( I could say exactly the same about Capanno here, so right back at you. )

Okey, well the reasons why I was totally unimpressed it because of the misunderstanding of statistics, the way complexity works and the evolution theory in general.

The whole book is centered around the wrong assumption that evolutionists believe mutations are the primary donor of new DNA information, whereas gene duplication (as well as other duplications) is the primary source of new information in DNA.

Let me give a quote of someone who tried to explain what's wrong with the 'statistics vs. complexity vs. evolution theory-approach (and yes it's from amazon.com);

The central tenet of Dr. Spetners book is that sophisticated mathematical and statistical analyses "prove" that Darwinian evolution by natural selection is not possible. Well, as it happens, this is exactly what one would expect from this type of analysis, and for a very simple reason.

Let's say that I get I get in my car and begin to drive down the road without any particular idea about where I am going. Every time I reach an intersection, I have a set of choices: I can turn right, left, or go straight on (Notice, my choices aren't unlimited, I can't turn "up" for example. At each intersection, I must choose from a limited set of choices). Now, every time I make that choice, not only do I determine a new direction of travel, but I also change all my future range of choices.

Now, let's say I drive for thirty days straight. What are the chances that I will arrive in Akron, Ohio at the end of those 30 days? Well, practically no chance at all. But, I have to end up SOMEWHERE. If, at the end of 30 days, I do end up in Akron, what can we deduce from this?

Nothing much. I am in Akron, but it would have been impossible to predict that I would arrive here in 30 days. By the same token, even though I am actually in Akron, it is still statistically impossible to show that I should be there. Statistically, I shouldn't be in Akron. When I look back at my journey, my arrival in Akron came about through hundreds of separate decisions at hundreds of separate intersections. Just one different decision might have sent me off to Orlando, Florida. Statistically, I shouldn't be in Akron. In fact, statistically, I shouldn't be, well, anywhere.

By the same token, evolution has been through millions of intersections. The chances of us arriving at this particular stage in our evolution would have been impossible to predict at the beginning. Now that we have arrived at our current location, statistics are useless in telling us if we could have gotten here through evolution. But we had to be somewhere. It just happens to be here.

It is telling, however, that despite his statistical analysis, Dr Spetner is forced to admit that there is both direct and indirect evidence for evolution. Even as he stands at the brink of declaring evolution to be a statistical impossibility, he steps back and acknowledges its truth, however grudgingly.

And another reaction this:


The progress of evolution is not random at all. The genetic mutation and variation due to sexual reproduction may be random, but the environment selects those mutations and variations that enhance the reproductive outcome for the organism. When a population of some trillions of bacteria are subjected to an antibiotic, and one of those bacterial cells happens to wind up antibiotic resistant (our figurative trip to Akron), it survives and the others die. It multiplies and the other do not. A new population of resistant bacteria arises not by the vagaries of chance, but by the hard realities of adaptation in an unforgiving environment.

To extend the "trip to Akron" metaphor, imagine trillions of drivers driving in all directions and winding up all over the map except for one thing. The guy that made it to Akron lives and the others are killed.

Convergent evolution isn't so surprising either. It may well happen, and in fact does happen, that two, three, four, or more guys make it to Akron by completely different routes. That insects, birds and bats all have wings and can fly does not require a miracle. It only requires that there be parallel evolutionary pressures on these different classes of animals, and parallel advantages to those among them that can make that increasingly long leap into the air work for them.

Again, Dr. Spetner attacks the wrong things using the wrong approach ...

Quote:

---

Well Im glad no evolutionist in this thread was my lawyer in some important court trial because I would lose my shirt. You guys just give up way too easily.

---

I think most judges and juries would have little problems figuring out who's right actually and who's back paddling, using wrong arguments is misinformed about certain facts and sometimes even ignorant. But hey, if you ever need a lawyer, you know where to find me,

Cheers