Evidence of design

[AV1611VET]

It is not an attack on Christianity but a documentation of how some people professing to be Christians could stoop so low as to masquerade their agenda with falsehoods in order to deceive.

Unlike scientists, I'm familiar with the skeletons in our closet, and I'm more than willing to expose them.

After all, if you read the Bible, almost every single saint, from Adam to Abraham to Moses to David to Jonah and beyond aired their dirty laundry.

Especially David.

But if it means that much to you, I'll do my very best to watch the video and comment on it.

 

[mzungu]

Unlike scientists, I'm familiar with the skeletons in our closet, and I'm more than willing to expose them.

After all, if you read the Bible, almost every single saint, from Adam to Abraham to Moses to David to Jonah and beyond aired their dirty laundry.

Especially David.

But if it means that much to you, I'll do my very best to watch the video and comment on it.

Thank you

 

[Kylie]

In the Dover trial, evidence found from the Discovery institute proved that ID was nothing more than Creationism in disguise.
ID cannot be a scientific theory simply because it lacks a Theory.

That, and the fact that it can not be used to make predictions about the future.

 

[Mobezom]

Pffff-hahaha! Scientists can be vicious. When somebody has shown a lack of scientific integrity, the scientific community will tear them apart. We have our "skeletons" - the fake evidence, the falsified theories. And we don't try to hide them.

 

[Loudmouth]

What you said was basically you don't understand the terms which isn't a valid objection to a theory. Imagine the absurdity of someone saying I object to natural selection because how is 'nature' capable of 'selecting' something. Or that a gene can't actually 'drift'. Or that there's no logical connection between selection pressure and natural selection. Natural selection, selection pressure, and genetic drift are real. It's just a childish objection claiming the terms like 'specified' make no sense.

If you can't even demonstrate how CSI is measured, then how can you claim that it increases or decreases?

Irreducible complexity and specified complexity remain reliable tests for design.

Muller already demonstrated how IC could evolve back in 1918. That claim has been refuted for nearly 100 years.

 

[Mobezom]

What you said was basically you don't understand the terms which isn't a valid objection to a theory.

Congratulations! You are one of the only Creationists who understands that this is fallacious!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Irreducible complexity and specified complexity remain reliable tests for design.

How? And why?

In what unit of measurement is IC and SC expressed? And how does one measure it?

Behe identified several irreducibly complex structures.

How, exactly?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Which is more parsimonious, the explanation that requires imagination, or an inference based on direct observation?

I don't remember you giving any example of a direct observation of the "gears" in OP being created....

We have examples of the metal/plastic/what-have-you gears in things like watches being manufactured. But I don't remember any examples of assembly lines that produce insects or parts thereof.

 

[mzungu]

Behe's Irreducibly complex claims were refuted in court. It is in the video I posted.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Behe identified several irreducibly complex structures.

Which was refuted in a court of law. Kenneth Miller made fun of him for it by wearing a mouse trap on his tie. Behe had to admit under oath that Intelligent Design is unscientific. He was essentially embarrassed in court.

 

[Vaccine]

Read the transcript of the Dover case. It's easy to find with a quick google search.
In it Behe, under oath, admitted (among many other things) that if ID is a scientific idea, then so is astrology.

Take a hint.

It simply doesn't support your claim Behe admitted it was falsified. Weren't you the one who said a scientific theory is based on an objective standard?

 

[Loudmouth]

It simply doesn't support your claim Behe admitted it was falsified. Weren't you the one who said a scientific theory is based on an objective standard?

The objective standard for irreducibly complex systems was already falsified in 1918.

"... Most present day animals are the result of a long process of evolution, in which at least thousands of mutations must have taken place. Each new mutant in turn must have derived its survival value from the effect which it produced upon the "reaction system" that had been brought into being by the many previously formed factors in cooperation; thus a complicated machine was gradually built up whose effective working was dependent upon the interlocking action of very numerous elementary parts or factors, and many of the characters are factors which, when new, where originally merely an asset finally become necessary because other necessary characters and factors had subsequently become changed so as to be dependent on the former. It must result, in consequence, that a dropping out of, or even a slight change in any one of these parts is very likely to disturb fatally the whole machinery; ..."
"Genetic Variablity, Twin Hybrids and Constant Hybrids, in a Case of Balanced Lethal Factors", by Hermann J Muller, in Genetics, Vol 3, No 5, Sept 1918, pp 422-499

 

[Vaccine]

You mean by describing a realistic, continuously functional Darwinian pathway from simple ancestor to present structure? That's what is in the literature.

