Evidence for Design (3)

Yep. Don't start on the flagellum again. It'll be boring for both of us.

KTS said:

Thanks. I can't for the life of me imagine anything that we all agree was designed and doesn't fit this.

Click to expand...

iOS 7

Ursus scientia said:

iOS 7

Click to expand...

pmsl

gradyll said:

sir arthur keith died before the alleged 100th anniversary edition. So I was focusing on the second quote. Which appears legitimate from all my searches.

Click to expand...

I realized that belatedly too, because of the same post that informed you. My remarks still stand. Your link was to a Creationist site that just repeats the trimmed down quote and "interprets" it. It is not to the original paper, and we do not see the context.

EDITED TO ADD: Akuma having searched out the actual context of the second quote proves my point. And look how far back the quote miners had to go to find an evolution expert for whom there was not enough understanding of the specific processes that comprise evolution to even make the kind of statement that could be "re-edited" into a doubt about evolution in general.

mzungu said:

Hogwash! This argument has been debunked a long time ago. Anything new?

Irreducible Complexity (bacterial flagellum) debunked - YouTube

Click to expand...

whenenver someone goes there,

Instead of fighting it , I just point out another motor ATP synthase.

which too is irreducibly complex.

Black Akuma said:

Sigh.

Here's the actual context. It's not even one quote, Gradyll, it's two.



And the second part is found here.



Your quote is a Frankenstein monster fused from two completely different paragraphs, that fails to even suggest it with an ellipses - as a writer, I can tell you this is considered extremely dishonest in journalism. Possibly worthy of getting you fired.

And you said you looked this up and it seemed legit? Shame, gradyll. Shame.

Click to expand...

did not he use ellipses?

if not shame on him.

I see no problem fusing quotes as everyone does it. As long as they have ellipses (...)

but for my purposes here lets just keep the two entact:

Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur or is supported by logically coherent arguments, but because it does fit all the facts of taxonomy, of paleontology, and of geographical distribution, and because no alternative explanation is credible.[7]

D.M.S. Watson, "Adaptation," Nature, Vol. 124, 10 August 1929, p. 231

"evolution itself, a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible[8]"

D.M.S. Watson, "Adaptation," Nature, Vol. 124, 10 August 1929, p. 233.

gradyll said:

whenenver someone goes there,

Instead of fighting it , I just point out another motor ATP synthase.

which too is irreducibly complex.

Click to expand...

There is no biological function known to man that is irreducibly complex in any species, anywhere.

did not he use ellipses?

Click to expand...

No. And you should know, you posted it.

if not shame on him.

Click to expand...

And on you for not checking when you said you did. Even a cursory search would have shown you the problem. I found it in two minutes.

I see no problem fusing quotes as everyone does it. As long as they have ellipses (...)

Click to expand...

'Everyone else is doing it' wasn't a good excuse when you were six years old and it's not a good excuse now.

Fusing together two quotes and keeping the context is one thing, but when you do it and omit sentences to make the person you're quoting say something entirely different, it become dishonest.

So, let's look back here.

One quote from a person who wasn't even alive to make it.

One quote from a person who was alive, but never said what the person who put the quote together was trying to say.

And you people wonder why nobody trusts you.

but for my purposes here lets just keep the two entact:

Click to expand...

Why? You know it's not what the guy is actually saying, you know it's a deceptive edit, why are you going to keep using it? Aren't you at least going to put the ellipses where it belong? Do you have at least that much integrity?

Dave Ellis said:

There is no biological function known to man that is irreducibly complex in any species, anywhere.

Click to expand...

ATP synthase

Black Akuma said:

Aren't you at least going to put the ellipses where it belong? Do you have at least that much integrity?

Click to expand...

no, I like the full paragraphs. Sometimes I use ellipses, other times I don't.

gradyll said:

no, I like the full paragraphs. Sometimes I use ellipses, other times I don't.

Click to expand...

You're always supposed to use ellipses. Not doing so is, basically, lying.

gradyll said:

well the obvious question is where did they all come from if there is no evolutional history?

Click to expand...

How did you determine that they have no evolutionary history? You act as if we have multiple fossils from every species that has ever lived, and that we have searched every single geologic stratum that exists. You also pretend as if every single organism that has ever existed has left a fossil for us to examine.

