dAWKINS iS rIGHT aBOUT iSLAM

 i WISH i COULD READ THE TITLE OF THIS INTERVIEW i'M LISTENING TO, A RATHER CHUBBY FACED GUY INTERVIEWING HIM BUT i CAN'T SEE HIS NAME OR THE TITL EOF THE INTERVIEW.

bUT dAWKINS IS ABOLUTLY RIGHT ABOUT ISALMA.  I WISH HE DIDN'T ELIDE IT WITH cHRISTIANITY BUT i HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT HE'S TALKING MOSTLY ABOUT MIDEIEVEL "cHRISTIANITY" WHICH IS OF COURSE rOMAN cATHOLICISM WHICH USURPED THE CHURCH IN THE SEVENTH CENTURY, AT THE SAME TIME, INCIDENTLY;LY THAT iSLAM WAS GETTING STARTED IN THE eASTERN PART OF THE eMPRIE.    tHE TWO RELIGIONS DO FORM THE TWO LEGS OF THE STATUE OF nEBUCHADNEZZARS DREAM DESCRIBED IN dANIEL tWO, THE TWO LEGS OF THE EMPIRE ITSELF REALLY AS THE bISHOP OF rOME REALLY DID INSINUATE HIMSELF INTO THE POSITION OF cAESAR IN SOME COCKEYEED FASHION.  aND PRESIDED OVER SOMETHING HE CALLED THE hOLY rOMNAN eMPIRE, WHICH AS vOLTAIRE CALLED IT, WAS NOT hOLY, NOR rOMAN NOR AN eMPIRE AND SO MUCH FOR THAT.  bUTG IT WAS THE REVIVAL O THAT EMPIRE IN SOME IMPORTANT SENSE, AND hITLER TRIED TO FOLLOW IT WITH HIS tHIRD REIGH.  

BUT ISALM REALLY IS THAT EVIL RELIGION dAWKINS IS TALKING ABOUT.  aND cATHOLICISM'S ATROCITIES HAVE BEEN PUT ON A BACK BURNER AS IT WERE FOR A S LONG AS pROTESTANTISM HOLDS OUT IN SOME FORM OF POWER, THOUGH UIT'S NOT LOOKING GOOD .  pERHAPS WE WILL BE RAPTURED SOON AND THEN THE pOPE WILL SHOW HIS TRUE COLORS AS THE aNTICHRIST AND THEN THE COUNTDOWN WILL BEGIN TO THE RETURN OF jESUS cHRIST.

iSLAM WAS THE WORLD OF THE DEVIL THORUGH THE DEMON THAT CALLED ITSELF gABRIEL WHO TALKED TO mOHAMMED IN THE CAVE, BUT cATHOLICISM WAS THE WORK OF THE DEVIL IN OTHER WAYS, GRADUALLY INSINUATING THE PAGAN RELIGION OF GABYLON THROUGH rOME INTO cHRISTIANITY.  THERE IS NO JSTIFICATION FOR MURDERING APOSTATES IN cHRISTAINTIY, BUT THERE IS IN cATHOLICISM.\\\\

iT'S TINE INTERVIEWER, HOWEVER HE IS, WHO IS THE SILLY ONE, THE WRONG ONE, IN THE PART OF THE DISCUSSION ABOUT iSLAM.  HE ISN'T GETTING IT AT ALL.  DAWKINS IS VERY VERY RIGHT IN THIS ONE PART.

hOW VERY NICE IT WOULD BE IF HIS GOOD FRIEND aYAAN hIRSI aLI COULD INFLUENCE HIM OUT OF SOEME OF HIS SILLY IDEAS ABOUT RELIGION.

i'VE LOST TRACK OF THIS POST UNFORTNATELY.  i THINK IT WS ABOUT iSLAM AN dAWKINS BEING RIGH TABOUT IT?

wELL i'M GOING TO TAKE IT SOMEWHERE ELSE ANYWAY.

HE GOES ON IN THT DISCUSCION TO SAY HE DOESN'T WANT TO INDOCTRINATE ANYOE INTO ATHEISM, SAY IN THE SCHOOLS.  gREAT.  HE WANT SOT TEACH CRIMTICAL THINKING, HOW TO THINK THROUGH EVIDENCDE AND THAT SORT OF THING.  wONDERFUL.  eXACTLY WHAT i THINKI WE SHOULD BE TREACHING.  aND i THINK HE HIMJSELF FAILS AT IT MONUJENTALLY AS I;VE BEEN TRYING TO POINT OUT.  

