Creation Vs Evolution

[mindphuk]

No, nature would have to produce a series of highly precise changes to produce evolution. Not enough change would cause nothing and too much would simply cause extinction. Relative to the radical changes that take place, this would be like threading a needle thousands of times. It would require the perfect beneficial mutation combined with the perfect change in environment.

Here we go again. You still don't understand evolution no matter how much you claim you do. If you weren't so stubborn and actually paid attention to what we post instead of reading it once, decide that it's just the same stuff you already know and jump ahead with your preconceived but incorrect ideas about evolution, maybe it would begin to sink in.
You might hate hearing it but it's true, your ideas about evolution continue to look and sound like straw men that creationists use and then do exactly what they do and ask for proof or evidence to for something that does not occur because is NOT HOW EVOLUTION WORKS.

And changes in the environment are largely physical - an area floods or dries up. For evolution to occur, it would require the requisite physical mutation. ie fish growing legs or a land animal growing fins. Suppose a lake dries up and we assume there are fish that grew legs. What mutations occur for this to happen? Does one just develop an extra appendage that allows it to walk? If there is a series of small mutations, how is each small mutation significant enough to make a difference?

So you admit it now, you took all of your biology courses at Bob Jones University.
I'm not going to do the work for you again. Look up Tiktaalik, Sarcopterygii, Acanthostega, Pederpes

And not just that. It would also require that there were not a bunch of other things mucking up the works. If we suppose one fish has slightly longer pectoral fins as our first mutation, it could also be the case that this mutation occurs in a weak fish that still fails to outcompete stronger ones without the mutation.

So I see you don't understand still that evolution works on populations.

What kind of science degree were you bragging about having again? Please tell me what school so I can make sure my friends and family don't send their kids there.
For about the umpteenth time...EVOLUTION IS NOT GOAL ORIENTED.
Do you need me to repeat it? You really need to quit thinking that way if you are going to understand it. You keep making up the rules that YOU think it should follow. That is why it is much more practical to look to historical events to get a better idea. Get back to me after you have researched the species I mentioned and examined the environment of modern day equivalents.

 

[ginjawarrior]

lol what rick wants is a complete theory/ observations of something he knows isnt possible within the timespans of us studying evo.
he may as well be asking for a complete testable theory of gravity with observations of every process of it... oh look we havent got one it must mean that gravity doesnt exist and its god sitting on our shoulders that stops us floating away......

while he demands an observed occasion of macro evolution he completely ignores all the evidence that blatantly shows past macro evolution.

try reading this rick

Theobald, Douglas L. "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent." The Talk.Origins Archive. Vers. 2.83. 2004. 12 Jan, 2004 http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

 

[mindphuk]

lol what rick wants is a complete theory/ observations of something he knows isnt possible within the timespans of us studying evo.
he may as well be asking for a complete testable theory of gravity with observations of every process of it... oh look we havent got one it must mean that gravity doesnt exist and its god sitting on our shoulders that stops us floating away......

while he demands an observed occasion of macro evolution he completely ignores all the evidence that blatantly shows past macro evolution.

try reading this rick

Theobald, Douglas L. "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent." The Talk.Origins Archive. Vers. 2.83. 2004. 12 Jan, 2004 http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

I predict he will come back here crying that you didn't read his posts because he once claimed that he believes in evolution and has never said evolution doesn't occur. He doesn't realize that plea has been shown to be completely overturned by his other rantings.

 

[RickWhite]

Here we go again. You still don't understand evolution no matter how much you claim you do. If you weren't so stubborn and actually paid attention to what we post instead of reading it once, decide that it's just the same stuff you already know and jump ahead with your preconceived but incorrect ideas about evolution, maybe it would begin to sink in.
You might hate hearing it but it's true, your ideas about evolution continue to look and sound like straw men that creationists use and then do exactly what they do and ask for proof or evidence to for something that does not occur because is NOT HOW EVOLUTION WORKS.
So you admit it now, you took all of your biology courses at Bob Jones University.
I'm not going to do the work for you again. Look up Tiktaalik, Sarcopterygii, Acanthostega, Pederpes
So I see you don't understand still that evolution works on populations.

