Joined: Sep. 2007
|Quote (JAM @ Sep. 24 2007,10:58)|
|Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 24 2007,04:52)|
|Even if there were not a single fossil anywhere in the earth, the evidence for evolution would still be utterly overwhelming.* |
Of course I am not surprised at all that Dawkins would minimize the importance of the fossil record.
You're quote mining, Daniel, and avoiding the real evidence.
It wasn't my quote so how could I be "mining" it?
He's not minimizing its importance. He's pointing out that evidence from other sources is much more extensive and complete:
|The evidence comes from comparative studies of modern animals. If you look at the millions of modern species and compare them with each other - looking at the comparative evidence of biochemistry, especially molecular evidence - you get a pattern, an exceedingly significant pattern, whereby some pairs of animals like rats and mice are very similar to each other. Other pairs of animals like rats and squirrels are a bit more different. Pairs like rats and porcupines are a bit more different still in all their characteristics. Others like rats and humans are a bit more different still, and so forth. The pattern that you see is a pattern of cousinship; that is the only way to interpret it. Some are close cousins like rats and mice; others are slightly more distant cousins (rats and porcupines) which means they have a common ancestor that lived a bit longer ago. More distinctly different cousins like rats and humans had a common ancestor who lived a bit longer ago still. Every single fact that you can find about animals is compatible with that pattern.|
Big deal. Things that are alike are built alike - even at the molecular level. No one disputes this. What the molecular evidence shows, however is not always consistent with RM+NS. For instance, Denton points out the "Molecular Equidistance of all Eucaryotic Organisms from Bacteria" (in "Evolution: A Theory In Crisis", Figure 12.2, page 280), which is more consistent with the Schindewolf/Berg/Davison et al hypotheses of prescribed/directed/planned/designed evolution.
|Surely if it teemed with evidence for his theory, he would feel differently about it.|
He's saying that other sources are more complete and more than sufficient. That's why creationists generally avoid discussing the sequence evidence, and when they do, they grossly misrepresent it.
How many trees have you constructed from sequences (evidence) using tools like CLUSTAL and BLAST, Daniel?
None. And in answer to your previous question about the primary literature: I read what I can online. I've often searched for articles on google scholar, but most require memberships to read - so I am not nearly as well informed as you I'm sure.
|I am a bit surprised that he thinks the theory of evolution via RM+NS is essentially beyond reproach.|
That's because you're afraid of grappling with evidence for yourself. If you any real confidence in your position, you'd be discussing evidence instead of quote mining.
I didn't quote mine. And I'm happy to discuss any evidence you want to discuss. It may take me awhile to understand what you're getting at sometimes and you may have to bring it down to my level, but don't accuse me of not being willing to discuss evidence when you haven't even given me the chance.
|I read through his lecture (which I mistakenly referred to as a book earlier) and I looked for this "utterly overwhelming" evidence he speaks of, but did not find it. |
What part of this don't you understand?
|If you look at the millions of modern species and compare them with each other - looking at the comparative evidence of biochemistry, especially molecular evidence - you get a pattern, an exceedingly significant pattern, whereby some pairs of animals like rats and mice are very similar to each other.|
I understand all of it. None of it is inconsistent with Nomogenesis, Orthogenesis, or the PEH.
|The same goes for these cultivated plants. Throw them back into the wild and eventually they revert back to the original wild cabbage species - all the domesticated varieties would disappear.|
These things can be verified in your own back yard.
And have you done so?
No, but Berg cites many examples of similar types of experiments. His arguments against evolution via natural selection are very well constructed and empirically based.
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance." Orville Wright
"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question." Richard Dawkins