Fossilized life found in meteors! Groundbreaking!

[dad]

It uses the same logic you used, only to come to a different conclusion. Why do you think the Tree of Life claim is not a valid one, and water from the flood in space is?

Neither is valid as validated by physical only present state science.

 

[rjc34]

I am referring to the elusive dark matter and dark energy that no scientists have been able to detect despite the millions of dollars wasted over the years on trying to do so.

Wasted? Since when are science dollar ever wasted? That computer you're typing on? FUNDED BY SCIENCE DOLLARS. Literally everything around you has in one way or another been funded and discovered with science. If you want to go live back in the bronze-age, go ahead, I won't stop you.

Unless you have a firm grasp on Quantum Field Theory, let the people who have spent a decade in school do what they do best.

Sure we can observe effects in space, but those effect can also be attributed to God energy since dark matter and dark energy are just as empirically undetectable.

Saying 'goddidit' is just giving up. Science doesn't do that. If the evidence supported this so called 'god energy' then that would be the accepted explanation.

One definition of a scientific theory is:

A fallible human interpretation of an observation, an interpretation that can never be proven to be true since scientific theories are never proven and therefore never true.

Did writing that drivel make you feel better? This clearly demonstrates you have absolutely no understanding about what a scientific theory is, and how the scientific method works. I even quoted the creationwiki.org definition to demonstrate how wrong you are:

"A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world. In the scientific method, the theory is formed following the testing of a hypothesis and incorporates many substantial facts, scientific laws and logical inferences. It exists as an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of natural phenomena."

And that's from a creationist site!

It's a bit dumbed down, but compare it to the more comprehensive one put forth in Wikipedia:

"A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena."

The theory that pulls birds out of dinosaur hats and pulls humans out of the hats of apes by the wave of a peer-review magic wand.

...What peer-reviewed papers are you reading? You know quite a few dinosaurs had feathers, right? And in the evolutionary chain it was recently discovered that rather than us splitting off from chimpanzees, it may have actually been the other way around!

 

[rjc34]

You are the one who has to provide evidence that chance and necessity can assemble man.

Other than the fact 'chance and necessity' are just a straw man, we have conclusively proven that common descent is a fact. It's supported by every field of science. You are the one who must provide evidence that a god exists. Even if you could somehow prove that evolutionary theory was completely wrong tomorrow, that 1) wouldn't prove creationism, and 2) wouldn't prove the existence of a deity, much less a specific one...

The creation of cars, their adaptive abilities, similarities in design, trends from simple to more complex cars are not what are used to infer that cars cannot evolve from carriages. It hinges on the mechanism of adaptation employed by cars which restrict such a mode of transformation regardless of the aforementioned phenomena. Hence the creator of cars made no kind of insinuation that cars could develop from a bicycle through the use of that mechanism since the mechanism for adaptation in a car never constituted such.

Cars don't evolve, humans make cars. They don't have DNA that mutates through successive generations, and therefore can't evolve. A nice strawman though.

 

[Doveaman]

Which god? Theres hundreds.

Anyone would do when compared to your invisible, dark entities. None have been empirically verified.

You still have not shared your evidence for yours btw.

The evidence for God energy are the effects we see in the universe: flat rotation curves in galaxies and accelerated expansion of space.

I don;t think it is a very good one. The same applies to the "theory" of your existence. In your example, no-one can know anything ever or make any assumptions. But no doubt there will somehow be an exception for God ad the Bible...

There are many things we can prove and know to be true as long as we can detect them. The same cannot be said of your invisible, dark entities that are to this day undetectable.

Where would you like to start with a review of the evidence for evolution? The fossil record? DNA research? Extant species in mid-evolve? The strange way that species are spread over out planet?

Therefore the evolution of bird from dinosaur and human from ape is inferred, not proven. That’s my point.

Either evolution is true, or we have a creator that has gone out of his way to make it seem like it is, it seems.

Or the evidence is not properly investigated by the “experts”.

Birds from dinosaurs and humans from apes are not proven to be true. They are only inferred to be true based on the evidence.

It’s like guilt being inferred upon an innocent man in a court of law based on the fallible human interpretation of the evidence. This often happens in the court of law, even after “expert” investigation of the evidence by people with PhDs.

Magic wands are more the district of people who want to deny science in favor of Bible literacy.

Magic wands are more the district of people who want to deny physics in favor of metaphysics.

They have magically appearing and disappearing water, an impossible boat, kangaroos running back to Australia from mount Ararat without leaving a trace while living on plants that survived several months of being under seawater, a 6000 year old universe created with light already underway from distant stars for millions of years, talking snakes and, not to forget, a tabernacle-shaped earth.