What kind of science degree were you bragging about having again? Please tell me what school so I can make sure my friends and family don't send their kids there.
For about the umpteenth time...EVOLUTION IS NOT GOAL ORIENTED.
Do you need me to repeat it? You really need to quit thinking that way if you are going to understand it. You keep making up the rules that YOU think it should follow. That is why it is much more practical to look to historical events to get a better idea. Get back to me after you have researched the species I mentioned and examined the environment of modern day equivalents.

Why don't you post the relevant parts instead of directing me to some undoubtedly vast work? Am I to assume you can't answer the question?

Actually, you have inspired me to look at the issue a bit deeper and I must say, the ID guys do raise some good points. I know it is easy to dismiss everything they say out of hand in a number of ways. But, they do raise valid questions.

You can shout your position as many times as you like and cop-out by saying "you just don't understand." But clearly you don't have an answer.

Let us assume these non-goal oriented, random mutations occur. Let us pose the question of what would be required for a wing to develop on a non-winged animal via this mechanism. Let us assume that a series of mutations occur in response to changing environment. Describe these mutations and how they benefit the animal according to our scenario.

Given the statistical reality of genetic mutations and the results from these mutations the logic doesn't appear to follow. If we assume a small tree lizard that jumps from trees to escape predators, we could assume that a mutation resulted in extra skin than enabled these lizards to land safely. To assume such a mutation would randomly occur and be perfectly convenient to the situation is already a leap of faith. It is equally or even more likely that this mutation would hinder the lizard and make it more susceptible to predators. plus, mutations in general do not typically produce results anywhere near this dramatic.

Now, let's assume this 1 in one trillion mutation occurred. Once our lizard had the ability to jump and survive, should we assume this is not enough and another such mutation would come along to enhance gliding ability? If so, why? If a lizard can jump from a tree and glide to another tree 20' away, why assume the tree 30' away is a better choice for landing? Seems to me one tree would be just as god as the next. Or do we assume the predator developed a similar chance mutation in order to chase him to the next tree?

While I am not sure this isn't possible, I do admit that it is questionable. I just don't see the likelihood that chance micro-mutations can create a macro-mutation that would be beneficial to a higher organism. It doesn't seem likely and it doesn't jive with what I know about the way our physical world works.

So, again, can you or anyone give a fully explained and documented example of a single clear macro-mutation that created a beneficial result? Show me how developing a stump of a limb would likely benefit an animal and become a wing or a leg. The ID guys point out that such a mutation would more than likely be a hindrance and I can't see why they are wrong.

No cop-out, bullshit responses of "you don't get it" or look up such and such. Answer the question if you can.

 

[mindphuk]

Why don't you post the relevant parts instead of directing me to some undoubtedly vast work? Am I to assume you can't answer the question?

Because it is a vast amount of work and material and I'm not here to be your personal researcher. You want a short-cut and have all answers just handed to you on a platter.
Of course you find the ID arguments good, they use the same straw men that you do. You continue to make up your own scenarios and shoot them down as improbable rather than use the ones nature provides us.

 

[RickWhite]

Because it is a vast amount of work and material and I'm not here to be your personal researcher. You want a short-cut and have all answers just handed to you on a platter.
Of course you find the ID arguments good, they use the same straw men that you do. You continue to make up your own scenarios and shoot them down as improbable rather than use the ones nature provides us.

Horse shit, I could do the same thing. It's a cop-out like the rest of your posts. You don't answer the question because you can't. And learn what a straw man is before using the term incorrectly. They are valid questions which you can't answer.

