Refuting Darwinism, point by point

WorldNetDaily,com ^ | 1-11-03 | Interview of James Perloff

[DWar]

EVOLUTION WATCH Refuting Darwinism, point by point Author's new book presents case against theory in just 83 pages

Posted: January 11, 2003 1:00 a.m. Eastern

Editor's note: In 1999, author James Perloff wrote the popular "Tornado in a Junkyard," which summarizes much of the evidence against evolution and is considered one of the most understandable (while still scientifically accurate) books on the subject. Recently, WND talked with Perloff about his new book, "The Case Against Darwin."

© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

QUESTION: Your new book is just 83 pages – and the type is large. What gives?

ANSWER: This past March I got a call from Ohio. There has been a battle there to allow critical examination of evolutionary theory in public schools, and a gentleman wanted 40 copies of Tornado to give to state legislators and school board members. I was delighted to send him the books, but I also knew that a state legislator isn't likely to pick up anything that's 321 pages long.

Q: And not just state legislators.

A: Right. We live in an age when parents often don't have time to read anything long, and their kids, who are usually more into video, may not have the inclination.

Q: So what's the focus of this book?

A: I've divided it into three chapters. The first is called "Is Darwin's Theory Relevant to Our Lives?" In other words, is the subject of this book worth my time or not? A lot of people think this is simply a science issue. And to some of them, science is booooring. But actually, it's the teaching of Darwin's theory as a "fact" that starts many young people doubting the existence of God. Once we stop believing in God, we discard his moral laws and start making up our own rules, which is basically why our society is in so much trouble. In short, Darwinism is very relevant – it's much more than a science matter.

Q: You, yourself, were an atheist for many years, were you not, as a result of evolutionary teaching?

A: That's right. I thought evolution had discredited the Bible. In my books, I give examples of notables who became atheists from being taught evolution, such as Stalin and Carnegie. In fact, the atheist Boy Scout who's been in the news reportedly attributes his atheism to being taught evolution.

Q: Why do you think evolution has such a persuasively negative effect on faith?

A: First, it's taught as "scientific fact." When kids hear "scientific fact," they think "truth." Who wants to go against truth? Second, it's the only viewpoint that's taught. After the Supreme Court kicked God out of schools in the '60s, kids heard the evolutionist viewpoint exclusively. It's like going to a courtroom – if you only heard the prosecutor's summation, you would probably think the defendant guilty. But if you only heard the defendant's attorney, you'd think "innocent." The truth is, we need to hear both sides, and kids haven't been getting it on the subject of origins.

Q: OK, then what?

A: The second chapter is "Evidence Against the Theory of Evolution." Let's face it, no matter what Darwinism's social ramifications, that alone would not be a sufficient basis to criticize it, if it were scientifically proven true.

Q: In a nutshell – if that's possible – what is the scientific evidence against Darwinism?

A: In the book, I focus on six areas of evidence. First, mutations – long claimed by evolutionists to be the building blocks of evolutionary change – are now known to remove information from the genetic code. They never create higher, more complex information – even in the rare cases of beneficial mutations, such as bacterial resistance to antibiotics. That has been laid out by Dr. Lee Spetner in his book "Not By Chance."

Q: What else?

A: Second, cells are now known to be far too complex to have originated by some chance concurrence of chemicals, as Darwin hypothesized and is still being claimed. We detail that in the book. Third, the human body has systems, such as blood clotting and the immune system, that are, in the words of biochemist Michael Behe, "irreducibly complex," meaning they cannot have evolved step-by-step. Behe articulated that in his book "Darwin's Black Box." And then there is the whole issue of transitional forms.

Q: What is a transitional form?

A: Darwin's theory envisioned that single-celled ancestors evolved into invertebrates (creatures without a backbone), who evolved into fish, who evolved into amphibians, who evolved into reptiles, who evolved into mammals. Now, a transitional form would be a creature intermediate between these. There would have to be a great many for Darwin's theory to be true.

Q: Are there?

A: There are three places to look for transitional forms. First, there's the living world around us. We see that it is distinctly divided – you have invertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles and mammals. But we don't see transitionals between them. If these creatures ever existed, why did none survive? It is too easy to explain it away by saying they all became extinct. And of course, there is the question: Why aren't these creatures evolving into each other today? Why aren't invertebrates evolving into fish today? Why aren't fish growing little legs and so forth?

