header pic

Area51 Board (non-moderated) at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' Scout-Tennessee a51 Crowd- Enjoy ROWDY discussion covering politics, religion, current events, and all things under the sun

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.


Author

Topic: Richard Dawkins Can’t Provide One Example of Increased Genome

 (Read 2664 times)

DunkingDan

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 24168
  • Liked:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxG4Kji-u28&feature=related

Interviewer Question:
 Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?

Richard Dawkins Answer:
 … uncomfortable silence…. stares into space …. more uncomfortable silence…. stops the taping….
He comes back and does not answer the question and does not provide even one example. This is what the ID proponents like to call a “non-responsive response.”
There you have it folks, the poster boy for Darwinism can’t provide any scientific proof or even a single experiment or factual research to back up even a single element of their theories, let alone the massive fraud they call Darwinism. If they can’t explain or prove how the information in a single genome can increase, then “proving” macro-evolution on a grand scale is an impossibility.
. . . more



Some people want to flame and are not smart enough to know this post was not about creationism
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
« Last Edit: June 22, 2019, 06:03:25 PM by DunkingDan »
President Harry S. Truman said: “The fundamental basis of this nation’s laws was given to Moses on the Mount.  The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings…  If we don't have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state.”

Cincydawg

  • Ombudsman for the Secret Order of the Odd Fellows
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 37426
  • Liked:

