Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[bhsmte]

You claim that the bacterial flagellum is designed.

WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE?????????????

You won't get any!

You won't get a workable definition of design!

You won't get a test for design to determine it's presence that is falsifiable!

You will get more of the same!

 

[Oncedeceived]

How does figuring out how something works evidence that it was intelligently designed?

The engineering in life systems has a design with a purpose. We recognize design by the engineering of an feature or thing. We recognize the design we see in life forms and systems in the way they work (function) and their structures that resemble those created by intelligence.

Appearances are nothing more than subjective opinions and do not qualify as scientific observations or evidence.

You are seriously wrong, scientifically wrong. The evidence is what it is, organisms have the appearance they were engineered for a purpose, having the structure that resembles the design of human engineers. We have biologists that are reverse engineering systems in the same way they would if they found a unfamiliar machine.
The subjective opinion is saying that evidence is incorrect and an illusion.

YOU CLAIM THAT THESE THINGS ARE DESIGNED!!!!!!!!

WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE??????????

I have provided three molecular machines showing that they are engineered in the same way as human's design. This is evidence of design.

Stop shifting the burden of proof.

Stop shifting the burden of proof.

I don't have any evidence for how these things came about. Where is your evidence?

You don't have evidence how life could appear designed but you know that they were not designed. I've shown you the evidence that these have the same design features as those designed by intelligence...humans. It is your dogmatic faith, without any evidence to support that faith, that these molecular machines and the organisms that they are a part of are not designed. Where is your evidence?

 

[Oncedeceived]

You claim that the bacterial flagellum is designed.

WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE?????????????

Stop yelling. I can feel your frustration. You have no evidence to support your own faith based belief and your whole worldview is supposed to be based on evidence. You have no evidence that these design elements with functional purpose are an illusion. In fact, how can they be an illusion when I have supplied scientific animation showing them?

 

[bhsmte]

Just when I thought it couldn't get better...............

 

[Loudmouth]

The engineering in life systems has a design with a purpose.

Why does a design with purpose require intelligent design? River systems have a dendritic design and they serve the purpose of moving freshwater to the oceans. Does that mean they are intelligently designed? No.

We recognize design by the engineering of an feature or thing.

How did you determine it was engineered by an intelligence?

We recognize the design we see in life forms and systems in the way they work (function) and their structures that resemble those created by intelligence.

Why is an intelligence required for those features?

You are seriously wrong, scientifically wrong. The evidence is what it is, organisms have the appearance . . .

Appearances are subjective opinions. We are asking for scientific evidence.

We have biologists that are reverse engineering systems in the same way they would if they found a unfamiliar machine.

Biologists can mimic naturally produced designs.

The subjective opinion is saying that evidence is incorrect and an illusion.

Then produce some objective scientific evidence that includes a methodology, unit of measure, and statistics that would detect a false positive (i.e. null hypothesis). All you have produced so far is your subjective opinions.

I have provided three molecular machines showing that they are engineered in the same way as human's design. This is evidence of design.

Why? Why can't nature produce life that has something similar to what humans produce?

You don't have evidence how life could appear designed but you know that they were not designed.

STOP SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF!!!!

 

[Loudmouth]

Stop yelling.

START PRESENTING EVIDENCE!!!!!!!

 

[Smidlee]

Why does a design with purpose require intelligent design? River systems have a dendritic design and they serve the purpose of moving freshwater to the oceans. Does that mean they are intelligently designed? No.

That's a strawman since no one is suggesting rivers are IC systems.

How did you determine it was engineered by an intelligence?

That's the only known source of engineered systems is from intelligence. We are using what we know is true in the present and applying it to a past event. Codes, information , and design is the evidence of intelligence.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You won't get any!

You won't get a workable definition of design!

You won't get a test for design to determine it's presence that is falsifiable!

You will get more of the same!

 

[Loudmouth]

That's a strawman since no one is suggesting rivers are IC systems.

River systems have all of the features of supposedly intelligently designed systems: complexity, function, and purpose. That's the point. We know that natural processes produce river systems, and we also know that they have all of the supposed elements of design. This means that your subjective appearances are just that, subjective.

