Irreducible Complexity At The China Shop

[Oncedeceived]

Religion trumps facts for people desperate to believe something else.
The Heaven's Gate religious group is testament to that, 39 people committed suicide believing their souls would be transported to a spaceship trailing the Hale-Bopp comet.

Showing a group of totally disturbed individuals is in no way reflective of the actuality of God.

 

[The Cadet]

none of these has any evidence of being the product of evolutionary processes and pathways

And I'm done. You're not aware of the evidence and have been ignoring it whenever it comes up, or not understanding it. Either way, I'm not particularly interested in continuing this line of conversation.

no evidence for instance for unicellular life evolving into multicellular life

Oh come on, this one we've directly observed in the lab!

 

[Oncedeceived]

Double post

 

[Oncedeceived]

And I'm done. You're not aware of the evidence and have been ignoring it whenever it comes up, or not understanding it. Either way, I'm not particularly interested in continuing this line of conversation.

You have presented assertions and a blanket evolution did it as evidence? You are done because you know that you have nothing to present.



Oh come on, this one we've directly observed in the lab![/QUOTE]

From the first sentence in your link:

A genetic mutation in single-celled yeast turns it into a multicellular organism — hinting at how multicellularity might have evolved.

Need I say more?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have presented assertions and a blanket evolution did it as evidence? You are done because you know that you have nothing to present.

Actually evidence has been given to creationists many many times. The problem is that none of them seem to understand the nature of evidence. Each new fossil find is evidence. It is also a test of the theory of evolution. If the theory of evolution was wrong there is no known reason to expect fossils to fall into the evolutionary paradigm. By denying that evidence has been given to you you only show that you do not understand the nature of evidence.

<The Cadet>

Oh come on, this one we've directly observed in the lab!

From the first sentence in your link:

A genetic mutation in single-celled yeast turns it into a multicellular organism — hinting at how multicellularity might have evolved.

Need I say more?

Now you are complaining that after an answer was given to you that it is not the sort of observation that would falsify the theory. You demand instant evolution and observing that would mean that the theory of evolution is wrong. You not only do not understand the nature of evidence, now you are being hypocritical.

 

[Jan Volkes]

Showing a group of totally disturbed individuals is in no way reflective of the actuality of God.

They believed exactly the same as you, the only thing different is the method of delivery of the souls, their God was just as fantasmagorical as yours, in fact better than yours because theirs at least existed in the real world.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Actually evidence has been given to creationists many many times. The problem is that none of them seem to understand the nature of evidence. Each new fossil find is evidence. It is also a test of the theory of evolution. If the theory of evolution was wrong there is no known reason to expect fossils to fall into the evolutionary paradigm. By denying that evidence has been given to you you only show that you do not understand the nature of evidence.

This is getting real tiresome. I am not in anyway claiming that evolution is wrong. I am saying that claims made about evolution are wrong. That is the problem, you continue to think that any evidence for evolution means that evolution explains everything that needs to be explained and that is simply not true. Evolution didn't evolve. Evolution is not an entity. Evolution does not explain exactly how the necessary conditions for the occurrence of natural selection were blindly brought into place. It doesn't explain how cumulative selection could have got its start.

Your blanket evolution-did-it and evolution-of-the-gaps argumentation is not an argument from evidence of evolution but of the philosophy of evolution. Evolution happens but we know that by evidence and when evidence is not present and claims are presented without that evidence present it doesn't say evolution is wrong, it says simply that assertions without support are being made about the process and the processes mechanisms, structure and order have not been shown to support those claims.

Now you are complaining that after an answer was given to you that it is not the sort of observation that would falsify the theory. You demand instant evolution and observing that would mean that the theory of evolution is wrong. You not only do not understand the nature of evidence, now you are being hypocritical.

What? What you gave me and what I noted as the first sentence is exactly what I am trying to show you. Could be's, might have been's and plausibility are not evidence. Evolution is not wrong, the claims that are being made are not supported by evidence. There is a difference. Evolution is not wrong just because people want to make claims about it that can't be substantiated.

 

[Oncedeceived]

They believed exactly the same as you, the only thing different is the method of delivery of the souls, their God was just as fantasmagorical as yours, in fact better than yours because theirs at least existed in the real world.

