The great Darwin debate continues (see two previous blogs)

What is your source for that conclusion on the time required for a cell to form? More importantly, why did it involve single atoms randomly combining rather than amino acids, which, as we have nown since the fifties, can form from chemicals present four billion years ago (I know that they did not form the entire atmosphere, as was thought at the time, but there still would have been large quantities of them around volcanoes)?

I'm sorry, I posted and then thought of documenting this. My best source is the late arch-materialist and deserver of several Nobel prizes, Sir Fred Hoyle "The Mathematics of Evolution" (published by Brig Klyce aka Acorn Enterprises in 1991 I believe) Lot's of stories I can tell about Fred, but you can be assured theism was not one of his beliefs. Another, even more accessible book is Lee Spetner's book "Not by Chance!". Lee is Jewish and a former electrical engineer. Both of these books are heavy on the math, which is a major weakness with biologists and evolutionists.

For both Fred and Lee their key conclusion is concerning probabilities. "What is the probability that a certain critical enzyme or DNA will be constructed given enough raw materials?" These astronomical numbers are for specific proteins, since no one, even today, can give the probabilty for the entire cell. What I did was to take the probability for what pro-evolutionists consider their best scenario (warm pond and all) then give it every conceivable advantage using the entire universe as a warm pond and every atom as an amino acid, and show that we still come up short. This is William Dembski's approach in his books "The Design Inference", "Intelligent Design", "The Design Revolution", "No Free Lunch". Clearly then, we aren't underestimating the chances. And Darwin himself knew this, which is why he believed in an eternal universe. This is why Democritus and Epicurus made eternal past a statement of faith (in contradistinction to Christianity). This is why Sir Fred Hoyle never got the Nobel Prize, he refused to believe in the Big Bang because it messed up his view of the origin of life.

Chihuahuas and great danes are in the same species because chihuahuas can breed with other breeds, which can breed with other breeds, etc. until you get to great danes. If the only breeds of dog were chihuahuas and great danes (I am assuming that they cannot breed) they would probably be separate species. Mayr's definition of species has exceptions in the animal kingdom, but when they are made, they are to split populations that can breed into separate species. Under what definition of species are two populations that cannot breed the same species?

You just said that all dogs are the same species because they form overlapping breeding populations. Yet the site you referred me to, talkorigins.org, claimed that this was evidence of separate species! Which just goes to show that the definition of specie is way too fluid and undefined morphologically. This demonstrates the need to define species not just morphologically but also genetically. Which is actually how it is done for microbiology. But read your last sentence again and transpose it to the beginning of your paragraph, and see if you haven't contradicted yourself.

There are actually plenty of found links in the fossil record. For examples, see talkorigins.org, the Understanding Evolution website, and the Fossil Evidence ssection of the website for the Nova episode Judgement Day. While at that last site, also see the In defense of Evolution section for what I consider to be the single best piece of evidence for evolution (it's the part about telomeres and centromeres).

But you misunderstand the debate, Michael. We aren't debating whether there is evidence for evolution here and there, we are debating whether there is no evidence for design. For once design creeps in, then design can "look like evolution" if it wants to. In which case, it is "designed evolution". But the Evolutionary theory excludes *all* design. So it isn't proof that all species evolved, if you can only show *some* evolved. Evolution is the far more restrictive hypothesis, and scattered, weak evidence isn't much of a proof. Darwin must prove that all species evolved, that design is never present, or otherwise he's just another form of theism. And for the record, I'm singularly unimpressed with even the *best* proofs at talkorigins.

I do not see how punctuated equilibrium is a problem for evolution, inasmuch as it  is a modification of, not a replacement for, Darwin's theory.

You could put it that way. But it is just another way of denying gradualism, of affirming Gould's punctuated theory, of inserting "unnaturalism" into the picture. Very disturbing to Darwin who acknowledged the problem too.

Until recently, you would have been correct in saying that there are no known Jurassic feathered dinosaurs (not counting birds as dinosaurs). Ths would not have mattered, as Archaeoopteryx is itself a found link and cladograms constructed on bases other than feather structure show that dinosaurs less closely related to birds have more primitive feathers (see the March 2003 Scientific American article "Which Came First, the Feather or the Bird?"). However, a feathered dinosaur from the Jurassic called Epidexipteryx has recently been discovered, so your point is not only inconsequential but incorrect.

Hah! Since it only hit the news this past week, I've fingered you as a far more committed reader of Nature than you admitted at the beginning of this interchange. But you missed two crucial points in the article. One is the way in which the Chinese couched their time line. It is approximately concurrent with flight birds, not a predecessor, though as you point out, older than the controversial "missing link" Archaeoopteryx which occurred *after* birds show up. (Try to find that statement in a college biology textbook!) But, even more intriguing is the inference that the Chinese found another fossil that is more controversial. The bets are that it is an older bird fossil.

But this is my point. If Darwin was right, we shouldn't be having this long discussion about dino-bird evolution. It should be obvious. And it isn't. Something is wrong when the classic icon in the biology textbooks, the "best typical example" as we say in science, is so controversial.

Finally, if the thesis of Expelled is merely that ID poponents are "denounced" (that is, criticized for having no evidence and trying to pass off a religious belief as science), then that alone would make it laughable even by creationist standards. If the thesis is that ID proponents are suppressed, my point remains (and see expelledexposed.com to see that this is not the case).

You didn't take my advice. You are reading blogs about the movie. Watch the movie. Then talk to me about it. Its on the internet. In the time you took to write that long response to me, you could have watched it on YouTube, I gave you the link. Do it. Then argue with me about what it said.

And that is the whole problem with evolution. We talk about it without ever confronting the evidence directly. If you actually read the scientific papers, Darwin's theory is exposed for what it is--a lot of unsubstantiated philosophizing. Most of what you read about Expelled is hot air.  But I'm not interested in what people think about it, I want to see if for myself. If you love the truth, you will know what I mean. If you don't love the truth, no amount of this typing will change your mind.