learn to play by our rules instead of challenging them!
This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 10-28-2005 12:27 AM

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" Forum Guidelines

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Mirabile_Auditu, posted 10-27-2005 7:09 AM Mirabile_Auditu has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 5 of 37 (255082)
10-27-2005 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Mirabile_Auditu
10-27-2005 7:09 AM


Disagreeing with other admins
I'm going to promote this to allow further discussion.
You comment about RAZD is relatively minor and you went to the trouble of cleaning up the post.
I'd like to see the debate continue.

HOWEVER, both you and RAZD had better stick to the discussion and keep the sniping to a minimum.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Mirabile_Auditu, posted 10-27-2005 7:09 AM Mirabile_Auditu has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 6 of 37 (255083)
10-27-2005 10:38 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2483 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 7 of 37 (255107)
10-27-2005 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Mirabile_Auditu
10-27-2005 7:09 AM


Re: Rework THIS
Is RAZD wrong? Are you an alias of the other poster he mentioned?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Mirabile_Auditu, posted 10-27-2005 7:09 AM Mirabile_Auditu has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2483 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 8 of 37 (255109)
10-27-2005 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Mirabile_Auditu
10-27-2005 2:32 AM


Can you boil this down to a point?
The thread title is "critique" but you aren't really offering one.
What you are doing is cherry picking quotes and attacking those particular lines of text.
In my mind a critique would look something like this:
Book Title
Description of Discussion within the book
Main points of the author
Assessment of the author's arguement (merits, failings)
Your counter arguement and data to support it.
All I'm seeing here is you pointing to misquotes, or disagreements within the ToE community.
If you have a specific problem with one of these quotes, or one of these ideas. Let's discuss that particular idea or quote.
Too many times on this board we've seen people throw 20 quotes up, then when we try to discuss 1 of the quotes, the original poster jumps from topic to topic to avoid conversation.
Pick one of these, I'll happily discuss it with you in great detail, but I'll insist that we stick to that particular quote / idea throughout the thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Mirabile_Auditu, posted 10-27-2005 2:32 AM Mirabile_Auditu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Mirabile_Auditu, posted 11-14-2005 12:26 AM Nuggin has replied

  
Cal
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 37 (255126)
10-27-2005 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Mirabile_Auditu
10-27-2005 2:32 AM


Natural selection is evolutionist’s Magic Wand.
It is a tautology. Animals that survive have been "selected," and animals that have been "selected" survive. (Or is it the other way around...)
Natural selection is, and always was, a metaphor. It refers to a statistical bias in the reproductive rates of imperfect replicators. In a similar sense, one might create a tautology by using "winner of a footrace" as the definition of "fastest runner" -- or, one might simply observe that since different runners do not all run at the same speeds (nor even the same runners every time they run), the outcomes of large numbers of footraces would be expected show a statistical bias toward those that run fastest. Such an approach implicitly includes the acknowledgement that since even fast runners can have bad days, bad races, and bad luck (like, say, a broken shoelace), slower runners may win a race once in a while.
Gaining sight is cited by Dawkins and Darwin as a pinnacle of evolution. Alas blind fish in caves have lost their sight, and confounded Dawkins' insistence on what is NOT "allowed."
Trivially explained as a prioritized allocation of limited developmental resources. But there is a more subtle point here. Genetic drift may allow a 'descent' from an 'adaptive peak', even though natural selection does not. Understanding how this is 'allowed' requires careful consideration of the teleological implications inherent in the exact phrasing: 'in quest of a long-term goal"; (i.e., though unlikely, it can happen; it just can't happen for that reason).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Mirabile_Auditu, posted 10-27-2005 2:32 AM Mirabile_Auditu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by zephyr, posted 10-28-2005 12:31 AM Cal has not replied

  
mick
Member (Idle past 4976 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 10 of 37 (255145)
10-27-2005 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Mirabile_Auditu
10-27-2005 2:32 AM


