Dr. Walt Brown on Evolution

[Stripe]

Maybe before bats arms evolved into wings they used to walk around and catch bugs that also have not developed wings...:chuckle:

You're wrong because BillyBob is an idiot.

...


THERE's an ad-hominem for you Jukia :chuckle:

 

[Jukia]

Yep, can always count on you Stipe.

 

[GuySmiley]

Maybe before bats arms evolved into wings they used to walk around and catch bugs that also have not developed wings...:chuckle:

You are on to something here. The bat's arms were frail and weak before they became useful as wings. But since they were chasing bugs who also had frail weak useless arms, they survived the transformation!

 

[Servo]

You are on to something here. The bat's arms were frail and weak before they became useful as wings. But since they were chasing bugs who also had frail weak useless arms, they survived the transformation!

Yep, that is what I was thinking. I guess they both started to fly around the same time. Ya know, after the awkward years...

 

[Servo]

Future bat?

 

[JoyfulRook]

You are on to something here. The bat's arms were frail and weak before they became useful as wings. But since they were chasing bugs who also had frail weak useless arms, they survived the transformation!

Hmmm. We have an interesting theory... but it has several obvious problems. The most obvious is: How did the insects survive the transformation? :think:

Future bat?

Yeah, like a seaplane version. :chuckle:

 

[BillyBob]

Maybe before bats arms evolved into wings they used to walk around and catch bugs that also have not developed wings...:chuckle:

Probably, but insects developed wings long before there were any bats and long before whatever bats evolved from.

 

[BillyBob]

You're wrong because BillyBob is an idiot.

...


THERE's an ad-hominem for you Jukia :chuckle:

What the hell are you talking about?

 

[Stripe]

What the hell are you talking about?

Nobody can be even remotely aware any more, surely. I'm going to bed before this gets any worse.

 

[Flipper]

Bob Enyart wrote:

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.

Isn't this more of an assertion than an actual argument?

You are asserting that a leg which has some abilities as a wing must somehow be less of a leg, correct? What evidence can you provide to support that assertion?

I would suggest that it is possible to have a leg in nature that functions perfectly well as such, while also working as a reasonable partial wing. In fact, here are some pictures of just such a thing.

http://www.understandingevolution.com/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/analogy_02

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0010/feature4/zoom3.html

 

[bob b]

A few months ago I read a very good article imploring biologists and evolutionary scientists to be more careful in their descriptions of past evolutionary events. I've seen more than one popular science writer say "X trait evolved because to help survive under Y condition". I think perhaps a detailed searching of my posts may reveal that I've fallen into that trap more than a few times. Indeed, it is often easier to phrase evolutionary developments as the result of a need rather than as the result of selectional pressures under varying circumstances. As scientists, biologists, and hobbyists who understand the theory, we understand that developments phrased as "needs" did not truly occur because they were needed, but rather as a result of favored reproductive rates for those with those traits. We understand that this phrasing is simply a result of our looking back at the situation retrospectively, rather than an attempt to detail or describe the process of evolution. So by and large these things go unnoticed or uncommented on by evolutionist readers -- we know what they mean. But to anyone unfamiliar with biology or evolutionary theory, the statement conveys a false picture of what actually happens. More than once I've had conversations with creationists who sincerely believe that evolution occurs as a result of a need. One particular conversation I recall involved a creationist conveying his shock that scientists actually believe that lungs evolved because fish needed them to breathe air. Extending his misunderstanding of the theory even further, he then proceeded to challenge the theory by saying something along the lines of "Humans need X, why don't they evolve X?" And while this example may seem rather extreme, anyone who spends any time talking to people about the subject will find this mischaracterization of evolutionary theory runs rampant among your average lay creationist.

"Evolutionists say that organs and limbs -- that they develop because there was apparently some need, and then natural selection would take the small improvements and make things like wings." - Bob Enyart, 1/8/07, 5:18 into the show

So then you must understand my own dismay when Bob Enyart says something as terribly wrong as this. Not only is the statement incorrect, but it is being made to listenership who is almost certainly composed of large numbers of young earth creationists, most of whom do not have the time or interest to fact check criticisms of evolution. Even worse, Walt Brown, a man who should know better, did not find it important to correct him. Bob's mischaracterization in this case goes beyond a haphazard rephrasing -- he directly seeks to define what it is evolutionary scientists believe.

