[_ Old Earth _] This one's for you, Bob.

[Dunzo]

Apologies if this link has been posted before.

READ THIS:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html

No, seriously, read it. The whole thing.

Here's my favourite part:

Dear Mr Theunissen,

Sorry to have taken so long to answer your letter of July 9th. I was away for a while, and then infernally busy. I seem fated continually to make a fool of myself with creationists. The specific quote you mention, from a letter to Sunderland dated 10th April 1979, is accurate as far as it goes. The passage quoted continues "... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test."

I think the continuation of the passage shows clearly that your interpretation (at the end of your letter) is correct, and the creationists' is false.

That brush with Sunderland (I had never heard of him before) was my first experience of creationists. The famous "keynote address" at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 was nothing of the sort. It was a talk to the "Systematics Discussion Group" in the Museum, an (extremely) informal group. I had been asked to talk to them on "Evolutionism and creationism"; fired up by a paper by Ernst Mayr published in Science just the week before. I gave a fairly rumbustious talk, arguing that the theory of evolution had done more harm than good to biological systematics (classification). Unknown to me, there was a creationist in the audience with a hidden tape recorder. So much the worse for me. But my talk was addressed to professional systematists, and concerned systematics, nothing else.

I hope that by now I have learned to be more circumspect in dealing with creationists, cryptic or overt. But I still maintain that scepticism is the scientist's duty, however much the stance may expose us to ridicule.

Yours Sincerely,

[signed]

Colin Patterson

Shut it now, please?

 

[lordkalvan]

As you are no doubt aware, Bob has seen the full text of this letter before and has even quoted it many times. As he has already asserted (many times) that he takes it as strengthening his argument rather than otherwise, I doubt he will change his mind now. My understanding is that Bob is an absolutist: if he admits to a little doubt or uncertainty about his interpretation of any small part of the Bible, then that calls into question the whole of the Bible. Therefore, by Bob's logic, if an 'atheist [D]arwinist high priest' calls into question anything to do with evolutionary theory, the whole of evolutionary theory is placed in doubt.

 

[BobRyan]

As you are no doubt aware, Bob has seen the full text of this letter before and has even quoted it many times. As he has already asserted (many times) that he takes it as strengthening his argument rather than otherwise,

Good point. In fact it IS The "continuation of the letter" that Patterson points to that is most damaging to atheist darwinism so I ALSO INCLUDE that part of the letter when I address the letter's content and the history, context and reasoning being addressed in the letter.

So that begs the question for darwinist that wishes to bring up the inconvenient detail "of WHAT the CONTINUATION said" -- how in the world do they think that Patterson's CONTINUATION which argues "STORES about how one thing came from another are ... EASY ENOUGH TO MAKE UP... but they are not science" is any way HELPING them??

It is "as if" the ONLY part of that entire quote that a Darwinist takes time to actually read -- is the part in RED in that OP. They must be ignoring the entire letter outside of the one sentence in red!!

I doubt he will change his mind now.

Indeed -- the innexplicable Darwinist tactic of repeatedly pointing to this weakness in their own argument that Patterson is highlighting "AS if that is HELPFUL to darwinism" -- is mystifying!!

Notice what happens when we pay ATTENTION to the "continuation section" of that LETTER that Patterson TELLS us to "pay attention" to???

The specific quote you mention, from a letter to Sunderland dated 10th April 1979, is accurate as far as it goes. The passage quoted continues "... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test."

I think the continuation of the passage shows clearly that your interpretation (at the end of your letter) is correct, and the creationists' is false.

Much more so when you consider that each time they point to this whole in their argument they add a kind of "So that should convince Bob not to notice that gap anymore -- harrumph!"

Then when I try to lead them by the nose to the VERY QUOTE they are asking us all to focus on -- and I ask them to SHOW US how that "STORIES EASY ENOUGH TO MAKE UP" comment by Patterson can be spun to "And I mean that in a good way for Darwinism" -- they simply flounder with repeated "harrumph" as if this solves their problem in appealing to a GAP in their own argument (as Patterson does) is a kind of "benefit" to their "Just accept Darwinism on faith" argument. (BTW that faith-based argument is Another Point Patterson ALSO addresses).