Hi Mirabile_Auditu, I have critiqued your critique:
Mirabile writes:
Figure 5-10. Dawkins mislabeled the “leaving angle”, showing the path of light INSIDE glass instead of OUTSIDE it. - Page 155
From this we infer that Dawkins or his copy editors or his type-setters make mistakes when labelling diagrams.
Mirabile writes:
quote:
“(Sir Frederick Hoyle) is reported to have said that the evolution, by natural selection, of a complicated structure such as a protein molecule or by implication, an eye or a heart is about as likely as a hurricane’s having the luck to put together a Boeing 747 when whirling through a junkyard. If he’d said ”chance’ instead of ”natural selection’ he’d have been right.” Page 110
What Sir Hoyle said was “The spontaneous generation of a bacterium is about the same as the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard could assemble a 747 from the contents therein”. Dawkins’ first error was in substituting “protein” for “bacterium”. Complex as a protein is, a bacterium has hundreds of them in it. Secondly, “probability” is purely a matter of “chance”. Mutation “is indeed a chance process”, and ONLY mutation configures proteins and enzymes in a "step by step process" that is statistically impossible.
Dawkins isn't saying that probability has nothing to do with chance. But he is saying the the evolutionary process is not a random or chance process. Although mutations themselves may occur randomly, there is a process that filters the mutations that are retained in a population, achieving a set of mutations that work together in a way better than we would predict from chance alone. This is kind of the central thesis of Dawkin's book, and for some reason you have ignored it... The whole point of the book is to show that these step by step processes are not impossible, first because they have occurred, and second because they are not based solely on the tornado of chance.
Mirabile writes:
“Natural selection” is evolutionist’s Magic Wand.
It is a tautology. Animals that survive have been "selected," and animals that have been "selected" survive. (Or is it the other way around...)
You have simply described natural selection in a tautologous way; this doesn't make natural selection tautologous. For example the statement "trianges are polygons with three sides, and polygons with three sides are triangles" is a tautologous statement, but doesn't mean that the concept of "triangle" is itself tautologous. Can you explain why natural selection is tautologous in more detail, as that would be an interesting argument.
Mirabile writes:
quote:
“There can be no sudden leaps upward - no precipitous increases in ordered complexity.” - Page 91
Wherefore "Punctuated Equilibrium"? Why was this absurd contradiction to Darwin and Dawkins proposed?
That's an interesting question. As I understand it, punctuated equilibrium is an attempt to characterize the appearance of animals in the palaeontological record. This is quite different to a characterization of the appearance of mutations in living organisms and is not "an absurd contradiction to Darwin". Abrupt in terms of mutations appearing in a microbe might be judged in terms of seconds or minutes; abrupt in terms of the palaeontological record might be judged in terms of millions of years. We're talking about two very different time scales here. We're also talking about different processes - in the short term of "abrupt" we're talking about molecular evolution, and in the long term of "abrupt" we're talking about speciation. The theory does however have some implications for evolutionary theory at the molecular level - for example, most molecular adaptation occurs during speciation events. Punctuated equilibrium is not exclusive of gradualism, both could have occurred at different times, different places, and for different reasons.
Mirabile writes:
quote:
- “It cannot be said often enough that Darwinian theory does not allow for getting temporarily worse in quest of a long-term goal.” P 132
P. 134 - “To say it again, going down the slopes of Mount Improbable is not allowed by Natural Selection.”
Gaining sight is cited by Dawkins and Darwin as a pinnacle of evolution. Alas blind fish in caves have lost their sight, and confounded Dawkins' insistence on what is NOT "allowed."
Losing a previously evolved character might be considered a movement up mount improbable; it might be considered an adaptation that better fits an organism to a novel environment. But in the case of cave dwelling animals it likely reflects genetic drift. Dawkins specifically states he is talking only about natural selection here, not about the other mechanisms of evolution such as drift, founder effect, etc. Genetic drift is caused by the absence of natural selection, and if you think about it for a moment, you can understand that there will be little selection to remove harmful mutations in one's vision system if one lives in the pitch black darkness. Cave fish are a nice example of how in the absence of natural selection, populations do indeed start to slide down mount improbable, which is wholly in line with Dawkin's thesis.
Mirabile writes:
quote:
“All improvement (in a living cell) is therefore, in the first place lucky, which is why people mistakenly think of Darwinism as a theory of chance. But mistaken they are.” - P 82
Improvement is "lucky," but "chance" has nothing to do with "luck."
Verbal gymnastics is not science. The rebuttal is inevitably that anyone who fails to march in lockstep with this gobbledygook is "stupid" and "ignorant" and worse. RAZD is a shining example of such people.
I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. If you do not understand that Dawkins is proposing both a chance element to evolution (chance mutations, chance recombinations, chance in fortuitous mating combinations, etc) and a filtering mechanism (natural selection) than you haven't understood the book.
mirabile writes:
quote:
“The fact of heredity sees to it that the accidental improvements found in each generation are accumulated over many generations. At the end of many generations of cumulative finding, a designoid object is produced which may make us gasp with admiration at the perfection of its apparent design. But it is not a real design because it has been arrived at by a completely different process (than conscious design).” - P 28
Improvements are "lucky" and "accidental" but not "chance."
What are the odds of calling such verbal gymnastics "science"?
1.000 in the biology department.
That right, random improvements are lucky, but they aren't retained in a population by chance. Grasping this seems to be your major problem.
mirabile writes:
quote:
Any Designer capable of constructing the dazzling array of living things would have to be intelligent and complicated beyond all imagining. And complicated is just another word for improbable -and therefore demanding of explanation. . . . You cannot have it both ways. Either your god is capable of designing worlds and doing all the other godlike things, in which case he needs an explanation in his own right. Or he is not, in which case he cannot provide an explanation.” - P 77
Here, Dawkins confuses naturalism with the unknown and forever (on this earth) unknowable. His own lack of consistency and logic obviously escape him.
Nor is "complicated" "just another word for improbable."
Sophisticated computers are indeed "complicated" but go to a warehouse and see how many of these "improbable" devices are boxed up and ready for shipment.
Well I kind of agree with you that "complicated" is not "just another word for improbable". Although that is often how it is used by intelligence design advocates as well as scientists. For example the argument that something is so complicated it must have been designed, seems to be conflating complicatedness with improbability. If you think of a complicated object as having a set of constituent parts, each of which has a low probability of appearing by chance, then i guess the more constituent parts there are, the lower the probability of the total object, by the multiplication rule. I suppose it depends whether somethings complexity is measured in terms of the number of independent parts it contains.
But the statement "Either your god is capable of designing worlds and doing all the other godlike things, in which case he needs an explanation in his own right." does seem reasonable to me. Doesn't it seem reasonable to you? God isn't much of an answer to any question in biology. Because he poses so many more qeustions!
That's your interpretation. Stenger is a physicist so it seems unlikely he is speaking for biologists. I doubt that this was published as a policy document of a major physics association, so it seems highly unlikely he is speaking for physicists either, or indeed for anybody except for himself. Has it occurred to you he might have been speaking metaphorically?
mirabile writes:
quote:
“Darwinism uniquely DOES solve (the astronomic improbability of eyes and knees, enzymes and elbow joints . . . . by breaking the improbability up into small, manageable parts . . . and crawling up the gentle slopes, inch by million-year inch.” - P 77
Two words: Cambrian Explosion
LOL. You will need more than two words.
mirabile writes:
quote:
“Could it (the exact sequence of genes which link up in a chain to make enzymes) come about by chance? Hoyle says no, and he is right. . . . What Hoyle and Wickramasinghe miss is that Darwinism is not a theory of random chance. It is a theory of random mutation plus non-random cumulative natural selection. Why, I wonder, is it so hard for even sophisticated scientists to grasp this simple point?” - P 75
Dawkins admits that selection cannot/does not/will not operate UNTIL AFTER "random mutation" has operated. Therefore "random mutations" must have produced the sequence of hemoglobin, 594 amino acids in length. There are 20 different amino acids in the human body, so the number of sequences possible is 20 to the 594th power.
Dawkins called 10 to the 20th power the "maximum amount of luck" permitted. There is an obvious conclusion here that will be denied by the David Copperfields of Darwinism.
Okay, you've raised the same point yet again. You are joining the "sophisticated scientists" who cannot grasp the simple point that evolution requires a random mutation process followed by a filtering mechanism. Chance PLUS filtering. Not just chance.
Mirabile writes:
quote:
- “In order to set natural selection going on a real planet, all that is required is the existence of inherited information.” - P 68
"Inherited information" is "all that is required." Something as "simple" as DNA, enzymes, proteins, ...
DNA, enzymes, proteins are components of life. Dawkins said that all this is needed for natural selection is the existence of inherited information. He didn't say all that is needed for cellular life is the existence of inherited information. That is a bit disingenuous on your part.
"It is safe to say that anyone who doesn't believe in evolution is either ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked." - Richard Dawkins, atheist, socialist, hate-monger
I'm not sure he's a socialist. I don't really think he's a hate monger. He's not preaching hatred at anybody. He's just saying the facts as he sees them. You can agree or disagree but you haven't given a single cogent argument against the existence of evolution. In fact you have shown a lack of understanding about the basic thesis of Dawkin's book which makes it seem as though you haven't really read it carefully. Which would make you fall into the ignorant category, which isn't meant as an insult but just means you should read more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Mirabile_Auditu, posted 10-27-2005 2:32 AM Mirabile_Auditu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by RAZD, posted 10-27-2005 9:16 PM mick has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 37 (255149)
10-27-2005 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Mirabile_Auditu
10-27-2005 2:32 AM