I did some searching for a mission or purpose statement on Bob Enyart's website, but I could not find one. I think it's safe to assume that part of the purpose of his show is to educate and inform his listeners (if this is not accurate Bob, please let me know). As a Christian radio show, he also has a responsibility to present information accurately and with integrity (of course I believe anyone in the position of any sort of leadership or educator also has this responsibility, but when I speak of Christian responsibility I speak of being accountable to someone higher than one's own self and society). I do not charge that Bob Enyart intentionally misled his listeners, but this leaves only his own ignorance of theory as the culprit for this disservice to his listeners.

I understand your technical point here Johnny, but really think you are engaging in a serious "double standard" for arguing that Bob Enyart, the host of a radio talk show has an obligation to be more accurate in his phrasing than do professional evolutionists who frequently teach our young people, and whom I believe you admitted sometimes fall into the same phrasing "trap" that Bob did.

In my experience the professional evolutionists fall into this "need" trap way more than they logically should considering that they should know better. See the creationsafaris.com website for numerous examples of this that they point out on an almost daily basis. I would say that in the past 7 years they have accumulated quotations from the professional literature of somewhere around several thousand examples of this "trap" that you mention.

 

[Johnny]

I understand your technical point here Johnny, but really think you are engaging in a serious "double standard" for arguing that Bob Enyart, the host of a radio talk show has an obligation to be more accurate in his phrasing than do professional evolutionists who frequently teach our young people, and whom I believe you admitted sometimes fall into the same phrasing "trap" that Bob did.

I had a feeling I would be accused of a double-standard, which is why I deliberately criticized evolutionists before I addressed Bob's issue. Nonetheless, I do feel there is significant distinction between a sloppy description of an event as we often see in popsci literature and a direct statement saying "this is what evolutionists believe". The former is intended to inform the listener or reader about extrinsic conditions which selected for a trait, while the latter is a statement intended to inform the listener or reader about what it is evolutionary theory says. Bob Enyart is guilty of the latter.

Were this same statement come from an evolutionist whose intentions were to convey what evolutionists actually believe -- as Bob Enyart's intentions seem to have been -- you would see much sharper criticism of them. In this matter, no one has a higher responsibility to others than those who teach the theory. I suspect that professional biologists are much more careful when actually teaching the theory than they are when casually writing or speaking. I would be very interested in any learning materials or Biology book which makes the same assertion Bob Enyart made. I believe they are few and far between if at all, because most high-school level or higher books go through extensive editorial review. That beings said, there may very well be a book or professor out there who has inaccurately portrayed the theory in the same way Bob has, and they deserve our sharpest condemnation.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Yep, that is what I was thinking. I guess they both started to fly around the same time. Ya know, after the awkward years...

Speaking of which...

 

[aharvey]

I understand your technical point here Johnny, but really think you are engaging in a serious "double standard" for arguing that Bob Enyart, the host of a radio talk show has an obligation to be more accurate in his phrasing than do professional evolutionists who frequently teach our young people, and whom I believe you admitted sometimes fall into the same phrasing "trap" that Bob did.

Let's see, Johnny says that popular science writers and professional biologists sometimes do, but should not, carelessly word their writings to inaccurately imply that organisms evolve traits because they need them, to which you claim that Johnny is invoking a double standard that relaxes this responsibility for professional biologists?

In my experience the professional evolutionists fall into this "need" trap way more than they logically should considering that they should know better. See the creationsafaris.com website for numerous examples of this that they point out on an almost daily basis. I would say that in the past 7 years they have accumulated quotations from the professional literature of somewhere around several thousand examples of this "trap" that you mention.

Hmm, you'd think it'd be easy to find a compilation of several thousand examples of this careless writing, and yet I was unable to find it. Can you provide a link? And please don't confuse it with the link to their Creation-Evolution headlines page, because that doesn't do what you describe here at all.

 

[aharvey]

I'm impressed at Johnny's willingness to allow that Bob Enyart may genuinely not realize that evolutionary theory is and always has been as inimicable to the notion of "evolved because of need" as he (Enyart) is. The question is what Pastor Enyart would do with his apparently new understanding.

 

[Jukia]

I'm impressed at Johnny's willingness to allow that Bob Enyart may genuinely not realize that evolutionary theory is and always has been as inimicable to the notion of "evolved because of need" as he (Enyart) is. The question is what Pastor Enyart would do with his apparently new understanding.

I suspect Johnny is being too kind.