When I try to make them "look" at the portion of AGREEMENT between Patterson and Sunderland (as Pattersons letter TO SUNDERLAND shows) and the portion of AGREEMENT between Patterson and Theunnisen where Theunnisen EXPANDS on HIS point of WHY fossils can never tell us what they are ancestor to nor descendant of -- the devoted darinist in true just-say-nay fashion pretends not to be able to read the rest of these letters where the very points Patterson claims to AGREE WITH are being highlighted!!

My understanding is that Bob is an absolutist: if he admits to a little doubt or uncertainty about his interpretation of any small part of the Bible,

1. Exercise for the objective reader: Note that The link given in the OP is NOT a Link pointing to a gap in the Bible -- as much as it might be fun to redirect this discussion around that way --

L.K - you are right about one thing - if you are going to challenge the Bible, the tactic of STARTING with a glaring gap in the story telling of atheist darwinism is not the "most logical tactic".

2. I do NOT recommend that Bible believing Christians use the tactic of trying to find some WEAKNESS in the Bible argument as their opening salvo to show the just-say-nay groups how reliable the Bible IS --

I never recommend that as a compelling way to win the debate.

As much as that must shock some of the Darwinists here who love to open with that tactic using what Patterson said in his letter.

Therefore, by Bob's logic, if an 'atheist [D]arwinist high priest' calls into question anything to do with evolutionary theory, the whole of evolutionary theory is placed in doubt.

Inded IF the "Story telling about how one thing came from another" is simply a vapid argument made out of thin air -- not science -- THEN THE WHOLE religion that claims to give a counter-Bible answer for HOW we got all these "things we see today and what OTHER thing they came from" going back to single celled life forms - is called into question.

Obviously.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Don't get me wrong -- I think this appeal to talkorigins as "proof for Darwinism" is the picture perfect example of what I mean when I say that the TalkOrigins content does not help darwinists in the way they continually "imagine to themselves" -

 

[lordkalvan]

My understanding is that Bob is an absolutist: if he admits to a little doubt or uncertainty about his interpretation of any small part of the Bible,

1. Exercise for the objective reader: Note that The link given in the OP is NOT a Link pointing to a gap in the Bible -- as much as it might be fun to redirect this discussion around that way --

L.K - you are right about one thing - if you are going to challenge the Bible, the tactic of STARTING with a glaring gap in the story telling of atheist darwinism is not the "most logical tactic".

You do not follow what I am saying and you twist my words to suit your own argument. My statement neither suggests 'a gap in the Bible' nor is it directed at 'challeng[ing] the Bible.' Read what I wrote: I argued that because I believe you would regard doubt or uncertainty about a part of the Bible as calling into question the whole of the Bible, you transfer this doctrine of absolutism - black/white, yes/no certainty - to the field of science (where it doesn't belong), leading you to the conclusion that if one evolutionary scientist admits doubt about some facet of evolutionary theory then that means that the whole of that theory is called into question. Which, as far as I understand it, seems to be the crux of the argument you derive from the alleged Patterson address and the subsequent correspondence.

[quote:c9efc] Therefore, by Bob's logic, if an 'atheist [D]arwinist high priest' calls into question anything to do with evolutionary theory, the whole of evolutionary theory is placed in doubt.

Inded IF the "Story telling about how one thing came from another" is simply a vapid argument made out of thin air -- not science -- THEN THE WHOLE religion that claims to give a counter-Bible answer for HOW we got all these "things we see today and what OTHER thing they came from" going back to single celled life forms - is called into question.[/quote:c9efc]

Which makes my point about your argument exactly. There are multiple lines of independent and largely consilient evidence that support evolutionary theory. The fossil record is one of these. That you think it has been shown to be wholly misleading on the basis of Dr Patterson's remarks is neither here nor there; the entire fossil record could be non-existent and the evidence for the validity of evolutionary theory would still be overwhelming.

 

[BobRyan]

Any theory that claims to use fossil evidence to show how "one thing came from another until eventually we end up with the diversity of life we see today" has a PROBLEM if it can not scientifically show "that any one thing actually came from another" using fossil evidence.