That's the only known source of engineered systems is from intelligence.

We are talking about the unknown ones. Where is the evidence that these came from intelligence.

 

[Oncedeceived]

START PRESENTING EVIDENCE!!!!!!!

I have, you have not. I will take this frustration and lack of any evidence to support your faith belief as you conceding there is no evidence to show that the appearance is due to an illusion.

 

[Smidlee]

River systems have all of the features of supposedly intelligently designed systems: complexity, function, and purpose. That's the point. We know that natural processes produce river systems, and we also know that they have all of the supposed elements of design. This means that your subjective appearances are just that, subjective.

Rivers are not governed by function nor purpose so I don't know where you get that idea. I never saw rivers as intelligent design systems even as a child. Are you trying to refer to fine-tuning?

We are talking about the unknown ones. Where is the evidence that these came from intelligence.

Again I applying what we do know to something we can't test .. that is a past event. That's more than just story telling like Darwin's "The Little Eyeball That Could" fairy tale

 

[Loudmouth]

Rivers are not governed by function nor purpose so I don't know where you get that idea.

Their function is to move water across the contour of the land along a difference in elevation. Their purpose is to move freshwater off of the continents and into the oceans.

I never saw rivers as intelligent design systems even as a child.

You are only showing that you have a double standard. River systems have all of the supposed elements of design.

Again I applying what we do know to something we can't test .. that is a past event. That's more than just story telling like Darwin's "The Little Eyeball That Could" fairy tale

Why can't we test past events using evidence in the present? Darwin showed that there were transitional eyes already present in living organisms. How is that a fairy tale? Those are facts.

 

[Loudmouth]

I have,

No, you haven't. You have only presented subjective opinions. Where is the evidence?

This is the problem. Not one ID/creationist can present evidence for their claims. All they can do is refuse to accept facts and make false claims about evolution.

 

[Smidlee]

Their function is to move water across the contour of the land along a difference in elevation. Their purpose is to move freshwater off of the continents and into the oceans.

That's not any definition of function I've ever read. You sound like you believe rivers is a direct act of God.

You are only showing that you have a double standard. River systems have all of the supposed elements of design.

That's only make sense to someone who believe God created this earth with man in mind. Rivers of themselves has no purpose or direction.

Why can't we test past events using evidence in the present? Darwin showed that there were transitional eyes already present in living organisms. How is that a fairy tale? Those are facts.

Darwin showed that present organisms had different eyes so he assume that "evolution did it" even though there is no fossil evidence that supported his claim.

 

[Loudmouth]

That's not any definition of function I've ever read.

How so?

You sound like you believe rivers is a direct act of God.

I quite clearly state that rivers are produced by natural processes. Perhaps you should read more closely.

That's only make sense to someone who believe God created this earth with man in mind. Rivers of themselves has no purpose or direction.

I just showed that they do have purpose and direction.

Darwin showed that present organisms had different eyes so he assume that "evolution did it" even though there is no fossil evidence that supported his claim.

Darwin showed that there are gradations that would be accessible to natural selection. It demonstrates that complexity can be produced by gradual and selectable steps.

 

[Smidlee]

How so?

what is the function of a river?

I quite clearly state that rivers are produced by natural processes. Perhaps you should read more closely.

And not a single person would doubt that.

I just showed that they do have purpose and direction.

And what purpose does a river have?

Darwin showed that there are gradations that would be accessible to natural selection. It demonstrates that complexity can be produced by gradual and selectable steps.

No he didn't . Darwin only had his imagination. In order for natural selection to select , different eyeballs on the same species has to continuously popped into existence so natural selection has something to select from. There is no evidence natural selection has ever selected between two sets of eyeballs.

 

[Loudmouth]

what is the function of a river?

Already stated in previous post.

"Their function is to move water across the contour of the land along a difference in elevation."

And what purpose does a river have?

Already stated in previous post.

"Their purpose is to move freshwater off of the continents and into the oceans."

No he didn't . Darwin only had his imagination.

