Okay, so I had so much fun with my little exercise yesterday, that I thought I'd do it again. But this time, I'm going to include unicorns!
So, I'm reviewing Michael Egnor's review of Dawkins' review of, wait, what? Let's start again:
So Michael Egnor, of Rushing River of Stupid fame, also wrote a review of Dawkins' review of Michael Behe's new book. Clever Dr. Egnor writes:
According to Darwin’s theory, cockroaches really did evolve from ‘bacteria-like’ ancestors over billions of years. So, what’s the threshold of time after which I could plausibly infer that random mutation and natural selection was an adequate explanation for the cockroaches, starting with bacteria?Dr. Egnor? Meet Dr. Pace. Dr. Pace, meet Dr. Egnor. It seems Dr. Egnor really doesn't understand evolution by natural selection at all. Evolution doesn't posit that cockroaches evolved from bacteria. The theory of evolution by natural selection suggests that bacteria and cockroaches have a common ancestor from which both evolved. Cockroaches aren't more highly evolved than bacteria , Dr. Egnor. They are both highly evolved for their niche.
So I ask Dr. Dawkins:1) How long could I leave the bacteria in the incubator before I could reasonably infer that the cockroaches evolved from the bacteria by random mutation and natural selection? Please provide me with the experimental evidence (data and journal references) that you use to arrive at your answer.You really don't get it, do you? Please, sir, you're embarrassing yourself. One wouldn't predict bacteria to "evolve into cockroaches". Likely over millions and billions of years they would evolve into all kinds of new organisms, but not cockroaches. This is one of several fundamental differences between creationists and scientists. Creationists assume we (and the world around us) was inevitable. Scientists assume this is what happened, and investigate how it happened. Cockroaches aren't inevitable, Dr. Egnor. Whatever does evolve out of your experiment, it wouldn't be cockroaches.
2) If you can’t tell me, then why isn’t Dr. Behe’s question- what are the limits to what Darwinism can accomplish- a fair question?It's because your thought experiment is a stupid one. Let me design a similarly stupid experiment. How many years would I have to keep a container filled with air, earth, fire and water before God would create a unicorn for me? If you can't answer that question, how do you think Creationism (erm, I mean intelligent design) explains anything?