Another Try At Examining Alleged Evidence For The Darwinian Process

[ecco]

Doesn't matter what kind of reaction I'll get.

Well, it has finally become clear that the answer to my repeated question...

How do you explain the existence of humans​

...is...

You believe in Intelligent Design​

I really don't understand why you couldn't have just answered that question 300 posts ago.

When you posted a link to Biologos, I thought you were posting it to support your argument/beliefs. It turns out that you posted a link that specifically refutes your beliefs. That doesn't really make a lot of sense, but at this point, that is not surprising.

I find it interesting that your Intelligent Design Complexity argument is about the human brain. I guess the old "irreducible complexity of the human eye" argument has been discredited so many times that even you realize that it's a horse long beaten to death.

The fact remains, BioLogos rejects the how/process of Darwinistic evolution.

Really? I'm getting the definite impression that you have not spent very much time reading and trying to understand their positions. Actually, I don't think you have spent any time there at all. If you had, you would have read this:


https://biologos.org/common-questions/scientific-evidence/what-is-evolution

Evolution is the biological model for the history of life on Earth. While some consider evolution to be equivalent to atheism, BioLogos sees evolution as a description of how God created all life. Evolution refers to <em>descent with modification</em>. Small modifications occur at the genetic level (in DNA) with each generation, and these genetic changes can affect how the creature interacts with its environment. Over time, accumulation of these genetic changes can alter the characteristics of the whole population, and a new species appears. Major changes in life forms take place by the same mechanism but over even longer periods of time. All life today can be traced back to a common ancestor some 3.85 billion years ago.

BioLogos promotes “evolutionary creation,” the view that all the lifeforms on earth came about by the God-ordained process of evolution with common descent.
​

This clearly states that the only difference between their views and the views of what you call "atheistic Darwinism" is that god "ordained" the process.

This from CARM:

https://carm.org/dictionary-ordain
Ordain

To ordain means to order or decree. It can mean to cause something to happen or to allow it to occur depending on the context. God can ordain things to occur without directly causing them.
​

Note the absence of any ongoing intervention or godly tweaks.

​

In any case, nothing at Biologos supports your ID beliefs in any way, shape or form. In the interests of honesty, you probably should be quoting from...

​

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

What is intelligent design?
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

...or...
​

http://www.icr.org/article/brain-function-discoveries-support/

The outcome of these projects adds to the incredible irreducible complexity of the human brain and its amazing architecture.

​

 

[ecco]

i see that you simply do not wish to discuss the evidence i presented. i understand, it's a pretty large lump to swallow.

The only thing you presented was a link to a lengthy article and an out of context quote.

What's really hard to understand is your absolute reluctance to answer a simple question:

How do you explain the presence of humans on earth?
What evidence do you have for that position?
Your own thoughts, words, beliefs, ideas, theories, concepts.

​

Are you that ashamed or embarrassed by your own beliefs?

What is your belief? Or are you going to evade again?

 

[whois]

The only thing you presented was a link to a lengthy article and an out of context quote.

actually what i presented was in post 96.
i don't see any "quotes" whatsoever in that post.
here are the links again for your reference:
Common ancestor between chimps and humans

Are you that ashamed or embarrassed by your own beliefs?

please clarify this statement of yours.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

The evidence demonstrates design and for design to exists there is a designer.

You used the word design three times in one sentence. Around in circles you go. It's making me dizzy.

It's not circular reasoning at all. It's a conclusion based on the scientific method. Complexity such as the human brain, or tactile sensory units, is an indication of design (among other things).

Your argument is basically "If something is complex, it's designed. The brain is complex, therefore it is designed" Around in circles you go. It's not science. That's why ID loses in court every time they try to get into the classroom.

The scientific method doesn't fail to offer evidence for intelligent design.

It fails. It loses every time it tries to pass itself off as science in court. And it will continue to lose until ID proponents can pass it's "research" through peer review.

Once you can prove, by the scientific method, that the human brain and tactile sensory units are constructed by willy-nilly natural processes, you may acknowledge that a snowflake isn't a complex machine. But I assure you that you'll probably never do that.

Shifting the burden of proof when making a positive claim is a logical fallacy. You made the claim of design, the burden of proof is on you.