DunkingDan

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 24168
  • Liked:
“Welcome Back, My Friends, to the Show that Never Ends,” Part 2
« Reply #2 on: June 23, 2019, 05:47:06 PM »
Is evolution a fact? Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins and many other scientists think so. In his latest book, The Greatest Show on Earth, Dawkins presents what he thinks is the best evidence for the evolutionary paradigm.
Dawkins regards biological evolution as “the greatest show on Earth” because, according to his description, the simple mechanism of natural selection operating iteratively on random genetic variation generated the diversity of life that has existed throughout Earth’s history. Because of Dawkins’ prominence and influence as the foremost spokesperson for the evolutionary paradigm, it is important to provide a chapter-by-chapter response to the case that he presents for biological evolution.
A few weeks ago I offered some comments on the first chapter of The Greatest Show on Earth. This week I continue my critique, focusing on chapters two and three.
These two chapters form a coherent unit within the book. Dawkins uses them to set the stage to make his case for biological evolution. He leads the reader down the “Primrose Path to Macro-Evolution” (as chapter three is titled).
Chapter Two
Dawkins kicks off this chapter with a fascinating discussion of Plato’s influence on biology. Of specific note is Plato’s theory of forms that resulted in the application of essentialism to the concept of a species. Essentialism is the idea that any entity, like a species, has a defining set of characteristics and properties that all examples of that entity possess.
Contrary to how many people think, Dawkins argues that species are not essential entities. Instead they are a population of individuals that varies over time. He asserts that after enough time passes a species extant today would be unrecognizable to the distant past or in the distant future.
Employing this population approach, biologists think of a species as being defined by its gene pool, the collection of genes that specify the full range of the traits that members of the species possess. There are many more variants of a trait within a population than any one member can harbor. Each individual represents a subset of the traits found within the whole species.
According to biologists, a species evolves when new types of traits are added to the gene pool through mutations or when the frequency of the various traits is altered. In this sense, it is the population that evolves, not individual members of the species. But as the population, and consequently the species, changes, each member continues to represent a subset of the traits specified by the gene pool.
In other words, species are not essential because the defining traits of the species are always changing. Dawkins demonstrates this notion by describing the ability of humans to alter species, in some cases quite dramatically, through the use of artificial selection.
Chapter Three
This chapter picks up where the previous one left off by arguing that organisms in the wild perform their own versions of artificial selection. He cites several examples to support his assertion. Some female birds will choose males with plumages that are brightly colored to mate with (sexual selection). As a result, drab-colored males are weeded out of the population over time because their genes are not transferred to the next generation due to fewer mating opportunities. A comparison between sexual selection and the artificial selection performed by dog breeders is drawn. Dawkins also discusses the role that insects play in shaping the color and fragrance of flowers. Both characteristics are used by plants to attract insects to the flowers so that they will pollinate other plants. Those plants that attract more insects will reproduce at a higher frequency than those that fail to attract pollinators. The net effect is that the color and scent produced by the flowers of a given species will be altered over time based on insect preference. This pollination work is compared to the work of horticulturalists attempting to develop new rose varieties.
Dawkins then discusses the role that prey animals play in modifying predators so that the latter creatures become better designed and more skilled as hunters. Those predators that more efficiently capture and consume prey are going to pass the characteristics they possess to their offspring. Through this evolutionary process, predators evolve to be more effective killers, and likewise, prey evolves to be more elusive. In a sense predators shape the evolution of prey and vice versa. For Dawkins, this example illustrates the principle of natural selection, an undirected form of artificial selection. He claims that natural selection is a more generalized form of artificial and sexual selection.
In short, Dawkins attempts to lead the reader down the primrose pathway to evolution by showing that species are not immutable, that they can be shaped by artificial selection, and that undirected, blind versions of selection are at work in the natural realm. In short, evolution–natural selection iteratively operating on random genetic variation–is a fact.
Response
I agree with Dawkins’s view that Charles Darwin (and Alfred Russell Wallace) made important contributions to biology by effectively arguing that species are not fixed entities. They are malleable, capable of changing over time in response to changes in the environment, resource availability, predatory pressure, mate preference, etc.
As Dawkins elegantly illustrates in The Greatest Show on Earth, there are numerous examples of artificial, sexual, and natural selection that prove the plasticity of species. Thanks to work in population genetics–and Darwin’s ideas about reproductive fitness and success–the mechanism that drives these changes is well understood.
But just because species are malleable doesn’t mean they aren’t essential. Essentialism maintains that members of a group can possess other properties that aren’t necessary to categorize them within the group or to preclude them from the group. This more sophisticated understanding of essentialism makes it possible for a species to change, but within boundaries that still make them essentially part of the group.
Work by breeders and studies of natural selection in the field suggest that species are indeed defined by boundaries and that microevolutionary changes can’t be extrapolated much beyond the speciation regime. As I pointed out a few weeks ago, the scale of the biological changes that take place in microevolution and speciation are radically different than the presumed changes that take place for macroevolution. Processes happening at one level can’t automatically be extrapolated to other levels without proper validation.
To illustrate the plasticity of species, Dawkins cites the common example of the large number of diverse dog breeds and the ability of humans to use artificial selection to sculpt the canine gene pool. Ironically, the efforts of dog breeders demonstrate that there are biological boundaries beyond which dogs can’t be pushed even with the best human efforts. English bulldogs illustrate this point. Because of their unusually large heads, these dogs can only be born via caesarian section. The “evolution” of English bulldogs is only possible because humans have figured a way to work around the problems caused by their large heads utilizing a nonnatural means to birth this breed. Hypothetically, if natural selection drove canines to have disproportionately large heads, at some point the evolutionary process would come to a halt, because the large-headed puppies could never pass through the birth canal. Dawkins writes, “what happens under domestication is that animals are artificially shielded from many of the risks that shorten the lives of wild animals…artificial selection has pushed them into a zone that natural selection would not have tolerated.”
The trade-offs confronting organisms in their quest to survive is another reason why boundaries for species must exist. These trade-offs stymie the directional action of natural selection. From an evolutionary vantage point, evolution must find a compromise between competing selection pressures. As an example, Dawkins discusses strains of laboratory rats that have been forced to evolve teeth resistant to decay. This type of evolutionary change would never happen in the wild, because decay-resistant teeth come at a cost, namely weakened skeletons, etc. In Dawkins’s own words: “Perfection in one department must be bought in the form of sacrifice in another department.” These trade-offs create boundaries that species cannot traverse by undirected evolution.
Is evolution a fact? Yes, if one means microevolution and speciation. It is debatable if larger scale changes are a fact, however, given the boundaries that seemingly define species–boundaries revealed by artificial selection and studies of natural selection in the wild.