Hello, Mirabile_Auditu.
I'm afraid that I haven't yet read Climbing Mount Improbable, yet I hope I may presume to, um, critique your critique. At the very least, we might determine whether your understanding of the theory of evolution is incomplete.
quote:
What Sir Hoyle said was “The spontaneous generation of a bacterium is about the same as the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard could assemble a 747 from the contents therein”. Dawkins’ first error was in substituting “protein” for “bacterium”.
Again, no one says that a modern complex protein arose all at once. Presumably very simple replicators arose at first, and then natural selection eliminated the poorer replicators in favor of the more efficient replicators; over many generations replicators we would have very complex replicators that make use of DNA and proteins -- the life that we recognize today
-
quote:
“Natural selection” is evolutionist’s Magic Wand.
It does seem like magic, doesn't it? Yet it is simply the usual laws of physics that are acting.
-
quote:
quote:
“There can be no sudden leaps upward - no precipitous increases in ordered complexity.” - Page 91
Wherefore "Punctuated Equilibrium"?
Punctuated Equilibrium is not a precipitous increase in ordered complexity.
-
quote:
quote:
- “It cannot be said often enough that Darwinian theory does not allow for getting temporarily worse in quest of a long-term goal.” P 132
P. 134 - “To say it again, going down the slopes of Mount Improbable is not allowed by Natural Selection.”
Gaining sight is cited by Dawkins and Darwin as a pinnacle of evolution. Alas blind fish in caves have lost their sight, and confounded Dawkins' insistence on what is NOT "allowed."
However, the "fitness landscape" is always changing as the environment in which the individual changes. In a cave, with no light whatsoever, sight is no longer a pinnacle; in fact, having a complex but useless organ such as an eye, which does no good but still subject to injury, infections, and perhaps cancer, may even become a valley. It is not that the species has climbed down a slope, but that the ground underneath it has descended from being a mountain to a valley.
-
quote:
quote:
“All improvement (in a living cell) is therefore, in the first place lucky, which is why people mistakenly think of Darwinism as a theory of chance. But mistaken they are.” - P 82
Improvement is "lucky," but "chance" has nothing to do with "luck."
Verbal gymnastics is not science.
No verbal gymnastics; I'm afraid that you do not quite understand what Dawkins is saying. Chance does have a role to play; which exact mutations occur is due to chance, and the changes in the environment, from the standpoint of the organism, is also chance. However, the selection process is definitely not chance. Given the individual organisms that live, the environment chooses which will survive and/or reproduce with somewhat rigorous criteria.
-
quote:
quote:
“Darwinism uniquely DOES solve (the astronomic improbability of eyes and knees, enzymes and elbow joints . . . . by breaking the improbability up into small, manageable parts . . . and crawling up the gentle slopes, inch by million-year inch.” - P 77
Two words: Cambrian Explosion
Oh dear. Could you explain these two words? The "Cambrian Explosion" was not an explosion, and the roots of this event extend perhaps half a billion years before the Cambrian. I'm afraid that the Cambrian Explosion in no way refutes this particular quote.
-
quote:
Dawkins admits that selection cannot/does not/will not operate UNTIL AFTER "random mutation" has operated. Therefore "random mutations" must have produced the sequence of hemoglobin, 594 amino acids in length. There are 20 different amino acids in the human body, so the number of sequences possible is 20 to the 594th power.
Except that no one is saying that hemoglobin was produced by mutations all at once from scratch. Mutations produced a hemoglobin molecule from a previous molecule that was only slightly different, and that molecule from a previous one that was only slightly different, and so forth.
-
quote:
"Inherited information" is "all that is required." Something as "simple" as DNA, enzymes, proteins, ...
"inherited information" -- any molecule or set of molecules that can replicate themselves. Not necessarily DNA or complex proteins.
-
quote:
Richard Dawkins, atheist, socialist, hate-monger
This appears to be an ad hominen, which is ironic since you keep complaining about other peoples' ad hominens against you. In fact:
quote:
RAZD is a shining example of such people.
RAZD has been admonished by the Admins to refrain from making such comments about you and other members; please keep yourself under control as well.
-
By the way, it would be nice if we could continue our previous conversation on abiogenesis. Why don't you return to that thread?
Edited to fix a typo.
This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 27-Oct-2005 07:41 PM

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Mirabile_Auditu, posted 10-27-2005 2:32 AM Mirabile_Auditu has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 12 of 37 (255228)
10-27-2005 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Mirabile_Auditu
10-27-2005 2:32 AM


One for the Mountain of Evidence as well ...
This "report" submitted by "Mirabile_Auditu" has also already been addressed several times before and John has again never answered any previous versions of this analysis of his "report" in any way.
The following is an unedited version (except to format to fit here) of a previous analysis of John's "report" on another forum:
John Jaeger, aka spiderMBA, aka BuxUp2002, aka ... is at it again ... posting as if it were newly reborn, when in fact it is the same as has been refuted before....
He has made a two (2) minor changes in the body of the post since the last time, and I will point them out as we review (again) the lack of scientific challenge to the science of the book in question.
First posted: 5/11/01 8:18:19 PM EDT Msg#5283 by "SpiderMBA" {Climbing Mount Improbable DAWKINS} thread (hyperlinked new)
Last posted: 9/15/03 8:55:25 PM EDT Msg#160841 by "BuxUp2002" {CLIMBING MT IMPROBABLE} thread (hyperlinked new)
So is this Fact, Fiction or False?
First off all opinions are by definition not facts, even the opinions of scientists, and ergo are fiction. Some fiction is very close to reality, because good fiction builds on known reality, but that doesn't make it fact.
Thus everywhere a statement is posted that is just opinion you will see:
{{{Fiction: opinion. }}}
Please note that I have not corrected or marked (sic'd) his several errors.
Further {{{comments.}}} inserted below ...
. Now for the review of John's comments:
"Anyone who does not believe in evolution is either ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked."
Richard Dawkins, socialist and atheist
{{new beginning with added incorrect (again) quote -- this is really rather pathetic that this is still not the right quote}}
“Climbing Mount Improbable”
by
Richard Dawkins
A critique by
BUXUP
A layman can read almost any book on mathematics, physics, chemistry, or astronomy and be very hard pressed to find a single error or inconsistency or oversight or fudge factor. Not so evolution. Here is yet another example of the wishful thinking of evolutionary "science", where extraordinary extrapolation and interpolation are the forces majeures. My comments follow the author’s and are enclosed in parentheses.

{{{Fiction: pure opinion. Note that bux is posing as an intellectual here, as an erudite educated man with a competent grasp of these sciences and who is talking down to the average joe, the layman, he is going to explain it to us lesser mortals....}}}
P. 28 - "The fact of heredity sees to it that the accidental improvements found in each generation are accumulated over many generations. At the end of many generations of cumulative finding, a designoid object is produced which may make us gasp with admiration at the perfection of its apparent design. But it is not a real design because it has been arrived at by a completely different process (than conscious design)."
(So evolution teaches that each of our countless improvements are "accidental", and nothing inside us is "a real design". A beautiful, perfect new baby is an accident of apparent design - nothing more. Darwinists seem to actually believe such nonsense.)