Obviously.

It is left as an exercise for the unbiased objective reader to discover just how much of a hill that on "Mount improbable" that is for the atheist darwinist story to "climb".

However that fact that some Darwinists think that highlighting that hill of difficulty is being brought to us by a Darwinist -- in the OP - (AS IF highlighting PROBLEMS for Darwinism is a way to prove the flaws exposed here "do not exist") - is mystifying!

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Since the OP starts at the end of a discussion - perhaps some "context" for the reader is appropriate.

1. Colin Patterson senior Paleontologist British Museum of Natural history -- home of Darwin -- keeper of 1/3 of the fossil evidence known to mankind -- published a book on evolution.

2. Luther Sunderland writes a letter to Patterson asking him WHY he did not include any transitional forms in his book. At the very least come up with some pictures or imaginative drawings.

3. Patterson writes a letter back to Sunderland explaining that he would gladly have included the fossil references IF any existed. He also argued against simply making up artistic presentations of what a transational form would look like if it were ever to be found. In addition he slams the idea of just "making up stories" when it comes to imagining "how one thing came from another".

That letter is available in it's entirety on this board.

4. Sunderland subsequently publishes a book and in addition to accurately reproducing Patterson's letter -- Sunderland draws his own creationist conclusion about the "significance" of the fact that no transitional fossils exist for use by Patterson. Obvious hint: Sunderland never claims that creationist "conclusions" are the conclusions of any atheist darwinist - the gap between atheists and Christians remains "wide" even in Sunderland's thinking.

5. Atheist Darwinist devotee Theunnisen objects to Sunderland's creationist conclusions and so writes Patterson about the letter that Patterson wrote to Sunderland - basically soliciting "help" for ways to bash creationists. Patterson's response to Theunnisen includes a quote from his own letter to Sunderland (letter ALREADY published in its entirety). Patterson essentially refuses to back down from the jabs he took at the Darwinist argument and his claim regarding the innability of science to get "ancestor-descendant" stories out of fossils.

As everyone expected - The Atheist Darwinist Patterson then says that he agrees with the darwinist conclusions of Theunnisen and not the creationist conclusions of Sunderland as to "the significance" of that missing Darwinist evidence in the fossil record. Even so Patterson in his letter continued to highlight the glaring hole in the darwinist pattern of "stories easy enough to make up" (Patterson's words). Essentially he refuses to "provide cover" for fellow darwinist believers though he himself as an atheist still has no other option but Darwinism -- the supreme religious doctrine in the atheist pile of dogma.

The Sunderland letter (Letter from Patterson to Sunderland) will be provided here - on this thread at some point.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

As promised -- Patterson's letter to Sunderland --

Sunderland
"I wrote to Dr. Patterson and asked him why he didn't put a single picture of an intermediate form or a connecting link in his book on evolution. Dr. Patterson now, who has seven million fossils in his museum, said the following when he answered my letter:

Sunderland – reports:

Before interviewing Dr Patterson, the author read his book, Evolution, which he had written for the British Museum of Natural History. In it he had solicited comments from readers about the book’s contents. One reader wrote a letter to Dr Patterson asking why he did not put a single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book.


On April 10, 1979, Patterson replied to the author (Sunderland) in a most candid letter as follows:

[quote:74e0c]

“ I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them.
You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?

I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record.

You say that I should at least show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived. I will lay it on the line- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. So, much as I should like to oblige you by jumping to the defence of gradualism, and fleshing out the transitions between the major types of animals and plants, I find myself a bit short of the intellectual justification necessary for the job “

[Ref: Patterson, personal communication. Documented in Darwin’s Enigma, Luther Sunderland, Master Books, El Cajon, CA, 1988, pp. 88-90.]

[/quote:74e0c]

Patterson was dealing with the fallacious philisophical tautology among the evolutionist when they define “transitional form†vs actual SCIENCE supporting evolutionism in the fossil record itself –
To them, (since they believe evolution is unquestionably true), any fossil of an extinct species IS probably a transition between (or a result of a transition between) Species-A and Species-B.