TGHEN HE GOES INTO HOW RELIGIOUS aMERICA IS AND WHAT A BAD THING THAT IS AS IT SUPPOSEDLY PRODUCES PVERTY AND SO ON.  BUT HE'S ABSOLUTELY OFF TRACK ON THIS ONE.  aMERICA BECAME THE MOST PROSPEROURS NATION ON EARTH beca*se WE WERE cHREIRTIAN, AS tOQUEVILLE SAID.  aMERICA IS GREAT BECAUSE SHE IS GOOD IS ATRIRBUTED TO toquevill, and I know it may not hvae been from him originally but it does express the point he ws making in his book Democracy in Ameri a.  Chrtsitianity is THE engine that created America and I'm glad to thini we still ahve enough of it still left that there might be hope that we could revocvoer from the onslilaught of all the forces Dawkins would like to bring back against us.   No.  Christianity is the reason we prospered and the reason we are able to have such a free socieyt.  As John Adams said our governemtn was made for a moral and religious people and is wholly inadequate for thte governing of ay other.  yes yes yes.  But we've been losing that religious charcter and that's a tragediy.  becaue that could dump us right into the totalitarian grinder.   As it looks like could happy with this coming election.

Dawkins needs to hera from his friend Ayaan Hirsi Ali about how America was founded on Christianity and all our benefits come from it, and that the cause of our success can't be attributed to anything else and can't be trans[lantedywhere else because it is built on Christian culture.    Europe has some of th

\\ut unforutnately it has centuries of catholic totalitarianism behind it.

and is now getting overrun by Islam too, which could happen to us as well if we are unsuccessful at doing what needs to be done in this next electionj.  

tHE sIMPLE bDEOLOGICA\\\\\\\tHE sIMJPLE gEOLOGICAL eVIDENCE aGAINST tIME pERIODS AND THE fDOSSIL REOCRD AND THEREFORE AGAINST EVOLUTION

tHE SEDIMENTARY ROCK STRATA THAT ARE FOUND STACKED DEEP IN THE gRAND cANYON AND PRESUMABLY ONCE WERE ALSO THAT DEEP EVERYWHERE ELSE, CA'T POSSIBLY BE TIME PERIODS BECAUSE  THEY ARE NOTHIJG BUT ROCK, HUGE SLABS OF ROCK, ALL OF ONE SEDIMENTARY COMPOSITION IN MANY CASES, SUCH AS LIMESTONE OR SHALE OR SANDSTONE.  nOTHING EVER HAPPENED TO DISTURB THEM EITHER AS WE SEE IN THE gRAND cANYON, THEY ARE ALL LYING THERE ONE ON TOP OF ANOTHER IN NEAT PARALLEL FROM TOP TO TOBBTTOM OF THE STACK WITH NO SIGNS OF ANY OF THE USUAL ACTIVITY TO BE FOUND ON THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH , AS WE SLIVE ON IT NOW FOR INSTANCE.  iTG'S NOTHING BUT HOMOGENEOUS ROCK.  eACH LAYER.   nOTHING COULD LIVE ON IT OR IN IT AND YET IT'S ALL THERE IS FOR MANY THOUSANDS OF SQUARE MILES AND SAID TO PRESPRENREPRESENT A VERY LONG PERIOD OF TIME ON THE PLANET.  HUNDREDS OF MILLIONJS OF YEARS IN OMSE CASES.   

yOU CAN'T ANSWER THIS.  yOU REALLY CAN'T.  iT KILLS THE IDEA OF TIME PERIODS.

aND WITH THAT IDEA DEAD IT ALSO KILLS THE IDEA OF THE FOSSIL RECORD.  tHERE ARE INDEED FOSSILS INSIDE THESE LAYERS OF ROCK, AND THEY DO SORT OF LOOKS LIKE THEY MAKE A PROGRESSIONFROM SIMPLE TO COMPLEX.  rAELLY THE SHOW MORE OF A

THEY SEEM TO PROGRESS FROM SIMPLE TO COMPLEX AND FROM SMALL TO LARGER BUT THIS HAS TO BE SOME KIND OF ILLUSION BECAUSE THE ROCKS THEAT REPRESENT THE TIME PERIODS IN WHICH THEY ARE FOUND CAN'T POSSIBLY REALLY HAVE OCCURRED IN THOSE TIME PERIODS.  tHEY DO NOT REPRESENT TIME PERIODS.  sO THE FOSSILS DO NOT REPRESENT AN EVOLUTIONARY HISTORY.