All you are doing is making an argument by verbosity. This is an attempt to win by simply exhausting the other person with unreasonable requests. I do doubt that chance micro-mutations can create a beneficial macro-mutation in higher organisms that wouldn't be more of a hindrance and I doubt you can demonstrate otherwise.

 

[mindphuk]

Horse shit, I could do the same thing. It's a cop-out like the rest of your posts. You don't answer the question because you can't. And learn what a straw man is before using the term incorrectly. They are valid questions which you can't answer.

All you are doing is making an argument by verbosity. This is an attempt to win by simply exhausting the other person with unreasonable requests. I do doubt that chance micro-mutations can create a beneficial macro-mutation in higher organisms that wouldn't be more of a hindrance and I doubt you can demonstrate otherwise.

They are straw man arguments because you have been told over and over evolution doesn't work that way. You are asking for evidence to prove your cartoonish idea of evolution rather than take time and learn how it really occurs.

 

[Xrtnfx]

All you are doing is making an argument by verbosity. This is an attempt to win by simply exhausting the other person with unreasonable requests.

You just explained what you&#8217;re doing... Again, all you have to do is read the evolution chapter of a Bio 1 book at your local university library and you'll have a much better understanding, it's really that simple.. If you are unwilling to do that then you are just plain lazy and shouldn't be talking about this issue. <--- that statement is trying to at least give you an elementary understanding about what you're talking about before you start typing, the rest of us have already done it.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Why don't you post the relevant parts instead of directing me to some undoubtedly vast work? Am I to assume you can't answer the question?

Rick, the questions you're posing are invalid. The scenarios don't make any sense from an evolutionary standpoint. Evolution just doesn't work that way.

I do not have a degree in biology and I know that, that's why I'd expect someone with one to know it.

Actually, you have inspired me to look at the issue a bit deeper and I must say, the ID guys do raise some good points. I know it is easy to dismiss everything they say out of hand in a number of ways. But, they do raise valid questions.

There's not a damn thing intelligent about Intelligent Design at all.

You can shout your position as many times as you like and cop-out by saying "you just don't understand." But clearly you don't have an answer.

How is it a cop-out? You clearly do not understand how evolution works, as evident by your posts. Each one of us have come to that same conclusion independently.

Let us assume these non-goal oriented, random mutations occur. Let us pose the question of what would be required for a wing to develop on a non-winged animal via this mechanism. Let us assume that a series of mutations occur in response to changing environment. Describe these mutations and how they benefit the animal according to our scenario.

Given the statistical reality of genetic mutations and the results from these mutations the logic doesn't appear to follow. If we assume a small tree lizard that jumps from trees to escape predators, we could assume that a mutation resulted in extra skin than enabled these lizards to land safely. To assume such a mutation would randomly occur and be perfectly convenient to the situation is already a leap of faith. It is equally or even more likely that this mutation would hinder the lizard and make it more susceptible to predators. plus, mutations in general do not typically produce results anywhere near this dramatic.

This is a perfect example of what I just mentioned. Thank you for proving my point.

Now, let's assume this 1 in one trillion mutation occurred. Once our lizard had the ability to jump and survive, should we assume this is not enough and another such mutation would come along to enhance gliding ability? If so, why? If a lizard can jump from a tree and glide to another tree 20' away, why assume the tree 30' away is a better choice for landing? Seems to me one tree would be just as god as the next. Or do we assume the predator developed a similar chance mutation in order to chase him to the next tree?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Gliding_Lizard

It has nothing to do with individuals inside a population, it has to do with the species at large. The mutations that are beneficial get passed on because they help the species survive. The mutations that are not, don't. Why is this so hard for you (and people like you) to understand???

While I am not sure this isn't possible, I do admit that it is questionable. I just don't see the likelihood that chance micro-mutations can create a macro-mutation that would be beneficial to a higher organism. It doesn't seem likely and it doesn't jive with what I know about the way our physical world works.

