So here's the back story. Michael Behe writes a book, called "The Edge of Evolution". Richard Dawkins (not Dawkin's, Mr. Sullivan) reviewed "The Edge of Evolution". And Mr. Sullivan reviewed Dawkins review. Here, I will review Mr. Sullivan's review of Richard Dawkins' review.
Yep, I'm really going to do it. Just because it'll make me laugh.
Exactly my point in my post here in number 2 and 3... Always say ID scientists are creationists and always say they are not real scientists. In other words, demean them which is my point number 1.Beg pardon, your point number what?
Honestly, if you folks insist on using the word "Darwinist", I think it's only fair if we use the word "creationist". Really, we could be using "bronze age mythicist".
Here is a review of Dawkin's review written by Logan Gage. A quote from this review: "Dawkins is a master of rhetoric. Only he could take a clear example of intelligently designed evolution (dog breeding) and offer it as a convincing “proof” of Darwinian evolution."Now, who's review? *heavy sigh* Ok, bud. I'll spell it out for you, as slowly as I can possibly type. Behe claims that we could never expect in all the time on earth that random mutation could produce the variety of organisms seen on earth. Never in a billion years. That's Behe's claim. Dawkins shows that random mutation is sufficient to produce all the variety seen in dogkind. He is not using this as an example of evolution via natural selection. The only point he's trying to make is that random mutations happen, and happen frequently. He's merely pointing towards random mutations as a source of the change in all the varieties of dogs on earth.
Unless you're suggesting that the mutations that produced dogs were made by genetic Egyptian and Chinese genetic engineers in the bronze age, can we agree these were randomly produced mutations? And they are sufficient to produce every size and shape of dog on earth, in a matter of a few thousand years. Get it? Now multiply that time period by about 1,000,000. Might be enough time to account for all life on earth? Maybe?
From Pat Sullivan's comments:
I found his comparison of very intelligent dog breeding to be a rather silly argument for blind, random, slow evolution, especially for new species.Really? You find it silly? That's good, because he's not arguing that. He's arguing that random mutations can happen sufficiently frequently to produce massive changes in an organism. That is all. Mutations happen. Alot of 'em.
Even [another commenter] cite[s] it as proof something can evolve really fast. Sure, if it is be guided intelligently!Oy. Are you trying to be obtuse? This is just an argument for frequency of mutations. That is all. Please stop. Mr. Sullivan, you're clearly not ready to understand natural selection, so we can skip that lesson for today. Just try to comprehend that random mutation is sufficient to produce change. Again, unless you're positing bronze age molecular biologists making directed changes in the genome...
But fortunately, Mr. Sullivan clears it all up with this quote from a wise philosopher:
I said to someone over 30 years ago, "I fear a man's science is guided and governed by his underlying philosophy." I believe it even more now.Oh. Never mind, you're quoting your own wise wisdom of wiseness. Thanks for sharing.