Bologna. You attempted to falsify intelligent design, and you failed, and now you can't admit that's what you were trying to do.
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Evolution falsified
- Thread starter npetreley
- Start date
Bologna. You attempted to falsify intelligent design, and you failed, and now you can't admit that's what you were trying to do.
intelligent design doesn't need to be falsified, because its never been established as a scientific theory . I do think however the evidence i've presented causes serious problems to ID - if the urate oxidase pseudogene is "intelligently" designed, then our definition of intelligence needs to be changed, or the word intelligent needs to be removed from the title. There isn't anything intelligent about designing a broken gene, perhaps ID should be renamed MD - mysterious design - because by human standards - there isn't anything intelligent or logical about the urate oxidase pseudogene.
Upvote
0
*sigh* As I expected, nothing was falsified.
by the way Nick, you *can't* falsify I.D. This is part of what makes it invalid and faith-based.
by the way Nick, you *can't* falsify I.D. This is part of what makes it invalid and faith-based.
Upvote
0
thanks for the translation, all it does is show that you don't know what you're talking about. It is a pseudogene, undeniably.
You can "imagine" all you want that it has a function, until anyone shows this funciton - consider it a huge problem for ID
You can "imagine" all you want that it has a function, until anyone shows this funciton - consider it a huge problem for ID
Upvote
0
Mid
Spirit of the Wolf
natural selection:
first example: (in brief) Tone deafness, occurs as a undesirable trait, in the natural world genetic handicaps of all kinds would not live to reproduce, human beings are a species that breeds even when serious debilitating handicaps are present.
Example two: I must smirk at anyone trying to disprove the laws of science when they repeatedly misspell the word prey and spell it as pray. anyhoo, certain advantageous traits WOULD dissapear as evolution occured. The trait of the salamander to shed body parts when attacked proves uneeded in higher life forms such as....... moose (that mighty rack upon it's head, not to mention the size that comes with it), wolf (get aload of those teeth), and human (hey we can blow somethings brains out with a gun). THerefore a defenseless animal such as the this amphibian would need some form of survival tactic.
Knock out genes, and how can this person possibly say that these genes have no function. Scientists may not know them as of this point in time. An example is how the atom was thought to be the smallest form of matter. for years they said, "we've broken down matter to the smallest possible" well lo and behold, they've now split it to the quark.
I will continue on the next post
first example: (in brief) Tone deafness, occurs as a undesirable trait, in the natural world genetic handicaps of all kinds would not live to reproduce, human beings are a species that breeds even when serious debilitating handicaps are present.
Example two: I must smirk at anyone trying to disprove the laws of science when they repeatedly misspell the word prey and spell it as pray. anyhoo, certain advantageous traits WOULD dissapear as evolution occured. The trait of the salamander to shed body parts when attacked proves uneeded in higher life forms such as....... moose (that mighty rack upon it's head, not to mention the size that comes with it), wolf (get aload of those teeth), and human (hey we can blow somethings brains out with a gun). THerefore a defenseless animal such as the this amphibian would need some form of survival tactic.
Knock out genes, and how can this person possibly say that these genes have no function. Scientists may not know them as of this point in time. An example is how the atom was thought to be the smallest form of matter. for years they said, "we've broken down matter to the smallest possible" well lo and behold, they've now split it to the quark.
I will continue on the next post
Upvote
0
Interesting. But wrong.
Why? Well first off let me deal with the author's presumptions.
He states that 1 obervation which cannot be explained by natural selection would demolish or call for revision to the theory.
Wrong.
Newtonian physics could not explain meterorites and the orbit of Neptune for a while (until Jupiter was found) was Newtonian theory thus knocked out of the court, for lets say, Cartesian theory when these things could not be explained? Nope. Meteorites thought to be impossible in Newtonian theory were easily incorperated and the orbit of Neptune was made compatible via the finding of Pluto. In any case, one problem with a theory does not demolish a theory. As the problem may simply be do to ignorance.
In science theories never fall do to one problem with the theory, its only when the prblems add up and a batter theory is found that one theory is replaced by another, for example, Newtonian by Relativity, this is because in science no theory is perfect. And if every theory was abandoned because 1 problem was found, then science wouldn't have any theories.
Secondly all these arguments are simply arguments from ignorance, evolutionists can't explain X so evolution must be false. Ignorance however disproves very little. For example relativity right now cannot explain certain observations made in Quantum Mechanics, does that mean we throw Einstein out the window? Certain diseases cannot be explained even with germ theory, that mean germ theory is wrong?
The author claims that the existence of redundent genes disproves evolution when it does nothing of the kind. If anything it disproves creationism. Why would a god make redundant genes?'
And redundant genes are easily explained away anyways, as long as the genes don't interfere with survival, they can stay. Case closed.