WATER LAYS DOWN SEDIMENTS SEPAREATELY IN RIVER DELTAS AND ON SHORELINES.  THAT'S THE BEST WAY TO UNDERSTAND THE STRATA   .  THERE ARE ALSO STUDIES DONE IN LABORABTORIES. FLUME STUIDES i THINK THEY ARE CALLED, IN WHICH MOVING WATER IS SHOWN TO DO THE SAME THING, LAY DOEWN SEDIMENTS SEPARATELY FROM ONE ANOTHER.   

sO THE FOSSILS HAD TO HAVE BEEN LIVING THINGS THAT WERE CAUGHT UP IN THE STREAM OF A PARTICULAR SEDIMENT, A LAYER OF WATER, A CHANNEL, A N UNDERGROUND RIVER, i'M LOOKING FOR THE WORD FOR THAT STREAM IN THE COEAN THAT RUND GREAT DISTANCES, CAN'T THINK OF IT, BUT WATVEST THEMSELVES SEEM TO SORT SEDIMENTS JUGING BY THE FACT THAT THEY ACCUMULATE T SHORELINES IN SEPARATED LAYERS.  

sOMETHING cURRENT.

sO DESPITE THE SEEMING PROGRESSION OF THE LIVING THINGS REPRESENTED BY THE FOSSILS, THEY ARE MOST CERTAINLY THE CORPOSES OF ALL THE LIVING THINGS THAT ERE KILLED IN THE WORLDWIDE fLOOD, WHICH OF COURSE gOD BROUGHT THE fLOOD ON THE EARTH IN ORDER TO BRING ABOUTR.  tHE DEATH OF ALL LAND LIVFE.  sOME SEA LIFE REMAINED BUT EVEN THAT WAS KILLED OFF IN THE BAZILLIONS.

nOTHING HAPPENED TO DISSBTURB THE PARTICULAR LAYER, IT LIES THERE QUIETLY WITHOUT A TREE ROOT OR A VOLCANO TO DISTURB IT.  tHE VOLCANOES DISTURBED THE WHOLE STACK ALL AT ONCE, FROM BOTTOM TO TOP, THE STACK BEING ALREADY IN PLACE, THE VOLCANIC ERUPTION FOLLOWING THEIR LAYING DOWN.  \\

tHAT IS EVIDENT ON THAT CROSS SECTION.L  tHAT IS THE EVIDENCE THAT THE TIME PERIODS DID NOT HAPPEN AND THE FOSSILS ARE NOT A RECORD OF EVOLUTIONARY STAGES.

qed

oR SOMJETHING LIKE THAT

FcOULD nATURAL sELECTION REALLY pRODUCE THE cOMPLEX eYE WE hAVE?

tHINKING ABOUT NATURAL SELECTION AS dAWKINS PRESENTS IT IN THE EXAMPLE OF THE EYE, IF i'M REACLLING THT ARGUMENT CORRECTLY.  tHE FACT THAT THERE ARE ALL THE PARTS OF A VERY COMPLEX EYE OF THE SORT WE POSSESS SCATTEROUED AROND THE TEAXONIMC TRE, AVARIOUS FUNCTIONS OF IT SHOWING UP IN DIRRFERENT CREATURES, NTHOUGH NOT IN ANY LINEAGE FROM ONE TO ANNOTHER OR TO OUR OWN EYE./.  tHE ARGUMENT IS THAT IF ALL THE PARTS ARE THERE IN NATURE, ALTHOUGH SCATTERED AS THEY ARE, THIS IN ITSELF IS SOME IIND OF EVIDENCE THAT THE EYE EVOLVED THROUGH ALL THOSE FUNCTIONS TO THE CURRENT COMPLEX EYE WE POSSESS.  wHILE IT IS AN INTERESTING PLAUSIBILITY, IF YOU TRY TO APPLY NATURAL SLEECTION TO EACH PHASE IT RAISES FAR MORE QUESTIONS THAN IT ANSWERS.