Q: Where else would you look for a transitional form?

A: In the fossil record. And here we have a problem of almost comparable magnitude. We find no fossils showing how the invertebrates evolved, or demonstrating that they came from a common ancestor. That's why you hear of the "Cambrian explosion." And while there are billions of fossils of both invertebrates and fish, fossils linking them are missing. Of course, there are some transitional fossils cited by evolutionists. However, two points about that. First, there should be a lot more if Darwin's theory is correct. Second, 99 percent of the biology of an organism is in its soft anatomy, which you cannot access in a fossil – this makes it easy to invest a fossil with a highly subjective opinion. The Piltdown Man and the recent Archaeoraptor are examples of how easy it is to be misled by preconceptions in this arena.

Q: What is the other place where you can look for transitional forms?

A: Microscopically, in the cell itself. Dr. Michael Denton, the Australian molecular biologist, examined these creatures on a molecular level and found no evidence whatsoever for the fish-amphibian-reptile-mammal sequence. He summarized his findings in his book "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis."

The last chapter is "Re-evaluating Some Evidences Used to Support the Theory" of evolution. That would include evidences that have been discredited, and also some evidences presented as proof that in fact rest on assumptions.

Q: What evidences have been discredited?

A: Ernst Haeckel's comparative embryo drawings. The human body being laden with "vestigial structures" from our animal past. Human blood and sea water having the same percentage of salt. Babies being born with "monkey tails." These are not foundational evidences, but they still hold sway in the public mind.

Q: You mentioned assumptions as proofs.

A: Yes. Anatomical similarities between men and animals are said to prove common ancestry. But intelligent design also results in innumerable similarities, as in the case of two makes of automobile. Also, what has been called "microevolution" – minor adaptive changes within a type of animal – is extrapolated as evidence for "macroevolution" – the changing of one kind of animal into another. However, a species is normally endowed with a rich gene pool that permits a certain amount of variation and adaptation. Certainly, those things happen. But the change is ordinarily limited to the confines of the gene pool. It doesn't mean a fish could adapt its way into being a human.

Q: You covered a lot of this ground in "Tornado in a Junkyard." Can readers expect something new from "The Case Against Darwin"?

A: There is a bit of new material, but no, if you've read "Tornado," or for that matter, if you read the July 2001 Whistleblower, where we looked at evolution, you already know most of the points. What's new is the size. This is a book to give to a busy friend, a book for a high-school student to share with his science teacher.

"The Case Against Darwin" by James Perloff is available from ShopNetDaily.

[Dan Day]

Come one, come all, see the Gore3000 vs Dan Day cage match! Two men enter, one man leaves!

Okay, gore3000, time to enter the sudden-death match.

You have been claiming for quite some time that transition from an egg-laying birth method to a placental birth method is "impossible", because a) it couldn't happen all in one generation, and b) it couldn't happen gradually across multiple generations either.

I agree with you on "a", so no need to argue that one. That leaves us with the proposition of whether it is provably impossible to do it gradualistically across multiple generations, as you claim, or whether nothing impossible obviously stands in the way of the transition.

You, remarkably enough, claim:

"However, that many of the essential parts of it had to have occurred in a single generation is also very obvious and this totally disproves evolution since they clearly could not have." [your post #886] -- *tagged G3K_statement_001*

What's remarkable about this is that you're claiming to know with certainty what some "essential parts" would be, *and* have a list of one or more them which "very obviously" had to occur "in a single generation", *and* that at least one of these alleged combinations is so unlikely as to "totally disprove evolution". *tagged DD_statement_001*

If I haven't stated your position properly, speak up now...

So let's have a clean, orderly debate on that proposition.

Rules of the deathmatch

Rule #1: Responses will alternate. This is my turn, after I post this it'll be your turn to respond, then mine, etc.

Rule #2: Participants (that's you and me) can ask each other numbered questions relating to the deathmatch issue any time it is their turn to post. (Questions must be numbered to designate them as "official" questions as opposed to just rhetorical questions, requests for clarification, etc.)

Rule #3: All numbered questions *must* be answered by the recipient during his next turn

Rule #4: Failure to clearly and specifically post an answer to any question will count as "sudden death" and forfeit the match, resulting in the win of the other participant.