President Harry S. Truman said: “The fundamental basis of this nation’s laws was given to Moses on the Mount.  The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings…  If we don't have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state.”

VolRage

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 3669
  • Liked:
Re: Richard Dawkins Can’t Provide One Example of Increased Genome
« Reply #3 on: June 23, 2019, 08:55:57 PM »
I was a badger just 15 short years ago and my tail fell of just last week. My family is excited that I finally made the full evolutionary transformation to human. I’m just glad I didn’t evolve out of the ape family or else I’d be a Democrat.

DunkingDan

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 24168
  • Liked:
Re: Richard Dawkins Can’t Provide One Example of Increased Genome
« Reply #4 on: June 23, 2019, 09:12:42 PM »
I was a badger just 15 short years ago and my tail fell of just last week. My family is excited that I finally made the full evolutionary transformation to human. I’m just glad I didn’t evolve out of the ape family or else I’d be a Democrat.
I thought it was the jackass family they came from. :victory:
President Harry S. Truman said: “The fundamental basis of this nation’s laws was given to Moses on the Mount.  The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings…  If we don't have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state.”

P1tchBlack

  • Guest
Re: Richard Dawkins Can’t Provide One Example of Increased Genome
« Reply #5 on: June 23, 2019, 09:48:56 PM »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxG4Kji-u28&feature=related

Interviewer Question:
 Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?

Richard Dawkins Answer:
 … uncomfortable silence…. stares into space …. more uncomfortable silence…. stops the taping….
He comes back and does not answer the question and does not provide even one example. This is what the ID proponents like to call a “non-responsive response.”
There you have it folks, the poster boy for Darwinism can’t provide any scientific proof or even a single experiment or factual research to back up even a single element of their theories, let alone the massive fraud they call Darwinism. If they can’t explain or prove how the information in a single genome can increase, then “proving” macro-evolution on a grand scale is an impossibility.
. . . more



Some people want to flame and are not smart enough to know this post was not about creationism
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
So, what you want us to believe is that God designed us with, for example, a blind spot in our vision due to the optic nerve, with degenerative vision, an inability for our body to regrow severed limbs, etc...

VolRage

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 3669
  • Liked:
Re: Richard Dawkins Can’t Provide One Example of Increased Genome
« Reply #6 on: June 24, 2019, 06:22:39 AM »
So, what you want us to believe is that God designed us with, for example, a blind spot in our vision due to the optic nerve, with degenerative vision, an inability for our body to regrow severed limbs, etc...
Nor do we get 9 lives. Lay off the sci-fi movies. They can create crazy expectations. 

P1tchBlack

  • Guest
Re: Richard Dawkins Can’t Provide One Example of Increased Genome
« Reply #7 on: June 24, 2019, 08:30:32 AM »
Nor do we get 9 lives. Lay off the sci-fi movies. They can create crazy expectations.
There are animals that regrow limbs and scientists can regrow body parts in a lab.  Seems to me that it would have been a good 'skill'.

Why do you think God designed us with degenerative eye sight?  Why does our primary light source give us cancer?

Cincydawg

  • Ombudsman for the Secret Order of the Odd Fellows
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 37426
  • Liked:
Re: Richard Dawkins Can’t Provide One Example of Increased Genome
« Reply #8 on: June 24, 2019, 08:42:27 AM »
Exposure to the sun can give us cancer of course, but some humans have an adaptation that reduces the risk of that obviously.  Exposure also provides us with some Vitamin D, which can be helpful.

It is interesting, to me, that the Great Apes have lost the ability to synthesize Vitamin C internally.  Ever wonder why dogs don't get scurvy?

As I noted in another thread, only the Great Apes menstruate.  The group shares of course other common features, which is why we view them as belonging to that group.

Most humans appreciate that animals (and plants) can be classified (generally) into various groups (some things are tough to classify, but most fit into groups).

All of us are based on the same basic biochemistry.

