:up:Granite said:
Dr. Walt Brown on Evolution
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
- Status
I am pretty sure all these shows with Walt were pre-recorded so they could do them all at once.Johnny said:
I don't think so because they are playing all the pre-recorded Walt Brown shows this week. It seems to me that Bob said something about Friday being the day for people to call in about the Walt Brown shows. Maybe Bob will clarify if he sees this post.Johnny said:
Please call on Friday
Please call on Friday
Yes, Monday thru Thursday shows are pre-recorded with Walt (today's is fun)! Friday I'll be happy to take calls on the material.
-Bob
Please call on Friday
Yes, Monday thru Thursday shows are pre-recorded with Walt (today's is fun)! Friday I'll be happy to take calls on the material.
-Bob
Nice try Pastor Bob but I expect you realize that I was looking for some specific citations to those experiments which were attempts to make a scale into a feather, a leg into a wing or increase the chambers in a heart. Dr. Brown stated that there were "all sorts" of experiments trying to do that.Bob Enyart said:
Name one if you can.
Just more dishonesty.
If your goal is to spread the gospel, spread truth, then you should do so in all areas. Brown's statements were nonsense.
Do you have a reply to my questions regarding the mile of sediments all around the earth and my specific questions regarding New England, Mt. Everest or the Rockies?
Gee, sorry for the obfuscation. But I think you missed the point of my question. You stated that the evolutonist claim is that a certain organ or limb developed because of a "need". I do not believe that is a claim evolutionists make nor a claim that stratnerd made. It appears a bit Lamarckian. Or perhaps a bit "directed". I think the broad outlines of evolutionary theory avoid the term "need" in that sense.Bob Enyart said:
If you still do not understand my concern about your statement please feel free to let me know.
aharvey
New member
Boy, you guys are masters of these kind of word games. We literal-minded, unsuspicious scientists don't have a chance!Bob Enyart said:
But nonetheless, let's at least try to get a few things straight:
A. "People typing something in a web forum" does not equal "Consensus of mainstream scientific community" (and save your breath here: "consensus" does not mean "correct," nor does it imply "unanimous," and most scientists are fully aware of both of these points). So if you scornfully claim evolutionary theory says traits evolve because the organism needs them, and someone (say, Jukia) asks for some documentation of that statement, it seems a reply of last resort to invoke web conversations as your proof!
B. The ideas you float do indeed sound vaguely familiar, but that vagueness stems from the way in which you've distorted the actual ideas:
1. Evolutionary rates may increase as a result of major environmental upheaval for a number of reasons (increased selection intensities, mass extinctions providing a number of sudden ecological opportunities, etc.), but the "purpose-driven" idea you state "so that species can survive" is squarely at odds with evolutionary theory, and ironically, if it belongs anywhere, it belongs in the purpose-driven, God-the-ultimate-anticipatory-Intelligent-Designer-Creator camp, wouldn't you say?
2. Giraffes evolved long necks because ... why didn't you finish the sentence instead of merely implying a need-based explanation? Here, let me finish the sentence for you: ... each generation, those with longer necks left behind more offspring than those with shorter necks, with neck length being a heritable, quantitative trait. That would be the proposed explanation, anyways, based on evolutionary principles; I don't know how rigorously it has been investigated.
3. Sorry, I've never seen any of these 20 million biology textbooks; none of the ones I have seen have pictures anything like what you are describing. I do know that one hypothesis for the origin of flight in birds is vaguely similar to what you describe, except that you've again switched the evolutionary rationale with your "purpose-driven," and expressly anti-evolutionary, rationale. However it was that wings evolved (and there are several hypotheses), evolutionary theory would in no case claim that the organisms needed wings to do something and so evolved wings, but rather that wings evolved because the bearers were able to leave more allele-carrying offspring than those who were lacking.
4. Don't know what this is, though it is close to the YEC estimates for the age of the Earth; getting your worldviews mixed up again?
Look, I suspect you know full well that evolutionary theory expressly rejects the notion that organisms evolve things because they need them. Heck, one of the commonest TOL rants against evolution essentially equates it with chance, randomness, and mutation! So, ironically, most of the time we have to point out to TOL creationists that evolution is not merely random chance, while here you ignore the random component altogether and imbue "evolution" with the ability to see what an organism needs and provide it! So what are we to make of this?
I do agree with you that the cartoon version of evolutionary theory that you present is quite inane, but hey, it's nothing like the real thing.