Study on evolution of the brain:

"These traits allowed individuals with "better brains" to leave behind more descendants. As a result, genetic mutations that produced bigger and more complex brains spread in the population very quickly. This led ultimately to a dramatic "speeding up" of evolution in genes controlling brain size and complexity."

"To further examine the role of selection in the evolution of brain-related genes, Lahn and his colleagues divided these genes into two groups. One group contained genes involved in the development of the brain during embryonic, fetal and infancy stages. The other group consisted of genes involved in "housekeeping" functions of the brain necessary for neural cells to live and function. If intensified selection indeed drove the dramatic changes in the size and organization of the brain, the developmental genes would be expected to change faster than the housekeeping genes during human evolution. Sure enough, Lahn's group found that the developmental genes showed much higher rate of change than the housekeeping genes."


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050111165229.htm

You see, REAL SCIENCE runs tests for their hypothesis to come to a logical conclusion. They don't go in circles like ID.
You won't address the content above though. Incoming "WORTHLESS LINKS" Because you want to run and hide away from evidence that contradicts your beliefs.

You are free to believe in ID but it's not science.

 

[justlookinla]

it certainly seems that way in regards to DNA.
science is busy trying to figure it all out, and it is not going to be a straighforward process.
genomics promises so much in this regard, but i'll almost bet that the coding scheme of DNA must be decrypted before it can be analyzed.
IOW, not only is DNA a coding scheme, it's an ENCRYPTED coding scheme.

Yes, there are several indicators of design within DNA which cannot be easily dismissed.

 

[justlookinla]

You used the word design three times in one sentence. Around in circles you go. It's making me dizzy.

Incomprehension shouldn't make one dizzy.

Your argument is basically "If something is complex, it's designed. The brain is complex, therefore it is designed" Around in circles you go. It's not science. That's why ID loses in court every time they try to get into the classroom.

My argument is, examine the brain or tactile sensory units. Do they contain elements of design or do they contain elements of willy-nilly creation? Through the scientific method, we find they contain the elements of design.

It fails. It loses every time it tries to pass itself off as science in court. And it will continue to lose until ID proponents can pass it's "research" through peer review.

"Peer review" is a heavily biased process against anything which would challenge Darwinism.

Shifting the burden of proof when making a positive claim is a logical fallacy. You made the claim of design, the burden of proof is on you.

And I gave proof, based on the scientific method.

Study on evolution of the brain:

"These traits allowed individuals with "better brains" to leave behind more descendants. As a result, genetic mutations that produced bigger and more complex brains spread in the population very quickly. This led ultimately to a dramatic "speeding up" of evolution in genes controlling brain size and complexity."

Guesses and suppositions. Not verifiable by the scientific method.

"To further examine the role of selection in the evolution of brain-related genes, Lahn and his colleagues divided these genes into two groups. One group contained genes involved in the development of the brain during embryonic, fetal and infancy stages. The other group consisted of genes involved in "housekeeping" functions of the brain necessary for neural cells to live and function. If intensified selection indeed drove the dramatic changes in the size and organization of the brain, the developmental genes would be expected to change faster than the housekeeping genes during human evolution. Sure enough, Lahn's group found that the developmental genes showed much higher rate of change than the housekeeping genes."


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050111165229.htm

Ok, the brain is not only complex, but it has programming also. Where's the part about it being of 'willy-nilly' construction.

You see, REAL SCIENCE runs tests for their hypothesis to come to a logical conclusion.

Right, that's why intelligent design is real science, not the pseudo-science of Darwinism.

They don't go in circles like ID.
You won't address the content above though. Incoming "WORTHLESS LINKS" Because you want to run and hide away from evidence that contradicts your beliefs.

You are free to believe in ID but it's not science.

You're free to believe in willy-nilly Darwinism, but it's not science.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Incomprehension shouldn't make one dizzy.

I comprehend your argument. It's just that it's a circular one.

My argument is, examine the brain or tactile sensory units. Do they contain elements of design or do they contain elements of willy-nilly creation? Through the scientific method, we find they contain the elements of design.

Design is a synonym of creation. You're trapped in a corner and can't even keep your arguments straight.

"Peer review" is a heavily biased process against anything which would challenge Darwinism.

Cite one creationist paper that was unfairly rejected in the peer review process. Be sure to include the publication it was submitted to and reasons why it was unfairly rejected.