{{{False: evolution teaches that random mutations are selected by survival, their survival is not accidental at all. The baby example is pure specious hyperbole as there are many malformed babies that contradict this 'example' in totality.}}}
P. 68 - "In order to set natural selection going on a real planet, all that is required is the existence of inherited information."
(All! ALL! All that is required is information. On a "real" planet. As opposed to what? An artificial one? The storage, use, and manipulation of profoundly compact and organized information of the kind found in DNA can ONLY be evidence of design.)

{{{Fiction: opinion (and argument from incredulity). The factual statement by Dawkins is the basis for evolution, the starting point. The truth of the statement has not been challenged at all by the limited imagination of buxup and his petty groundless rant, nor is this evidence for his contention for 'design' in anyway shape or form.}}}
P. 73 - "The sheer height of the peak doesn’t matter, so long as you don’t try to scale it in a single bound."
(In other words, evolution can do anything. ANYTHING! For the "height of the peak doesn’t matter".)

{{{False: the emphasis on 'do' is wrong - evolution doesn't 'do' it is a result not an action, and in evaluating if the action observed to occur is possible, then yes it does not matter how 'high' the peak is: while it is not possible to "make" a mountain to the moon, it is possible for any existing mountain to be broken down into credible steps. Big difference.}}}
P. 75 - "Could it (the exact sequence of genes which link up in a chain to make enzymes) come about by chance? Hoyle says no, and he is right. . . . What Hoyle and Wickramasinghe miss is that Darwinism is not a theory of random chance. It is a theory of random mutation plus non-random cumulative natural selection. Why, I wonder, is it so hard for even sophisticated scientists to grasp this simple point?"
(Well I can answer that, Dr. Dawkins. The "non-random" selection part can ONLY work after the RANDOM mutation has acted. If there were no random mutations, there could be NO selection. And since the mutations cannot originate from anything intelligent (according to evolution), all depends on pure chance. And as you say, "Hoyle is right".)

{{{False: hyperbole again, either to obfuscate or to display a lack of understanding. Play a board game like parcheesi: the throws of the dice are pure random events, these random events are selected by the players in making their moves, some of those random events benefit one player more than the others and it is inevitable that one will win the game, so winning the game is not pure chance or accidental. Also see below on hemoglobin.}}}
P. 77 - "Darwinism uniquely DOES solve (the astronomic improbability of eyes and knees, enzymes and elbow joints{{{ why is this parenthesis here - taking out of context again? changing the context?}}} . . . . by breaking the improbability up into small, manageable parts . . . and crawling up the gentle slopes, inch by million-year inch."
(Most mutations are bad. The process takes a million years. But everything turns out good in the end. No, this is not a fairy tale - this is purportedly science.)

{{{1/2 False: mutations are neither "good" nor "bad" but they just are what they are. It is selection that determines whether or not they are useful (again no judgment on "good" or "bad" - some aspects selected for may be bad in the long run and yet assist the survival of the species: sickle cell, for example. AND 1/2 Fact: in spite of the sarcastic tone, this is the science.}}}
Ibid - "Any Designer capable of constructing the dazzling array of living things would have to be intelligent and complicated beyond all imagining. And complicated is just another word for improbable - and therefore demanding of explanation. . . . You cannot have it both ways. Either your god is capable of designing worlds and doing all the other godlike things, in which case he needs an explanation in his own right. Or he is not, in which case he cannot provide an explanation."
(What a neat scientific package. If your god can design worlds, then YOU must explain him. Since you obviously CANNOT explain him, we must trust "luck" {See P. 82} for the "dazzling array of living things". Well I quite agree: it is either "luck" or God. There is no middle ground. Scientists overwhelmingly come down on the side of luck. It is clear why. Luck is more palatable to them than God to explain "the dazzling array of living things". Not to mention non-living things, about which evolution can never say a single word.)

{{{Fiction: opinion (and argument from incredulity). The truth of the statement has not been challenged at all by the limited imagination of buxup and his hyperbole. Personally I think that Dawkins goes a little over the top in his 'anti-theism' (to borrow from NetCharlie) but that is my opinion. The existence of god can be neither proved nor disproved.}}}
P. 79 - "It is the slow, cumulative, one-step-at-a-time, non-random survival of random variants that Darwin called natural selection."
("Non-random survival" must always BEGIN with the "random variants" - the "lucky" mutations. This is the inescapable part that evolutionists must continuously try to wave away with the Magic Wand of "natural selection". Look at natural selection as merely one of many "This organism reproduces less" stamps. In most cases, the mechanism is death and "less" means "not at all". Floods indiscriminately cause decreased reproduction in many organisms. So do forest fires. And volcanoes. And droughts. And mudslides. And all manner of accidents. Now most of these rejection mechanisms which preclude all future reproduction are random, like mutations. It just so happens that one of them is not. Nevertheless, all of them operate only AFTER the fact of mutation - luck - chance - the exploration of every conceivable possibility of the gene pool. There are just too many different possibilities for mutations to have ever examined, in all time, over all the universe. The statistics not merely daunting in the extreme, they are insuperable.)

{{{False: floods, forest fires, volcanoes and droughts do not necessarily cause extinction, and may in fact be the actions that select which individuals survive to reproduce with the species now better adapted to survive future events. Statistics have no effect on an event after it has occured. Most of the calculations that attempt to show a "daunting" improbabitlity are based on false assumptions and loaded with misunderstanding or erroneous data - see below on hemoglobin for a specific example.}}}
Ibid. "It was Darwin’s great achievement to discover the gentle gradients winding up the other side of the mountain."
(If synthesis of hemoglobin is such a "gentle gradient", why don’t we make some in the laboratory, in the very same way the body does. That shouldn’t be too hard, should it.
The number of different combinations for its components exceed 10exp190. And one chance in 10exp50 {a hundred thousand billion billion billion billion billion} is absolutely impossible. Evolutionists cannot explain the mechanisms of protein synthesis that wend their way ever closer to an enzyme one percent at a time; they cannot show precisely HOW each incremental percent of an enzyme enhances survival, because even one half of an enzyme is not functional. This argument of "gentle gradients" is really quite absurd.)

{{{False: first, (aside from the calculation of the "probability" being done wrong) one chance in 10exp50 is not zero, and the assumptions this "calculation" is based on are that hemoglobin is created "poof" from scratch purely from component elements (which is not the way that hemoglobin is produced in the body or by evolution) and that no other combination would do the job (in fact several varieties are known), so why would these assumption be even close to correct? Doing a google on {hemoglobin probability} it did not take long to find this paper: Evolution and Probability (hyperlinked, new) Report of National Center for Science Education (vol. 20, no.4, 2001) by David H Bailey - "a scientist of religious faith with training in probability theory" - who discusses just this probability argument and debunks it for the errors made (note in particular the comparison to the generation of snowflakes). As I have said before - when a mathematical model is in conflict with data it is usually the model that is wrong, not the data: mathematical models are useful for making predictions that can be tested for veracity, not for testing predictions (and certainly not for falsifying observations). To do this kind of probability calculation properly every single other combination would have to be eliminated as a workable possibility, together with every combination of less or more amino acids - this has not been done, therefore the calculation is false.}}}
P. 80 - "One stage in the Darwinian process is indeed a chance process - mutation. . . . it is usually described as random."
(It is this stage of the Darwinian process and this stage ONLY - mutation - which modifies DNA. NOTHING else can do so, not all the Magic Wands on earth. And this stage is strictly, purely "indeed a chance process".)