Oh, and one small point. Evolutionary biologists have for a very long time tried to point out that the catchy phrase "survival of the fittest" is not a particularly apt description of natural selection (not to mention that it's a flat out mistake to describe evolution that way!). But you know the power of catchy phrases (that's why creationists still fight the "Evolution vs. Creation" wars even as they incorporate ever larger pieces of evolutionary theory into their own position!). But the stubborn persistence of this catchy phrase doesn't change the fact that evolutionary theory from the start posits that an organism's fitness does not depend on its survival, but on its reproductive success.
How to spell "Ouch" in Jukian:
How to spell "Ouch" in Jukian:
Jukia, perhaps your very bad attitude makes it difficult for you to listen objectively. Walt was indicating that there have been "all sorts of experiments trying to cause it [macro evolution] to happen."
What experiments did Walt refer to? Darwinists have gone to great lenghts to induce change to demonstrate macro-evolution. Did that include experiments to go from scales to feathers, one chamber to two? No, of course not. It's funny how Walt Brown can present so many powerful arguments (like a leg will be a bad leg, long before it becomes a good wing), and you will find something silly to obfuscate over. I take your harsh rebuke of me over this as a many-worded translation from Jukian for our English word, "Ouch!"
Specifically, as I explained, Walt was referring to, "breeding experiments based upon Darwinian notions, experiments which have failed, with fruitflies, bacteria, etc., and breeding efforts to cross the barriers of a species, barriers which the breeders continually banged into and couldn't cross."
And regarding:
-Bob Enyart
How to spell "Ouch" in Jukian:
Etc.Jukia said:
Jukia, perhaps your very bad attitude makes it difficult for you to listen objectively. Walt was indicating that there have been "all sorts of experiments trying to cause it [macro evolution] to happen."
What experiments did Walt refer to? Darwinists have gone to great lenghts to induce change to demonstrate macro-evolution. Did that include experiments to go from scales to feathers, one chamber to two? No, of course not. It's funny how Walt Brown can present so many powerful arguments (like a leg will be a bad leg, long before it becomes a good wing), and you will find something silly to obfuscate over. I take your harsh rebuke of me over this as a many-worded translation from Jukian for our English word, "Ouch!"
Specifically, as I explained, Walt was referring to, "breeding experiments based upon Darwinian notions, experiments which have failed, with fruitflies, bacteria, etc., and breeding efforts to cross the barriers of a species, barriers which the breeders continually banged into and couldn't cross."
And regarding:
Jukia, I think I recall you challenging me on this very issue perhaps more than a year ago, even to the particular of you incorporating where you live. Feel free to search TOL or the web and report back with your own informed, reasonable estimate of the average depth of sedimentary layers on the continents. It'll be good seeing that expression of the aftermath of the worldwide being posted by an evolutionist!Jukia said:
-Bob Enyart
Whacking away at a bad leg...
Whacking away at a bad leg...
Jukia, you claim that, "the broad outlines of evolutionary theory avoid" the concept of "need."
Do those broad outlines also avoid hink the concept of "survival," or "survival of the fittest?"
Here again you've demonstrated the obfuscation that evolutionists so often practice. Instead, why not reply to Walt's simple challenge, which devastates much of the theory of evolution, that a leg will be a bad leg long before it becomes a good wing.
Go ahead, take a whack at it
.
-Bob Enyart
Whacking away at a bad leg...
Jukia, you claim that, "the broad outlines of evolutionary theory avoid" the concept of "need."
Do those broad outlines also avoid hink the concept of "survival," or "survival of the fittest?"
Here again you've demonstrated the obfuscation that evolutionists so often practice. Instead, why not reply to Walt's simple challenge, which devastates much of the theory of evolution, that a leg will be a bad leg long before it becomes a good wing.
Go ahead, take a whack at it
.-Bob Enyart
Jefferson said:
That's a pretty drastic misunderstanding of evolutionary biology, which holds that incredibly small genetic mutations took place over billions of years; successful adaptations survive, while unsuccessful adaptations are wiped out incredibly quickly.
This is a clear misunderstanding of elementary science because C-14 dating cannot estimate the date of anything more than about 70,000 years old. More commonly, radiometric dating is used as it can accurately date elements that are billions of years old.
Additionally, the geological method of dating has produced the same predictable patterns all over the world and is used in conjunction with other dating methods to enhance accuracy.
And once again, everyone is supposed to believe that the world's scientists are engaged in a mass conspiracy to obscure a fringe fundamentalist interpretation of a religious text.
Well yeah, Pastor Bob, my question was exactly that---"What experiments was Dr. Brown referring to, when he claims on the broadcast starting about 6:15 into it that 'all sorts of experiments trying to cause it (the dreaded macroevolution) to happen' eg. a leg into a wing, a scale into feathers and more chambers in a heart have been attempted and never worked.Bob Enyart said:
If you think that experiments with fruit flies, C.elegans, mice, etc that scientists have done were attempts to "prove macroevolution" you are either more ignorant than you seem or more dishonest. I suggest you spend some time searching the web or the literature and come back when you have a better understanding of how and why science works.