fIRST OF ALL, TO BE SELECTED, A TRAIT MUST BE PRESENT.  iN A CREATURE POSSESSING A PARTICULAR FUNCTION IT'S BEEN WELL ESTABLISHED ALREAYD , LAREADY SELECTED AS IT WERE AND PUT INTO ITS USEFUL PLACE IN THE ORGANIZSM.  aSSUMING THE EVOLUTIONARY EXPLANATION OF COURSE.    bUT TO GET TO THE NEXT PHASE OR STAGE TOWARD THE COMPLEX SYSEYE AS dAWKINS PUTS THE PICTURE TOGETHER REQUIRES THAT THAT NEXT PHASE COME UP PRESENT IN THAT ORGANISM.   bUT HOW IS IT GOING TO COME UP.  tHROUGH MUTATION?  mUTATION OF WHAT?  mUTATION IS AN AERROR IN REPLICATION OF THE dna, RIGHT?  wHICH GENE IS GOING TO BE MISREPLICATED AS IT WERE TO PRODUCE THIS NEW FUNCTION?  tHE ONE THAT CODES OF RTHE TRAIT THAT PREDCEDES IT IN THIS SUPPOSED PROGRESSION THROUGH THE SGTAGES TO MODERN COMPLEXITY?  bUT THAT WOULD DESTROY THAT TRAIT.  sO IT HAS TO OCCUR IN A DIFFERENT GENE.  tHE GENE HAS TO BE THERE ARE ALREADY WHATEVER IT IS.  wHAT ELSE IS THERE FOR MUTATION TO WORK ON?   iT WOULD HAVE TO CODE FOR SOMETHING ALREADY ATTACHED TO THE EYE TOO.  iT ISN'T GOING TO DO ANY GOOD TIF A GENE FOR SAY THE EAR PARTS GOT MUTATED INTO THIS NEW PHASE IN THE EYE EVOLUTION, WOULD IT?  sAY THE NEW SEQUENCE OF CHEMICALS THAT MUTATIONJ PRODUCED REALLY DID GIVE A BETTER LENS OR WHATEVER THE NEW PHASE OF THE EYE SHOUILD BE, IT WOUDLN'T HELP UNLESS IT WAS A GENE THAT ALREAYD JOINED WITH THE OTHER GENES THAT BULD THE EYE.  bUT WHAT GENE COULD BE SPARED FOR THAT PURPOSE?   hOWE OFTEN DOES dna COME UP WITH A GRANAD NEW GENE?  i THINK IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE POSSIBLE ALTHOUGH HARD TO IMAGINE THAT A WHOLE NEW SEQUENCE OF THOUSANDS OF CHEMICALS WOULD JUST INSERT ITSELF BETWEEN A COUPLE OTHE GENES WHERE IT HAPPENS TO BE NEEDED , OR MIGHT TURN OUT TO BE USEFUL,AND HOW DOES THAT HAPPEN ANYWAY?

sO THEN LET'S SAY YOU GET THIS NEW FUNCTION IN THE RIGHT PLACE AND SO ON,  IT WOULD HAVE TO BE IN SOMETHING LIKE A HUMAN BRING OR SOMETHING CLEARLY PRECURSOSR TO THE HUMAN BEING AND NONE OF TEH XAMPLES IN THE SCATTERED COLLECTION OF EYE FUNCTIONS IS IN THAT LINEEAGE.  iT ISN'T GOING TO HELP IF IT SHOWS UP IN SAMY THE OCTUPOUS CLAN SINCE  ALTHOUGH THE OCTOPUS MIGHT BENEFIT FROM A BETTER EYE IT ISN'T GOING TO GET US TO THE EYE dAWKINS HAS IN MIND.

i USUPPOSE i'M GEING NAIVE OR SILLY IN SOME WAY BUT i'M REALLY SERIOUSLY TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW SELECTION WOULD DO THE JOB dAWKINS SAYS IT DOES.  

aS i WAS ARGUING RECENTLY, VARIATION OCCURRS IN THE GENOME ITSELF AS ALREADY CONSTITUTED, IT DOESN'T WLRK ON SOMETHING NEW BECAUSE THERE'S NO WAY FOR SOMETHING RULY NEW TO OCCUR, UNLESS YOU MEAN THE OCCASIONAL SUPPOSELY GENEFICIAL MUTATIONJ.  aGAIN IT WOULD HAVE TO BE A KTUATION IN   aGAIN IT WOULD HAVE TO BE MUTATION IN A GENE ALREADY PART OF THE EYE, SO LET'S GET THAT SAID.  

