Evolution/Creation on Trial

[stevevw]

Irreducible complexity did not stand up in court. People wanted it taught in the schools along with evolution but they lost in court.

There have been many peer reviewed papers showing the complexity of having to evolve multiple mutations to account for the systems and features needed for living things. Its just reasonable deduction that a complex ability requires more than one or two or even many things working together to make it function. The things that have been used showing a certain stage of a more developed ability are complex themselves and require an explanation as to how they were able to mutate into existence.

If for example there are 1000 smaller steps to build a particular feature then do mutations evolve this by small single steps or by evolving larger chunks. How large a chunk of a feature can mutations evolve. Surely there are aspects of the feature that need several parts to be there all working together even if you want to show examples of similar stages of features in other animals or organisms. As you see with the eye it has thousands of parts. So surely some of those parts which have interconnecting parts would have had to have happened at the same time.

So its not as simple as showing a few stages here and there and saying that this proves the transitions for evolving complex features. Theres a whole lot more to it. But evolutionists try to present bits of something and leave out bigger chunks which are also needed to build living things. Just like when they try to show transitions for animals evolving from each other. They show a bone or two which are similar but forget that there is a whole stack of other supporting things that go with that. When any of those other things dont support the transition they are either ignored or other reasons are made to explain them away.
Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15340163
The Limits of Complex Adaptation: An Analysis Based on a Simple Model of Structured Bacterial Populations
Since we now have a large and rapidly growing catalog of functional protein systems that seem to be fundamentally complex, there is a growing sense that innovations of this kind would require complex adaptations, meaning adaptations needing not just one specific new mutation but several, with all intermediates being non-adaptive. If so, this may present a probabilistic challenge to the standard evolutionary model because it would require fortuitous convergence of multiple rare events in order for a selective benefit to be realized.
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.4
The so called case against irreducible complexity has not been proven. There are many examples sinse that decision was made which show irreducible complexity. Add this to the research done to show the impossibility for proteins to evolve complex
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/michael_behe_hasnt_been_refute044801.html

 

[Smidlee]

Porn was a big winner in court also.

Don't forget when scientist couldn't agree if CO2 was pollution the Supreme Court voted it was.

 

[Shemjaza]

Don't forget when scientist couldn't agree if CO2 was pollution the Supreme Court voted it was.

You have a very bizarre definition of "couldn't agree".

An extreme minority, mostly in the pay of oil companies doesn't make a credible dissenting voice.

 

[bhsmte]

Porn was a big winner in court also.

What was that based on?

 

[bhsmte]

There have been many peer reviewed papers showing the complexity of having to evolve multiple mutations to account for the systems and features needed for living things. Its just reasonable deduction that a complex ability requires more than one or two or even many things working together to make it function. The things that have been used showing a certain stage of a more developed ability are complex themselves and require an explanation as to how they were able to mutate into existence.

If for example there are 1000 smaller steps to build a particular feature then do mutations evolve this by small single steps or by evolving larger chunks. How large a chunk of a feature can mutations evolve. Surely there are aspects of the feature that need several parts to be there all working together even if you want to show examples of similar stages of features in other animals or organisms. As you see with the eye it has thousands of parts. So surely some of those parts which have interconnecting parts would have had to have happened at the same time.

So its not as simple as showing a few stages here and there and saying that this proves the transitions for evolving complex features. Theres a whole lot more to it. But evolutionists try to present bits of something and leave out bigger chunks which are also needed to build living things. Just like when they try to show transitions for animals evolving from each other. They show a bone or two which are similar but forget that there is a whole stack of other supporting things that go with that. When any of those other things dont support the transition they are either ignored or other reasons are made to explain them away.
Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15340163
The Limits of Complex Adaptation: An Analysis Based on a Simple Model of Structured Bacterial Populations
Since we now have a large and rapidly growing catalog of functional protein systems that seem to be fundamentally complex, there is a growing sense that innovations of this kind would require complex adaptations, meaning adaptations needing not just one specific new mutation but several, with all intermediates being non-adaptive. If so, this may present a probabilistic challenge to the standard evolutionary model because it would require fortuitous convergence of multiple rare events in order for a selective benefit to be realized.
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.4
The so called case against irreducible complexity has not been proven. There are many examples sinse that decision was made which show irreducible complexity. Add this to the research done to show the impossibility for proteins to evolve complex
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/michael_behe_hasnt_been_refute044801.html

Do you have any explanation why the handful of scientists who support ID, have yet to come up with a scientific definition of ID and or, a test to determine if ID is present, that is falsifiable?

 

[joshua 1 9]

There have been many peer reviewed papers showing the complexity of having to evolve multiple mutations to account for the systems and features needed for living things. Its just reasonable deduction that a complex ability requires more than one or two or even many things working together to make it function. The things that have been used showing a certain stage of a more developed ability are complex themselves and require an explanation as to how they were able to mutate into existence.