Rule #5: Defensive answers (e.g., "I don't have to tell you that") count as failure to answer and will forfeit the match.

Rule #6: Posing questions which clearly have no direct bearing on the matter at issue (e.g. "why is there air?", asked Dataman) will result in forfeiture.

Rule #7: Personal insults, broadsides against any particular belief system, etc., are off limits. The first person to throw a cheap shot loses. This is about proving/disproving a claim, and sticking to the topic.

Rule #8: There is no rule #8.

Rule #9: Failing to respond to a post within 48 hours will be considered forfeiture of the match.

Rule #10: The match ends when one of the following occurs:

a) Someone forfeits according to the above rules.

b) Gore3000 wins if he proposes a step in the transition which is both clearly *necessary* to happen in a single generation, *and* statistically impossible to have happened in a single generation -- and Dan Day can't refute it by showing that it's not actually necessary, could workably be done over more than one generation, or is not impossible after all.

c) Dan Day wins if he can propose a complete sequence of gradualistic steps from egg-laying to a successful placental-birth (no matter how primitive as long as it could in theory work), each step by itself a selective advantage and not ridiculously unlikely -- which Gore3000 can not refute by showing some specific insurmountable likelihood, or pointing out a truly required missing step.

d) Dan Day also wins if he shoots down all of Gore3000's "impossibilities" (see "b") and Gore3000 can't come up with a worthy new one over the next 48 hours.

e) Someone concedes.

Rule #11: No one has to prove that things *did* happen the way they suggest, only that it *could* in theory. We're only arguing "impossible even in theory -- or not" here, remember, *not* reconstruction of the true history of life, or evolution as a whole, or the operation of DNA, etc.

Rule #12: The rules can be modified with the consent of both parties -- I'm not interested in having anyone win (or lose) on a technicality or due to poor/ambiguous rules or "gotchas".

Rule #13: Both parties must act in "good faith" (be honest, sincere, show trust, etc.) No weaseling, evasions, attempts to use loopholes in the rules, running out the timer, catch-22's, "have you stopped beating your wife", etc.

And now on with the show

(My "official" questions to you will be flagged with labels of the form, "DD?###", where "DD" signifies that it's my question to you, "?" flags it as a question, and "###" is the numeric sequence number for easy reference.)

I hope you'll decide to participate, since you seem very confident about claim to your ability to "prove" it. So I don't see why you should have any qualms about putting it to a real test. And it should be fun, I hope.

My first round of questions deals with making sure the rules are acceptable, and that we agree on the fairness of the deathmatch as a test of your claim.

DD?001: Gore3000, do you accept this formal, "by the rules" debate on your claim? (Yes or no)

DD?002: Do you agree with my understanding of your claim as summarized in the paragraph tagged "DD_statement_001" (and if not, how should it be modified to be a more accurate summary while still a *testable* one -- i.e., one which can possibly be successfully proven *or* successfully falsified)?

DD?003: Do you agree that this is a fair way to put your claim to the test, since (my reasoning goes) in order to prove your claim you should be able to point to a *specific*, *necessary* stage which *must* be done in a single generation but can not plausibly *be* done?

DD?004: Do you also agree that if you can't point specifically to such a step, you have personally failed to prove the "total impossibility" of such a gradualistic transition?

DD?005: Do you accept the rules as I have proposed them, or would you like to propose some changes/additions before we get fully into the debate?

You now have 48 hours to respond.

[Dan Day]

Problem is that science keeps disproving evolution:

[List of 5 things snipped]

So as you can see, your statement is absolutely wrong.

I don't think that gore3000 is interested in hearing the many errors in his list (and trying to correct every false claim he makes in all of his posts would be more than a full time job), so to save time I'll just mention that there are a ton of things very wrong each of with his points here, and if any lurkers (no, not the usual creationist crowd) are curious to hear the flaws, send me a FreepMail and I'll detail them for you.

I can't resist giving one quick taste, though...

We also in spite of having 100 times more fossils that in Darwin's time have the same vast gaps between major classifications of species

"Same vast gaps between major classifications", eh?

In Darwin's time there was indeed a "vast gap" in the fossil record between, say, whales and horses. Both are mammals and, by the theory of evolution, should have a common ancestor, but there were no fossils which showed this.

