Fossilized life found in meteors! Groundbreaking!

[rjc34]

Intelligent design - Conservapedia

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Did you even read it? Did you? Every single one of those examples, save the last one, is about detecting HUMAN intelligence! BAHAHAHAHAHA (And even the last one is about detecting extraterrestrial intelligence...)

One example.

YouTube - Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design

Ah Behe, once a respectable scientist, now a crackpot on a mission. None of what he says in this video actually makes intelligent design falsifiable. (Well it doesn't really have to be falsified since nobody has found any kind of evidence to support it. It's all 'well maybe this', or 'this could be irreducibly complex'. It's quite simple to blow his arguments out of the water, except when he refuses to concede the point that something like the flagellum could have been useful for a different purpose before it became what it is now...

This video should help you out should you choose to watch it.
[The Edge of Evolution] - C-SPAN Video Library

Related: Michael Behe's Blog - Uncommon Descent - Part 7
Back and forth with Sean Carroll in Science | Uncommon Descent - The Weblog of Michael Behe
Response to Kenneth R. Miller, Continued | Uncommon Descent - The Weblog of Michael Behe

Kentucky Derby Horses More Fragile, But Not Faster | LiveScience

FRUIT FLIES SPEAK UP

E-coli mutation and evolution - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

Creation-Evolution Headlines

Nature publishes paper on the edge of evolution, Part 1 | Uncommon Descent - The Weblog of Michael Behe (Michael Behe's Blog - Uncommon Descent - Part 2)

Ah, tons of Behe! And some creation websites for good measure. Sorry, these give you literally no credibility in what you're trying to say. Behe is a laughing stock.

Already have.

No no, I mean ones that didn't get the speaker laughed off the stage.

It hasn't. One long term experimentation on random mutation includes

FRUIT FLIES SPEAK UP

One data point does not a correlation make. Especially from a pro-creation site.

They haven't been debunked.

Well put 'em up then. Saying 'nuh uh' doesn't really say anything other than 'you're right, but I'm too stubborn to give any ground'.

"What 'Thor' argument?"

​

Correct.

This is just nonsense of some kind.


I'm not talking about natural selection. From 01/07/30 - ICBP 2000

McClintock recognized that genetic change is a cellular process, subject to regulation, and is not dependent on stochastic accidents. The idea of internally-generated, biologically regulated mutation has profound impacts for thinking about the process of evolution. Darwin himself acknowledged this point in later editions of Origin of Species, where he wrote about natural "sports" or "...variations which seem to us in our ignorance to arise spontaneously. It appears that I formerly underrated the frequency and value of these latter forms of variation, as leading to permanent modifications of structure independently of natural selection." (6th edition, Chapter XV, p. 395).
​

[/QUOTE]

Nice try, but it doesn't support your cause in the slightest way. You'd do yourself a favour actually reading your sources rather than just quote mining them to try and support your position.

You took a quote...our of a paper that had used it also as a quote. Good job.