Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[Loudmouth]

You are the one that claims that only the natural world exists and that all life must be a product of natural processes. You claim that the evidence that shows all life forms and systems appear to be designed with a purpose but that it is an illusion or subjective. It is your burden. Provide the scientific methodology, unit of measure, and statistical tests that show this evidence is false and is only an illusion or concede.

Yet another weasel move. Stop shifting the burden of proof. You are the one claiming that you have evidence for design. You need to show that you have that evidence.

 

[whois]

Scientists are on record as saying that things have the appearance of design. In fact, they have written books explaining why human bias makes us see design where it doesn't exist.

explanations isn't empirical evidence.
there are believable explanations for abiogenesis, but yet the field is a failure.

How so? What chemical laws do these molecules break?

i never said they broke any laws.
why resort to engineering terms?
why resort to things such as the DNA code?

Abiogenesis is not evolution.

only because it's a failure.
if science created life tomorrow, evolutionists would be heralding it as one of its own.

The only agenda I see here are the ID/creationists who are trying to run away from the evidence, and squeeze their God into the gaps in our knowledge.

maybe, on the part of creationists.
gradualists are just as bad.

Is that what you have been trying to argue all this while, that falsifying Darwinian evolution somehow implies a creator deity? Are you yet another creationist arguing for a God of the Gaps?

i point out what is written in science journals, god has nothing whatsoever to do with what i post.

No, they aren't. You get that wrong every time. Eukaryote evolution continues to be dominated by neo-Darwinian mechanisms.

actually they are, koonin and noble both give their reasoning.

In keeping with Darwinian evolution.

wrong again, darwinian evolution calls for a slow gradual change, the fossil record does not support that.
current research is beginning to explain why.

 

[Loudmouth]

explanations isn't empirical evidence.
there are believable explanations for abiogenesis, but yet the field is a failure.

Abiogenesis is not evolution.

i never said they broke any laws.
why resort to engineering terms?
why resort to things such as the DNA code?

Why not? Humans naturally anthropomorphize all sorts of things, including things that we know aren't human. Why give a stuffed animal a name if it isn't real? This is a human bias, one that ID/creationists prey off of when they refer to "it looks designed".

only because it's a failure.
if science created life tomorrow, evolutionists would be heralding it as one of its own.

They are not the same thing because they are not the same thing. The mechanisms of how life originates is not the same as the mechanisms that cause life to change once it does appear. The theories cover very different things. The failure of one does not cause the other to fall.

maybe, on the part of creationists.
gradualists are just as bad.

How are the gradualists using an argument from ignorance?

i point out what is written in science journals, god has nothing whatsoever to do with what i post.

In which science journal did they say that if life did not evolve gradually that this would imply a supernatural creator?

"gradualists are in the same boat, they just can't let go of their views, probably because it might imply a god."--whois

actually they are, koonin and noble both give their reasoning.

You have consistently proven that you don't understand their reasoning or their conclusions.

"The comparative infrequency of HGT in the eukaryote part of the biological world means, however, that in this case the conceptual implications for the TOL might not be as drastic: the evolutionary histories of many eukaryotes appear to produce tree-like patterns (e.g., 27])."--Eugene Koonin

wrong again, darwinian evolution calls for a slow gradual change,

No, it doesn't. Punctuated Equilibria is entirely Darwinian. Stasis is completely in keeping with Darwinian evolution.

 

[crjmurray]

You need to understand what is subjective in science and what is objective and what determines those.

Objective evidence: obtained through observation, physical examination, and laboratory and diagnostic testing.

Subjective: Personal opinions, assumptions, interpretations of data.

Objective evidence: Evidence through observation, physical examination and diagnostic testing has shown that life forms and systems appear to be designed with a purpose.

Subjective: Evidence gained through observation, physical examination and diagnostic testing has shown that life forms and systems appear to be designed with a purpose but we interpret this evidence as false and hold a personal opinion and assume that since no designer exists that this appearance is false and just an illusion.