According to gore3000, we have the "same vast gaps" today. So then how does he explain the fact that the "vast gap" is today filled with *this* beautifully gradual sequence of transitional fossils??

Hyopsodus to whales:

• Eoconodon or similar triisodontine arctocyonids (early Paleocene) Unspecialized condylarths quite similar to the early oxyclaenid condylarths, but with strong canine teeth (showing first meat-eating tendencies), blunt crushing cheek teeth, and flattened claws instead of nails.
• Microclaenodon (mid-Paleocene) -- A transitional genus intermediate between Eoconodon and the mesonychids, with molar teeth reorganizing in numerous ways to look like premolars. Adapted more toward carnivory.
• Dissacus (mid-Paleocene) -- A mesonychid (rather unspecialized Paleocene meat-eating animal) with molars more like premolars & several other tooth changes. Still had 5 toes in the foot and a primitive plantigrade posture.
• Hapalodectes or a very similar mesonychid (early Eocene, around 55 Ma) -- A small mesonychid with very narrow shearing molars, a distinctively shaped zygomatic arch, and peculiar vascularized areas between the molars. Probably a running animal that could swim by paddling its feet. Hapalodectes itself may be just too late to be the whale ancestor, but probably was a close relative of the whale ancestor. Says Carroll (1988): "The skulls of Eocene whales bear unmistakable resemblances to those of primitive terrestrial mammals of the early Cenozoic. Early [whale] genera retain a primitive tooth count with distinct incisors, canines, premolars,, and multirooted molar teeth. Although the snout is elongate, the skull shape resembles that of the mesonychids, especially Hapalodectes...."
• Pakicetus (early-mid Eocene, 52 Ma) -- The oldest fossil whale known. Same skull features as Hapalodectes, still with a very terrestrial ear (tympanic membrane, no protection from pressure changes, no good underwater sound localization), and therefore clearly not a deep diver. Molars still have very mesonychid-like cusps, but other teeth are like those of later whales. Nostrils still at front of head (no blowhole). Whale- like skull crests and elongate jaws. Limbs unknown. Only about 2.5 m long. This skull was found with terrestrial fossils and may have been amphibious, like a hippo.
• Ambulocetus natans (early-mid Eocene, 50 Ma) -- A recently discovered early whale, with enough of the limbs and vertebrae preserved to see how the early whales moved on land and in the water. This whale had four legs! Front legs were stubby. Back legs were short but well-developed, with enormous broad feet that stuck out behind like tail flukes. Had no true tail flukes, just a long simple tail. Size of a sea lion. Still had a long snout with no blowhole. Probably walked on land like a sea lion, and swam with a seal/otter method of steering with the front feet and propelling with the hind feet. So, just as predicted, these early whales were much like modern sea lions -- they could swim, but they could also still walk on land. (Thewissen et al., 1994)
• Rodhocetus (mid-Eocene, 46 Ma) -- Another very recent (1993) fossil whale discovery. Had hind legs a third smaller than those of A. natans. Could probably still "waddle" a bit on land, but by now it had a powerful tail (indicated by massive tail vertebrae) and could probably stay out at sea for long periods of time. Nostrils had moved back a bit from the tip of the snout.
• Basilosaurus isis, Protocetes, Indocetus ramani and similar small-legged whales of the mid-late Eocene (45-42 Ma) -- After Rodhocetus came several whales that still had hind legs, but couldn't walk on them any more. For example, B. isis (42 Ma) had hind feet with 3 toes and a tiny remnant of the 2nd toe (the big toe is totally missing). The legs were small and must have been useless for locomotion, but were specialized for swinging forward into a locked straddle position -- probably an aid to copulation for this long-bodied, serpentine whale. B. isis may have been a "cousin" to modern whales, not directly ancestral. Another recent discovery is Protocetes, a slightly more advanced whale from the late Eocene. It was about 3m long (dolphin sized), and still had primitive dentition, nostrils at end of snout, and a large pelvis attached to the spine; limbs unknown. Finally Indocetus is known from only fragmentary remains, but these include a tibia. These late Eocene legged whales still had mesonychid-like teeth, and in fact, some of the whale fossils were first mis-identified as mesonychids when only the teeth were found. ( See Gingerich et al. (1990) for more info on B. isis.)
• Prozeuglodon (late Eocene, 40 Ma) Another recently discovered whale, found in 1989. Had almost lost the hind legs, but not quite: still carried a pair of vestigial 6- inch hind legs on its 15-foot body.
• Eocetus, & similar "archeocete whales" of the late Eocene These more advanced whales have lost their hind legs entirely, but retain a"primitive whale" skull and teeth, with unfused nostrils. They grew to larger body size (up to 25m by the end of the Eocene), an had an elongate, streamlined body, flippers, and a cartilaginous tail fluke. The ear was modified for hearing underwater. Note that this stage of aquatic adaptation was attained about 15 million years after the first terrestrial mesonychids.
• Dorudon intermedius -- a late Eocene whale probably ancestral to modern whales.