If you mean somebody's blog, probably. Not true of any peer reviewed sources. Nobody has succeeded in proving a simple pathway for the irreducible structure Behe identified. What is there though, is falsification of Miller and Matzke's idea the type three secretion system was a possible step:
"Based on our results, we suggest that genes of flagellum have diverged functionally as to specialize in the export of proteins from the bacterium to the host."
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/25/9/2069.abstract

Just as Behe said, the type three secretion system came after the bacterial flagellum. Not falsified.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

It simply doesn't support your claim Behe admitted it was falsified. Weren't you the one who said a scientific theory is based on an objective standard?

Intelligent Design is unfalsifiable, which makes it unscientific. Behe had to admit under oath that if ID were to be taught in science class, then so should astrology. It was a very embarrassing moment for him. You should watch the documentary and read the court transcripts. ID proponents were revealed to be pushing a religious agenda and lying about it as well as ID being shown to be unscientific nonsense.

 

[Loudmouth]

If you mean somebody's blog, probably. Not true of any peer reviewed sources. Nobody has succeeded in proving a simple pathway for the irreducible structure Behe identified.

It is Behe's burden of proof to demonstrate that IC systems are impossible to evolve. It isn't up to us to prove him wrong.

I also offered the step by step evolution of the irreducibly complex mammalian middle ear, which you still have not addressed.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex2

 

[Vaccine]

Behe's Irreducibly complex claims were refuted in court. It is in the video I posted.

There was nothing Behe said in court that refuted his claims.

 

[Loudmouth]

There was nothing Behe said in court that refuted his claims.

The mammalian middle ear refutes his claim.

 

[Vaccine]

Which was refuted in a court of law. Kenneth Miller made fun of him for it by wearing a mouse trap on his tie. Behe had to admit under oath that Intelligent Design is unscientific. He was essentially embarrassed in court.

Scientific theory can't be 'refuted' by a court. However, Miller has been refuted:
"Based on our results, we suggest that genes of flagellum have diverged functionally as to specialize in the export of proteins from the bacterium to the host."
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/25/9/2069.abstract

 

[Loudmouth]

Scientific theory can't be 'refuted' by a court. However, Miller has been refuted:
"Based on our results, we suggest that genes of flagellum have diverged functionally as to specialize in the export of proteins from the bacterium to the host."
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/25/9/2069.abstract

That also falsifies Behe's IC claims. Since the type III secretory system is irreducibly complex, Behe argues that all of the pieces had to come together at once as the type III secretory system, and that in all of history that those pieces of the type III secretory system ever only functioned as part of that system. The fact that those pieces once functioned as part of the flagellum falsifies Behe's claims about IC systems.

 

[Vaccine]

That's a hypothesis. After you propose a hypothesis, you're supposed to go on to test it. Nothing in the rest of what you quote proposes a way of testing this hypothesis.


There are no experimental tests to determine either complexity or specification. As Dembski defines it, complexity is just improbability. No one knows how to estimate (much less measure) the probability of a complex (in the normal sense) feature arising by evolution, for example.


There is no logical connection between CSI and irreducible complexity. "Complex" here doesn't mean what it does for Dembski, and there's no reason that an irreducibly complex system has to have any particular amount of CSI.


If this is really how ID researchers proceed, then we should not be wasting our time considering their conclusions. Nothing in this logical train makes the slightest bit of sense.

There are experimental tests for CSI done by forensic scientists, fire inspectors, and people at SETI to name a few. The design inference by Dembski is validated all the time. It's only when people use unspecified complexity or specified simplicity are there false positives.

"The term “specified complexity” goes back at least to 1973, when Leslie Orgel used it in connection with origins-of-life research: “Living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals such as granite fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity.” See Orgel, The Origins of Life (New York: Wiley, 1973 ), 189."
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/on-specified-complexity-orgel-and-dembski/

Dembski said this about the work of Hubert Yockey, Robert Sauer, Peter Rüst, Paul Erbrich, Siegfried Scherer, and Douglas Axe:
"I'm not enlisting these individuals as design advocates but merely pointing out that methods for determining specified complexity are already part of biology."
http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_isidtestable.htm
We can't go back in time to do experimental tests in biology, so a vera causa is used as an inference to the best explanation. Meyer laid out a vera causa in 'The Signature in the Cell'. Invariably intelligent agents cause long sequences of complex specified information. Using a known cause to explain past events was used by Darwin too. Using that known cause to explain the CSI in DNA is an inference to the best explanation. It can be falsified by showing undirected natural causes making long sequences of CSI.
Also, there is a connection between CSI and irreducible complexity. The irreducibe element of irreducible complexity is a specified pattern.