DunkingDan

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 24168
  • Liked:
“Welcome Back, My Friends, to the Show that Never Ends,” Part 3
« Reply #9 on: June 24, 2019, 07:36:58 PM »
In 1964, The Rolling Stones recorded “Time is on My Side.” Evolutionary biologists continue to sing this song today with the latest rendition coming from Richard Dawkins in his newest book, The Greatest Show on Earth. In it, Dawkins presents what he thinks is the best evidence for the evolutionary paradigm.
I am currently working on a chapter-by-chapter response to the case Dawkins presents for biological evolution in his latest work. (Go here and here for comments on chapter one, and chapters two and three, respectively.) This week I continue my critique, focusing on chapter four and Dawkins’ assertion that the vast history of the Earth provides sufficient time for evolution.
In the first few chapters of his book, Dawkins argues that species are not fixed entities, but malleable, capable of being shaped by the forces of artificial and natural selection. Even though the observed changes to species are relatively minor on the time-scale of human history, Dawkins (and other evolutionary biologists) commonly argue that microevolutionary changes can generate dramatic evolutionary transformations if given enough time. Time is on evolution’s side.
Chapter Four
This chapter argues that enough time does exist for evolution’s mechanism to generate life’s diversity. Dawkins spends most of the chapter describing methods scientists use to date the age of the Earth and of fossils, focusing mostly on radiometric techniques. Accordingly, Dawkins’ reasoning in this chapter goes something like this:
  • The Earth is old (about 4.5 billion years old).
  • Life is old (life has been present on Earth for at least 4 billion years).
  • There is enough time for evolution to have transformed life in a step-wise, gradual fashion from single-celled entities to the diversity of complex life-forms on the planet today.
  • Therefore, evolution is a fact.
Response
I found this chapter quite disappointing. Not so much with the quality of Dawkins’ argument for the antiquity of Earth (with which I happen to agree), but with his use of straw man tactics. Dawkins creates the perception that people who question the evolutionary paradigm are singularly young-earth creationists who believe that the Earth is about 6,000 years in age. And all he has to do to is demonstrate that the Earth is old in order to respond to the challenges that these creationists level against evolution. He ignores the fact, however, that a number of intellectuals have serious doubts about the capability of evolutionary processes to exclusively account for life’ history and diversity, yet at the same time accept the scientific evidence for an old earth. In fact, there are a number of creationists who think that the best biblical interpretation of Genesis 1 is fully compatible with an old Earth. (See Hugh Ross’s A Matter of Days for the biblical and theological case for an ancient Earth.)
This straw man approach creates a diversion from the real issue. The question is not how old the Earth is or even how much time is available for evolution to work. The question has to do with the capability of evolution’s mechanism. Can the mechanism that undergirds microevolutionary changes and speciation be extended to macroevolutionary transformations? We simply can’t assume that the answer is yes because of the antiquity of the Earth. As I pointed out last week, there does appear to be boundaries beyond which species can’t evolve.
In my view, we can’t really answer this key question because we lack a fundamental understanding of how changes in genotype relate to changes in phenotype. This is one of the central questions in modern biology. Until this understanding emerges, there is no way to know if the mechanism that explains microevolution and speciation can be applied to macroevolutionary transformations.
Currently, field studies and the fossil record represent the best way to assess the capability of evolution’s mechanism. Do we see evidence for microevolutionary changes operating over vast periods of time to effect macroevolutionary transformations in the fossil record? To date, the answer appears to be no.
It seems to me that the evolutionary paradigm is running out of time.

President Harry S. Truman said: “The fundamental basis of this nation’s laws was given to Moses on the Mount.  The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings…  If we don't have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state.”