If for example there are 1000 smaller steps to build a particular feature then do mutations evolve this by small single steps or by evolving larger chunks. How large a chunk of a feature can mutations evolve. Surely there are aspects of the feature that need several parts to be there all working together even if you want to show examples of similar stages of features in other animals or organisms. As you see with the eye it has thousands of parts. So surely some of those parts which have interconnecting parts would have had to have happened at the same time.

So its not as simple as showing a few stages here and there and saying that this proves the transitions for evolving complex features. Theres a whole lot more to it. But evolutionists try to present bits of something and leave out bigger chunks which are also needed to build living things. Just like when they try to show transitions for animals evolving from each other. They show a bone or two which are similar but forget that there is a whole stack of other supporting things that go with that. When any of those other things dont support the transition they are either ignored or other reasons are made to explain them away.
Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15340163
The Limits of Complex Adaptation: An Analysis Based on a Simple Model of Structured Bacterial Populations
Since we now have a large and rapidly growing catalog of functional protein systems that seem to be fundamentally complex, there is a growing sense that innovations of this kind would require complex adaptations, meaning adaptations needing not just one specific new mutation but several, with all intermediates being non-adaptive. If so, this may present a probabilistic challenge to the standard evolutionary model because it would require fortuitous convergence of multiple rare events in order for a selective benefit to be realized.
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.4
The so called case against irreducible complexity has not been proven. There are many examples sinse that decision was made which show irreducible complexity. Add this to the research done to show the impossibility for proteins to evolve complex
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/michael_behe_hasnt_been_refute044801.html

Yes macro evolution is mathmaticly impossible. Still it's the best they can do in an attempt to explain what is currently known. It does no good to prove it wrong unless you have something better to offer.

 

[joshua 1 9]

What was that based on?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Online_Protection_Act

Mostly Hustler magazine has been sucessful in the cases they bring before the court. Dan coats introduced a bill that was passed into law limiting pornography and the supreme court struck it down as being unconstitutional. So Congress, the Senate and the President all agreed to regulate pornography on the internet. Only one judge disagreed so the law was eliminated. They also launched a smear campaign againt Dan Coats that cost him the next election. So the industry is to powerful and no one wants to risk their job to take them and their money on.

This will be a big part of the downfall of America. You cannot set a bad example to corrupt the morals of others and not be held responsible. Even the communists do not openly display pornography. They do not ban it but you can not openly display it the way the court system allows it to be openly flaunted here in America.

 

[bhsmte]

Becau se

Mostly Hustler magazine has been sucessful in the cases they bring before the court. Dan coats introduced a bill that was passed into law limiting pornography and the supreme court struck it down as being unconstitutional. So Congress, the Senate and the President all agreed to limit pornography on the internet. Only one judge disagreed so the law was eliminated. They also launched a smear campaign againt Dan Coats that cost him the next election. So the industry is to powerful and no one wants to risk their job to take them and their money on.

This will be a big part of the downfall of America. You cannot set a bad example to corrupt the morals of others and not be held responsible. Even the communists do not openly display pornography. They do not ban it but you can not openly display it the way the court system allows it to be openly flaunted here in America.

They ruled pornography was protected by the constitution, correct?

 

[joshua 1 9]

They ruled pornography was protected by the constitution, correct?

You can click on the link to the wiki artical. They ruled that the filter and blocking software was enough.

 

[bhsmte]

You can click on the link to the wiki artical. They ruled that the filter and blocking software was enough.

I meant pornography in general, has been found to be protected by the constitution, correct?

 

[joshua 1 9]

I meant pornography in general, has been found to be protected by the constitution, correct?

The court keeps striking down the laws that the legislature passes.

"Free speech advocates, however, worked diligently and successfully to overturn the portion relating to indecent, but not obscene, speech. They argued that speech protected under theFirst Amendment, such as printed novels or the use of the seven dirty words, would suddenly become unlawful when posted to the Internet. Critics also claimed the bill would have a chilling effect on the availability of medical information. Online civil liberties organizations arranged protests against the bill, for example the Black World Wide Web protest which encouraged webmasters to make their sites' backgrounds black for 48 hours after its passage, and theElectronic Frontier Foundation's Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign."

 

[SteveB28]

There have been many peer reviewed papers showing the complexity of having to evolve multiple mutations to account for the systems and features needed for living things. Its just reasonable deduction that a complex ability requires more than one or two or even many things working together to make it function. The things that have been used showing a certain stage of a more developed ability are complex themselves and require an explanation as to how they were able to mutate into existence.

