Evillusion

Today we are going to take a look inside the filthy mind of one of them vile and despicable creationists. Creationism, as you may know, is the idiotic idea that the life we see today is not the product of Evolution by Natural Selection, which is a preposterous claim, of course. I thought what I'd do was, I'd write a response to Steve's review of "The Blind Watchmaker" by the brilliant Richard Dawkins. And by "response" I mean that I am going to tear the review into little bits and make a comment to each. Ridicule will be involved, so it should be a good read. This is also known as the "Point and Laugh" strat.
Evillusion


I just finished reading Richard Dawkins book, “The Blind Watchmaker” (paperback, WW Norton Co., 1985). This book is pretty much considered to be the “bible” of modern day evolution.

Only in your own mind, you poor deluded fool. Scientists don't need a "bible".

I read it with as open of a mind as I could possibly muster.

Which doesn't mean much, coming from a filthy creationist.

I thought that maybe Richard Dawkins will be such an astute scientist and writer that I will be a reborn evolution believer. A few years ago, I would have sucked up everything he said.

As long as you are trapped in that religious mindset of yours you can't hope to challenge decades of Scientific progress. Or even make the tiniest bit of sense.

Aren’t there any true biological scientists out there that have the courage to challenge this guy?

Why would anyone want to challenge the Truth?

Dawkins is considered a genius, an icon in his field, the leading evolutionist on the planet earth. His writing is so easily dissected and dismantled.

You are living in a dream world of your own making. If you ever come by to visit Reality we can have a proper chat.

1. Of course, number one is how many mutation are “good”, and would be beneficial for an animal. I have never seen or read about a good mutation, but if he says they exist, let’s see some evidence, or at least a current lab experiment that shows that they do. Can it be shown that mutations can bring about retinal cells,or lens cells? Usually mutants are aberrations, and not pretty. Also, considering the fact that according to evolution biologists, well over 50% of mutations are neutral or not “good”, each “good” mutation would have to be accompanied by many neutral or “bad” mutations, which would mean one step forward and many steps back. But this is an old challenge which I am sure can be answered by Dawkins in some illogical way, but answered nonetheless.

  • Good mutations: First inconsistency noted. You acknowledge "micro" evolution on other pages of your site. Surely, you are aware that any kind of evolution is impossible without beneficial mutations? How then can you claim that you have never heard of a "good" mutation?
  • Mutants: Detrimental mutations cause what you call "mutants". These "mutants" die off as a part of the process of Natural Selection. However, a detrimental mutation is not always so severe as to cause a "mutant" and may even be passed on to future generations.
  • Many steps back: I am slightly puzzled by this remark (not really). You just noted that many mutations are neutral. So considering that many mutations are neutral and that many "bad" mutations won't be so severe as to kill off the new generation instantly, is it not conceivable that the "good" mutation will enter the gene pool? Let me spell it out for you: Through a few generations the beneficial mutation will be reinforced and any detrimental mutations will be weeded out.
  • I also note the arrogance.

2. The idea of 130 million retinal cells collecting a visual image, codifying that image, sending the code through 130 million connected nerve fibers to the visual cortex of the brain which decodes and forms the incredible images that we see is simply beyond imagination. The idea that these cells can casually evolve over eons without a plan is simply beyond unthinkable. Dawkins explains it matter-of-factly as if all you need is millions of years, and it will happen. Sorry Richard, I can’t in my wildest imagination come up with the micro-change scenario that produces a retina, nerve fibers, code, and visual cortex to decode, even ignoring all of the other parts that must somehow magically come together. And, how could a code that the visual cortex of the brain would interpret as vision evolve? Of course here we run into irreducible complexity again. An evolving code would be useless until there was enough to produce vision. How would evolution know……..?

Wow... That has got to be the most obvious (and longwinded) Argument From Personal Credulity I have ever seen. Poor Steve thinks that AFPI is just some cheap attack that we evil "evolutionists" use when we can't answer his questions, so let's break it down some.

First, the definition of AFPI:

The argument from personal incredulity [...] refers to an assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed not to be true [...]

Then the dissection:

The idea of 130 million retinal cells collecting a visual image, codifying that image, sending the code through 130 million connected nerve fibers to the visual cortex of the brain which decodes and forms the incredible images that we see is simply beyond imagination.