DunkingDan

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 24168
  • Liked:
“Welcome Back, My Friends, to the Show that Never Ends,” Part 4
« Reply #10 on: June 28, 2019, 04:01:42 PM »
In his latest work, The Greatest Show on Earth, Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins compares evolutionary biologists to detectives investigating a crime scene. They gather clues and by inference piece together a scenario for what might have happened. Detectives almost never have the luxury of being an eyewitness to the crime. This, Dawkins maintains, is where the analogy breaks down because biologists are direct witnesses to evolution happening in real time right before their eyes. For Dawkins, the direct observations of real-time evolutionary changes provide powerful evidence that evolution is, indeed, a fact.
Chapter Five
Observations of real-time evolution occurring in the course of a human lifetime are rare. Dawkins acknowledges this, but points out that more and more examples are surfacing. And some of these instances are quite dramatic, indicating that microevolutionary changes and speciation (or at least reproductive isolation) can happen rapidly. Dawkins focuses on three examples of evolution in action: the evolution of lizards on the island of Pod Mrcaru, Richard Lenski’s Long-term Evolution Experiment, and the evolution of guppies in the mountain streams of Trinidad, Tobago, and Venezuela.
I have previously discussed the lizards of Pod Mrcaru on an episode of our podcast Science News Flash (go here to listen) and wrote about the Long-term Evolution Experiment in a series of Today’s New Reason to Believe articles (go here, here and here). In this article, I will examine the evolution of wild guppies studied by John Endler.
Endler noticed that local populations of male guppies in the mountain streams of Trinidad, Tobago, and Venezuela could be either brightly colored with large spots or drab. Endler reasoned that in streams with no threat from predators, females preferred brightly colored males. But in streams where predators were present, drab males were more likely to survive. In other words, Endler guessed that the effects of sexual and natural selection were competing with each other. Natural selection, he thought, won out when predatory fish shared the mountain streams with guppies but mate preference carried the day in the absence of predators.
To test his hypothesis, Endler built ponds in a greenhouse and filled them with guppies. Some ponds were lined with large, course pebbles and the others with fine, sandy gravel. Within a few months the male guppies in both types of ponds were covered with large spots presumably because females preferred mating with males that stood out. Endler then added predatory fish to some of the ponds. Those without predators continued to harbor guppies with large colorful spots. But those with predators quickly became populated with guppies that blended into the background. Guppy populations exposed to predators were characterized by males with fewer spots. Interestingly, the spots sizes also changed. Males in ponds with large pebbles had larger spots and those with fine gravel had smaller spots.
Endler then repeated the experiment in the wild transferring guppies from streams with predators into mountain streams that previously had no guppies and no predators. Male guppies that were drab in the presence of predators rapidly transformed into brightly colored fish with large spots in the absence of any predatory threat. This work is a marvelous illustration of evolution in action and evolution acting in a hurry. But does it mean that the evolutionary paradigm is a fact?
Response
The examples of evolution in action cited by Dawkins are impressive, but they all involve microevolutionary changes or the evolution of microbes. Just because scientists have observed microevolution, speciation, and microbial evolution doesn’t mean that macroevolution is necessarily valid. The scale of the biological changes that take place in microevolution and speciation are radically different from the presumed changes that take place for macroevolution. As is true in other areas of science, processes happening at one level can’t automatically be extrapolated to other levels without proper validation. In my opinion, this validation doesn’t exist for macroevolutionary changes. (I will discuss this lack of support in more detail in the weeks to come as I continue to respond to Dawkins case for biological evolution.) But for now I refer the reader to the article I posted previously where I pointed out that there appears to be real boundaries that species can’t traverse.
As for the evolution of microbes, given their large population sizes, rapid generation times, and capability for horizontal gene transfer, it is not surprising that they evolve.
On the other hand, the capability of organisms to experience microevolutionary changes and undergo speciation can be understood as an elegant design feature and part of God’s providence. The ability of organisms to adapt to changes in the environment makes them robust, ensuring their survival. If species were truly immutable, they would quickly go extinct as environmental and predatory pressures intensified or changed. The ability to adapt also allows species to migrate from one region to another and in the process take advantage of new niches and habitats.
Even though evolutionary biologists claim that directly observing evolution in action provides proof positive that evolution is a fact, from a creation model perspective, when we happen to be eyewitnesses to microevolutionary changes and speciation we are seeing direct evidence for the Creator’s fingerprints in nature.

President Harry S. Truman said: “The fundamental basis of this nation’s laws was given to Moses on the Mount.  The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings…  If we don't have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state.”