In the Oligocene, whales split into two lineages:

1. Toothed whales:
   • Agorophius (late Oligocene) -- Skull partly telescoped, but cheek teeth still rooted. Intermediate in many ways between archaeocetes and later toothed whales.
   • Prosqualodon (late Oligocene) -- Skull fully telescoped with nostrils on top (blowhole). Cheek teeth increased in number but still have old cusps. Probably ancestral to most later toothed whales (possibly excepting the sperm whales?)
   • Kentriodon (mid-Miocene) -- Skull telescoped, still symmetrical. Radiated in the late Miocene into the modern dolphins and small toothed whales with asymmetrical skulls.
2. Baleen (toothless) whales:
   • Aetiocetus (late Oligocene) -- The most primitive known mysticete whale and probably the stem group of all later baleen whales. Had developed mysticete-style loose jaw hinge and air sinus, but still had all its teeth. Later,
   • Mesocetus (mid-Miocene) lost its teeth.
   • Modern baleen whales first appeared in the late Miocene.

And then then there's an equally impressive chain of transitional fossils between Hyopsodus and horses.

"Same vast gaps"? Don't make me laugh.

The real kicker is that such chains of transitional fossils were predicted by evolutionary theory (even before they were found), but *have no good explanation* under creatoinist dogma -- which is why Gore3000 has to simply (and falsely) declare that they don't exist, as he did above.

[Dan Day]

That there is nothing but matter though is easily refuted - consciousness, conscience, intelligence, logic, mathematics, love have no material existence.

Then how is it that dousing your neurons in alcohol (or other drugs) affects them?

[Dan Day]

from your fellow evolutionist Dan Day whose every other sentence is an insult.

Please quote any passage of mine, more than four sentences in length, where "every other sentence is an insult".

Furthermore, if you don't think that *you're* being quite "in your face" and provocative with such comments as, "Thus any study that claims to use a molecular clock is dishonest and absolute nonsense", then you need to sit down and take a good look at yourself.

If you don't like getting some back in return, tone down your *own* rhetoric.

[DWar]

He shows a bunch of pictures, then says that it is impossible to get there from here. Where are the facts, and where are the persuasive arguments? I haven't seen any.

I think many of G3K's critics have not examined his presentation very well. G3K presents many facts regarding the many systemic changes required to go from egg laying to live bearing. His point is that the changes necessary could not have occurred over many generations because the fetus from one generation to the next would not have lived if the changes had happened one or two at a time. On the other hand, the statistical probability of all of the necessary changes to have occurred in both the mother and fetus in one generation by random mutation and still produce a living thing is beyond believable.

MOST of the in between steps ACTUALLY exist in nature NOW.

The existence of different systems of reproduction in different species is not a demonstration that they are, could be or ever have been intermediate steps in changes in reproductive systems within the same species.

G3K is pointing out (1) that each individual part of the reproductive process is so critical to producing a living offspring and that the order of change required to transform from egg laying to live bearing is so enormous, it is not believable that the individual reproductive systems he spoke of could change a generation at a time and still result in live progeny capable of reproducing themselves. (2) The alternative to gradual changes over generations is a rapid change in one generation. Given the complexity and volume of changes required, this too is not believable as a result of random mutations.

The burden of proof is on the evolutionist to DEMONSTRATE for each successive generation how EACH of the steps in between could occur and EACH TIME produce a living offspring capable of reproducing.

[Dan Day]

What facts?

He shows a bunch of pictures, then says that it is impossible to get there from here. Where are the facts, and where are the persuasive arguments?

I haven't seen any.

Exactly. Sure, he has posted a lot of "facts" -- he has cut and pasted page after page from several biology websites.