It is beyond imagination, therefore it didn't happen.

The idea that these cells can casually evolve over eons without a plan is simply beyond unthinkable.

It is beyond unthinkable, therefore it didn't happen.

Sorry Richard, I can’t in my wildest imagination come up with the micro-change scenario that produces a retina, nerve fibers, code, and visual cortex to decode, even ignoring all of the other parts that must somehow magically come together.

It seems like magic, therefore it didn't happen.

How would evolution know……..?

*Sigh* - You're stuck in a certain mode of thinking that requires intent for any event you observe.

3 . For each gene undergoing a mutation there must be a large number of different possibilities of change. But, to help Dawkins, lets say there are only four or five. According to Dawkins, to evolve eyes, tens or hundreds of millions of mutations would have to occur so that several hundred thousand of the correct mutations could be selected and lead to a vision system. Each change that is selected must have at least two criteria to lead to eye formation: (1) The change must be beneficial, in some way, to the species individual to help it survive, (2) The change must be on the exact road that will lead to the evolution of a fully functioning and incredibly complex vision system. So, if there are four possible changes, what are the odds that the correct mutation will always occur that will accomplish both (1) and (2)? It’s highly possible that the mutation might not lead to eye formation, but be beneficial to the animal at that particular step. It is ridiculous to think that each of the hundreds of thousands of changes would have both criteria (1) and (2). And, since most mutations are neutral or deleterious, the idea that these changes will take a perfect path to vision-hood is simply ridiculous. The path to vision would have to be unimaginably accurate and direct. One slight miscue, one wrong path taken, and there would be no vision. The earliest steps would be most dangerous, because, mathematically, they would cause the greatest drift from the path to vision in the later steps. The odds against “eye” would would be unimaginably immense.

  • You seem unable to comprehend the immensity of the "parallel processing" that is going on.
  • Organs can have their function changed. We don't necessarily need a direct path. That's why the argument from irreducible complexity is bunk. If you remove one part, the organ may just be doing something else.
  • I sense another AFPI.

4. Dawkins thinks that there were 100,000 to 250,000 mutations that evolved eyes. Since eyes have about 30 parts, just how did the 100,000 to 250,000 mutations divvy up amongst the 30 parts? Did 10,000 make the retina? Did 3,450 make the iris? Of course the mutations would have to work as a team, later mutations completing the job the that earlier ones started. Later “iris mutations” would have to add to earlier “iris mutations”, for example. Just imagine the accounting system that would be required for eye evolution.

Accounting system?! There's that intention seeking again. And that would be another subtle AFPI.

5. Dawkins calls the eyeball an evolutionary “target”, but one that is not chosen ahead of time. Of course targets always require an intelligent chooser, whether it be darts, a gun, a cannon, or an eye system. Targets require intelligence. If a person was to throw darts in a bar without picking a target, he would have some pretty unhappy bar patrons who would probably kick him out. For Dawkins to discuss targets is an admission of intelligence, which he does not even realize.

This one left me speechless for a while. Steve, are you really that stupid? Do you also think that the "selfish" gene is such an admission of intelligence? You probably do. Even my five year old nephew would be able to understand the specialised meaning of such words, but not you, Steve. No, you're too smart for that.
Dawkins explicitly redefines such words as to not entail intelligence. He does that because his books are aimed at the layman, so tweaking already familiar words is an effective way of getting the message across. It doesn't require much imagination[1] to understand such a simple concept.

6. When we think of an eye evolving “in space”, it is kind of easy to think about an eye gradually forming from no eye, and, voila!….a complete eye. But nothing is ever mentioned about the gross realities of eye evolution. No questions are asked by evolution scientists. Did the eye first evolve in just one species, which then spread the miracle to other species? Or, did the eye evolve in hundreds/thousands of species all in unison, at the same time, kind of like a huge choir singing? [...]

The eye probably evolved more than once, just like wing-like features have. The rest of this point is AFPI.

The odds against similarly designed complex visual systems evolving in hundreds/thousands of species in hundreds of thousands of matched steps, all winding up with the nearly identical targets, is incalculable.