Cincydawg

  • Ombudsman for the Secret Order of the Odd Fellows
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 37426
  • Liked:
Re: Richard Dawkins Can’t Provide One Example of Increased Genome
« Reply #11 on: June 29, 2019, 03:54:31 AM »
I've never seen a poster anywhere so prone to copy and pasting long tracts all the time with relatively few actual written responses or personal thoughts.  Nearly everything is written by someone else and merely transcribed.

That may reflect an inability to articulate one's own thoughts coherently and succinctly, which is consistent with the frequency of position various photographs of irrelevant stuff as well, I expect one soon, perhaps a bird.

DunkingDan

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 24168
  • Liked:
“Welcome Back, My Friends, to the Show that Never Ends,” Part 5
« Reply #12 on: July 03, 2019, 05:18:18 PM »
t was not one of my finer moments. I was on my junior high school’s basketball team and we were headed out for an away game. As we boarded the bus, the cheerleaders handed everyone an apple as a pre-game snack. Being in seventh grade meant I was relegated to the back of the bus where the exhaust fumes were especially bad that day. So after eating my apple, I pulled my shirt up over my nose in the hopes of filtering out some of the noxious odors. That move was my undoing.
 The combination of the recently consumed apple, the exhaust, and the winding road pushed me over the edge. Soon I was feeling nauseous. And then the unthinkable happened—I threw up inside my shirt. I don’t know what was worse: the vomit all over my chest or the teasing that predictably ensued.
Everyone is embarrassed by something. And many creationists think that evolutionary biologists should be mortified by the gaps in the fossil record. But as Richard Dawkins writes in The Greatest Show on Earth, the fossil record is of no concern to evolutionary biologists in the least. In fact, Dawkins considers the fossil record as evidence for biological evolution—in spite of ridicule from the creationist camp about all the “missing links.”

