Next time some one wants to tell you evolution isn't real

[_Lemmie]

I went back to some of my old emails and found the below exchange - It was sent to me by a friend a while ago. To be clear, I am not sharing it in an attempt to lend weight to my personal skepticism, rather, I am sharing it (as well as many others I could share) to illustrate what happens when you simply challenge and or question what is a widely accepted theory.

Wow ceeboo, your friend's emails exchanges get around.

https://evoillusion.org/i-debate-evillu ... at-uclauu/

There seems to be more going on here than simply challenging and questioning theories, so I looked a little further. It turns out the blogger, Steven Blume, has also self-published "The DNA Illusion," and "Evo-Illusion," along with posting his email exchanges on a blog.

He has even been reviewed on another site:

Self-Published Genius #26: The Dentist
Posted on 29-August-2013 | 101 Comments

We have another fine addition to our series about Self-Published Geniuses, where we bring you news of authors with a vanity press book in which the author claims to have made paradigm-shattering discoveries, and announces his work by hiring a press release service.

This author’s press release is issued by an outfit we’ve encountered before. It’s called PRWeb, which “gets your news straight to the search engines that everyone uses, like Google, Yahoo and Bing.” Their Pricing page reveals that their “Basic Package” costs $99. That’s probably what we’re looking at.

The press release is titled New Book Offers Groundbreaking Insights Into the Validity of Evolution. And it has a sub-title: Dr. Stephen T. Blume Shows That Evolution is Really an “Evo-illusion”

Wow — groundbreaking insights! And the author has “Dr.” in front of his name. Who is this man? At the end of the press release we’re told:

"Dr. Blume is a dentist who graduated from the University of Southern California. The courses he took at USC were more than enough to provide him with a master’s degree in biological sciences. Sparked by his visit to the Field museum, Dr. Blume began a research project on evolution, which he kept track of on his blog, http://www.evillusion.net.

Very impressive. He had enough courses “to provide him with a master’s degree in biological sciences”? Does he actually have such a degree? We’re not told. That’s okay; we don’t need to know. Let’s find out about the contents of the book. The press release says, with bold font added by us:

"For a very long time, Author Dr. Stephen T. Blume was an enthusiastic devotee and supporter of evolution. However, a visit to the Field Museum in Chicago in 2002 changed all of that. Dr. Blume wound up rejecting Charles Darwin’s theory as he discovered a new outlook on living nature and the universe."

A visit to the Field Museum of Natural History turned his life around? What happened — a bad experience in the bathroom? He doesn’t say, but we’re told:

"He shares these insights with readers everywhere in his new book, Evo-illusion."

You’ll have to buy the book to find out what went wrong at the museum. Speaking of the book, we always want to confirm that it’s published by a vanity press. That’s not difficult in this case, because at the end of the press release it says:

"For more information on self-publishing or marketing with Xlibris, visit http://www.Xlibris.com. "

Okay, we’re solidly on track. We’ve got a creationist dentist, and we’re learning about his self-published book from his press release. Everything is falling into place. Let’s read on:

"Evo-illusion tells a fascinating story of biology, astronomy, physics, particle physics, and other sciences that would certainly interest any person who reads it, no matter what their position is on evolution. It takes readers from the beginning of the universe to the emergence of the first living cells on Earth, the coming of the first multi-cellular organism, and then to the formation of modern organisms."

M’god — the ambitious sweep of this book is truly amazing! We continue:

"Dr. Blume uniquely utilizes thought experiments that the readers can easily do, which allow them to figure what may and may not have happened during the early steps on the pathway to the formation of the first living cells and multi-cellular organisms."

Thought experiments! Why didn’t we think of that? Of course — that’s the way these things should be done. Here’s the last of it:

"For readers interested in exploring new horizons, Dr. Blume’s work will definitely provide a unique perspective towards the study of life’s origins. Evo-illusion promises to enrich and broaden minds with a rich infusion of scientific knowledge and critical thinking."

But wait — we’re not done yet. We found the book’s listing at Amazon: Evo-illusion: Why IID Trump's ID and Evolution. Intriguing title. What’s “IID”? The press release doesn’t tell us.

We had to know, so we went to the author’s website and learned that IID stands for his theory of Ingenious Invention and Design, but we have no idea what that means. Hey — the book has no reviews at Amazon yet. Well, it’s new. Universal praise is sure to come.

Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

•

[bolding added]

[_EAllusion]

Your personal incredulity is not an argument Ceeboo. If you think that the evolution of sexual reproduction is impossible because "what good is half a penis?" then it is incumbent upon you to show that it is not possible.

If you abandon that strong claim and argue that there isn't sufficient evidence that it occurred, then you get into the weeds of evolutionary biology again.

[_Themis]

Like, recently a pair of 600,000,000 year old fossils were dug up in Antarctica. They look like 6 inch fairy folk, with backbones, heads, legs, etc. This was before anyone other creature was thought to have a backbone.

I wasn't there, but I know there is effort to minimize or invalidate the find. That is the evolution theory. Their method of interpreting these facts is to ignore them, destroy them, discredit the finders, etc. I could interpret them with my own method. Like, "Ok, it's a fact, this is what means." This is exactly I don't buy into some of the "theory." Many of the methods and reasons are still political. Not like Donald Trump political, but like, "we can disagree with Dr Know it All" sort of political.

You do believe that some people make things up right? I'm curious with this example you post above what process you used to determine the accuracy of the claims being made?

[_Ceeboo]

I went back to some of my old emails and found the below exchange - It was sent to me by a friend a while ago. To be clear, I am not sharing it in an attempt to lend weight to my personal skepticism, rather, I am sharing it (as well as many others I could share) to illustrate what happens when you simply challenge and or question what is a widely accepted theory.

