Eugene questions Dawkins

Eugene Shubert

Eugene Shubert

Valued Senior Member
I'm hoping that there is an evolutionist here who would be willing to give a reasonably brief while still conceptually detailed explanation of how legs evolved.
Click to expand...

What use are paralyzed legs or uncontrollable stubs? How did legs get their start? Many animals don’t have legs. But if prototype legs worked well enough to confer a small advantage for an animal to get closer to food or to escape a predator, then it doesn't matter how small and un-leglike the first legs were. However slight an improvement can be, it can make the difference between life and death. Natural selection will then favour slightly better, prototype legs. When these inefficient legs have become the norm, then a slight further increase in leg functionality will make the difference between life and death. And so on, until we have proper legs. See Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, pp. 89-90.
 
Sorry, are you the one asking the question? Or are you transcribing the question from someone else, and then answering it?
 
The short answer is that legs evolved from lobed fins, as fish-like vertebrates started exploring further out of oxygen-starved waters, in search of new food sources. Once out of the buoyancy of water, the ability to use one's fins to lift one's body off the ground became a distinct survival advantage.


dreamstimelarge_366980012-1024x270.jpg
 
Last edited:
I'm hoping that there is an evolutionist here who would be willing to give a reasonably brief while still conceptually detailed explanation of how consciousness evolved.
Click to expand...
What use is a paralyzed brain or uncontrollable neurons? How did consciousness evolve? Imagine a time when no animal attained the threshold of consciousness. If a prototype consciousness worked well enough to confer a small advantage for an animal to get food or to escape a predator, then it doesn't matter how unthinking and poorly conscious the first consciousness was. However slight an improvement can be, it can make the difference between life and death. Natural selection will then favour slightly better, prototype consciousness. When these inefficient consciousnesses have become the norm, then a slight further increase in consciousness and brain functionality will make the difference between life and death. And so on, until some species of animals have a highly evolved consciousness. See Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, pp. 89-90.
 
Suppose that Charles Darwin had studied a grand library of all the books and journals currently in print. Indisputably, great similarities, adaptations, spin-offs and plagiarisms would have been easy to recognize. I believe that Darwin would have rationalized the history of the grand library by imagining its highly ordered present-day existence to have come about by random and incremental variations. According to Neo-Darwinism, the following empirically unverified procedure is a valid method for building a library and acquiring knowledge:

"Begin with a meaningful phrase, retype it with a few mistakes, make it longer by adding letters, and rearrange subsequences in the string of letters; then examine the result to see if the new phrase is meaningful. Repeat this process until the library is complete." — Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, Wistar Institute Press, 1967, p. 110.
 
Eugene Shubert said:
Suppose that Charles Darwin had studied a grand library of all the books and journals currently in print. Indisputably, great similarities, adaptations, spin-offs and plagiarisms would have been easy to recognize. I believe that Darwin would have rationalized the history of the grand library by imagining its highly ordered present-day existence to have come about by random and incremental variations. According to Neo-Darwinism, the following empirically unverified procedure is a valid method for building a library and acquiring knowledge:

"Begin with a meaningful phrase, retype it with a few mistakes, make it longer by adding letters, and rearrange subsequences in the string of letters; then examine the result to see if the new phrase is meaningful. Repeat this process until the library is complete." — Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, Wistar Institute Press, 1967, p. 110.
Click to expand...

Since there is, in this supposed analogy, (a) no process of reproduction and ( b ) no relation between letter sequence and adaptations affecting survival, natural selection will not operate and thus the mechanism of evolution will be absent.

This stupid non-analogy would thus appear to be the work of a halfwit, or of someone seeking to bolster the beliefs of halfwits. Probably the latter, I should think.
 
mathman said:
This seems to be a biology question. What has it got to do with religion?
Click to expand...
Intelligent design, the poor excuse for science used by people too lazy to think. "All this had to have a designer!" And, of course, it's their own personal deity who did the designing.
 
mathman said:
This seems to be a biology question. What has it got to do with religion?
Click to expand...
You have to recognize the incredibly simplistic universality of this just-so-story and its ceaseless repetition in other expositions:

Evolutionists: How did consciousness evolve?
Evolutionists: How do libraries evolve?
Beware of Kamikaze Snakes. They Are Evolving into Flying Serpents!
 
Last edited:
Gawdzilla Sama said:
Are you looking for gotchas?
Click to expand...

I dont know why this chap bothers.
His belief is clearly against evolution and presumably think his belief will out weigh the science, which it wont, but he will be content to ignore the facts that wont fit his view.
If he was serious he would study the subject and learn why evolution is real.
Alex
 
Xelasnave.1947 said:
I dont know why this chap bothers.
His belief is clearly against evolution and presumably think his belief will out weigh the science,
Click to expand...
No. I believe in change over time, Darwin's four postulates and all their logical consequences. I'm merely asserting that any pretension as empty as the opening post should be classified as a type of religion, not science, and that my thesis is a valid debate topic.
 
Why would the OP invent a spurious analogy to evolution, only to turn around and show how the analogy is faulty?
OK, so a library is a terrible analogy for evolution. Granted.
Close thread?
 
Eugene Shubert said:
No. I believe in change over time, Darwin's four postulates and all their logical consequences. I'm merely asserting that any pretension as empty as the opening post should be classified as a type of religion, not science, and that my thesis is a valid debate topic.
Click to expand...
Well, if you examine the tenets of science versus religion you'll find a few critical differences.
In science, data came first, theory followed.
In science, there are ways to falsify a theory.
In science, the theory adapts - or falls - as new information is brought forth.

Our modern theory of evolution is something Darwin would hardly even recognize.
 
Eugene Shubert said:
How is the analogy faulty?
Click to expand...
Because you showed a number of ways that they don't have the same mechanisms or outcome.

eg. you suggested that a phrase is passed on based if it is "meaningful" - which requires intelligence to make such a decision - which is not what evolution is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top