You look at life. You see complexity. Your PERSONAL OPINION is that it APPEARS designed. That is subjective. If it wasn't subjective then you could provide ACTUAL EVIDENCE. Not just your opinion and some random quotemines.

 

[HitchSlap]

Prove it.

Don't need to prove it. It appears so.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then show us the scientific methodology, unit of measure, and statistical tests use to detect design.

The scientific methodology for determining the workings of minute organisms and systems has increased the knowledge and understanding of them. We can now observe the inner life of the cell. We now know that there are 250 molecular machines in Yeast alone! Not only can we know of these machines we can look deeper and see the molecular machines themselves and with scientific experiments learn how they work. Before 1950 a cell pretty much was still thought of as a blob of gel like substance.

We can do experiments to test these molecular machines now that can show how they work and how by taking away parts in knock out experiments and mutational sensitivity tests. The multitude of these elements of life give future experiments plenty of opportunities for learning.

The functions and forms of these machines are all tested and documented for design elements like those found in human design. There are motors, pulleys, assembly lines, messengers, switches and even highways that cargo is carried. There are even molecular rafts that carry loads.

According to the journal Accounts of Chemical Research, a molecular machine is "an assemblage of parts that transmit forces, motion, or energy from one to another in a predetermined manner.
Tinh-Alfredo V. Khuong, Jose E. Junez, Carlos E. Godinez, and Miguel A. Garcia-Garibay, "Crystalline Molecular Machines: A Quest Toward Solid-State Dynamics and Function," Accounts of Chemical Research, Vol. 39(6):413-422 (2006).

Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering wrote that "these machines are generally more efficient than their macroscale counterparts,"
C. Mavroidis, A. Dubey, and M.L. Yarmush, "Molecular Machines," Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering, Vol. 6:363-395 (2004).

"The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines. . . . Why do we call the large protein assemblies that underlie cell function protein machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts."

Evolution doesn't predict such orderly precise and purposeful machine like design, machines designed by humans. We see actual molecular machines performing just like human created machines (but far more advanced) we observe their function and purpose and the manner in which they are designed which confirms they are designed in the same way as humans design. That is the evidence, that is how we tested and confirmed the existence of molecular machines and experiments tell us how they work and show engineering in their makeup.
Bruce Alberts, "The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists," Cell, Vol. 92:291 (February 6, 1998).

 

[Loudmouth]

The scientific methodology for determining the workings of minute organisms and systems has increased the knowledge and understanding of them.

I asked for the methodology for determining design, not how something works. We use scientific methodologies to determine the inner workings of hurricanes. Does that make hurricanes designed?

We can now observe the inner life of the cell. We now know that there are 250 molecular machines in Yeast alone! Not only can we know of these machines we can look deeper and see the molecular machines themselves and with scientific experiments learn how they work. Before 1950 a cell pretty much was still thought of as a blob of gel like substance.

Where is the evidence that any of that is designed?

The functions and forms of these machines are all tested and documented for design elements like those found in human design. There are motors, pulleys, assembly lines, messengers, switches and even highways that cargo is carried. There are even molecular rafts that carry loads.

How is that evidence that life was designed? How is the ability of humans to mimic nature evidence that organisms are designed?

Evolution doesn't predict such orderly precise and purposeful machine like design, machines designed by humans.

ID has to stand on it's own. Stop shifting the burden of proof.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You look at life. You see complexity. Your PERSONAL OPINION is that it APPEARS designed. That is subjective. If it wasn't subjective then you could provide ACTUAL EVIDENCE. Not just your opinion and some random quotemines.

Actual evidence of design features that appear to be engineered as humans design:

 

[Loudmouth]

Actual evidence of design features that appear to be engineered as humans design:

I don't see how humans finding the same solution as nature is evidence that nature was designed. Please explain.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I asked for the methodology for determining design, not how something works. We use scientific methodologies to determine the inner workings of hurricanes. Does that make hurricanes designed?