I don't get how it's a "chance mutation" if it happened. The mutation already happened, we do not come up with odds or call it a "chance" when it happened. It already happened dude, the "chance" of it happening... was 100%, because that's what happened.

So, again, can you or anyone give a fully explained and documented example of a single clear macro-mutation that created a beneficial result? Show me how developing a stump of a limb would likely benefit an animal and become a wing or a leg. The ID guys point out that such a mutation would more than likely be a hindrance and I can't see why they are wrong.

Can you not understand how appendages could be used in a different way? For example, monkeys use their feet and tails to climb and leap from tree to tree, could a human foot be used the same way? They're both "feet", but both species use them in a completely different way. That's why a "stump" as you put it would be beneficial to a species climbing out of the water searching for a new habitat on the land as the environment around it changed. People like you can't think outside the box, as these things do happen, are happening, and you're blind to all of it.

No cop-out, bullshit responses of "you don't get it" or look up such and such. Answer the question if you can.

First, ask a valid question. In order to do that, I would suggest you get a better understanding of the theory of evolution. Go read some books by Richard Dawkins, go read On the Origin of Species, The Blind Watchmaker, The Greatest Show On Earth. If you can read these books and still be asking the questions you've been asking, then you are in a class all on your own.

I hope you'd take up that challenge, as it really would benefit you more than you probably know.

 

[mindphuk]

Now, let's assume this 1 in one trillion mutation occurred. Once our lizard had the ability to jump and survive, should we assume this is not enough and another such mutation would come along to enhance gliding ability? If so, why? If a lizard can jump from a tree and glide to another tree 20' away, why assume the tree 30' away is a better choice for landing? Seems to me one tree would be just as god as the next. Or do we assume the predator developed a similar chance mutation in order to chase him to the next tree?

Just re-read what you wrote here. Do you see how you are substituting thoughts and abilities of a designer into blind evolutionary processes? Why do you think gliding ability or enhancement of one already in existence is conferred to a species by some choice and thought process? Evolution isn't watching this lizard and saying, "Oh, I see it needs to glide further, let's just add this mutation."
You are beginning with a premise that design is the only possible answer and therefore projecting this idea onto the evolutionary process before you formulate your questions. Once you see and understand that, then maybe you will begin to understand what we are saying.

 

[RickWhite]

Just re-read what you wrote here. Do you see how you are substituting thoughts and abilities of a designer into blind evolutionary processes? Why do you think gliding ability or enhancement of one already in existence is conferred to a species by some choice and thought process? Evolution isn't watching this lizard and saying, "Oh, I see it needs to glide further, let's just add this mutation."
You are beginning with a premise that design is the only possible answer and therefore projecting this idea onto the evolutionary process before you formulate your questions. Once you see and understand that, then maybe you will begin to understand what we are saying.

Straw man.

I fully understand that the concept of natural selection assumes numerous trial and error mutations until one takes hold and that the particular mutation is amplified through genetics. Stop using the "you don't understand cop-out." What you refuse to consider is the statistical improbability of such a sequence of events. If this mechanism is solely responsible for all species, the entire Earth would be covered in a layer of bone several miles deep.

How many of these "missing link" fossils are there? Can you be honest enough to admit that there should be MILLIONS OR BILLIONS of these remains? That is the obvious statistical reality and there is no denying that. Where are they?

There is also a question of the genetic probability of these "mutations." We have to look at the probability of a COMPLEX and SIGNIFICANT mutation or series of mutations. Mutations are mostly dilutorius with beneficial ones being comparatively rare. So we begin with statistical improbability. If the mutation is beneficial, it must occur simultaneously with a perfect, environmental situation - one that rarely occurs in nature.

Mutations all occur on a molecular level right? The reality of the natural selection scenario requires a series of many of these micro-mutations for each macro-mutation - maybe even tens of thousands. If all these micro-mutations are random, how is it there is a linear progression into a macro-mutation? Does it make sense to assume a micro holds while the process of random mutations repeats until another magic bullet ads to the first? No, it doesn't. It makes more sense that the first beneficial micro would be undermined by a subsequent harmful one or a beneficial one in a different direction. What you need is a series of random micros all working in the same direction to form a macro.