{{{Fact: so? A mutation is defined by its change in the DNA.}}}
Ibid - "Mutations can be reversed (”back mutations’). For most genes, mutation in either direction is equally probable."
(Oh really! Then why does the author emphatically insist AGAIN AND AGAIN that mutation CANNOT go "in either direction?" See Pages 91, 132, and 134 for example. His own comments are mutually exclusive.)

{{{ Seems bux has a point here, we shall see. I do know that Dawkins has stated before that the probability of a mutation exactly reversing a previous mutation is vanishingly small, and that from the portions of those pages quoted here he is likely confusing mutation with evolution - mutation can be reversed, but
  • "species can’t get worse as a prelude to getting better" (quoted below page 91)
  • {selection \ evolution} "theory does not allow for getting temporarily worse in quest of a long-term goal" (quoted below page 132)
  • "going down the slopes of Mount Improbable is not allowed by Natural Selection" (quoted below page 132)
  • and finally (additionally) - "Natural selection is the pressure that drives evolution up the slopes of Mount Improbable." (quoted below page 198)
None of these quotes from the pages listed refer to mutations, but to natural selection and evolution overall. These are not contradictions, but a misunderstanding and confusion of one for the other. Next I went to the library for the book. First off page 80 starts with a discussion about why evolution "is widely misunderstood as a theory of pure chance." Then Dawkins says that one stage "is a indeed a chance process - mutation." Conclusion of the first paragraph is "It is ironic that this emphasis on the contrast between mutation and the non-randomness of selection has led people to think that the whole theory is a theory of chance." The second paragraph talks about how some mutations are not random due to several factors (gene susceptibility) and here is where he says that 'back mutations' are a form of non-random mutation and finishes the page \ paragraph with "Notice that mutation pressure does not systematically drive in the directions of improvement."
Page 91 - talks about inheriting DNA - nothing about mutations ...
Page 132 - talks about selection operating from part way up the slope of the mountain and not being able to evolve back down to then move over and climb another 'peak' - nothing about mutations ...
Page 134 - again about natural selection - nothing about mutations ...
Looks like no point for John, another misrepresentation or misunderstanding.}}}
P. 80-81 "The great majority of mutations, however caused, are random with respect to quality, and that means they are usually bad because there are more ways of getting worse than of getting better."
(Most mutations are bad, but the inexorable climb UP - and ONLY up - Mount Improbable continues. Bad weather, inadequate gear, inexperience. None of these can stop our intrepid little evolutionary mountaineers, singing, ”Hi ho, hi ho, it’s UP to work we go’.)

{{{Fact: how many attempts were made on Everest - and how many died - before Hillary and Tenzing succeeded? how many people now climb Everest every year?. what is different? The selection process that helps develop the next 'climber' is not random.}}}
P. 82 - "All improvement (in a living cell) is therefore, in the first place lucky, which is why people mistakenly think of Darwinism as a theory of chance. But mistaken they are."
(Why are they mistaken? Well because "lucky" is DIFFERENT than "chance" according to Dawkins. You might get "lucky" at the roulette table, but then again, roulette is not a game of "chance", is it . . . Incidentally, note that evolutionists invariably explain natural selection when a {random} mutation "increases the chances" of survival. This is "selection" - a constant evaluation of "chances". But as the author says, people who think of Darwinism "as a theory of chance are mistaken". Fat chance.)

{{{False: that a chance mutation occurs at a time when it is useful is lucky for the individual and the descendants, as is the player who 'wins' the roulette spin. Another analogy is the parcheesi game above, where each throw has it's quotient of "luck" but the outcome is inevitable. Evolution also records many instances where such luck did not occur and the species went extinct. The mass extinction of the Dinosaurs by meteor would be one example.}}}
P. 85 "The predilection to mutate is always bad, even though individual mutations occasionally turn out to be good. . . . Mutation, the first stage in the process, is random in the sense of not pushing towards improvement."
(Oops! Non-sequitur ahead.)

{{{Fiction: opinion, or is bux referring to one of his non-sequiturs?}}}
P. 91 "There can be no going downhill - species can’t get worse as a prelude to getting better."
P. 132 - "It cannot be said often enough that Darwinian theory does not allow for getting temporarily worse in quest of a long-term goal."
P. 134 - "To say it again, going down the slopes of Mount Improbable is not allowed by Natural Selection."
(Now consider that organisms inhabit the entire surface of this theoretical "Mountain". The gradient is "gentle". The steps are "small". So anything can move comfortably down, "inch by million-year inch"{P. 77} from whence it came with no ill effects whatsoever, n’est-ce pas? In point of fact, the "modal bacter", as they are called by Stephen Jay Gould, occupy more niches and have occupied them longer and in far greater number than any more sophisticated forms of life further "UP" Mount Improbable. Why then does Dr. Dawkins invoke this restriction against moving back down? Well because it is more convenient for evolutionists, that’s why. They must invoke such artificiality for lack of naturalistic explanation. You NEVER see the "evolutionary tree" with branches pointing down, do you? It’s "not allowed". The "first stage in the process doesn’t push toward improvement". That would mean regression. Back DOWN Mount Improbable. Blind fish, found in caves, have lost their eyes as merely an adaptation. This adaptation demonstrates how easily an organism could go "down the slopes of Mount Improbable", were evolution a fact of nature. Moreover LOSING a brilliant design - like eyes - must be orders of magnitude easier than evolving one. Yet Dawkins states that evolution forbids the former.)

{{{1/2 Fiction: opinion and hyperbole, in part due to the analogy used breaking down (or it's rational limits being misunderstood) and confusion between the survival benefit of the mutation with the long term improvement of the species. AND 1/2 False: Certainly species do not evolve to forms less able to survive, and for the blind fish in the caves the eyes have no survival value while they would take resources away from the development of other parts (like hearing). Put a cave fish with a similar species that has eyes in a cave environment and see which is better adapted to the cave environment. And the hypothetical de-evolutionary "losing" of the eye in a species that makes use of their eyes is obviously not going to happen: as long as there is competition between individuals with eyesight and those without: otherwise the world would be overrun with blind animals, as {genetic \ congenital} blindness is a naturally occurring and fairly frequent circumstance. Finally, if the inside out retina, backward facing receptors design of the human eye is 'brilliant' then bux has a low standard of brilliance.}}}
P. 87 - "Variation comes originally from mutation. . ."
(Yes indeed. Variation comes from MUTATION, NOT "selection", which is merely one of many rejection mechanisms, whereby the organism might die or fail to reproduce. And variation is random - "lucky", as Dawkins correctly says. Evolutionists pretend that selection originated brilliant designs. It did not and could not and never will. They are either "Lucky" as the author says, or designed by a Creator, more knowledgeable by far than any scientist. Do you feel lucky, PUNK? Well do ya?)