As for reptiles regeneration disproving natural selection, the argument presupposes that mammalian ancestors had regenerative abilities. That's not necessarily so, modern day reptiles may have evolved the ability to regenerate limbs after the mammal/reptile split. That whole argument is like saying "well if you came from your dad, and you have good eye-sight, your brother must have good eye-sight as well". A very questionable assumption. Thus the argument is easily refuted by the fact that mammals may have never had the regenerative effect to select for in the first place.
Also being warm blooded may create problems for regeneration. As may other mammalian attributes.
A bigger question is though, why would god give lowely reptiles regeneration and not his favored humans?
On Tone deafness, this reveals a huge misunderstanding of Darwinism. Evolution is not teleological, genetic change is not perfect. Animals will only be selected against when they have a defect if and only if, their other traits don't outweigh the defect or the defect is strongly selected against. Among human beings there is nothing terminal about being tone deaf, a person can survive quite long while being tone deaf and pass on his genes.
Also mutations don't automatically lead to improvement, and thus certain harmful mutations like tone deafness will arise, it is only in the long run, i.e. generations, that tone deafness and such will become less frequent or absent as it is selected against.
This is then the point: Darwinism does not propose that a group of animals have only good mutations that are meant to lead to perfection.
Darwinism says that WHEN a mutation is good for a species it tends to stick around and spread among that species, accumulating over years with other mutations. If it is essential for the organisms survival or helps the organisms chances of surviving until the organism has a chance to reproduce. I.E. evolutionary changes operate at the bare minimun, if a blob like creature, that's deaf and immobile can get along just find, that sort of creature will never evolve.
Note that Darwinism is not saying all mutations are good, only that the good ones tend to stay. Good in the sense that it helps the creature spread its genes.
Why? Well first off let me deal with the author's presumptions.
He states that 1 obervation which cannot be explained by natural selection would demolish or call for revision to the theory.
Wrong.
Newtonian physics could not explain meterorites and the orbit of Neptune for a while (until Jupiter was found) was Newtonian theory thus knocked out of the court, for lets say, Cartesian theory when these things could not be explained? Nope. Meteorites thought to be impossible in Newtonian theory were easily incorperated and the orbit of Neptune was made compatible via the finding of Pluto. In any case, one problem with a theory does not demolish a theory. As the problem may simply be do to ignorance.
In science theories never fall do to one problem with the theory, its only when the prblems add up and a batter theory is found that one theory is replaced by another, for example, Newtonian by Relativity, this is because in science no theory is perfect. And if every theory was abandoned because 1 problem was found, then science wouldn't have any theories.
Secondly all these arguments are simply arguments from ignorance, evolutionists can't explain X so evolution must be false. Ignorance however disproves very little. For example relativity right now cannot explain certain observations made in Quantum Mechanics, does that mean we throw Einstein out the window? Certain diseases cannot be explained even with germ theory, that mean germ theory is wrong?
The author claims that the existence of redundent genes disproves evolution when it does nothing of the kind. If anything it disproves creationism. Why would a god make redundant genes?'
And redundant genes are easily explained away anyways, as long as the genes don't interfere with survival, they can stay. Case closed.
As for reptiles regeneration disproving natural selection, the argument presupposes that mammalian ancestors had regenerative abilities. That's not necessarily so, modern day reptiles may have evolved the ability to regenerate limbs after the mammal/reptile split. That whole argument is like saying "well if you came from your dad, and you have good eye-sight, your brother must have good eye-sight as well". A very questionable assumption. Thus the argument is easily refuted by the fact that mammals may have never had the regenerative effect to select for in the first place.
Also being warm blooded may create problems for regeneration. As may other mammalian attributes.
A bigger question is though, why would god give lowely reptiles regeneration and not his favored humans?
On Tone deafness, this reveals a huge misunderstanding of Darwinism. Evolution is not teleological, genetic change is not perfect. Animals will only be selected against when they have a defect if and only if, their other traits don't outweigh the defect or the defect is strongly selected against. Among human beings there is nothing terminal about being tone deaf, a person can survive quite long while being tone deaf and pass on his genes.
Also mutations don't automatically lead to improvement, and thus certain harmful mutations like tone deafness will arise, it is only in the long run, i.e. generations, that tone deafness and such will become less frequent or absent as it is selected against.
This is then the point: Darwinism does not propose that a group of animals have only good mutations that are meant to lead to perfection.
Darwinism says that WHEN a mutation is good for a species it tends to stick around and spread among that species, accumulating over years with other mutations. If it is essential for the organisms survival or helps the organisms chances of surviving until the organism has a chance to reproduce. I.E. evolutionary changes operate at the bare minimun, if a blob like creature, that's deaf and immobile can get along just find, that sort of creature will never evolve.
Note that Darwinism is not saying all mutations are good, only that the good ones tend to stay. Good in the sense that it helps the creature spread its genes.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