And what of the process itself? You are looking at DNA and how life just keeps plowing forward but are you considering how DNA came to be? How exactly did an information system more complex than any super computer just come about by chance? Clearly, at one point there was no blue print for life in the form of DNA - did it self assemble?


And what of this mysterious force driving all life and the process of evolution? What is your theory as to what is pushing this quest for evolution?

 

[Padawanbater2]

I fully understand that the concept of natural selection assumes numerous trial and error mutations until one takes hold and that the particular mutation is amplified through genetics. Stop using the "you don't understand cop-out." You DON'T understand evolution. What you refuse to consider is the statistical improbability of such a sequence of events. If this mechanism is solely responsible for all species, the entire Earth would be covered in a layer of bone several miles deep.

Again man, right out of the creationist handbook...

Do you understand the process of fossilization? You also understand that not every organism that undergoes evolution has a skeleton, right? Even modern day creatures, take for instance a Shark.

How many of these "missing link" fossils are there? Can you be honest enough to admit that there should be MILLIONS OR BILLIONS of these remains? That is the obvious statistical reality and there is no denying that. Where are they?

And again, Creationism 101... There's 11 or 12 different "missing links" between our common ancestor with other great apes that have been discovered so far.

There should most definitely not be "MILLIONS OR BILLIONS". That is ridiculous. It's been estimated that if every single American were to die today, you'd end up with less than 1 complete human skeleton through fossilization, that's how rare it is. That is over 300 MILLION Americans. Think of the feat it is for an animal to become fossilized - that in itself is AMAZING! Next consider we actually have to go find them! And they can't be buried feet under the ground, they have to be exposed. Finally, consider this has been an active field of science for less than 200 years. If you expect we should have "MILLIONS OR BILLIONS" of fossils (let alone human transitions), you're fuckin' dreamin' buddy...

There is also a question of the genetic probability of these "mutations." We have to look at the probability of a COMPLEX and SIGNIFICANT mutation or series of mutations. Mutations are mostly dilutorius with beneficial ones being comparatively rare. According to you, because you can't understand how an organism could utilize a new feature in a different way. So we begin with statistical improbability. If the mutation is beneficial, it must occur simultaneously with a perfect, environmental situation - one that rarely occurs in nature.

Ugggh... AGAIN man! It's not "the environment changes then evolution introduces new mutations so the species can survive.", evolution is not sentient, it does not think or feel, it is only the process that helps the organism adapt better to the changing environment. The environment changes, then species ADAPT, and not always through mutations. It's not some "chance mutation" that happens at exactly the right time. It's mutations that happen because the environment changed. That is why you think it's some super ridiculous odds. Had the environment not changed, evolution would have remained constant throughout the species. Why change if you don't need to? Like I said when I quoted Dawkins "evolution only gets by" - Have you ever read any of those books I listed a few posts back?

Mutations all occur on a molecular level right? The reality of the natural selection scenario requires a series of many of these micro-mutations for each macro-mutation - maybe even tens of thousands. If all these micro-mutations are random, how is it there is a linear progression into a macro-mutation? Does it make sense to assume a micro holds while the process of random mutations repeats until another magic bullet ads to the first? No, it doesn't. It makes more sense that the first beneficial micro would be undermined by a subsequent harmful one or a beneficial one in a different direction. What you need is a series of random micros all working in the same direction to form a macro.

Evolution is not goal oriented. This is getting frustrating man, you're choosing not to understand this. The scientists and authors I listed do a much better job at explaining this very complex subject, especially for the layman, which isn't supposed to be an insult, it just really helps people understand these concepts better. Read some of those books.