If Darwinists can not scientifically argue from the fossil data that “this one thing came from that other one†and that B shows genetic improvement or “evolution†in it’s progress from “A†then – we have a problem Houston! No wonder Dawkins gets so flummoxed when asked to show an example of this genetic advantage accumulating up the chain from species to species.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

No Wonder Darwinists at first claim the fossil evidence is their greatest friend only to later dish that evidence and attempt to support Darwinism ââ‚Å“some other wayâ€Â.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0Fmh8PCmrlk

Bob

 

[Jayls5]

Before I totally respond to your posts Bob, would you at least acknowledge that you are wrong/inaccurate in your assertion that evolution says there is genetic improvement. Or, at the very least, it is missing some necessary information that would justify that description.

Here's the quote I'm referring to specifically: "If Darwinists can not scientifically argue from the fossil data that “this one thing came from that other one†and that B shows genetic improvement or “evolution†in it’s progress from “A†then – we have a problem Houston!"

"Improvement" can really only be used in the sense that it applies to traits that assist in survival of animals in the environment it currently lives in. An "improvement" might be a complete reversal of a specific trait if the environment changes.

If you meant anything other than this by improvement, I'd say it sounds like a straw man.

 

[lordkalvan]

Any theory that claims to use fossil evidence to show how "one thing came from another until eventually we end up with the diversity of life we see today" has a PROBLEM if it can not scientifically show "that any one thing actually came from another" using fossil evidence.....

I would be interested in what you would consider to be evidence (fossil or otherwise) that evolutionary theory could be valid.

Conversely, what would you consider to be evidence (fossil or otherwise) that would falsify evolutionary theory?

 

[BobRyan]

Before I totally respond to your posts Bob, would you at least acknowledge that you are wrong/inaccurate in your assertion that evolution says there is genetic improvement.

Is it your argument that transition from single-celled life forms to humans "shows no genetic improvement"??

Is so -- you will be the first darwinist I have seen trying to make that case.

Jayls5

Here's the quote I'm referring to specifically:

[quote:25qvdpw9]Bob
"If Darwinists can not scientifically argue from the fossil data that “this one thing came from that other one†and that B shows genetic improvement or “evolution†in it’s progress from “A†then – we have a problem Houston!"

"Improvement" can really only be used in the sense that it applies to traits...
[/quote:25qvdpw9]

In any case - I gave you both "improvement" and "evolution" as hooks to hang your hat on -- for the purpose of not getting sidetracked down a rabbit trail.

Dawkins goes even further than I did --

QUESTION: What is your response to the view that some Christians are putting forward that God is the designer of the whole evolutionary system itself?
MR. DAWKINS: In the 19th century people disagreed with the principle of evolution, because it seemed to undermine their faith in God. Now there is a new way of trying to reinstate God, which is to say, well, we can see that evolution is true. Anybody who is not ignorant or a fool can see that evolution is true. So we smuggle God back in by suggesting that he set up the conditions in which evolution might take place. I find this a rather pathetic argument. For one thing, if I were God wanting to make a human being, I would do it by a more direct way rather than by evolution. Why deliberately set it up in the one way which makes it look as though you don't exist? It seems remarkably roundabout not to say a deceptive way of doing things.
But the other point is it's a superfluous part of the explanation. The whole point -- the whole beauty of the Darwinian explanation for life is that it's self-sufficient. [/color]

You start with essentially nothing -- you start with something very, very simple -- the origin of the Earth. And from that, by slow gradual degrees, as I put it "climbing mount improbable" -- by slow gradual degree you build up from simple beginnings and simple needs easy to understand, up to complicated endings like ourselves and kangaroos.

Now, the beauty of that is that it works. Every stage is explained, every stage is understood. Nothing extra, nothing extraneous needs to be smuggled in. It all works and it all -- it's a satisfying explanation. Now, smuggling in a God[/b who sets it all up in the first place, or who supervises the details, is simply to smuggle in an entity of the very kind that we are trying to explain -- namely, a complicated and beautifully designed higher intelligence. That's what we are trying to explain. We have a good explanation. Why smuggle in a superfluous adjunct which is unnecessary? It doesn't add anything to the explanation.