You have magically appearing big bang, inflation, dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, the stretching of space/time, not to forget, a universe expanding faster than light speed.

Actually the whole point of of dark matter it is that it is detectable,

No, it is not. It is for this very reason that it is called “dark” matter; it is undetectable.

we just don't know what it is yet or how it works.

So it may very well be God energy since you don’t know what it is yet or how it works.

We can empirically detect it's gravity, we just cannot detect it optically.

How do you even know it is gravity you are seeing since you are unable to detect any mass present to produce gravity? You must first empirically verify that there is mass present to produce gravity before you can call it gravity.

You are assuming an effect without verifying a cause. That’s a mighty big leap of faith. If you cannot detect mass to produce gravity then you are in no position to call it gravity since gravity is produce by mass, not magic.

Once we figure out what it is, we will stop calling it Dark Matter and give it a proper name.

Why not call it God energy since it consists of "god particles"?

It is not Science that has no answers - you just didn't know about them yet. Now you do! Profit!

Actually, I’m even more confused now.

 

[Doveaman]

Wasted? Since when are science dollar ever wasted?

In search of the “god particle” and “extraterrestrial life”.

That computer you're typing on? FUNDED BY SCIENCE DOLLARS. Literally everything around you has in one way or another been funded and discovered with science.

Irrelevant to my point. See above.

If you want to go live back in the bronze-age, go ahead, I won't stop you.

There’s the bronze-age and there’s the dark-age. The big bang model of the universe is based on the dark age; it’s 96% in the dark.

Unless you have a firm grasp on Quantum Field Theory, let the people who have spent a decade in school do what they do best.

A firm grasp on reality is enough for me.

Saying 'goddidit' is just giving up. Science doesn't do that. If the evidence supported this so called 'god energy' then that would be the accepted explanation.

The evidence for God energy are the effects we see in the universe: flat rotation curves in galaxies and accelerated expansion of space.

Did writing that drivel make you feel better? This clearly demonstrates you have absolutely no understanding about what a scientific theory is, and how the scientific method works.

Wikipedia:

“Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge...Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable, to predict future results.”

“ Experiments are used by people all the time, whether it's testing the effects of a drug, or trying to cook something new. The scientific method is an attempt to ensure that we learn as much as possible from these tests, since there are many challenges to running a good experiment”

What experimental tests have you done to verify the existence of dark matter and dark energy?

What experimental tests have you done to show that dark matter can produce gravity or to show that dark energy can stretch space?

Where can we even find some dark matter and dark energy to experiment on?

...What peer-reviewed papers are you reading? You know quite a few dinosaurs had feathers, right?

So?

A dinosaur with feathers is a dinosaur with feathers. Nothing more.

And in the evolutionary chain it was recently discovered that rather than us splitting off from chimpanzees, it may have actually been the other way around!

When you find out what actually happened get back to me. In the mean time, evolution theory can take a hike.

 

[rjc34]

The evidence for God energy are the effects we see in the universe: flat rotation curves in galaxies and accelerated expansion of space.

God of the gaps? Verify it empirically. Do some experiments as you demand of us. What are you waiting for?

Therefore the evolution of bird from dinosaur and human from ape is inferred, not proven.

Inferred from the evidence we have. You seem to have some kind of grudge against logical inference? You can argue all you want, but you can't change the fact that genetics prove beyond any doubt at all that humans and apes have common ancestors. Unless your god is so tricky he inserted retroviral DNA in just the right locations on all of these species so it would look exactly like common descent, just to test our faith.

Or the evidence is not properly investigated by the “experts”.

Somebody's been drinking the 'Expelled' kool-aid. Still on about some massive global scientific conspiracy to cover up all that evidence for creationism?

Birds from dinosaurs and humans from apes are not proven to be true. They are only inferred to be true based on the evidence.

Well, yes, originally those common ancestors were deduced via the massive pile of evidence and reason, but now they are proven true by DNA evidence.

It’s like guilt being inferred upon an innocent man in a court of law based on the fallible human interpretation of the evidence. This often happens in the court of law, even after “expert” investigation of the evidence by people with PhDs.

This is not a very good analogy, so I made a more fitting one:

It's like a suspect being arrested due to inferred guilt from the weapon found at the scene belonging to the suspect, shoe prints matching the suspects, fibers matching the suspects clothes and his fngerprints on the gun and a window of the house. This would normally be quite enough evidence to convict a criminal. But it's like have all this evidence, and being quite certain, then having the lab come back and say that the DNA in the blood found on the suspect matched the DNA of the victim.