Similar, yes, but not identical. There are only so many ways to construct a camera (though I will note that evolution has tried other paths such as echolocation and electrolocation, which is what you would expect from an unguided process). And AFPI again.

7. The really interesting thing about eye evolution is the fact that it supposedly stopped when pretty good perfection was achieved. According to Dawkins, mutations occur at the rate of 1 per million transactions. Therefore, change should be a constant. Eyes, as well as all organs, should be in a constant state of flux. They should still be evolving. The one in a million mutations should be a constant. But, lucky for us, it is not. Eyes pretty much had to discontinued their evolutionary ways millions of years ago. If they were still evolving, they might just evolve into some other organ that might not involve sight! For some reason the evolution stopped. But, why?

  • Evolution will tend to slow down at the point where any mutation is either neutral or deleterious. Does that surprise you? The mutations still occur, they just don't add up to anything because there are no beneficial mutations to reinforce.
  • Other organ: Now you're just being silly. Losing vision would be a huge disadvantage. However, many mutations that would have been highly deleterious in the past are now pretty much neutral due to medical advances. I cannot see a thing without my glasses and would have been dead meat a few thousand years ago. The human eye may slowly degenerate, though I doubt we will reach a point where we become effectively blind. Selective pressures will likely set in before that.[2]

8. In arguing that a gradually developed eye would be useful in its early stages from no eye to eye, Dawkins says that an eye that had evolved 5% would give the owner 5% vision, which would certainly be better than no vision at all in escaping predators, and in searching for food. His only problem here is that virtually no mechanical device on earth will function as its intended use with 5% of its parts. A 5% eye will yield no vision at all, anymore than a car with 5% its parts will carry you 5 miles per hour, or a television with 5% of its parts will yield a 5% picture on a non-existent screen. Retinal or light sensitive cells, optic nerves, retinal systems that code the image for transmission in the optic nerve, and a visual cortex capable of decoding the signal are minimal requirements for even 5% vision. These parts would of course represent well over 5% of a complex visual system, facts ignored by Dawkins. Dawkins conclusion here is doltish for an apparently intelligent person. But, I am 100% certain that he would argue that a 5% eye would be different, and yield 5% vision. Why? Because he is an evolutionist! He can say anything, and people will believe!

Oh, for Pete's sake. Maybe you should go watch that clip on the evolution of the eye again. A 5% eye would not be 5% of a modern eye. It would be something like a slightly curved light sensitive patch of skin. Basically, your eighth point is a straw man[3]. And the condescension is duly noted.

9. Dawkins states, “Eyes don’t fossilize, so we don’t know how long our type of eye took to evolve its present complexity and perfection from nothing, but the time available is several hundred million years. (p. 40) His big problem here is that soft tissue does fossilize. The evolution of the eye, as well as the evolution of the ear, should be evidenced by the evolution of indentations of early fossils. Of course, there is zero fossil evidence for eye and ear evolution. Also, there are a plethora of examples of soft tissue fossils. Above is a jellyfish fossil. Early single celled animals were detected by fossils.

I don't have the relevant knowledge to comment on that, so I'll just distract you with this delicious pie:

10. Dawkins writes: “Think of all the intricately cooperating working parts (of the eye): The lens with its clear transparency, its colour correction and its correction for spherical distortion, the muscles that can instantly focus the lens in any target from a few inches to infinity; the iris diaphragm of “stopping down” mechanism, which fine-tunes the aperture of the eye continuously, like a camera with a built-in light meter, and fast special-purpose computer ; the retina with its 125 million colour-coding photocells; the fine network of blood vessels that fuels every part of the machine; the even finer network 0f nerves-the equivalent of connecting wires and electronic chips. Hold all this fine-chiseled complexity in your mind and ask yourself whether it could have been put together by the principle of use and disuse. The answer, it seems to me, is an obvious “no”.” Richard: Ask yourself the same question with natural selection and mutations. Could natural selection and mutations create all of this? It seems to me the answer is a huge and obvious “NO”. Throw in all of the other organs, which would have to go through the same thousands of steps of evolution, and the only answer you could come up with would be: Darwinian evolution is impossible.

Blah blah blah... AFPI.

