Re: Richard Dawkins on Specified Complexity

"C.J.W." <mynym@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in news:1137349326.568962.63300
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

> We can be very sure there really is a single concestor of all
> surviving life forms on this planet. The evidence is that all that have
> ever been examined share (exactly in most cases, almost exactly in the
> rest) the same genetic code; and the genetic code is too detailed, in
> arbitrary aspects of its complexity, to have been invented twice.
> Although not every species has been examined, we already have enough
> coverage to be pretty certain that no surprises - alas - await us.
>
> (The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution
> By Richard Dawkins :7) (Emphasis added)


The above is the only worthwhile part of the entire post.

What follows is drivel.


> I just began reading this book. It seems that it will be amusing. For
> if all that man is or ever will be is an organism, then Darwinism is
> its excrement.

What idiotic posturing.

The theory of evolution is no more 'excrement' than 'christianity',
'nuclear physics' or 'shakespeare' is.

> And excrement always gives us a sense of our own humors,
> another benefit is that it can keep us humble, as long as we do not
> totally forget our distinctions and how humans are not just humus, even
> if we are brought forth from it.

Content-free posturing.

> If we seek a lack of judgment about
> such things and call that humility we will degenerate into crud even as
> we live, a crudity which is no laughing matter.

You really need to take some writing classes.

If you want to make scatalogical allusions, you need to have a better
grasp of english.

> It seems that this little fellow will eventually have to deny
> "arbitrary aspects of complexity" as evidence that we can be "very
> sure" of, to be sure.

No, there is no evidence that Dawkins will need to move away from the
position that apparently incomprehensible biological complexity can
always be reduced to understandable incremental biological simplicity.

Every example cited of 'irreducable complexity' is threatened or already
completely discredited.

> It seems the only reason he does not engage in
> trying to deny that calling a spade a spade as a TYPE is typically
> correct in this case is because here he feels it suits the urge to
> merge. In many other cases he will deny that the form of existence is
> essential.

Organisms forms are simply the result of evolutionary adaption.

Types are merely the apparent successful adaption of forms to their
ecological niche.

But so called 'types' change over time to become quite different seeming
organisms.

Whales, for instance.


> Yet does the evidence actually support Darwinism? No.

Yes, it does. Evolution is backed by the entire spectrum of biology and
palaeontology.

Your statement is contradicted by both observation of historical fact
(DNA analysis of species, fossil evidence and modern phylogeny) and
modern research (mathematics of genetic evolution, genetic analysis of
mutations of live populations and so on).


> E.g. given that
> the sorts of narratives that those with the urge to merge write are
> hardly specified in any absolute way

Since there is no "absolute" ancestral trail nor specific individual
mutation required to support evolutionary science, your argument is
nonsensical.

> there is absolutely no way that
> his narratives would not have been fit to more than one puddle as the
> ultimate "concestors" of all Life, if that had been the evidence found
> to date.

You're confused.

While many locations *could* have given rise to life, but only one
*needed* to survive through its ancestors.

If different self-reproductive chemistry competed in the primordial
earth, it's considered quite likely that only one *would* win the arms
race. But many could have existed. No trace of them would remain.


> And in that explanatory accomodation as his puddle of
> hypothetical goo can accomodate virtually any set of facts he would
> probably have also explained,

Since the hypothetical goo is theorised to be the basis for the self-
reproductive biological chemistry, by its fundmental nature its likely to
be able to adapt and form the basis for life in a wide variety of
environments.

> "So there is no way that Life could be
> imprinted with a common design by a Creator who says that they are One
> because see, there is no unifying principle common to all Life.

Except the principle of continuous mutation and re-adaption in the face
of evolutionary pressures..

> Instead
> the evidence is just how we expected to find things based on Darwinism,
> yet again!

Since evolutionary science is based on the facts and not the other way
around, this should not be surprising.

> Amazing the overwhelming evidence, isn't it? Besides, why
> would one designer make things that appear to lack a unifying
> principle?


The arguments for evolution require evidence of common descent.

The arguments for 'creation' don't require evidence at all.


> Well it is settled then, Mommy Nature selected everything.

... from the randomly generated ancestors living at any given time.

Which nicely summarises the whole idea.


> Nature is selecting what I'm saying right now too,

Correct.

Your ability to think, speak and type with your thumbs is a reflection of
evolutionary selection for humans brain, larynx and limb physiology.

> which is why it's
> just like gravity or somethin'.

Evolutionary biology is expressed through DNA.

The expression of DNA and it's products are subject to molecular
chemistry. Chemistry is dependant on physics. So yes, Evolutionary
biology IS related to physics.

Since both are facets of science, this shouldn't be surprising.

Evolution is logically and factually related to many facets of science.


> Say, how can you deny gravity?!"

Easy.

The Catholic church had astromoners executed for denying the theological
basis for the movement of the celestial bodies.


> http://mynym.bl

Link to pseudo-intellectual twaddle deleted.




Wash my feet, fundie.




jesus


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Darwinian Mechanism of Mutation and Natural Selection Found Lacking
    ... The conclusions are that life could ... The evidence for evolution is broken down into three broad ... The first is direct evidence of small-scale changes in controlled ... types of fossils associated with only certain other fossils. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Sean loses interest
    ... please do present your evidence. ... written on to make it into real life testing much less demonstration. ... radiometric measures of the age of the universe and extrapolations ... of stellar and planetary evolution. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Darwinian Mechanism of Mutation and Natural Selection Found Lacking
    ... The conclusions are that life could ... The evidence for evolution is broken down into three broad ... The first is direct evidence of small-scale changes in controlled ... there are Precambrian multicellular fossils, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Is evolution accelerating?
    ... >>> evolution has grown increasingly tepid, ... >> Unless someone comes up with evidence that the syntax of genetic coding ... gene scenario would be but a part. ... molecular biology, cellular biology, paleontology, evidence DIRELY NEEDED ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: I have another argument that needs refuting
    ... God destroyed all of life on earth except for Noah, his family, and the ... Evolution states that everything in the universe came from nothing ... do is study the evidence and see which religion makes the most sense. ... No. Tee geologic timetable proves the great age of the earth. ...
    (talk.origins)