If for example there are 1000 smaller steps to build a particular feature then do mutations evolve this by small single steps or by evolving larger chunks. How large a chunk of a feature can mutations evolve. Surely there are aspects of the feature that need several parts to be there all working together even if you want to show examples of similar stages of features in other animals or organisms. As you see with the eye it has thousands of parts. So surely some of those parts which have interconnecting parts would have had to have happened at the same time.

So its not as simple as showing a few stages here and there and saying that this proves the transitions for evolving complex features. Theres a whole lot more to it. But evolutionists try to present bits of something and leave out bigger chunks which are also needed to build living things. Just like when they try to show transitions for animals evolving from each other. They show a bone or two which are similar but forget that there is a whole stack of other supporting things that go with that. When any of those other things dont support the transition they are either ignored or other reasons are made to explain them away.
Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15340163
The Limits of Complex Adaptation: An Analysis Based on a Simple Model of Structured Bacterial Populations
Since we now have a large and rapidly growing catalog of functional protein systems that seem to be fundamentally complex, there is a growing sense that innovations of this kind would require complex adaptations, meaning adaptations needing not just one specific new mutation but several, with all intermediates being non-adaptive. If so, this may present a probabilistic challenge to the standard evolutionary model because it would require fortuitous convergence of multiple rare events in order for a selective benefit to be realized.
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.4
The so called case against irreducible complexity has not been proven. There are many examples sinse that decision was made which show irreducible complexity. Add this to the research done to show the impossibility for proteins to evolve complex
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/michael_behe_hasnt_been_refute044801.html

Why do you use the descriptor "inquisitive" under your user name? An inquisitive person is one who seeks new knowledge. An inquisitive person has an open mind, ready to have their current understandings improved or replaced.

I have read right through this conversation and every contribution from you has been one in which you attempt to reject anything that disagrees with your pre-formed conclusions.

"Dogmatic" would be a more appropriate word for you to place there.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Even some one-celled creatures like a euglena have a light sensitive spot, allowing them to swim toward or away from light. (Thus, even a spot without any focussing ability at all is beneficial.) Some of the photoreceptive pigments of these creatures are rhodopsins, the same kind of molecules found in your retina for the same purpose.

We have a lot of assumptions here and some other elements not even considered. Others have shown that a simple light sensitive spot must have more features than just the same molecules found in our retina. Proteins have very specific functions, they fold a certain way and if they are effected at all they will not function at all. Darwin looked at the evolution of the eye in isolation, just one feature or function in the entire complex system. Nothing is given in to support the other complex features of vision as some have pointed out here.

Add this to the fact that eyes had to evolve independently many times over. Each organism had to evolve the eye independently the same way. Why? How? That has not been addressed.

Once again, add this to the fact that very complex eyes are found in the fossil evidence fully functional. There is no evidence that eyes evolved pre-cambrian in anyway let alone independently from light sensitive patches or otherwise. The fact that we find organisms with light sensitive patches does not connect them in an evolutionary way to those we find in the fossil evidence.

 

[stevevw]

Irreducible complexity did not stand up in court. People wanted it taught in the schools along with evolution but they lost in court.

That was then and this is now. That was a long time ago and was a kangaroo court case that hasn't proven anything. As I said since then there have been many papers in which I have linked that show the implausibility of evolving multi mutations to gain complex functions and abilities. Plus the example of the flagellum used as having other similar bacteria showing a stage of evolution have been shown to be wrong. Even the stages that they show are full of complex stages that need to be shown where they came from. By showing one small stage of so called evolution as a transition from simple to complex doesn't make proof of evolution. Talk about taking an inch and making a mile.

If you look at the complexity of the eye in which I have linked you can see the volumes of information needed to build this amazing feature. There would be thousands upon thousands of individual features that are needed to evolve by chance mutations. Evolution can only cite a few of theses which could also be how design works in using the same blue prints for organisms that only need a simpler version for their environment.

Living things will only need a certain level of ability according to where they occupy. Why would a fly need an eye like us. Yet the flies eye is complex in itself and needs to be explained in stages how it formed. But evolutionists take one of these examples and use it as a stage for evolution ignoring that it is complex in itself and needs to be explained in thousands of stages fore evolving.

This video is simple and states it like it is. It shows the complexity that needs to be explained. And despite having posted it more than once still there is no reply as to how this can be explained.

 

[stevevw]

Why do you use the descriptor "inquisitive" under your user name? An inquisitive person is one who seeks new knowledge. An inquisitive person has an open mind, ready to have their current understandings improved or replaced.

I have read right through this conversation and every contribution from you has been one in which you attempt to reject anything that disagrees with your pre-formed conclusions.

"Dogmatic" would be a more appropriate word for you to place there.