But where he has failed is in tying those "data spews" to his actual argument.

The closest he has come has been to say in effect, "see, that sure is complicated, thus it's *impossible* to happen gradually because, um, I think gradualism can only do so much!"

Okay, that's an opinion, and he's welcome to it, but it's not an established fact, and it's neither the "logic" nor "science" nor "proof" he keeps telling us it is. It's just a declaration.

He could have saved a lot of time and gotten by with one tenth of the posts if he had just gone to the *actual* heart of the matter and pointed to any *one* feature and explained a) why it's arguably *necessary*, b) why it's arguably not possible to split into any smaller steps, and c) why that feature couldn't have been acquired in a single generation.

He never did that. If he *had*, we'd have to declare defeat and go cry in our beers. But lacking that, he's just waving his arms and quoting biology books at random, hoping to make up in quantity what he lacks in quality.

Tell you what, DWar, since you seem to think that he has "been very convincing" in his presentation, point out to me the part I missed, the part where he actually showed *the* step that couldn't have been achieved in smaller steps, and which by itself was too big to happen at all.

Go for it.

Lacking that, it just goes back to an empty declaration of, "gee, that sure is elaborate, thus it must be *impossible*".

That's no proof (and he *promised* a "proof"), that's just an emotional appeal, trying to boggle the reader and scare him away from the idea that the mountain is climbable.

[Dan Day]

Evolution is not science. It has more holes than Swiss Cheese that's why evolutionists are unwilling to discuss the evidence for it.

I'm always willing to discuss the evidence for it. So you're wrong about that too.

They have no worthwhile evidence for evolution.

Sure we do. What about the evidence of endogenous retroviruses, for example? Note: The website URL you flung at me as "proof" that the evidence has been "beaten to death" was laughable, so you'll have to do better than that. Try a refutation in your own words, for starters. Don't rely on others to do your thinking for you.

[Dan Day]

I think many of G3K's critics have not examined his presentation very well.

Oh, I understood him just fine. And when I pointed out problems in his presentation, or things which he had in error, or which he had not considered which required modification to his argument, he either totally ignored them, or dismissed them out of hand (as the mood struck him), then he reposted his original spam dumps.

He really needs to start working on listening if he's going to have something that resembles an actual debate.

G3K presents many facts regarding the many systemic changes required to go from egg laying to live bearing.

Yes he did.

His point is that the changes necessary could not have occurred over many generations because the fetus from one generation to the next would not have lived if the changes had happened one or two at a time.

And there he was wrong, for the reason I pointed out *MANY TIMES*, which he kept ignoring: Since the system starts out from an egg-laying configuration, it has a yolk sack which can feed the embryo for several weeks. This system will *continue to work* and feed the embryo over *however many* generations it may take to get a supplemental placental feeding system "up and running".

The embryo WILL NOT STARVE.

He never appropriately tackled that issue, and I'm astounded that you could have overlooked it as well, since I pointed it out, oh, a dozen times or so.

On the other hand, the statistical probability of all of the necessary changes to have occurred in both the mother and fetus in one generation by random mutation and still produce a living thing is beyond believable.

I agree.

The existence of different systems of reproduction in different species is not a demonstration that they are, could be or ever have been intermediate steps in changes in reproductive systems within the same species.

It does prove, however, that certain intermediate stages are truly workable, which greatly strengthens the point that they at least *could* have been used as "stepping-stone" stages.

G3K is pointing out (1) that each individual part of the reproductive process is so critical to producing a living offspring

Unfortunately, many of his "critical" parts turned out to be completely unnecessary in the cow placenta, which really undercut his argument.

and that the order of change required to transform from egg laying to live bearing is so enormous, it is not believable that the individual reproductive systems he spoke of could change a generation at a time and still result in live progeny capable of reproducing themselves.

First, saying "it's enormous, it doesn't seem believable" is not a "proof", it's an appeal to emotion.

Second, it's well known that slow processes, over enough time, can produce mind-bogglingly large results. Flowing water barely erodes rock, but over enough time it carved the Grand Canyon. The Appalachian mountains have been worn down to nubs of their former selves. The enormous Mississippi River delta was laid down a grain of silt at a time.

This is indicates that at the very least, "common sense" is likely to be wrong about how much can be done by small changes given large amounts of time for them to accumulate.