And I gave proof, based on the scientific method.

Science isn't in the business of proving anything. Thanks for demonstrating you don't know how science works by saying you "proved" something.

Guesses and suppositions. Not verifiable by the scientific method.

You're making it blatantly obvious that you don't know how the scientific method works.
You're reading the hypothesis, which was then tested and confirmed.

Ok, the brain is not only complex, but it has programming also. Where's the part about it being of 'willy-nilly' construction.

Here is you moving the goal posts since you cannot dispute the results of the tests. Define programming and construction as it pertains to the brain.

Right, that's why intelligent design is real science, not the pseudo-science of Darwinism.

Wrong. It lost in court.

"U.S. District Judge John E. Jones delivered a stinging attack on the Dover Area School Board, saying its first-in-the-nation decision in October 2004 to insert intelligent design into the science curriculum violates the constitutional separation of church and state."

"A six-week trial over the issue yielded "overwhelming evidence'' establishing that intelligent design "is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory,'' said Jones, a Republican and a churchgoer appointed to the federal bench three years ago."

http://www.livescience.com/3998-judge-rules-intelligent-design-taught-class.html

You can say it's science till you're blue in the face. You'll still be very wrong.

 

[ecco]

actually what i presented was in post 96.
i don't see any "quotes" whatsoever in that post.
here are the links again for your reference:
Common ancestor between chimps and humans

Post #96 was not addressed to me nor did I respond to it.

I was referring to your post #107

not according to john maynard smith:
www.researchgate.net/publication/15314671_The_Major_Evolutionary_Transitions​

But you are correct in stating that you did not quote from the article. You just posted a blind link and later indicated that you did that so I would read it. When I asked you to clarify what evidence there was in that article to support your position, you could not/would not. That seems to be a pattern.

You also made additional references to the author:

• Whois Post #323: actually it's what maynard smith said and eldridge implied. gould, lewontin, and kimura essentially confirms it with their research.
• Whois Post #339: i wouldn't necessarily call maynard, gould, lewontin, eldridge, and kimura creationists.

please clarify this statement of yours.

How I can make it any clearer?

What's really hard to understand is your absolute reluctance to answer a simple question:

• How do you explain the presence of humans on earth?
• What evidence do you have for that position?
• Your own thoughts, words, beliefs, ideas, theories, concepts.

Are you that ashamed or embarrassed by your own beliefs?

What is your belief? Or are you going to evade again? ​

Did adding bulleting help?

 

[whois]

Post #96 was not addressed to me nor did I respond to it.

I was referring to your post #107

not according to john maynard smith:
www.researchgate.net/publication/15314671_The_Major_Evolutionary_Transitions​

But you are correct in stating that you did not quote from the article. You just posted a blind link and later indicated that you did that so I would read it. When I asked you to clarify what evidence there was in that article to support your position, you could not/would not. That seems to be a pattern.

You also made additional references to the author:

• Whois Post #323: actually it's what maynard smith said and eldridge implied. gould, lewontin, and kimura essentially confirms it with their research.
• Whois Post #339: i wouldn't necessarily call maynard, gould, lewontin, eldridge, and kimura creationists.

How I can make it any clearer?

What's really hard to understand is your absolute reluctance to answer a simple question:

• How do you explain the presence of humans on earth?
• What evidence do you have for that position?
• Your own thoughts, words, beliefs, ideas, theories, concepts.

Are you that ashamed or embarrassed by your own beliefs?

What is your belief? Or are you going to evade again? ​

Did adding bulleting help?

like i said, you do not seem to want to address any of those links.
that's okay.

 

[ecco]

like i said, you do not seem to want to address any of those links.
that's okay.

Why don't you give us a clue about what is in those links? Could it be that you haven't read any of the articles yourself and you just want to send people on wild goose chases?

Do any of those links support your own position? You know, the one you are too embarrassed to admit to.

 

[Astrophile]

"Our brain is the most complex machine that ever existed. With over 7.146 billion models it is also the most ubiquitous. Despite this, we are unsure of its complexity. We still do not yet understand how it works. By defining the functionality of certain areas of the brain, and by understanding some of the mechanics at the neural chemical level, we still remain ignorant of how the brain coordinates all of its activities and develops language, thought and a sense of self."