ok, i GIVE UP.  iT SORTA COUNDS GOOD AS THEORY BUT IN PRACTICAL REALITY IT JUST CAN'T HAPPEN.  aND i DON'T THIJK dAWKINS EVENCAME CLOSE TO SUGGESTING HOW IT COULD, HE JUST KEEPS MARVELING OVER THE SEEMING UTILITY OF NATURAL SELECTION FOR THE PURPOSE.

wELL, GO BACK TO dARWINS DOMESTING BREEDING FOR A MOEMTN.  hE GOT SOME DRAMATIC CHANGES IN HIS PIGEONS BY SELECTING THEM FOR PARTICULAR TRAITS.  THE TRAITS WERE ALREAYD THERE, HE SIMPLY PICKED THEM AND MATED THEM WITH OTHERS WITH THE SAME TRAIT.     iS THIS EYE FUNCTION THAT FOLOLOWS WHATEVER STAGE OF EYE A PARTICULAR CREATURE HAS ALREADY PRESENT?  HOW COULD IT BE?  

i GUESS i HAVE TO GIV P AGAIN.  i'M SURE dAWKINS CAN MANIPULATE ALL THIS TO MAKE IT SEEM PLAUSIBLE FOR HIS CASE BUT i THINK THAT'S THE BEST HE CAN DO.  i DON'T THINK IT'S POSSIBLE IN REALITY AT ALL.

hERE'S HOW VARIATION REALLY WORKS IN REALITY.  tHE VARIATION IS A VARIATION ON SOMETHING THAT IS ALREADY PRESENT, A DIFFERENT EYE COLOR ON THE EYE COLOR GENE, A DIFFERENT FUR TEXTURE ON THE FUR GTEXTURE GENE AND SO ON.  IT'S A FUNCTION THAT IS ALREADY THER EIN THE GENOME AND DOESN'T HAVE TO BE MADE NEW.  THAT IS OF CORUSE THEY THINK INSIST ON MUTATION SINCE IT DOES COMPLETELY CHANGE AHTE SEQUENCE OF THE GENE CODE, USUALLY FOR THE WORSE WHICH THEY DON'T  BOTHER TO MENTION, OR TO NO PURPOSE AT ALL SINCE NOTHIHJG CHANGES IN THE PHENPOTYPE, BUT IF SOMETHING NEW REALY WERE TO HAPPEN THAT'S THE ONLY WAY IT COULD BECAUE NORMAL VARIATION VARIATION IS JUST AN ALTERNATIVE EXPRESSION OF SOMETHING AHT IS ALREAYD PRESENT IN THE ANIMAL'S COLLECTION OF CHARACTERISTICS.  

wE HEAR A LOT OF THEORY ABOUT HOW MUTATION COULD HAPPEN AND GET SELECTED AND SO ON BUT IT REMAINS THEORY.  YES IT DOES, IT NEVER BECOMES FACT.

Later  Don't think I got it said vey clearly, not sure I can do better now, but 

Domestic breeding, Darwin's pigeons etc., just works on traits that rae already pret in the animal, whih can be greatly enlarged by repeated breeding of the same trait.  this is what happened with the pod mrcaru lizards.  and wht happened with Darwin's exaggerated chests in pigeons.  

And from there the idea of natural selection took off.  

The problem is that evolution requires new traits, not the preexisting traits that Darwin and other breeders work with.  Something tht does not occr in the genome of the species,  brand new gene etc.

Mutation changes an existing gene.  Some traits are apparently coded for by may genes working together.  How is that oging to happen?  It's rare enough to get one useful mutation, but many in a number of different genes and the right kind and so on, no.

besides how is theis really something new?  Changing the sequence in a n existing gene doesn't change what that gene normally produces, it just varies how it produces it, or tomething fairly superficial in its appearance.  You mgith get a new color on the fur color gene but surely it would be a change in the fur color and onot some other function, just fur color.    How do you get a new function from a mutation of a preexisting gene?  

I haven't run awcross an answer to these quetsions anywwhere.  maybe it's out thre somewhere but I doubt it.  Dawkins seems content to point out tht natural selection seems to be a viable mechanism for change in an organis without addressing these questions, change yes but Darwin didn't get any changes outside the given trait already present in the organism, but evolution requries that.   You can't select a gtrait that isn't in the genome, nd there doesn't seem to be any way to bring abour a really new trait in an organism.  Mutation isn't going to accomp,.luish that, it's jut going to vary an existing trait at lbest.

Etc Etc Etc.