In order to rule out a particular outcome, at the *very* least you're going to have to do some number-crunching to make estimates of how much change can be accumulated in how much time given sensible estimates of how much is likely to be able to change per small time unit. Gore3000 never even made a stab at that.

Then, beyond that, in order to have something resembling an actual "proof" instead of a statistical argument, he would have to identify a particular step which was insurmountable by itself. Because if there *are* no insurmountable steps, then there's nothing at all stopping the whole chain from happening, one bit at a time.

As for "still result in live progeny capable of reproducing themselves", again, there's the issue that simply retaining the initial yolk-feeding processing is enough to "keep feeding" the embryos generation after generation until enough of a placental system is cobbled together to finally make the yolk redundant and dispensible. But during the vast "in between" period, even a partially working placenta can give a selective advantage as it supplements the yolk (as in some marsupials), even if it can't even come close to fully replacing it yet.

In sum, it's one thing to say, "that seems unlikely to me". If Gore3000 had said *that*, I'd have told him I disagreed, but it wouldn't have become a big issue.

But he didn't, he claimed to have actual *proof* (strong word) that it was "totally impossible" (*very* strong words). If he's going to make *THAT* strong of a statement, he sure as hell had better be able to back it up *very* rigorously, as by-gosh PROOF -- or he should retract the too-strong claim and revert to a statement of just his personal judgement about whether it seems "likely" or not.

It's like the difference between me saying I believed a 500 mpg car was possible, versus me saying I had *proof* one was possible. The former is an interesting speculation. The latter is a cocky claim of real knowledge, and it would be guaranteed to draw people from everywhere saying, "ok, Mr. Smarty, *show* us this 'proof' you say you have..."

Or consider the great difference between "I think Iraq has WMD's" versus "I can prove Iraq has WMD's"... Doesn't the latter make you want to insist on *seeing* it? Wouldn't you feel cheated if the answer was, "well, doesn't it seems pretty likely that..."

Gore3000 claimed to have proof. He never showed any such *proof*, he only showed a "gee, don't you agree that's an elaborate process?" appeal.

Thus the abuse. We're challenging him to show the alleged "proof", or back off on his overblown claim.

(2) The alternative to gradual changes over generations is a rapid change in one generation. Given the complexity and volume of changes required, this too is not believable as a result of random mutations.

That's not in dispute.

The burden of proof is on the evolutionist to DEMONSTRATE for each successive generation how EACH of the steps in between could occur and EACH TIME produce a living offspring capable of reproducing.

No, actually, it's not (although the "retain the yolk" point pretty much covers the harder spots).

It *would* have been if we had claimed to be able to *prove* that the transition was doable. We didn't make any such claim. We have no burden of proof.

Gore3000, on the other hand, stepped right up to the plate and volunteered the statement that he had "disproved" the very idea. Well, then -- he who makes a claim had better be able to support it, or withdraw it.

(Sidebar: No, it doesn't automatically invalidate evolution that we don't have a "possibility proof" for the transition at the moment. Right now it's just an unproven issue *either way* (although deeper analysis of DNA will likely shed a lot more light on the subject than Gore3000 believes possible). But this no more invalidates evolution than the fact that geologists haven't yet verified that every layer of rock in the world conforms to their theories of stratification invalidates geology. What makes these fields sciences, however, is that they *could* be invalidated by an eventual theory-violating discovery of that type. What makes them *trustworthy* sciences is that despite literally millions of "now let's check *this* out" reality-checks, they haven't yet met any insurmountable difficulties.)

[Dan Day]

Darwin's racist claim that the brachyocephalic index showed what races were superior and which were inferior

Document this slur, or retract it. I insist.

Before you play "the race card", be sure you know what you're talking about.

In all of Darwin's writings which I have read, he took great pains to state that he considered all living races of man to be equal intellectually and spiritually. And that's especially admirable given the era in which he lived and the "conventional wisdom" on race at the time.

[DWar]

I think the burden of proof is on you, Dan.

In post 898, G3K has simply pointed out:

(1) the extreme complexity involved in transforming from egg laying to live bearing

(2) the unlikelihood that this could occur a step at a time and produce live offspring and

(3) the unlikelihood that random mutations could cause this change in one generation.

The complexity of the changes required, the critical to life nature of each change and the volume of changes necessary seem to support G3K's contention.