And what of the process itself? You are looking at DNA and how life just keeps plowing forward but are you considering how DNA came to be? How exactly did an information system more complex than any super computer just come about by chance? Clearly, at one point there was no blue print for life in the form of DNA - did it self assemble?

DNA is not more complex than computers. We've broken our entire human genome, like I've mentioned before. We understand mutations and what specific gene sequences do. We can manipulate tissues and grow organs or valves or anything we need in the lab.

Nothing is by chance. Again with that word. Do you still not understand how none of it is "chance"?

Did DNA self assemble? Apparently it did.

And what of this mysterious force driving all life and the process of evolution? What is your theory as to what is pushing this quest for evolution?

Ready?









Are you ready for it??





































Survival.

 

[dukeofbaja]

What you refuse to consider is the statistical improbability of such a sequence of events.

How many of these "missing link" fossils are there?

Mutations are mostly dilutorius...

Before I jump into these two ID arguments, ones which I knew how to defeat as a 19 year old in BIO100 while courting the lady who will soon be my wife, I want to take issue with something very telling.

Dilutorius. I am pretty sure you meant 'deleterious'. You can not blame this one on dyslexia either. Just like visa vi or moray (I know, what a memory I have for a stoner...). Underlying these types of errors is something grander, which I won't get into. Just pointing it out should be enough for everyone to form their own conclusions....

As far as the statistical improbability goes, very easily defeated. The argument goes something like this....it is a huge jump to go from 0 to 832598721087032980590875098475093845098234, it would be the equivalent of a 1 in a trillion trillion shot. But that is not how evolution works. We did not go from 0 to 832598721087032980590875098475093845098234, we went from 0 to 8. Then to 83. Then to 832....so on and so forth until enough mutations landed us on 832598721087032980590875098475093845098234. Other animals got similarly 'lucky' to be so well adapted for their environments as well.

As far as the missing link argument goes, even easier. It is an argument that ID cannot lose by its very construction. If there is a gap in the fossil record, and we find the fossil that fills the gap, then there are two more gaps to fill. If we fill those two gaps, the ID proponents then have 4 gaps that we need to fill. For every gap that we fill, another 2 gaps come up to take its place. So even though the fossil record is becoming more complete, the ID proponents will argue that it is anything but as more gaps exist. SIlliness....

 

[mindphuk]

Straw man

It's not a strawman when I use your own words to demonstrate my point. I asked you to look at the construction of your questions and how they assume certain things in the way they are asked. How exactly is that a strawman?

To say you don't understand is not a cop-out when we go on to explain what it is you aren't understanding. If I wanted a cop-out, I would have just left it at that. That I am actually trying to correct your mistaken thought process is the exact opposite of a cop-out.

Mutations all occur on a molecular level right? The reality of the natural selection scenario requires a series of many of these micro-mutations for each macro-mutation - maybe even tens of thousands. If all these micro-mutations are random, how is it there is a linear progression into a macro-mutation? Does it make sense to assume a micro holds while the process of random mutations repeats until another magic bullet ads to the first?

Mutations occur on the genetic level. Some mutations can express themselves in very pronounced phenotypic changes. The environment only selects for phenotype. Sexual selection also promotes certain phenotypes over others. The only time anything magic is necessary is when a designer is invoked.

 

[Leothwyn]

LOL. We should be buried in a layer of bones miles deep. You have a degree in science Rick?!

 

[Padawanbater2]

LOL. We should be buried in a layer of bones miles deep. You have a degree in science Rick?!

That's what I'm sayin'... lol, why lie about it when it's so obvious?

Howbout a screenshot of that degree Rick?

 

[Patrick Bateman]

I fully understand that the concept of natural selection assumes numerous trial and error mutations until one takes hold and that the particular mutation is amplified through genetics. Stop using the "you don't understand cop-out." What you refuse to consider is the statistical improbability of such a sequence of events. If this mechanism is solely responsible for all species, the entire Earth would be covered in a layer of bone several miles deep.