Nice comment re sedimentary rocks, why dont you just give me a cite to the depth of sedimentary rock in Connecticut, where I live, and I'll be glad to check it out for you and report back. But remember there is supposed to be sedimentary rock about a mile thick all over the earth. If you do not have a cite then perhaps Dr. Brown can provide one.
Thanks.
Bob Enyart said:Instead, why not reply to Walt's simple challenge, which devastates much of the theory of evolution, that a leg will be a bad leg long before it becomes a good wing.
Go ahead, take a whack at it
-Bob Enyart
That doesn't hold much mystery. First of all, wings are not former legs, they are former 'arms' [see attached picture of a bat skeleton]. There are plenty of animals that have both legs and wings simultaniously and many of those species find only limited use for their legs [ever see a penguin walk?].
What I find much more puzzling is how animals became specie specific. For example, how did bird ancestors evolve into the many vastly different and specialized species we see today. While I can postulate the answer, it is still incredible to me.
aharvey
New member
Well, let's see. What exactly did Darwin's theory consist of?Bob Enyart said:
Observation 1: All species have such great potential fertility that their population size would increase exponentially if all individuals that are born reproduced successfully.
Observation 2: Populations tend to remain stable in size, except for seasonal fluctuations.
Observation 3: Environmental resources are limited.
Inference 1: Production of more individuals than the environment can support leads to a struggle for existence among individuals of a population, with only a fraction of offspring surviving each generation.
Observation 4: Individuals of a population vary extensively in their characteristics; no two individuals are exactly alike.
Observation 5: Much of this variation can be passed from parents to offspring (although Darwin had no idea how, as he put these ideas together before Mendel's work hit the newstands).
Inference 2: Surivival in the struggle for existence is not random, but depends in part on the hereditary constitution of the individuals. Those individuals whose constitution best fits them to their environment are likely to leave more offspring than will less fit individuals.
Inference 3: This unequal ability of individuals to survive and reproduce will lead to a gradual change in a population, with favorable characteristics accumulating over the generations.
Hmm, so far there's not a single indication that organisms could or should evolve things because they need them. It must have been a post-Darwinian add-on. Amazing how it could become part of the modern evolutionary synthesis without a single evolutionary biologist noticing!
I know you 'overlook' my posts (including no doubt this one, but what the heck), so I'll repeat this part of an earlier post:Bob Enyart said:
Oh, and one small point. Evolutionary biologists have for a very long time tried to point out that the catchy phrase "survival of the fittest" is not a particularly apt description of natural selection (not to mention that it's a flat out mistake to describe evolution that way!). But you know the power of catchy phrases (that's why creationists still fight the "Evolution vs. Creation" wars even as they incorporate ever larger pieces of evolutionary theory into their own position!). But the stubborn persistence of this catchy phrase doesn't change the fact that evolutionary theory from the start posits that an organism's fitness does not depend on its survival, but on its reproductive success.
Well, as BillyBob pointed out, Walt's probably right, a leg will probably be a bad leg long before it becomes a good wing, which is probably why there aren't any examples of wings evolving from legs! Yes, forelimbs can be known as forelegs, but Walt's argument - well, it's more of an assertion than an argument - doesn't apply to all forelimbs.Bob Enyart said:Here again you've demonstrated the obfuscation that evolutionists so often practice. Instead, why not reply to Walt's simple challenge, which devastates much of the theory of evolution, that a leg will be a bad leg long before it becomes a good wing.
Go ahead, take a whack at it
-Bob Enyart
Sorry, this was worth repeating for an entirely different reason. It is a near-perfect encapsulation of the archetypal creationist ploy:Bob Enyart said:Here again you've demonstrated the obfuscation that evolutionists so often practice. Instead, why not reply to Walt's simple challenge, which devastates much of the theory of evolution, that a leg will be a bad leg long before it becomes a good wing.
Go ahead, take a whack at it
-Bob Enyart
Step 1: Denigrate the complexity of the evolutionary position (here, dismissed as obfuscation), which is comparable to that found in any field of science of similar scope that has been intensively studied.
Step 2: Apply a simple (meaning ridiculously simplistic) prediction or observation or argument to a complexity-free (meaning absurd cartoon strawman) version of evolutionary theory.
Step 3: Imply that the simplistic prediction is incompatible with the strawman version of evolutionary theory.
Step 4: Bring it on home: Make dramatic, unrestrained proclamations about how this single 'result' utterly devastates evolutionary theory.
Exquisitely done.
- Status