Darwin's answer, is by gradual, step-by-step transformations from simple beginnings, from primordial entities sufficiently simple to have come into existence by chance
As you're so convinced that Darwin didn't say so
Well, as you learned, Darwin attributed the origin of life to God. So you're pretty much out on the limb with your atheist bud, aren't you?
I think you'd better write Dawkins and remind him that he was WRONG then. Try doing that and see how far you'll get.
Or you guys could just see what Darwin wrote:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of
The Origin of Species
This is him making a friendly nod to appease the wrath...
Sorry. Not credible. Darwin never said life began by chance. And he did say that God did it. You're just going to have to find some way to live with it.
Having spent a whole book saying the exact opposite
Show me in his book where he said life began by chance. Chapter is fine. I'll locate the page. Oh, that's right, you can't because
you never read his book.
In the Descent of Man he practically advocates the genocidal elimination of the 'sub-species' on the basis of the 'survival of the fittest' doctrine he espoused and taught in this evil book.
I've read that one, too. And I know you haven't, because he deplored the abuse of primitive societies by more advanced ones. In fact:
The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.
Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man
So long as you keep telling people about books you never read, you're going to be repeatedly embarrassed. Isn't it time to learn a little bit about what you're talking about?
Hitler and the rest thought this was great,
As you see, Darwin specifically condemned what Hitler advocated. And while Darwin (without the benefit of genetics) worried that some races of man would be wiped out by aggression of Europeans, later Darwinists like Punnett and Morgan showed that Hitler's eugenic ideas were not only evil, but scientifically flawed.
An even bigger master of genocide, Stalin, outlawed Darwinian theory from the Soviet Union.
Dawkins, far better read than you, says that Darwin DID say that it was by chance.
Barbarian chuckles:
If so, too bad for him. He'll get no support from Darwin or evolutionary theory.
Well, aha! The first crack in the evolutionary establishment appears.
That was a couple of years after Darwin published. He and Huxley disagreed on the pace of evolution. I doubt if Dawkins really claimed Darwin said evolution is by chance.
Are you sure you don't want the wrath of the high priest descend on you?
The great thing about science is that it's essentially libertarian. There is no decider. It works by consensus.
But you have now guiltily agreed that Dawkins does say that Darwin said that chance was the thing.
Nope. That's why I said "if so." Your history here has taught me to check anything you say before I believe it.
I remind you that Dawkins is better read than you, and you should bow to his superior knowledge and acquaintance with the literature!
I remind you that Darwin didn't say what you claim Dawkins attributes to him. And unlike you, I actually read the book. See above. Darwin attributed the origin of life to God.
It is essential, nay, imperative for Dawkins case that it WASN'T by chance. Unfortunately for you, Darwin did say so.
Barbarian chuckles:
See above. You've been snockered again, because you don't think for yourself.
Now here's the pot calling the kettle black! You've been backed into smuggling design (as opposed to chance) into (alleged) evolutionary processes.
As you learned earlier, it's neither design, or chance. Evolution isn't by chance, and it isn't designed. It's created.
You have done so just as your high priest does, by attributing qualities of design ability to something that clearly could not possibly possess them.
No sign of design. Just natural processes. Which, as you learned some time ago, are more efficient than design.
I could quotemine a dozen evolutionists all saying words to the effect that evolution is a chance process
I notice you tried to do that with Darwin, and got yourself embarrassed again.
Berlinski mocks this by saying that there must be a Head Monkey there making the decisions about whether to retain the letter there or not! I find that quite amusing.
Natural selection, as you learned, can make great changes by making small incremental changes. Would you like to see an example?
Mutation produces some quality which is beneficial (a highly questionable assumption, but we'll let that pass).
You've already been shown numerous examples.
Then what happens? That quality is 'selected' and remains in the population. So over a long time(Q = beneficial quality) Q1 + Q2 +Q3 + Q4.....etc all add up to new species, and ultimately new phyla such as reptiles into birds.
But you notice, 'selection' is what he says has occurred. That is an unfortunate choice of word, because it takes some form of intelligence to make the 'selection'!
No intelligence is required. Hall's bacterial, for example, evolved a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system, by small steps from random mutations, organized by natural selection.
Now, are you Darwin's or Dawkins' disciple?
I merely read what they wrote, and see what I think makes sense. As you learned, it's a big help if you know what you're talking about. Read and learn.
They flatly contradict each other, and you would be lying to say otherwise.
Show us that.
Barbarian observes:
I haven't read much about Dawkin's views, except Goulds review of "hyperselectionism."
Perhaps you should. After all, he is the high priest.
If you consider him the high priest, then I probably wouldn't agree with him much.
Barbarian observes:
If you tossed a coin a hundred times, but only counted the heads that appeared on odd tosses, would the result be random? No, it wouldn't.
It's mathematically demonstrable. Would you like me to show you?
Yes. Go right ahead. LK, you've had some statistical training.
Let's say that a hundred coins are tossed and they all fall into a counting machine that counts the heads and tails. But the machine has a defect; it scans the coin, but the scan that detects tails only works every odd coin.