{{{False: the issue of luck for the individual has already been discussed, as has the issue of all the "unlucky" species. See {luck \ parcheesi} above and {probability \ lottery} below.}}}
P. 90 - "... living things are so good at doing what they do (because) it is wisdom that they chanced upon by lucky random mutations. In each generation the amount of luck was not very great; . . . but the luck has been accumulated . . ."
("Lucky" combinations give organisms "wisdom". Recall from page 82 that this luck is NOT chance. Can anything be more clear? More obvious? Luck is NOT chance but luck adds up to wisdom.)

{{{1/2 Fiction: opinion, and I have a feeling that some context has been "juggled" by bux with the insertion of "(because)" if nothing else - what did he change that made this necessary? AND 1/2 False: again the issue of luck for the individual has already been discussed, as has the issue of all the "unlucky" species.}}}
P. 91 - "There can be no sudden leaps upward - no precipitous increases in ordered complexity."
(Just what do you consider proteins to be? And enzymes? They are both profound examples of "ordered complexity". They do not work by small fractions. One percent of a hemoglobin molecule does not carry blood to your cells. One percent of an enzyme such as adenosine monophosphate does not perform any function whatsoever any more than one percent of a car can carry you anywhere. Would any diabetic be saved by a shot of insulin precursors? Any hemophiliac saved by a tiny portion of a clotting enzyme? Unequivocally the answer is "NO".)

{{{Fiction: opinion. The truth of the statement has not been challenged at all by the limited imagination of buxup and his examples: this is the same argument as the "what is 1% of an eye good for" and just shows lack of imagination for conceiving how something has already occurred. Proteins, etc. are combinations of amino acids, which were in existence and available for combining. See also hemoglobin comments above.}}}
P. 94 - "No animal ever made a living purely by being on the evolutionary path to something better. Animals make a living by eating, avoiding being eaten, and reproducing."
(But "being ON the evolutionary path to something better" is PRECISELY what must be the case in taking all these teeny tiny steps up the gently sloping hills of Mount Improbable. One half of one percent of a protein. Three percent of an enzyme. If these tiny steps do not achieve a noteworthy variation that enhances survival, then selection cannot work its Darwinian magic. And it is imperative that evolutionist DEMONSTRATE how such stepwise progression of proteins and enzymes evoke selective advantages - millions and millions of times - while random calamities strike all around them. Half of an enzyme doesn’t work. In chemistry texts, enzyme-substrate reactions are usually compared to lock and key. Unlock a padlock with 1% of a key {use a toothpick} some time. Or unlock a combination lock with only one digit of the first number.)

{{{False: there is no need, no directive to 'climb' the mountain, just one to survive or perish. In the process of surviving, the mountain is climbed by some, not by others. Mixing this up with the protein and enzymes does not disprove the statement, especially when there is no backup information for the numbers given, or even what they mean in this context... and the improbability of something happening is irrelevant once it has occurred. The probability of one particular ticket winning a lottery with 1 billion tickets is one in a billion - but the probability of any one of the tickets winning is one out of one: one ticket always wins. Also see above on probability of hemoglobin.}}}
P. 99 - "The vast majority of all possible arrangements (mutations, or changes) are wrong."
(From page 79 we have "slow, cumulative one-step-at-a-time". After each "slow, cumulative step", there are a "vast" number of WRONG steps, most of which will KILL their host. Ergo if we go very slowly, and make mostly mistakes, we end up with "wisdom"? This is science?)

{{{False: the steps that are made are the selections of mutations that enhance survival (or at a minimum do not decrease survival). Mutations are not "steps' of themselves, but possibilities of steps - they still need to be tested by survival.}}}
P. 101 - "(Sir Frederick Hoyle) is reported to have said that the evolution, by natural selection, of a complicated structure such as a protein molecule or by implication, an eye or a heart is about as likely as a hurricane’s having the luck to put together a Boeing 747 when whirling through a junkyard. If he’d said ”chance’ instead of ”natural selection’ he’d have been right."
(Dr. Dawkins did NOT quote Sir Hoyle. {{{This from the man that cannot quote Dawkins properly even after being corrected....}}What Sir Hoyle said was "The spontaneous generation of a bacterium is about the same as the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard could assemble a 747 from the contents therein". Dawkins’ first error was in substituting "protein" for "bacterium". Complex as a protein is, a bacterium has hundreds of them in it. Secondly, "probability" is purely a matter of "chance". Mutation "is indeed a chance process", and ONLY mutation configures proteins and enzymes. ONLY mutation - "chance", "accidental" mutation. "Natural selection" - that evolutionist’s Magic Wand - has nothing whatsoever to do with the assembly either of a bacterium or a 747. Why is this simple concept so difficult for evolutionists to grasp! It is the assembly that is the difficult part. Waving the Magic Wand over the finished product and declaring it completed is trivial in comparison.)

{{{1/2 Fiction: opinion. AND 1/2 False: natural selection has everything to do with the gradual accumulation of characteristics that can build something like an eye from a patch of light sensitive skin, and explain why the retina is inverted in the process. Why is this simple concept sooo difficult for creationists to grasp! Particularly when there are examples in existence of creatures with every step needed in the development of the eye currently in existence.}}}
P. 139 - "It has been authoritatively estimated that eyes have evolved no fewer than forty times, and probably more than sixty times."
("Luckily", humans "evolved" the best, most complex kind. Rather like the evolution of our ears, and hands, and brains, and many many other organs. "Luckily". Keep in mind that "chance" has nothing to do with "luck" in evolutionspeak. While some animal somewhere may have a given organ better than ours, overwhelmingly what we have is much better than what should be expected from a random selection of one of the available mountains on which, we are told, descent is "impossible". In none of those different sixty pathways did a single eye evolve. And virtually all of them resulted in almost perfect bilateral symmetry. "Accidentally".)

{{{False: our eyes are nowhere near as good as the Eagle's eye for seeing small detail at an incredible distance, or as good as a dog or cat for seeing in dim light, nor is the human developed as good as an octopus eye which has the retina the right way around to optimize efficiency of light gathering. The human ear and nose is likewise surpassed by most of the mammals on the planet. Bux gives no data on what should be expected according to his creationist interpretation of evolution, but it would be logical to assume that the human senses would be similar to those of the apes, due to shared evolutionary history, and that would appear to be the case. The argument about bilateral symmetry is almost humorous: there is no need for a created creature to have this feature, so the argument is either that (a) bilateral symmetry has no survival value and is there because it looks good or (b) it has survival value - the 'prey' species runs on even length legs more efficiently than on uneven ones as survives the attack by the 'predator' species, etcetera - you tell me. And there are many animals with differing levels of asymmetry, from the eyes of flounders to the ears on humans.}}}
P. 146 - "Photocells on their own just tell an animal whether there is light or not."
(And such a variation would lead to increased survivability in extremely primitive animals . . . how? It could be shade. It could be clouds. It could be night.)