I investigate things all the time. If you see my replies they are not a one or two sentence response dismissing things without detailed explanations. So I do inquire and read volumes of info on the subjects. I may not be able to understand some of the higher level info associated with genetics ect but I will find commentaries and try to get a basic understanding.

This is why I never reply immediately and take a few days to get back. Unlike some who will reply straight away dismissing what has been said without checking things and assuming they know. But just because I decide to disagree with what is said doesn't mean I have a closed mind or am ignoring any evidence you think is right. Thats the point I disagree in my conclusions. Thats the problem with evolution and the religion debate. The evidence can be argued for either side and it comes down to what a person believe and how they see things.

A good example is common decent can also be seen as common design.

 

[pat34lee]

It should be noted that the TOE has already been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, according to the standard accepted definition.

There does not need to be a competing theory to prove one false. Darwinian evolution does not hold up to scrutiny.

 

[stevevw]

Yes macro evolution is mathmaticly impossible. Still it's the best they can do in an attempt to explain what is currently known. It does no good to prove it wrong unless you have something better to offer.

I dont mind or care that others put forward ideas, hypothesis and theories as to what they think caused life to come into existence. So long as they dont make claims like saying its fact when its not. Thats when they are doing exactly the same as they accuse a Christian of doing. The difference is as a Christian we realize that a belief in God takes faith and there is no direct evidence in the way science demands. But when someone who believes in evolution and by that I mean Darwinian evolution (common decent) states that its fact then they are doing exactly what they accuse believers of doing.

What is really in question is can all that we see in its complexity and magnificence come from nothing or be created from more simpler things that didn't have that complexity and info in the first place. There is a competing belief about naturalistic creation and creation that needs an outside source such as God. I cant believe that everything we see came from nothing and is gradually created from nothing to simple to less simple and eventually complex. To me its still pulling a rabbit out of a hat and just trying to make out the hat and rabbit have some special force. Or give the magician enough time and he will eventually pull a rabbit out of his hat.

To me there is more to it than just a debate on evolution and religion/creation. Peoples personal beliefs gets mixed up in it. Evolution is closely entwined with a world view of things and that states that we dont need a God for life. So its in their interests to find ways of explaining things without needing a God to do it. By acknowledging a God they then have to be responsible and accountable to Him and allow God to have a say in our lives and many dont want to do that. They believe that man and nature can accomplish anything and that we are in control and are our own gods.

 

[Blue Wren]

What trial? All the actual trials, about evolution v creationism, have been settled, no?

 

[joshua 1 9]

I cant believe that everything we see came from nothing and is gradually created from nothing to simple to less simple and eventually complex.

We have a universe because of natural law. The idea that if evolution were to start all over again from the beginning everything would be different could not be further from the truth because Evolution has to follow natural law. So where ever you go in the universe the results are going to end up pretty much the same. I do not accept the random mutation theory. But they are stuck with it because it is the best explanation that they have. Even though it has been shown to be mathematically impossible. As I say the best argument against Evolution goes beyond irreducible complexity. It has to do with biodiversity and the inter relationship between the species in a bio-diverse ecology system. For now they (science) are a glutton for the most minute of detail. So that they lose the overall picture of what is going on. That is why we need the Bible to give us the BIG picture. Science needs religion and religion needs science and they are married. Perhaps at times married to the enemy yet still one can not function properly without the other.

 

[stevevw]

We have a universe because of natural law. The idea that if evolution were to start all over again from the beginning everything would be different could not be further from the truth because Evolution has to follow natural law. So where ever you go in the universe the results are going to end up pretty much the same. I do not accept the random mutation theory. But they are stuck with it because it is the best explanation that they have. Even though it has been shown to be mathematically impossible. As I say the best argument against Evolution goes beyond irreducible complexity. It has to do with biodiversity and the inter relationship between the species in a bio-diverse ecology system. For now they (science) are a glutton for the most minute of detail. So that they lose the overall picture of what is going on. That is why we need the Bible to give us the BIG picture. Science needs religion and religion needs science and they are married. Perhaps at times married to the enemy yet still one can not function properly without the other.

yes very good and I agree. Natural laws can be something God has installed as well. It doesn't have to be a creation as we see it now. But the fact is whether its the universe and astrophysics, general physics, biology or genetics there are laws and systems and codes that govern these things. They didn't happen out of thin air and they cant create themselves. They may have some remarkable flexibility and diversity but that is because they operate on the basis of something that is so wonderfully designed.

Like you said taking all these things into consideration not only do they each have a their own designed mechanisms that operate them but they all work together in harmony with each other as well. Living things and the environments work together and are linked in an ever changing bio system. The environment is alive as the creatures that live in them and this is forgotten by evolution. The universe and everything in it is perfectly made and governed by things we dont understand. It is all finely tuned for life and no amount of explanations will explain that away.