Also, "evolutional" is not a word. "Evolutionary" is the one you are looking for.

I think it's mysterious that everything appeared, basically overnight geologically speaking.

Click to expand...

Yeah, just like modern humans suddenly appear in the fossil record . . . until we found H. erectus. And then H. erectus appeared as if it suddenly appeared . . . until we found Australopithecus afarenesis. And then we found A. sediba, yet another transitional.

Sudden appearances are due to searching such a tiny, tiny portion of a geologic record that is not complete to begin with.

It's a mysterious thing for evolutionists.

Click to expand...

Hasn't been a mystery for 150 years:

"Hence, when the same species occur at the bottom, middle, and top of a formation, the probability is that they have not lived on the same spot during the whole period of deposition, but have disappeared and reappeared, perhaps many times, during the same geological period. So that if such species were to undergo a considerable amount of modification during any one geological period, a section would not probably include all the fine intermediate gradations which must on my theory have existed between them, but abrupt, though perhaps very slight, changes of form. "--Charles Darwin, "Origin of Species"

"Only a small portion of the world has been geologically explored. Only organic beings of certain classes can be preserved in a fossil condition, at least in any great number. Widely ranging species vary most, and varieties are often at first local, -- both causes rendering the discovery of intermediate links less likely. Local varieties will not spread into other and distant regions until they are considerably modified and improved; and when they do spread, if discovered in a geological formation, they will appear as if suddenly created there, and will be simply classed as new species."--Charles Darwin, "Origin of Species"

Darwin figured it out 150 years ago. You should catch up.

gradyll said:

okay so even if your right,

are you kidding?

person A does not know evolution,

therefore I conclude that person A is not knowledgeable on any thing scientific.

Is that a bad case of poisoning the well?

Click to expand...

If someone tries to disprove gravity by showing that rocks sink in water, would you trust them for your scientific info?

Ray Comfort has that level of knowledge as it relates to biology. Why anyone would go to him for science info is . . . mind blowing.

gradyll said:

it's about CSI

Intelligent Reasoning: Measuring Complex Specified Information with Respect to Biology

here:
Intelligent Reasoning: January 2006

and here:
Intelligent Reasoning: Biological Specification (Dembski CSI) and My explanation of CSI

I don't agree with everything on the site as I am not as abrasive, but it still is valuable information on ID.

Click to expand...

More links to bad science that you are not equipped to discuss. What's the point?

gradyll said:

ATP synthase

Click to expand...

The mammalian middle ear is irreducibly complex, and yet we have the step by step evolution of that IC complex. Without all three bones (hammer, anvil, stapes) we can't hear, and yet reptiles only have a single middle ear. ID supporters would like you to believe that this would require deaf intermediates while the IC middle ear is built, but is this true? Nope. It was functional throughout each step.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

There is even a transitional stage where the mammal-like reptiles had a two jointed jaw as one of the bones served as both a middle ear bone and a jaw bone.

ID supporters claim that IC systems can not evolve. Well, they can and we have the fossils to prove it.

gradyll said:

ATP synthase

Click to expand...

ATP synthase - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Look at this stone arch.



If you take out any single stone, the whole thing collapses. That is proof that every single stone was placed at EXACTLY THE SAME TIME.

(Yes, I'm joking.)

KTS said:

Look at this stone arch.



If you take out any single stone, the whole thing collapses. That is proof that every single stone was placed at EXACTLY THE SAME TIME.

(Yes, I'm joking.)

Click to expand...

No, it's just proof that it was created by an intelligence. Besides, stones are not a biological system. Wrong/false analogy.

EternalDragon said:

No, it's just proof that it was created by an intelligence. Besides, stones are not a biological system. Wrong/false analogy.

Click to expand...

And life evolves. It is a fact that you keep running away from.

EternalDragon said:

No, it's just proof that it was created by an intelligence. Besides, stones are not a biological system. Wrong/false analogy.

Click to expand...

Apparently you missed the fact it was a joke.

Subduction Zone said:

And life evolves. It is a fact that you keep running away from.

Click to expand...

It's not me doing the running.