Dawkins admits that the "story telling about how one thing came from another" (as PAtterson puts it) STARTS with nothing and takes us to where we are today!

If you meant anything other than this by improvement, I'd say it sounds like a straw man.

Well -- then there is reading what these Darwinists actually say.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Any theory that claims to use fossil evidence to show how "one thing came from another until eventually we end up with the diversity of life we see today" has a PROBLEM if it can not scientifically show "that any one thing actually came from another" using fossil evidence.....

I would be interested in what you would consider to be evidence (fossil or otherwise) that evolutionary theory could be valid.

You mean "given that SCIENCE will not tell you what a fossil is ancestor TO or descendant OF"??

"Obviously" (by that I mean to refer to a fact that would be "incredibly obvious" ) seeing that essentially all species today normally give birth to other species (many of whom fail - some of whom survive for a few generations -- and a smaller group that is able to sustain itself and flourish) in a true boot-strap evolutionary fashion -- well you see the glaringly obvious point here.

Conversely, what would you consider to be evidence (fossil or otherwise) that would falsify evolutionary theory?

The fact that we do not see species doing what darwinists "need them to be doing" is falsification.

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

I would be interested in what you would consider to be evidence (fossil or otherwise) that evolutionary theory could be valid.

You mean "given that SCIENCE will not tell you what a fossil is ancestor TO or descendant OF"??

"Obviously" (by that I mean to refer to a fact that would be "incredibly obvious" ) seeing that essentially all species today normally give birth to other species (many of whom fail - some of whom survive for a few generations -- and a smaller group that is able to sustain itself and flourish) in a true boot-strap evolutionary fashion -- well you see the glaringly obvious point here.

It was a question I posed in the hope of a reasonable answer. As far as I understand, you have already indicated elsewhere* that you accept and agree that microevolution occurs. Some evidence must have convinced you of this. Ring species? Evolution of the AIDS virus? Selective host-viability of lice? Regardless of this evidence, however, this means that you already accept the validity of some part of evolutionary theory (so you are at least a little bit of a Darwinist after all). In which case, where does microevolution (which you appear to accept) end and macroevolution (which you obviously don't accept) begin? Do I understand you here to be saying that the only evidence that you would accept in support of evolution is a 'new' species being born to an 'existing' species? I am afraid I find your syntax somewhat confusing and difficult to follow.

[quote:1uv7f6nt]
Conversely, what would you consider to be evidence (fossil or otherwise) that would falsify evolutionary theory?

The fact that we do not see species doing what darwinists "need them to be doing" is falsification.[/quote:1uv7f6nt]
And what is this that species are not doing that they 'need ... to be doing'? 'Changing' into other species? Apes giving birth to human beings? If this is your argument you have a monumental misunderstanding of the underlying principles of evolutionary theory. Or perhaps you have deliberately constructed your evidential requirements as best you can in the expectation that they cannot be fulfilled by any criteria that you are prepared to accept? Are you invoking your understanding of the fossil record alone to evidentially falsify evolutionary theory?

Perhaps you should check out the concept of the discontinuous mind.

* http://www.christianforums.net/view...st=0&sk=t&sd=a&hilit=microevolution&start=165

 

[BobRyan]

Don't get me wrong - I really do enjoy watching Darwinists trying to "get around the obvious" point where they are stuck by pretending that they don't see it. So please don't take this as criticism of anything you are doing.

Going from single celled organism to the complex creatures that HUMANS are is EXACTLY the progressive simple-to-compex march of "improbable" outcome after "improbable" outcome that Dawkins said it was -- hence his 11 second flummox when asked to give a case where such a progressive up-the-ladder sequence was SEEN in nature rather than simply "assumed".

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The fact that we do not see species doing what darwinists "need them to be doing" is falsification.

And what is this that species are not doing that they 'need ... to be doing'? 'Changing' into other species? Apes giving birth to human beings? If this is your argument you have a monumental misunderstanding of the underlying principles of evolutionary theory. Or perhaps you have deliberately constructed your evidential requirements as best you can in the expectation that they cannot be fulfilled by any criteria that you are prepared to accept?