{{{ Again what we have here is a lack of imagination. A worm or a grub that is out above ground in daylight is more likely to be eaten than one that comes out in the magenta, be it shade, clouds or night. One that uses sun heat to increase body mobility (cold blooded) can tell when it is beneficial to move out into the light.}}}
P. 155 - (Figure 5-10. Dawkins mislabeled the "leaving angle", showing the path of light INSIDE glass instead of OUTSIDE it. His error is so glaring, that Dawkins mistakenly shows the angle of incidence as equal to the angle of refraction. Dawkins has disparagingly referred to MY ignorance. I here return the favor.)
{{{False: first off, nowhere is there any evidence of Dawkins personally addressing the ignorance of bux. But let's go to the picture: a gray block with a line entering from about 30 degrees below horizontal, going though the interface and leaving the interface at about a 20 degree angle (still inside the gray block however). The first is labeled "Entering angle" and the second is labeled "Leaving angle" - there is clearly a difference in the angle of incidence (entering) and refraction (leaving) and the angles are labeled correctly for the discussion in the book. When the ray leaves the gray block the angles are reversed and the final ray is parallel to the original one, but offset from it due to the refraction process that occurs on the boundaries between two substances. This is clearly correct, correctly labeled, correctly discussed, correctly presented. Bux is glaringly wrong here and then crowing about it. Sad. Really sad.}}}
Ibid: “Transparent materials are not particularly rare in nature.”
(Of course not. They evolved that way. It makes vision so much easier.)
First changed statement by the buxerup. Originally it was "(Really? Then name 50 transparent materials in nature.)" which was easily done, hence the change here. And yet what we are left with is an argument from incredulity with no refutation of the statement made in the book. Actually given the actual volume taken up by the particles in the atoms it is more incredible that anything is opaque than that there are transparent materials.
Then there are the animals that live in magenta caves and don't have, don't need vision even though the air is just as transparent. Eyes evolved to see because the conditions were good for seeing, just as they devolve when they are not good for seeing. Basic logic that eludes buxerup here (again).
P. 159 - "Remember that a refractive index is something that every transparent substance has. It is a measure of its power to bend rays of light."
(Without which we could not see even given TRANSPARENCY of matter! Refractivity too just must have . . . evolved. Nothing could have been created, for you cannot explain your god. P 77)

{{{False: it just needed to exist in the air and water (again or eyes would be useless). Note that there are eyes that do not use lenses, the most developed being the eye of the Nautilus with a small open aperture that operates like a 'pin-hole' camera. Probably a bigger question is why some things are opaque.}}}
P. 162 - "From a given starting point, a path which goes ever upward, never downward, is the path that natural selection would follow."
(Why would the "vast majority of mutations which are usually bad" be required to follow some path leading to "wisdom"? It’s the evolutionist’s rule: follow that damn path! Never mind that the "vast majority of mutations are usually bad". And that most life exists quite comfortably far down the hill. Up! We must go "ever upward"!)

{{{False: see above on {good vs bad}.}}}
P. 195 - Figure 5.30 shows the "eye region of the Mount Improbable range".
(At least 15 different mountain peaks are shown in this illustration. Of course, each of "60 different" evolutionary paths, from Page 139, "chose" the optimal mountain to climb. How very "lucky" that we don’t have compound eyes. What is the chance that all of these paths were so optimized? One chance in 15 to the 60th power. Utterly impossible.)

{{{False: ludicrous math presented with no basis. The probability that we ended up where we are is .... 1 out of 1: it happened, get over it. Also see hemoglobin and lotter above.}}}
P. 196 - "Nothing is as difficult to evolve as we humans imagine it to be."
(Evolve me a new bacterium from scratch, will you? Just one.)

{{{Fiction: opinion. Impatient, too.}}}
P. 198 - "Natural selection is the pressure that drives evolution up the slopes of Mount Improbable." (Actually, after Page 195, we now know that "Mount Improbable" is really a vast mountain range, stretching out far beyond the horizon. There are at least 15 peaks for eyes alone! Imagine all the little climbers scaling just the right peak, every time. "Lucky", aren’t they. And they NEVER, EVER go back down. See pages 91, 132, and 134.)
{{{Fact: actually this is why the human eye has the backwards retina with the optic nerve obstructing some light and the receptors facing away from the light - that 'mountain' was already partly scaled before the eye fully developed into the sense organ that we have, so it could not go 'back down' and turn the retina over, and this is more of a proof for selection then it is for an intentional predetermined "design" of any kind.}}}
P. 223 - "On one point, though, I insist. This is that wherever in nature there is a sufficiently powerful illusion of good design for some purpose, natural selection is the only known mechanism that can account for it."
(Of course. Since you insist. Natural selection "accounts" for transparent matter. See P. 155. Natural selection "accounts" for refractivity. See P. 159. Natural selection "accounts" for our warming, illuminating sun. Natural selection accounts for the profound fortuitous interdependencies of physical constants, the sciences, mathematics, and even beautiful sunsets. All these "powerful illusions of good design" are not really good design at all, are they. No, they are merely "powerful illusions of good design. But only a learned scientist would know that.)

{{{False: natural selection accounts for our making use of transparancy and refractivity, for they would not be used otherwise, likewise the energy from the sun. Without the physical {world \ universe} being the way it is, the life on earth as we know it would have evolved, so the argument that the arrangement shows design is circular reasoning. Next we will hear about the 'Anthropic Principal' }}}
P. 228 - "I prefer the Anglo-Saxon simplicity of my colleague Dr Henry Bennet-Clark, with whom I have discussed these matters (of redprints and body symmetry): ”All questions about life have the same answer though it may not always be a helpful one: natural selection’."
(So why are zoology books and botany books so thick if there is a simple two word answer to "all questions about life"?)

{{{Fiction: opinion, and hyperbole. Because the 'devil' is in the details? Why is the bible so thick if the answer is simply "god did it" hmmm?}}}
P. 283 - "Nobody knows how it happened but, somehow, without violating the laws of physics and chemistry, a molecule arose that just happened to have the property of self-copying - a replicator. This may seem like a big stroke of luck."
(Are you kidding me! The answer isn’t luck - it’s "natural selection". I read it on Page. 228!
But seriously folks, on P 68, "inherited information is required" for natural selection. Where did "inherited information" come from in ALL life but especially in the FIRST life? On P. 77, Dawkins said if we cannot explain god, then god cannot "design worlds". In contrast, if evolutionists cannot explain "how it happened" {abiogenesis}, they simply invoke "a big stroke of luck". Thus scientists attribute natural "wisdom" to "luck", rather than God.)