How something functions, what creates that function are what shows design. The methodology is how we determine that those functions and systems have design elements.

Where is the evidence that any of that is designed?

Do you have some evidence that the design of these systems molecular machines are illusion? The evidence of design is there, you have to show why you feel it isn't actual design but an illusion.

How is that evidence that life was designed? How is the ability of humans to mimic nature evidence that organisms are designed?

You really are reaching here, those molecular machines were not known when humans designed their machines. Design predicts: That life should appear designed. The fact that we see that design in life forms confirms not that humans mimick molecular machines but we following the thoughts of God create as He created. If ID is true, an intelligent agent created all life, life creates in the same way as the intelligent Designer. If ID is true like should have those features that show it was designed and we as the created in the image of the Creator should design in the same way.

ID has to stand on it's own. Stop shifting the burden of proof.

Design is apparent in all of nature. It is your burden.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I don't see how humans finding the same solution as nature is evidence that nature was designed. Please explain.

See my other post to you.

 

[Smidlee]

How is this evidence for design? Why can't natural processes produce complex IC systems that humans have difficulty reproducing?

Nature of itself doesn't have any intelligence. Man throughout worshiped nature, himself and/or God.

 

[Loudmouth]

How something functions, what creates that function are what shows design.

How?

The methodology is how we determine that those functions and systems have design elements.

That is false. We use those methods to determine how hurricanes work, and hurricanes aren't designed.

Do you have some evidence that the design of these systems molecular machines are illusion?

Again with the weasel tactics of shifting the burden of proof. It is YOUR JOB to present positive scientific evidence for your claims.

You really are reaching here, those molecular machines were not known when humans designed their machines.

Why can't natural processes produce features that resemble human designs?

Design is apparent in all of nature. It is your burden.

Your subjective opinions are not evidence. The burden remains with you.

 

[Loudmouth]

Nature of itself doesn't have any intelligence. Man throughout worshiped nature, himself and/or God.

Why does it require intelligence to produce these features?

 

[Smidlee]

Why does it require intelligence to produce these features?

That's what intelligence does, make careful selections.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150622182457.htm

"Our brains track moving objects by applying one of the algorithms your phone's GPS uses, according to researchers."

How about that. Everything we discovered has always been here , even written in our minds.

 

[Loudmouth]

That's what intelligence does, make careful selections.

Where did you show that these structures require careful selections used by an intelligence?

 

[Oncedeceived]

How?

Seriously are you just being obtuse?

That is false. We use those methods to determine how hurricanes work, and hurricanes aren't designed.

Hurricanes do not have an appearance that the way it works that it was engineered.

Again with the weasel tactics of shifting the burden of proof. It is YOUR JOB to present positive scientific evidence for your claims.

No, burden of proof rests on the person that is making the positive claim. The positive claim was that the appearance of design for a purpose in life forms was an illusion. You really need to read up who has the burden when a claim is made.

Why can't natural processes produce features that resemble human designs?

Why can't? Why can't is not the issue. Does it? Do you have evidence to show that natural processes produced the features that have human like design in life?

Your subjective opinions are not evidence. The burden remains with you.

My opinion does not create the design with purpose in life forms. The burden is yours.

 

[Loudmouth]

Seriously are you just being obtuse?

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

Hurricanes do not have an appearance that the way it works that it was engineered.

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

No, burden of proof rests on the person that is making the positive claim.

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

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

Stop shifting the burden of proof.

Why can't? Why can't is not the issue. Does it? Do you have evidence to show that natural processes produced the features that have human like design in life?

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

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why does it require intelligence to produce these features?

Intelligence created this:

Mindless processes devoid of intelligence was suppose to create this?

 

[Loudmouth]

Mindless processes devoid of intelligence was suppose to create this?

You claim that the bacterial flagellum is designed.

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