Dawkins states that many animals that existed before birds were able to leap from tree to tree, like a lot of animals today. Some could jump farther distances than others, and would not fall from heights that would cause them death. Others could not, and they would eventually fall and be killed. Survival of the fittest would be in action here. The best jumpers would out-survive the worst. Plus, the best jumpers may have had skin between their body and legs or aerodynamic bodies that could enhance their flight. Dawkins labels the height at which a leaping animal would just survive h, which makes this discussion seem real scientific, as if he is going to make some mathematical formula. (He doesn’t.) Eventually the animals might find that “flapping” would enhance their flying, and they would begin growing wings and feathers. The final result would be the incredibly aerodynamic wings of modern birds. Of course the question arises: why aren’t the short jumping animals of today falling and dying, and the good jumpers evolving wings that yield flight? There are currently a huge number of species that make tree to tree jumps. I bet Dawkins would say they are “modern” animals, and evolution stopped for them. The most preposterous thing about this scenario is the idea that the animals could spring wings; incredibly aerodynamic wings at that, plus feathers, and brains that are capable of flapping the wings in such a perfect way which yields the unimaginable flight that we see in birds today. And, of course, as with all of evolution, where are the fossils that back up Dawkins? Where are the growing wings? Non existent. Actually one could cite chickens and ostriches, as they have remnant wings. Since evolutionists cite “simple” eyes, why not these flightless small winged birds to demonstrate flight evolution?

So much nonsense, so little time. I think I'll just dissect this.

Of course the question arises: why aren’t the short jumping animals of today falling and dying, and the good jumpers evolving wings that yield flight?

What makes you think they aren't? The process takes time, dimwit. Of course, the proper questions are:

  1. Is there any advantage to proper flight for the given animal?
  2. How costly would it be to evolve proper flight given the current body structure?

I bet Dawkins would say they are “modern” animals, and evolution stopped for them.

No, Dawkins wouldn't say that. Where did you get that ridiculous idea?

The most preposterous thing about this scenario is the idea that the animals could spring wings; incredibly aerodynamic wings at that, plus feathers, and brains that are capable of flapping the wings in such a perfect way which yields the unimaginable flight that we see in birds today.

They didn't "spring" wings. Do you understand the word "slowly"? As in over a period of millions of years?

Actually one could cite chickens and ostriches, as they have remnant wings.

Yes, they have remnant wings. They don't have something that looks like it may become wings at some point in the future. The chicken can still fly and the ostrich evolved from something that could fly at some point in the past.

Dawkins on bat sonar:

Unsurprisingly, this whole section is another AFPI.

One would think that Dawkins just might think that bat sonar simply could not be put together with mutations and natural selection.

Why? Because you cannot imagine how this could possibly happen? I am sorry, but that is just not a very good reason at all.

If there was ever evidence that Darwin’s theory is impossible, this certainly is proof.

AFPI!

Bats have had sonar for millions of years. Mankind started making sonar just a few decades ago.

What's your point? The bats got a headstart, in case you didn't know.

It sure would have been interesting to watch the first bat that had the completely evolved equipment. (There had to be a first!) How did it figure out what to do with its new found ability?

I simply cannot believe that you have studied evolution at all. Your comment that there had to be a first is just so droolingly stupid that I am going to pretend I did not read it. Anyway, it did not "figure out" what to do with it. It did not have to. The genes for that "equipment" evolved alongside genes for behaviour. In fact, the system would be exceedingly unlikely to evolve at all if this was not the case.

The word “design” just reeks of intelligence.

Once again you totally miss the point. Let's examine what Dawkins wrote:

Animals give the appearance of having been designed by a theoretically sophisticated and practically ingenious physicist or engineer.

Get it? No? I am not surprised.

Dawkins discusses the unbelievably low chance that a hemoglobin molecule could form from some sort of primordial soup (p. 45):

More AFPI. This is getting boring. I will just touch upon your comments in regard to simulations.

Is Dawkins really a scientist? How could he possibly think that this human programmed project could have anything whatsoever to do with what happens in nature?

Yes, Dawkins is a scientist. Unlike you, I might add. His human programmed project is a simplified simulation of what happens in nature. It is not, as you mistakenly claim, evidence in itself, but rather provides us with an explanatory tool. More sophisticated simulations are also useful for making predictions, which can then be tested. You really are clueless if you think simulations have no place in science.