As was already pointed out about the PROGRESSION that Dawkins identifies for us -- to GO UP that ladder you need "a mechanism that is SEEN TO DO what you SUPPOSE it must be doing".

Here is what he said -- as he in fact went much farther than I did in my claims on that point.

QUESTION: What is your response to the view that some Christians are putting forward that God is the designer of the whole evolutionary system itself?
MR. DAWKINS: In the 19th century people disagreed with the principle of evolution, because it seemed to undermine their faith in God. Now there is a new way of trying to reinstate God, which is to say, well, we can see that evolution is true. Anybody who is not ignorant or a fool can see that evolution is true. So we smuggle God back in by suggesting that he set up the conditions in which evolution might take place. I find this a rather pathetic argument. For one thing, if I were God wanting to make a human being, I would do it by a more direct way rather than by evolution. Why deliberately set it up in the one way which makes it look as though you don't exist? It seems remarkably roundabout not to say a deceptive way of doing things.
But the other point is it's a superfluous part of the explanation. The whole point -- the whole beauty of the Darwinian explanation for life is that it's self-sufficient. [/color]

You start with essentially nothing -- you start with something very, very simple -- the origin of the Earth. And from that, by slow gradual degrees, as I put it "climbing mount improbable" -- by slow gradual degree you build up from simple beginnings and simple needs easy to understand, up to complicated endings like ourselves and kangaroos.

Now, the beauty of that is that it works. Every stage is explained, every stage is understood. Nothing extra, nothing extraneous needs to be smuggled in. It all works and it all -- it's a satisfying explanation. Now, smuggling in a God[/b who sets it all up in the first place, or who supervises the details, is simply to smuggle in an entity of the very kind that we are trying to explain -- namely, a complicated and beautifully designed higher intelligence. That's what we are trying to explain. We have a good explanation. Why smuggle in a superfluous adjunct which is unnecessary? It doesn't add anything to the explanation.

Dawkins admits that the "story telling about how one thing came from another" (as PAtterson puts it) STARTS with nothing and takes us to where we are today!

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

BTW -- have we already lost Dunzo?

What happened to his point?

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

The fact that we do not see species doing what darwinists "need them to be doing" is falsification.

And what is this that species are not doing that they 'need ... to be doing'? 'Changing' into other species? Apes giving birth to human beings? If this is your argument you have a monumental misunderstanding of the underlying principles of evolutionary theory. Or perhaps you have deliberately constructed your evidential requirements as best you can in the expectation that they cannot be fulfilled by any criteria that you are prepared to accept?

As was already pointed out about the PROGRESSION that Dawkins identifies for us -- to GO UP that ladder you need "a mechanism that is SEEN TO DO what you SUPPOSE it must be doing".

Here is what he said -- as he in fact went much farther than I did in my claims on that point.

<snipped irrelevant quote that addresses none of my questions>

Dawkins admits that the "story telling about how one thing came from another" (as PAtterson puts it) STARTS with nothing and takes us to where we are today!

Your quotation from Professor Dawkins bears no relation to my questions. If you want to discuss the mechanism of evolution, you would do better to reference books, articles and papers by scientists such as Professor Dawkins and UCL's Professor Steve Jones that actually address the mechanism of evolution in detail, rather than quoting soundbites from media interviews. If you want to discuss the question of abiogenesis, maybe you should start a new thread and begin looking at the research of the likes of NYU's Robert Shapiro and the Westheimer Institute's Steven Benner.

ETA: I remain curious as to any response you may give to the questions in the first part of my post that you have so far not addressed.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said;

Dawkins admits that the "story telling about how one thing came from another" (as PAtterson puts it) STARTS with nothing and takes us to where we are today!

Your quotation from Professor Dawkins bears no relation to my questions.

If your question is NOT about the progress of evolution from cell to man is NOT about the mechanism that is supposed to accomplish that miracle and is NOT about what we should be seeing today IF such story telling about "how one thing came from another" then you would have a point there.