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/iage/201402/complexity-our-brain

The author of this article doesn't deny that our brains have evolved, nor does he say that they were designed.

Also, as J.B.S. Haldane pointed out, our complex brains, with their 86 billion neurons and 125 trillion synapses, developed from a single cell in the short space of nine months, without (so far as we can tell) any supernatural intervention.

 

[whois]

Do any of those links support your own position?

yes, they do.

 

[ecco]

ecco said: ↑
Do any of those links support your own position?

yes, they do.

Which ones?



(This is like trying to have a conversation with a six year old)
Did you learn anything in Kindergarten today?
Yes
What did you learn?
Stuff
What kind of stuff?
New stuff

 

[bhsmte]

ecco said: ↑
Do any of those links support your own position?



Which ones?



(This is like trying to have a conversation with a six year old)
Did you learn anything in Kindergarten today?
Yes
What did you learn?
Stuff
What kind of stuff?
New stuff

If your desire is to have a discussion on the science, you won't be able to with the folks in this thread.

 

[justlookinla]

The author of this article doesn't deny that our brains have evolved, nor does he say that they were designed.

Also, as J.B.S. Haldane pointed out, our complex brains, with their 86 billion neurons and 125 trillion synapses, developed from a single cell in the short space of nine months, without (so far as we can tell) any supernatural intervention.

What directed the construct of our brains from a single cell?

 

[ecco]

If your desire is to have a discussion on the science, you won't be able to with the folks in this thread.

Yeah, I'm coming to realize that.

In some other threads in this forum, there are a few people who argue against a spherical earth and some who argue against heliocentricity.

They openly espouse their views - flat earth and geocentricity. The argue against the opposing views but they also argue for their views. When they post links, they post links arguing against opposing views and they post links supporting their viewpoint. Often, when they post links, they accompany those links with commentary reflecting their views.

The people in this thread who are against evolution don't seem to want to openly state what they are for. They just argue against. It's clear that they post links to sites and articles they haven't even read because, in many instances, those sites and articles do not support the point they are trying to make.

From a standpoint of credibility and honesty, the geocentrists and the flat earthers have it heads and shoulders above the anti-evolutionists in this thread.

 

[bhsmte]

Yeah, I'm coming to realize that.

In some other threads in this forum, there are a few people who argue against a spherical earth and some who argue against heliocentricity.

They openly espouse their views - flat earth and geocentricity. The argue against the opposing views but they also argue for their views. When they post links, they post links arguing against opposing views and they post links supporting their viewpoint. Often, when they post links, they accompany those links with commentary reflecting their views.

The people in this thread who are against evolution don't seem to want to openly state what they are for. They just argue against. It's clear that they post links to sites and articles they haven't even read because, in many instances, those sites and articles do not support the point they are trying to make.

From a standpoint of credibility and honesty, the geocentrists and the flat earthers have it heads and shoulders above the anti-evolutionists in this thread.

When intellectual honesty is absent, rational discussion is not possible.

 

[justlookinla]

The people in this thread who are against evolution don't seem to want to openly state what they are for. They just argue against. It's clear that they post links to sites and articles they haven't even read because, in many instances, those sites and articles do not support the point they are trying to make.

From a standpoint of credibility and honesty, the geocentrists and the flat earthers have it heads and shoulders above the anti-evolutionists in this thread.

I'm pro-evolution, I embrace evolution. That said, I'm anti-evolution, I reject evolution.

 

[mickiio]

I'm pro-evolution, I embrace evolution. That said, I'm anti-evolution, I reject evolution.

EXACTLY! So if evolutionists can't separate the two, then we are against and for it. That is a logical stance.

 

[whois]

ecco said: ↑
Do any of those links support your own position?
Which ones?

the links i presented support the following:
1. evolution is not the slow gradual accumulation of mutations.
2. we have no empirical evidence of the increasing complexity of life.
3. natural selection does not explain all we see in evolution.
4. there is no evidence at all that life arose naturally from a "pond of goo".
5. species trees and gene trees rarely align.
6. to quote "the new biology", "even systematics has had to abandon many stricture of the modern synthesis."

(This is like trying to have a conversation with a six year old)
Did you learn anything in Kindergarten today?
Yes
What did you learn?
Stuff
What kind of stuff?
New stuff

further attacks on my character like this will not be tolerated ecco.