{{{Fiction: opinion. No evidence to the contrary presented.}}}
P. 287 - "An elephant is a colony of about 1,000 trillion cells, and each one of those cells is itself a colony of bacteria."
(There you go. An elephant is just one big infection. Ain’t science amazin?
Now to be fair to the author, he pointed out that he feels that mitochondria in the nucleus evolved from bacteria. But he does not say that the cell "was a colony of bacteria". He says it "IS" a colony of bacteria. I suppose it depends on what the meaning of "is" is.)

{{{Fiction: opinion. Out of context. Ain’t incredulity amazin? Not all bacteria are infectious and bacteria themselves are not the infections. The symbiotic bacteria living in your stomach assist in the digestion of food and breaking it down into consumable packages: bux better not be drinking lysol to get rid of those infections as the results would not be pretty.}}}
P. 326 - "Even the most difficult problems can be solved and even the most precipitous heights can be scaled, if only a slow, gradual, step-by-step pathway can be found. Mount Improbable cannot be assaulted. Gradually, if not always slowly, it must be climbed."
(Why? Why "must it be climbed" when "mutation in either direction is equally probable"! See Page 80. To paraphrase Carl Sagan, "Where is the evolutionary imperative" in a system of random variation where "the predilection to mutate is always bad"?)

{{{Fiction: opinion, on both counts. There is no imperative to climb the mountain, in my opinion, so I think this emphasis in the book is wrong, but to answer the question of "why" - the alternative is simple: perish, others will likely survive in your absence. And in the end, the mountain is inevitably climbed in the same way that the parcheesi game inevitably has a winner.}}}
The Twentieth Century is the first time in natural history that any living organism has understood genetics and DNA mutation. The FIRST TIME. The very organisms which alone in all the world possess this knowledge use crude methods of controlling their own reproductivity. We use rubber sheaths, toxic chemicals in situ, systemic hormones, crude surgery, and even the slaughter of a live infant, at the hands of its own "mother". {{{ here the phrase: "to prevent birth or terminate life" is deleted from the previous post - the second and last "change" by buxerup}}} Even today, no one in the world is capable of designing forms and chemical processes by manipulating DNA. To pretend that profound design arose in such a manner through "luck", constrained by "These reproduce less" stamps is ludicrous.)
{{{False: DNA manipulation is here to stay, whether it be for "clones" or "frankenfood" or entirely new experiments. The ones fighting this tooth and nail are the lockstep fundamentalists, of course.}}}
Some of my remarks were intended to be humorous. {{{and fell flat due to your strident tone laced with petulant rants.}}} I tried to make this relatively serious and I think important critique somewhat more tolerable with an occasional light-hearted remark.{{{serious mistakes maybe. important? hardly. light-hearted? "the slaughter of a live infant, at the hands of its own 'mother' " is light-hearted? not!}}}
Nowhere but in evolution is science parroting out such nonsense. {{{False: for the really incredibly foolish parroting of nonsense one needs only look at the "creationism" pseudo-science.}}} It is indefensible and it needs to be exposed. People of faith need not be ashamed of their deep convictions, as is all too often the case. Evolution is one of the contemporary vanguards of atheism. {{{which totally ignores and cannot explain how and why most people of faith do not have any problem with evolution.}}} The other is liberalism. It is not mere coincidence that these two political viewpoints converge on the university campus, where everything is tolerated except "right wing religious extremism" - the very kind exhibited by our Founding Fathers. {{{False: the intolerance of our founding fathers for establishing one religion above all others is fundamental to the way this country operates.}}} It is telling, is it not, that every coin and every bill in your pocket as well as the pockets of evolutionists reads, "In God we trust", rather than "In Luck we trust". {{{added in the 50's by religious fanatics afraid of communism, was not there before. The money also says e pluribus unum or "united we stand" and this is inclusive.}}} Who DO you trust? {{{Not narrow-minded fundamentalist literal bible creationists with less than proven hypotheses parading as something intelligent with an agenda to dumb-down our public schools.}}})
Note in particular the "no challenge to the arguments in the book" element, even when John happens to get the odd fact right. This is not a "book report" it is just a display of logical fallacies, personal incredulity and misunderstanding at best.
Enjoy.
{edited to be for the proper "critique" by John}
This message has been edited by RAZD, 10*27*2005 11:08 PM

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Mirabile_Auditu, posted 10-27-2005 2:32 AM Mirabile_Auditu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by RAZD, posted 10-27-2005 11:11 PM RAZD has not replied
 Message 15 by NosyNed, posted 10-27-2005 11:31 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 13 of 37 (255230)
10-27-2005 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by mick
10-27-2005 2:38 PM


He's not preaching hatred at anybody
Dawkins is extremely intollerant of religion. I think he goes overboard on it, and it is easy to see why may of faith feel he preaches hatred of religion.
But there is a difference between having an opinion and substantiating it with evidence.
NOTE this is really OT and need not be pursued.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by mick, posted 10-27-2005 2:38 PM mick has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 14 of 37 (255240)
10-27-2005 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by RAZD
10-27-2005 9:10 PM


Re: One for the Mountain of Evidence as well ...
note to Jar
EvC Forum: Old "Bookreport" Refuted before.
I did also have a review of this one, it is another of John's "stock"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 10-27-2005 9:10 PM RAZD has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 15 of 37 (255244)
10-27-2005 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by RAZD
10-27-2005 9:10 PM


Re: One for the Mountain of Evidence as well ...
Dawkins writes:
Mount Improbable cannot be assaulted. Gradually, if not always slowly, it must be climbed."
MD writes:
(Why? Why "must it be climbed" when "mutation in either direction is equally probable"! See Page 80. To paraphrase Carl Sagan, "Where is the evolutionary imperative" in a system of random variation where "the predilection to mutate is always bad"?)
{{{Fiction: opinion, on both counts. There is no imperative to climb the mountain, in my opinion, so I think this emphasis in the book is wrong, but to answer the question of "why" - the alternative is simple: perish, others will likely survive in your absence. And in the end, the mountain is inevitably climbed in the same way that the parcheesi game inevitably has a winner.}}}
You are both misreading the text.
Dawkins is saying: You can not "assault" the mountain; the only way is to climb it. It isn't "must" climb but "must climb instead of assualt".
He is, in this way, agreeing with the stupid probablility calculations of the IDers. You can not move through evolutionary space in giant leaps (up the face of Mt. Improbable) you have to move up the back in small steps. (Small when compared to the sheer face of the front.)
However, another view is that if "must" indeed be climbed. The ratchet of natural selection forces that.
What is missed as this analogy becomes more complex (and I think Dawkins brings this up--- I'll see if I can find it) is that the form of the mountain changes with time. What is "up" doesn't stay constant.
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 10-27-2005 11:32 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 10-27-2005 9:10 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Brad McFall, posted 10-27-2005 11:46 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 21 by RAZD, posted 10-28-2005 7:26 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024