You'll end with a non-random result, biased toward heads, but the tosses were entirely random. Surprise.
If the result is non-random, then the coin is biassed. Or the counting is biassed and unfair.
The counting is not random, and the outcome therefore is not random. How about that?
It's simple. A random process, like flipping coins or mutations, when acted upon by a non-random process like natural selection, produces a non-random result.
So NS has some form of intelligence to select the good ones.
Nope. Neither is the machine, although the maker of the machine might be. He doesn't individually move the coins, but he set up the machine to do it.
That is exactly what you're saying here. You're trying to smuggle in the Head Monkey again.
Nope. As St. Thomas Aquinas noted, God can use chance to effect His will just as easily as he can use necessity.
Evolution is a random process
Barbarian chuckles:
I know you want us to believe you, but the evidence shows something quite different.
Darwin, Dawkins, Dunnett, Ruse, and I don't care to count how many others, say it is a random process.
Show us that. The Dawkins quote shows his thoughts on the origin of life, not evolution. I think you meant "Dennett", but hard to say. Anyway, checkable quotes with original sources will help your case, if they can be verified.
And in any case, you have no real evidence of beneficial mutations occurring.
Barbarian observes:
You've been shown numerous examples here. No point in denying it. Everyone knows.
Those trashy example you brought up? Everyone knows just how useless they are in producing the Cambrian explosion, and all the others that have occurred.
I'd think producing a new enzyme system in a few months would be pretty good evidence. There's no point in you denying it.
Barbarian chuckles:
The first one I showed you produced a new species. Want to see it again?
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1601-5223.1936.tb03204.x/pdf
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1966 April; 55(4): 727–733
Spontaneous origin of an incipient species in the Drosophila paulistorum complex.
T Dobzhansky and O Pavlovsky
O. gigas from O. lamarkania, by a polyploidy event.
Go right ahead, and while you're at it, show how youw speciation rates could account for the CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION.
Speciation rates depend on the environment, newly evolved armored organisms suddenly had many new niches open to them and rapidly evolved. We had a smaller "Hawaiian explosion" when insects first got there and rapidly evolved to fill the many open niches. It's called "disruptive selection."
Barbarian chuckles:
No. Not stupidity. You just don't know enough about biology to understand the quotes you mine for us.
You have mined innumerable quotes of monumental irrelevancy
I'm just citing from the literature. And remember, I actually read it, so I know what it means.
the last 2 being prize examples - hoping that I and others would be overimpressed with the heavy type and citation of the references, and fearfully creep away.
Barbarian observes:
They aren't quotes. They are evidence from the literature. And they aren't overly technical or difficult. If you'd spend a little more time learning about the issue in the literature, you wouldn't be so easy to flummox.
(outburst)
Screaming is impolite.
38 Nobel Laureates: http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/darwin.htm
"Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection."
Sounds like chance to me!
As you just learned, a random process, plus a non-random process, is a non-random process.
Barbarian observes:
Gravity is unguided and unplanned. If a rock falls, it doesn't fall in a random direction. You made a bad assumption, and it led you to a foolish conclusion.
We are not discussing physics here
More precisely, we're discussing your confusion as to what is random and what is not.
but I again point out that when Sir Isaac Newton discovered the mathematics behind the law of gravity, he didn't immediately start prancing round shouting 'hey look, this is unguided and unplanned'.
If you think God personally intervenes to make falling objects fall...
Far from it, and you as a catholic should take the same POV.
As you know, the Church teaches that evolution, as a consquence of God's creation, is consistent with Christian faith.
Newton said natural forces caused gravity.
This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being.
Darwin thought so, too:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Do you agree that we have there a very fair description of 'by chance'? From 38 Nobel laureates?
As you learned, they didn't say evolution was by chance. They said random mutation and natural selection. Which as you now realize, is not by chance.
I really worry about those blinkers you're wearing.
Funny how folks who wear them, are never aware of it, um?
Let me show you again that they didn't say it was by chance:
Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.
You get the impression that they're talking about CHANCE here?
As you now realize, it's the antithesis of chance.
Here's Merriam Webster to help you:
a : something that happens unpredictably without discernible human intention or observable cause
And yet, biologists are can predict the outcome of selective pressures. Dr. Hall is now even predicting the direction new forms of antibiotic resistance will take.
You are presupposing, as Dawkins so foolishly does, the presence of a Head Monkey
Barbarian observes:
Nope. Just a Creator powerful enough to create a universe in which such wonders can happen.
You've gone that far as to accept the existence of a Creator. Why not let Him do it His way?
Now when 38 Nobel Laureates who read Darwin, agree that Darwin said that it was a chance process
As you just learned, neither Darwin nor those scientists said it was a chance process. Nice try, though.
See above. And repeat after me. Slowly and carefully now:
Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.
There before us is very clear evidence of design in the lilies (3's in the monocots, 4s and 5s in the dicots, and all the other carefully counted and designed structures in the living world).
As you learned from the literature I cited, it's just genetics. No counting required. Read and learn.