The burden of proof is on you. You can't just say, "I have this theory that egg laying animals evolved over time into live bearing animals and if you don't believe it prove me wrong." You are the one that has to prove the theory right.

Tell me...what was the progression of events? What was the first mutation in the egg laying reproductive system that started the journey towards live bearing? What was the structural change involved? What were the chemical changes involved? How did these structural and chemical changes affect the other reproductive subsystems? What reciprocal changes were necessary in the embryo? How is it that this change did not kill the embryo? What was the next mutation? and the next? and the next?

[DWar]

Sorry if I'm a slow poster. You seem to have already addressed some of the questions I had in my last post before I finished posting them.

If the disagreement with gore is that he has said arrogantly that he can disprove evolution using the egg laying to live bearing example, then you may have a point.

However, I think he has more successfully demonstrated the difficulty and UNLIKELIHOOD of this transformation's having occurred than you have demonstrated that it did. I don't think there is much credibility in phrases like "cobbled together" or "this is what could have happened".

First, saying "it's enormous, it doesn't seem believable" is not a "proof", it's an appeal to emotion.

No it is not an appeal to emotion to say that the problem appears too large for the solution proposed. It is an appeal to logic and rational thought.

It does prove, however, that certain intermediate stages are truly workable,

I think this is too great a leap. The potential viability of certain stages observed in one species as a possible transitional form in another species is far from demonstrating that it was such an intermediate stage.

[beavus]

Only a dishonest evolutionist would claim that I have provided nothing to back up my statements.

Perhaps a dishonest evolutionist would claim such a thing, *but I did not*.

You started with what I hoped were sincere posts but have degenerated to outright refusal to read my replies let alone respond to them. What is it with you people that you refuse any kind of true dialogue but instead insist on carrying on publicly your own concocted internal debate? You build a mental wall against any kind of communication.

If you want to continue a discussion (and it appears you don't), then please repond to my previous post and we will continue from there. I will not be dragged into simply retyping my previous post for the sake of someone who only feigns interest in it.

And stop polluting this thread by reposting text which adds nothing to my own years of study let alone demonstrating the conclusivity of your claims.

[beavus]

Sorry, your "proof" is neither conclusive, nor provable.

That you will never be able to pound this simple fact of logic through his concrete defensive bunker of a mind is a testament either to the power of his cult or the weakness of his intellect.

At some point you have to accept that some people are not interested in understanding, and leave them to their own kind of happiness.

[beavus]

However, I think he has more successfully demonstrated the difficulty and UNLIKELIHOOD of this transformation's having occurred

You have an inside track. Maybe you can get G3K to write this 1000 times in hopes he can save his mind and move on to the next grade.

[Dataman]

but your strawman looks like it's burning

Another lame claim of strawman.

[Dataman]

wonderful creationist strawman opinions that you like to toss in so you look stupid?

Another lame claim to strawman.

[Dataman]

wonderful creationist strawman opinions that you like to toss in so you look stupid?

Yet another. Are you familiar with the phrase "broken record?"

[Dataman]

G3K continues with his strawman arguments,

I'll bet you never met an objection to evolutionism that wasn't "strawman."

[Dataman]

he is pushing with his strawman arguments.

FYI: it's "Straw Man" not strawman.

[PatrickHenry]

Do you accept the rules as I have proposed them, or would you like to propose some changes/additions before we get fully into the debate? You now have 48 hours to respond.

From a recent post to you in another thread, which explains why your contest will fail:

... a classic creationist technique -- moving the goal posts. First they come out with some ignorant claim like "X is absolutely impossible, no way X could have happened." Then our side patiently points out some way that X could have happened. Then the fun starts. "Well," they say, "I meant X with extra conditions Y and Z." Our side points out that X is X, so their point is rebutted, and we may even go on to deal with extra conditions Y and Z.

Then it starts -- the creationist version of the Sioux ghost dance -- the topic-switching, the nit-picking, the name-calling, the tap-dancing, accusations of fraud, of atheism, of Satanism, of liberalism, of being in it for the money, of inspiring Hitler and Stalin, etc. Lance the boil of creationism just a little bit, and out gushes all the filth in the con-man's bag of tricks.
89 posted on 01/22/2003 7:21 AM EST by PatrickHenry