Wow ceeboo, your friend's emails exchanges get around.

Yeah - Blume's site is where my friend got the information he sent to me. What's your point?

There seems to be more going on here than simply challenging and questioning theories, so I looked a little further. It turns out the blogger, Steven Blume, has also self-published "The DNA Illusion," and "Evo-Illusion," along with posting his email exchanges on a blog.

There seems to me more than simply challenging and questioning theories going on to you? That's odd. His entire site (as well as his three books) do exactly that (challenge and question the theory of evolution)

Did you have any insights and/or opinions on the actual topic (evolution of sexual reproduction and/or mitosis?) or was your intention to enter the discussion for the sole purpose of trying to discredit the person providing the information - and not the actual information? Just curious.

[_Themis]

Sexual reproduction is an all or none event.(Would you agree with this?) Would you say that one multi-cellular animal (A male) grew an appendage after millions of years, then decided to insert it into a fold in another multi-cellular animal (A female) that didn’t possess the appendage just to see what would happen? How could perfectly matched male and female sexual organs evolve in separate individuals of a species? What microsteps and/or evolutionary processes could possibly be at play that would account for male/female sexual reproduction to occur? Any explanation of gradually evolving sexuality would be preposterous. The mutations and NS of one gender would have to “know” what mutations and NS were taking place for the other gender. And since there is no intelligence involved, according to most evolutionists, this scenario is not possible.

Is the appendage and fold absolutely needed for sexual reproduction, or is it just better system that makes fertilization more likely?

[_Lemmie]

I went back to some of my old emails and found the below exchange - It was sent to me by a friend a while ago. To be clear, I am not sharing it in an attempt to lend weight to my personal skepticism, rather, I am sharing it (as well as many others I could share) to illustrate what happens when you simply challenge and or question what is a widely accepted theory.

Wow ceeboo, your friend's emails exchanges get around.

Yeah - Blume's site is where my friend got the information he sent to me. What's your point?

Just that it was Blume's site, information not in your original post.

There seems to be more going on here than simply challenging and questioning theories, so I looked a little further. It turns out the blogger, Steven Blume, has also self-published "The DNA Illusion," and "Evo-Illusion," along with posting his email exchanges on a blog.

There seems to me more than simply challenging and questioning theories going on to you? That's odd. His entire site (as well as his three books) do exactly that (challenge and question the theory of evolution)

Did you have any insights and/or opinions on the actual topic (evolution of sexual reproduction and/or mitosis?) or was your intention to enter the discussion for the sole purpose of trying to discredit the person providing the information - and not the actual information? Just curious.

I am enjoying reading the scientific information posted, but the information provided by that blogger is not legitimate information on the topic, which was noted in the review I posted.

[_honorentheos]

Sexual reproduction is an all or none event.(Would you agree with this?) Would you say that one multi-cellular animal (A male) grew an appendage after millions of years, then decided to insert it into a fold in another multi-cellular animal (A female) that didn’t possess the appendage just to see what would happen?

No, I wouldn't say that. And it helps demonstrate why these discussions usually turn to suggestions that you read a good, general book on evolution. If you demonstrated an understanding of the basic premise of how evolutionary processes work you wouldn't ask the questions in the manner you do. Since you find the subject fascinating, one would think you'd be more than welcoming of a suggestion or two for a good read on it. Despite being close to 20 years old now, I still think you'd gain immense insight from reading Your Inner Fish that, if it doesn't convince you, would at least refine your arguments.

Anyway, it helps to recognize that male-female differentiation is not an evolutionary step that occurred in animals, let alone in one species as a all-or-nothing mutation. It also helps to recognize the evolutionary advantages that come from two organisms combining their genes such that their offspring get the "compounding interest" if you will, of both parent's beneficial mutations. The diversity of ways that gene swapping occurs in nature is much more informative than imaging the first amoeba growing a penis, approaching a female but otherwise non-sexually distinct amoeba at a bar and asking if she fancies a go in the back seat of his amoebamobile. Or however it is imagined to have worked.

ETA: Start here, ceebs.
https://byjus.com/biology/sexual-reproduction-plants/

[_Res Ipsa]

This is a standard creationist ploy. They used to do it with the eye. “What good is half an eye?” And then evolutionary biologists showed how the eye developed in detail. Having been shown that the eye wasn’t all or nothing, did they admit they had been wrong? No. They just switched organs and continued to use the same fallacious attacks.

Also, in the face of DNA and fossil evidence that shows the paths of descent, creationists moved from attacking the entire theory to attacking specific traits.

It’s whack a mole. No matter how many times science refuted these arguments, creationists simply make the same old bad arguments in a new context.

Ceeboo, do you believe that your God had the power to create a universe governed by laws that would have permitted the evolution of cellular mitosis without God’s intervention?

[_EAllusion]

Ceeboo without question has been exposed to explanations for why "what good is half a wing?" arguments misunderstand evolutionary biology and has repeatedly seen these type of arguments get debunked in specific cases. Yet he presses on. There's not much you can do at that point. Recommending reading materials on evolutionary science isn't helping. I think you have to accept you aren't going to persuade him with rational argument and reply either to practice your ability to explain the subject or for the benefit of other readers where it might click.

[_EAllusion]

Ceeboo, do you believe that your God had the power to create a universe governed by laws that would have permitted the evolution of cellular mitosis without God’s intervention?

I think his skepticism here is aimed at the evolution of meiosis. Though, not really, because if he understood meiosis, I'm not sure he'd be asking the questions he is. So it's more skepticism in the evolution of the anatomy of sexual reproduction in vertebrates.