In the Articulata we can commence a series with an optic nerve merely coated with pigment, and without any other mechanism; and from this low stage, numerous gradations of structure, branching off in two fundamentally different lines, can be shown to exist, until we reach a moderately high stage of perfection. In certain crustaceans, for instance, there is a double cornea, the inner one divided into facets, within each of which there is a lens shaped swelling. In other crustaceans the transparent cones which are coated by pigment, and which properly act only by excluding lateral pencils of light, are convex at their upper ends and must act by convergence; and at their lower ends there seems to be an imperfect vitreous substance. With these facts, here far too briefly and imperfectly given, which show that there is much graduated diversity in the eyes of living crustaceans, . . .
Charles Darwin, "The Origin of Species"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter6.html
​

Are you saying that Darwin is just imagining these eyes that exist in living species of crustaceans?

In order for natural selection to select , different eyeballs on the same species has to continuously popped into existence so natural selection has something to select from.

Why would you need different eyeballs? Why not small variations of the already existing eyeball?

 

[Smidlee]

Already stated in previous post.

"Their function is to move water across the contour of the land along a difference in elevation."

You are confused with a "function" from a "result". Rivers are just the result of water moving downhill.

In the Articulata we can commence a series with an optic nerve merely coated with pigment, and without any other mechanism; and from this low stage, numerous gradations of structure, branching off in two fundamentally different lines, can be shown to exist, until we reach a moderately high stage of perfection. In certain crustaceans, for instance, there is a double cornea, the inner one divided into facets, within each of which there is a lens shaped swelling. In other crustaceans the transparent cones which are coated by pigment, and which properly act only by excluding lateral pencils of light, are convex at their upper ends and must act by convergence; and at their lower ends there seems to be an imperfect vitreous substance. With these facts, here far too briefly and imperfectly given, which show that there is much graduated diversity in the eyes of living crustaceans, . . .
Charles Darwin, "The Origin of Species"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter6.html ​

​

Are you saying that Darwin is just imagining these eyes that exist in living species of crustaceans?

No one disagree different eyes exist.

Why would you need different eyeballs? Why not small variations of the already existing eyeball?

In order to make a selection you can to have at least two different options to choose from. There are no examples in the present nor in the fossil record that shows NS choosing between two eyes. In order for NS to select it has be make a enough impact to seriously effect reproduction (a matter of life or death).

One of the assumption made by Dawkins has been proven false. A flat light sensitive spot can indeed detect the direction of the light.

 

[Loudmouth]

You are confused with a "function" from a "result". Rivers are just the result of water moving downhill.

How is that different from any function in any biological organism? Every protein is just the result of RNA and DNA interacting. Every larger organelle is just the result of chemical and physical laws.

No one disagree different eyes exist.

Just as there are different Romance languages, even though they originate from a common language called Latin. The accumulation of changes over time is what causes them to be different.

In order to make a selection you can to have at least two different options to choose from.

Small variations would be different options.

There are no examples in the present nor in the fossil record that shows NS choosing between two eyes.

Nor would there need to be.

In order for NS to select it has be make a enough impact to seriously effect reproduction (a matter of life or death).

No, it wouldn't. Simply having more offspring is all that is needed.

One of the assumption made by Dawkins has been proven false. A flat light sensitive spot can indeed detect the direction of the light.

So can an eye that uses a depression.

 

[Smidlee]

How is that different from any function in any biological organism? Every protein is just the result of RNA and DNA interacting. Every larger organelle is just the result of chemical and physical laws.

Biologist system are more like an automobile than a river. A fuel line is design with a purpose in mind unlike a river. If you really want to understand the difference you need to read all of Howard Glicksman post.
Starting here:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/02/how_the_body_wo093941.html

"In this series, I plan to show how the body works and how the only plausible explanation for its ability to combat the laws of nature and survive in the world are the many physiological innovations that must have come about through intelligent design. "

He does a great job revealing ID in our living body. Our bodies have to remain "in control" or the result is death.

Just as there are different Romance languages, even though they originate from a common language called Latin. The accumulation of changes over time is what causes them to be different.

Language is the product of the mind.

Small variations would be different options.

Thee is no evidence of any small variations of eyes for NS to select from. Not even in the fossil record . All eyes comes fully formed.