Well you know what they say about opinions...everyone has one.

 

[The Cadet]

You have presented assertions and a blanket evolution did it as evidence? You are done because you know that you have nothing to present.

From the first sentence in your link:

A genetic mutation in single-celled yeast turns it into a multicellular organism — hinting at how multicellularity might have evolved.

Need I say more?

Do you accept that a group of organisms that are known to undergo descent with modification forming a nested hierarchy (with regards to genetics or morphology) is an indication of common descent?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Do you accept that a group of organisms that are known to undergo descent with modification forming a nested hierarchy (with regards to genetics or morphology) is an indication of common descent?

I believe that the nested hierarchy is suffering from discordance in linage's and that it is a system that has been used prior to genetics so it is not based upon them. However, I accept that groups of organisms are known to undergo descent with modification. So what does that have to do with your lack of evidence for the claims being made by Dawkins and others?

 

[Jan Volkes]

They believed exactly the same as you, the only thing different is the method of delivery of the souls, their God was just as fantasmagorical as yours, in fact better than yours because theirs at least existed in the real world.

Well you know what they say about opinions...everyone has one.

It's not an opinion it's a fact you just don't want to admit it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It's not an opinion it's a fact you just don't want to admit it.

Your opinion is not a fact.

 

[The Cadet]

I believe that the nested hierarchy is suffering from discordance in linage's and that it is a system that has been used prior to genetics so it is not based upon them. However, I accept that groups of organisms are known to undergo descent with modification. So what does that have to do with your lack of evidence for the claims being made by Dawkins and others?

Let me rephrase.

Let's say we have a group of organisms known to reproduce imperfectly (descent with modification). We can measure objective traits within those groups, and use a cladistics algorithm to put them into a cladogram. This cladogram forms a neat nested hierarchy. Furthermore, we do the same thing with the genetics of those organisms, and get the exact same cladogram.

Is this evidence that that group of organisms shares a common ancestor?

 

[Jan Volkes]

Your opinion is not a fact.

Well done, you managed to turn that completely around, from soul delivery to opinion.

My opinion is not a fact but all religions being the same is a fact, but so what?
if you care then it matters if you don't it doesn't.

 

[pat34lee]

Just as we know that Gravity works, how it affects objects and the like; we know that evolution has its mechanisms and how it affects the genetic structure of life.

If anything, science has proven that evolution could not have happened as theorized. Mutations won't do it. Adaptation has limits. That leaves the hopeful monster, or wishful thinking. Pokemon evolution is a more believable fiction than Darwinism.

 

[Jan Volkes]

If anything, science has proven that evolution could not have happened as theorized. Mutations won't do it. Adaptation has limits. That leaves the hopeful monster, or wishful thinking. Pokemon evolution is a more believable fiction than Darwinism.

You do realise there is a price to pay for thinking like that don't you? a very heavy price indeed.

 

[The Cadet]

If anything, science has proven that evolution could not have happened as theorized. Mutations won't do it.

Why not? Citation please? Also, citation on your claim that adaptation has limits?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Well done, you managed to turn that completely around, from soul delivery to opinion.

My opinion is not a fact but all religions being the same is a fact, but so what?
if you care then it matters if you don't it doesn't.

They are not the same. Research it.

 

[Loudmouth]

If anything, science has proven that evolution could not have happened as theorized. Mutations won't do it.

Then how do you explain the fact that chimps and humans are different? What explains that?

I think most people agree that those differences are due to differences in the DNA sequence of their genomes. Do you agree with this or not?

If you do agree, then how can you say that changes in DNA can not produce evolution?

Adaptation has limits.

We need more than just assertions.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Let me rephrase.

Let's say we have a group of organisms known to reproduce imperfectly (descent with modification). We can measure objective traits within those groups, and use a cladistics algorithm to put them into a cladogram. This cladogram forms a neat nested hierarchy. Furthermore, we do the same thing with the genetics of those organisms, and get the exact same cladogram.

Is this evidence that that group of organisms shares a common ancestor?

1. This is evidence of evolution not evidence for the design we see in organisms.
2. There is discordance between the tree of life/nested hierarchy that is not showing the "exact" same Cladogram.