No, trial and error assumes there is a goal

Evolution has no goal, I hope reiterating this will help you understand that

Mindphuk telling you that you do not comprehend is not a "cop-out", it is a fact

Maybe you do not fully grasp how many mechanisms influence mutation: Radiation, Viruses, Bacteria, Transposons, Mutagenic Chemicals, Errors by Polymerases, to name a few

Not to mention the effect Recombination / Crossing Over (during Meiosis) has on genetic variation

How many of these "missing link" fossils are there? Can you be honest enough to admit that there should be MILLIONS OR BILLIONS of these remains? That is the obvious statistical reality and there is no denying that. Where are they?

DeVry forgot to teach you about the various biases of fossils:

- Taxonomic: Species which contain orderly minerals (e.g. bone and shells) more likely
- Habitat: Burial in sediments is crucial, therefore more likely in beaches, mudflats, and swamps
- Temporal: Recent fossils much more common than ancient ones
- Abundance: Fossilization is improbable, therefore weighted toward common species

There are shortfalls in Evolutionary theory, no doubt

However I think your Creationist side causes you to make a gross generalization, when in fact 99.9% of the science is rock solid

 

[Dolce Vita]

I think we were all brought here by little green men from the peladies to pile rocks in the desert.

...no haha jk

 

[Xrtnfx]

Before I jump into these two ID arguments, ones which I knew how to defeat as a 19 year old in BIO100 while courting the lady who will soon be my wife

haha, yeah this is what I've been trying to get across

 

[RickWhite]

It is funny when people Goggle a subject and then repeat the terms they find as if they really know what they are.

Meanwhile, nobody has even attempted to answer any of the questions I posed. But, this doesn't surprise me. Here is Richard Dawkins trying and failing to explain the evolution of the eye. I will point out his fallacies below.

[video=youtube;1xNk6w3E6Jg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xNk6w3E6Jg&feature=related[/video]

Where this fails.

1) Dawkins begins with a complex system and makes no effort to explain it's evolution. His alleged "flat" retina is already complex and requires corresponding brain structure. One can not start out by assuming something that already possesses a high level of complexity as if it just appeared.

2) Dawkins focuses only on evolution of the eye itself and fails to address the equally complex brain structure that would have had to evolve simultaneously.

3) Dawkins fails to explain how each "mutation" occurred, expecting the audience to take for granted that the mutations he claims happened precisely as he said. Where is the actual DNA evidence of these mutations? What EXACTLY caused the change? How many millions of chance mutations were required for each change? What are the odds each mutation occurred in the same direction as the rest?

4) Dawkins tries to fool his audience into believing that because they can see an image made by light passing through a lens and shining upon a screen that the organism would also have sight. Sight, requires not just a functioning lens box, but a highly complex brain apparatus to process the image made by the light. So, when discussing evolution of the eye through chance mutation, we must also allege that another highly complex system in the brain developed to work perfectly in conjunction with the eye. Dawkins totally ignores this and fools people into overlooking the fact that it is their eye and complex brain that is interpreting the image and not his model. In fact, all Dawkins did was prove that he can construct a simple camera lens box a piece at a time. I could take DNA from a wagon wheel and from a tree and demonstrate in a similar fashion how evolution caused a piece of wood to become a wagon wheel - and with DNA evidence!


5) Dawkins has a little mountain he uses to show how organisms move up the mountain and can get stuck along the way, etc. He never addresses what in the world is driving the organisms to clime the mountain. Why does life appear to be so damn determined to move foreword that he was inspired to use a mountain as a metaphor if it is all random?

What is the driving force that drives evolution? If chance mutations in DNA are responsible for evolution, what is responsible for DNA? What was the evolutionary process that put together the highly complex information system that is now believed to be the underlying source of these mutations? Were they random chemical reactions? That seems highly unlikely. Why haven't we been able to produce life in a laboratory?