Chapter Six

Dawkins admits there are gaps in the fossil record. But, he argues (and I would agree with his point), these gaps are to be expected given the vagaries of the burial and fossilization process. In fact, in some respects it is surprising that we have any fossils at all. According to Dawkins, creationists make much out of nothing when they use this point to deride the evolution.
He further asserts that the presence or absence of fossils is immaterial. From his standpoint, the case for biological evolution is so strong that a fossil record is not needed to establish the validity of evolution. Having fossils is a bonus. He then argues that the fossils we do possess provide powerful support for an evolutionary history of life, citing a number of examples presumably meant to document the evolution of major groups. Dawkins chooses to focus on the evolutionary transitions that allegedly occurred when vertebrates moved from the water to land with the origin of tetrapods, and then back to the water in the case of whales, seals, and turtles.
Response
I think Dawkins is wrong in his claim that the fossil record is not needed to establish the validity of biological evolution (macroevolution). Without an abundant fossil record, how is it possible to maintain that evolution is a fact? The preserved history of life provides the means to conduct a time-based assessment of Darwin’s idea. If evolution is understood as change in life’s history over time driven by the forces of selection, then time-based data is necessary to cement this idea’s legitimacy.
Darwin discovered a mechanism that accounts for microevolution, speciation, and the evolution of microbes. But does the same mechanism apply to large-scale biological changes? We know that selection operating on genetic variation explains small evolutionary changes because we can observe them in real time. As I have pointed out before, there are reasons to think this mechanism is limited to small-scale changes because work in artificial selection exposes nonnegotiable biological boundaries.
In order to prove that selection can yield large-scale biological innovation, we need some type of time-based observation. Of course, we can’t observe macroevolutionary changes directly, but in principle we can witness these changes from the fossil record, which serves as a proxy for life’s history—a history that should be characterized by certain features and patterns if macroevolution is indeed a fact.
In many respects, there are gaps in knowledge in every scientific discipline. The real questions are: Can we discern the actual trends in life’s history from the fossil record despite the gaps? And is the fossil record an adequate enough sampling to evaluate predictions made by Darwin’s theory? Many paleontologists think so.
Rather than revealing gradual evolutionary transformations as expected based on Darwin’s mechanism, life’s history is dominated by explosive appearances every time biological innovation occurs. Biologist Eugene Koonin has termed these dramatic innovations as “big bang” events. These big bangs include: the origin of cells, the origin of archaea, bacteriea, and eukarya, and the origin of animal body plans. (Go here to read an article I wrote about Koonin’s idea.) Gaps in the fossil record aren’t the problem for evolution, it’s the pattern of discontinuities and explosive innovations, a pattern I think better fits within a creation model.
But what about the examples Dawkins cites of evolutionary transformations at the water’s edge? These changes appear to be described by a series of transitional fossils. Given the incompleteness of the fossil record, aren’t these examples sufficient to establish evolution’s validity?
 At first glance the origin of tetrapods, seals, and whales appear as remarkable examples of a transitional sequence in the fossil record. But careful consideration of the details identifies problems for the evolutionary framework. (Go here and here to read two articles I wrote about problems with the evolutionary account of tetrapod origins, and go here and here to listen to an episode of Science News Flash in which I discuss the evolutionary model for the origin of, whales and seals, respectively.)
One Final Point
In chapter six Dawkins also discusses a statement by famous biologist J. B. S. Haldane. As the story goes, Haldane was asked to identify an observation that would invalidate the theory of evolution. In reply, he quipped, “Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian!”
In other words, if fossils appeared out of order in the geological column, then the theory of evolution can’t be true. But Dawkins goes on to elaborate that there is “not a single solitary fossil [that] has ever been found before it could evolve.”
Evolutionary biologists often use this argument to defend their point of view. Yet I don’t buy it. In my opinion, this is a form of circular reasoning. We know that there aren’t rabbits in the Precambrian because we’ve never found rabbits in these geological layers. If rabbits were found in the Precambrian, then we would know that they existed during that time of Earth’s history.
There is nothing in the theory of evolution that tells us when organism should emerge. We know complex animal life appeared on Earth about 540 million years ago (mya) because the fossil record tells us so. We know that bony fish appear in the Ordovician because that’s what the fossil record shows. We know that dinosaurs appeared on Earth about 225 mya and became extent 65 mya because the fossil record indicates it.
Apart from the record provided by the fossil record, we wouldn’t have any knowledge of what past life on Earth looked like. Nor would we know anything about the timing and order of the appearance and disappearance of life-forms. Evolutionary biologists interpret the history of life from an evolutionary perspective and try to use their paradigm to explain the fossil record. But the theory of evolution can’t make predictions as to when life-forms should appear in Earth’s history. If rabbits were found in the Precambrian, Haldane and other evolutionary biologists most certainly wouldn’t abandon the evolutionary framework. Instead they would modify the theory to accommodate the appearance of rabbits at that point in time.
The fact of the matter is that there are “rabbits-in-the-Precambrian” examples in the fossil record that justifiably falsify the evolutionary paradigm. One that I’ve pointed out is the co-occurrence of vertebrates, chordates, urochordates, hemichordates, and echinoderms at the base of the Cambrian explosion. (Go here and here for previous articles.)
According to the evolutionary model, echinoderms produced hemichordates and urochordates as two separate evolutionary branches. Urochordates gave rise to chordates which, in turn, generated the jawless fish as the first vertebrates. In reality, fossils representative of these phyla show up simultaneously at the base of the Cambrian explosion. In other words, the fossils of jawless fish, chordates, urochordates, and hemichordates are out of sequence. If evolutionary biologists are sincere about the criterion for falsification laid down by Haldane, then good reason to abandon the evolutionary framework does exist.
The features that define the fossil don’t match the expectations based on Darwin’s mechanism. But the fossilized history of life on Earth is a bonus—a bonus for creationism.


President Harry S. Truman said: “The fundamental basis of this nation’s laws was given to Moses on the Mount.  The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings…  If we don't have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state.”

Cincydawg

  • Ombudsman for the Secret Order of the Odd Fellows
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 37426
  • Liked:
Re: Richard Dawkins Can’t Provide One Example of Increased Genome
« Reply #13 on: July 03, 2019, 06:09:29 PM »
I have a notion on one reads these long tracts, and no one is persuaded by them at all either.

 

Support the Site!