Can anyone imagine what benefit each of 41 the steps might be?

By now, you should know what my usual comment would be to this.

Dawkins makes a computer program that shows how stick tree branches can multiply (p. 52): Eventually, after many automated steps, some branches of Dawkins computer tree morphed into squiggles that look like insects! Dawkins was delighted, and thought that this was more evidence of evolution. Richard, you are wasting your time. This computer model, in fact no human made computer model, can come even remotely close to mimicking what happened in nature to bring about species. And those squiggles aren’t even close to being insects.

More drivel and unwarranted condescension.

  • Where did Dawkins claim that it was evidence of evolution?
  • Again, it is a simplified simulation used to highlight some mechanisms of evolution.
  • Whether they look like insects or not is utterly irrelevant. As an educator Dawkins knows that familiarity is useful. Looking at generated images with no resemblance to anything we know from nature is not very interesting. Insect stick figures that you can evolve yourself, on the other hand, is sure to captivate the audience. As a father you should know this too, Steve.

Dawkins on ears and hearing (p. 90):

Blah, blah, blah, AFPI, blah, blah, Dawkins is stupid, blah, blah, blah.

Another astounding Dawkins quote regarding the attempt to synthesize life in the laboratory (p. 165), the Cambrian explosion (p. 229), and “gaps”(p. 240):

Ugh... The idiocy is positively nauseating.

Dawkins despises creationists and is a believer:

Wow... Nice piece of propaganda there... I am still going to rip it apart though.

Evolutionists despise people that disagree with them?

As you noted, there are different schools of thought within the scientific community, so if they despised people who disagreed with them they would be despising eachother. No, what they despise is people like you who spout unsupported nonsense in an attempt to cloud people's minds.

Doesn’t that make evolution a spiteful religion?

Cheap shot, Steve.

  1. It is not, as you are very well aware, a religion.
  2. Maybe you should have a look at your own writings. Most of the spite and hate in this debate seems to be produced by obsessed people like you. Honestly, your whole site seems to be dedicated to throwing snide remarks at people you do not like. Grow up, Steve.[4]

And, evolutionists believe that the sudden appearance of 47% of all species is due to missing precursor fossils?

Look up "equivocation", then look up "belief".
They believe what they do because that is where the evidence leads them. This is a perfectly acceptable use of the word.

According to Dawkins, after the population splits and morphs into two species: “……..if there is significant competition between the two species, most ecologists would expect one or the other species to go extinct…. (Why, since they are separated?) If it happened to be the original, ancestral species that was driven extinct, we should say that it had been replaced by the new immigrant species.”

If they can be separated, then they can also be reunited. There have also been cases of populations splitting off even though there are no obvious physical barriers, which means that the two populations still live in the same environment and can influence eachother.

Dawkins attributes the splitting of populations to “geographic separation”. According to Dawkins, a mountain may arise in the middle of a population, splitting it into two smaller groups. Because each would now have differing evolutionary forces, they would morph into two different species, and they would not be able to reproduce with each other. Can anyone really imagine this scenario happening the millions and millions of times that would be required to produce the millions and millions of species that have inhabited the earth?

That geographic separation can give rise to speciation does not mean that it is the only way for it to happen. It would be daft to suggest otherwise and outright idiotic to argue the way you do.

I cannot be bothered with the rest of this so-called review. I should not have to. Anyone who has read this far will know how to deal with it themselves.



Conclusion

I have no patience left for IDiots and cretinists like Steve. Their mindnumbing and incoherent blabbering drains me of my creative energies.
Steve claims to have studied evolution and he does seem to know some words and details of evolved systems, but he is absolutely clueless when it comes to the details of evolution itself.
He also claims that he is not a biblical creationist, but it should be clear what agenda his mindless propaganda serves. He is a puppet of the creationist movement, whether he likes it or not.


  1. Fun Fact: Creationists do not have an imagination. Instead they rely on bad logic to construct a worldview void of coherence.
  2. This piece of pure speculation is just for you, Steve, so you have something to target.
  3. Straw men are made up of two parts arrogance, one part ignorance, one part mendacity and three parts envy.
  4. Try making a site about what you think is true instead. It would be much more respectable.