What conversation were "you" having here?

If you want to discuss the mechanism of evolution, you would do better to reference books, articles and papers by scientists such as Professor Dawkins

Yes yes - quotes from Dawkins and Patterson ... I get that part... notice my references to their statements?

Now back to the subject.

If you want to discuss the question of abiogenesis, maybe you should start a new thread

Are you blaming me for the fact that Dawkins went so much farther than I did - with his "start from nothing" statement?

I am simply pointing to the glaringly obvious point that ALL of Darwinism is nothing more than "stories about how one thing came from another -- easy enough to make up" starting with a single cell and going to the highly complex "human and kangaroo" end-point (to use Dawkins' words).

You keep dancing around this AS if the glaringly obvious point regarding stories easy enough to make up is NOT the heart and soul of the story about how a single celled organism eventually evolves into the highly complex "human and kangaroo".

and begin looking at the research of the likes of NYU's Robert Shapiro and the Westheimer Institute's Steven Benner.

They have not shown anything like the story telling required for "nothing to humans and kangaroos" nor have they shown anything like "single celled organism to humans and kangaroos" nor have they shown anything above "story telling about how one thing came from another" to imagine things like "ancient primate to human"

I remain curious as to any response you may have to the issue of "one thing coming from another" vs the core of evolutionism. How in the world will you tell a "single cell to human" story without "one thing coming from another" -- species B coming from species A.

As I already made quite clear to have that mythical process going on such that we have the PROGRESSION of single-celled organism to human -- we should be seeing "one thing coming from another" all the time -- most of them failures in the short term... many of them failures only in mid-term and a small number being successes.

The 11 second flummoxed response of Dawkins when asked about such examples -- is "instructive" to the unbiased objective reader.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

No Wonder Darwinists at first claim the fossil evidence is their greatest friend only to later dish that evidence and attempt to support Darwinism “some other wayâ€Â.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=0Fmh8PCmrlk

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

^ I admire the rhetoric, but notice that it in no way answers the questions I asked of you.

Your selected quotations from Professor Dawkins (and Dr Patterson) are not references from academic papers, articles or books, so suggesting that they satisfy any meaningful discussion of their understanding of evolutionary theory is scarcely helpful.

Abiogenesis is not relevant to my questions, while your labelling of serious, complex and difficult scientific research based on sound principles, learning and understanding as 'story telling' trivialises any attempt at a meaningful discussion. Are you familiar with Professor Shapiro's work at all, for example, or are you just rubbishing it on principle?

If you want to discuss the significance of transitional forms in the fossil record, perhaps you could deal with my outstanding questions first of all?

 

[BobRyan]

... leading you to the conclusion that if one evolutionary scientist admits doubt about some facet of evolutionary theory then that means that the whole of that theory is called into question. Which, as far as I understand it, seems to be the crux of the argument you derive from the alleged Patterson address and the subsequent correspondence.

Bob said
Inded IF the "Story telling about how one thing came from another" is simply a vapid argument made out of thin air -- not science -- THEN THE WHOLE religion that claims to give a counter-Bible answer for HOW we got all these "things we see today and what OTHER thing they came from" going back to single celled life forms - is called into question.

Which makes my point about your argument exactly.

And it appears to make my point as well. The MEANS by which you propose something "happens" has to be shown to be valid - (i.e something OTHER than "stories easy enough to make up") for you to even have an argument to start with.

There are multiple lines of independent and largely consilient evidence that support evolutionary theory. The fossil record is one of these.

One that apparently is not working BEYOND the level of "stories easy enough to make up"

That you think it has been shown to be wholly misleading on the basis of Dr Patterson's remarks is neither here nor there;

How can it "be true even if it is not true since it does not matter if it is true" -- what kind of argument is that???

the entire fossil record could be non-existent and the evidence for the validity of evolutionary theory would still be overwhelming.

Well even if we leave the realm of fossils it can easily be shown that we are still not leaving "stories easy enough to make up but they are NOT science". (though I suppose you claim that "darwinist stories easy enough to make up - but they are not science" is a "good thing" for darwinism in general).

Bob