In search of the “god particle” and “extraterrestrial life”.

Yes, we built CERN to help search for the Higgs Boson. It's an experiment to verify a theory... isn't that what you wanted?

And extraterrestrial life? Very little funding goes to that, and because of the odds of there being at least some sort of life present somewhere else in the galaxy are so astronomically good, we're taking our chances.

Wikipedia:

“Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge...Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable, to predict future results.”

Did you really think I was going to let you get away with quote mining? Here's the part you took out with the '...'
"To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[3]
Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge."
And the part directly following:
"Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. Theories, in turn, may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context."

So basically all that's been proven is your ability to make use of dishonest tactics. I think your intent was to try to get the quote mine to suggest that experimentation was the only way to verify and corroborate scientific evidence. Well, just by reading the rest of the quote, your entire premise becomes moot.

“[/B] Experiments are used by people all the time, whether it's testing the effects of a drug, or trying to cook something new. The scientific method is an attempt to ensure that we learn as much as possible from these tests, since there are many challenges to running a good experiment”

Again, all this says is that in science we run experiments to test ideas...

A dinosaur with feathers is a dinosaur with feathers. Nothing more.
When you find out what actually happened get back to me. In the mean time, evolution theory can take a hike.

We are pretty set on how it went down. What part are you curious about?

 

[Greg1234]

Other than the fact 'chance and necessity' are just a straw man,

It's not a straw man. You don't like it when a more affectionate appellation like "natural" is removed. That's all that's happening here.

we have conclusively proven that common descent is a fact. It's supported by every field of science. You are the one who must provide evidence that a god exists.

Actually it is not viable. Testing of the Darwinian mechanism has come leaps and bounds.

Even if you could somehow prove that evolutionary theory was completely wrong tomorrow, that 1) wouldn't prove creationism,

You are mistaking you for me. In the event of Darwinism's demise, you fall back on the Thor argument, I don't.

and 2) wouldn't prove the existence of a deity, much less a specific one...

Lucky for you, we are dealing with the property of intelligence where your understanding should be up to par.

Cars don't evolve, humans make cars. They don't have DNA that mutates through successive generations, and therefore can't evolve. A nice strawman though.

No we don't say cars don't evolve. We say testing of the mechanism of adaptation in a car shows that that mechanism is not viable in accounting for the diversity of machinery on the planet.

 

[rjc34]

It's not a straw man. You don't like it when a more affectionate appellation like "natural" is removed. That's all that's happening here.

No, it's still a straw man. It's chance (beneficial mutations) and selection pressure (natural selection).

Actually it is not viable. Testing of the Darwinian mechanism has come leaps and bounds.

Saying it's not viable is does not prove anything, other than the fact you're completely deluded by your religious convictions. Yes, the evidence and tests confirming the theory of evolution to be absolutely true has come leaps and bounds. What is the point you're making with that statement? We know more than we ever have, and every thing we find confirms the theory. We have never found a single piece of evidence that breaks the theory.

You are mistaking you for me. In the event of Darwinism's demise, you fall back on the Thor argument, I don't.

What 'Thor' argument? And please stop calling it 'darwinism', which is a derogative term, not a scientific one. No, if the theory of evolution was somehow completely gone tomorrow, we'd start looking for a new theory to fit the evidence and observations we have. We don't just jump to 'oh our theory that has fit perfectly for so long is gone, god really must have been the one to have done it!' Which is what you guys already without even trying to get rid of the theory yourselves.

Lucky for you, we are dealing with the property of intelligence where your understanding should be up to par.

So a deistic god? Still gets you not a single step closer to your theistic judeo-christian god.

No we don't say cars don't evolve. We say testing of the mechanism of adaptation in a car shows that that mechanism is not viable in accounting for the diversity of machinery on the planet.

And yet it's still an absolutely false analogy. The theory of evolution has many different mechanisms behind it, and they've all been proven to work, and continue to work today. It doesn't matter whether you like it or not, they happen, it's part of reality.

 

[Greg1234]

No, it's still a straw man. It's chance (beneficial mutations) and selection pressure (natural selection).

The mutations are selected because they are needed for the conditions which arise.

Saying it's not viable is does not prove anything, other than the fact you're completely deluded by your religious convictions. Yes, the evidence and tests confirming the theory of evolution to be absolutely true has come leaps and bounds. What is the point you're making with that statement? We know more than we ever have, and every thing we find confirms the theory. We have never found a single piece of evidence that breaks the theory.

Actually Darwinism has never overcome multiple factors to establish itself.

What 'Thor' argument? And please stop calling it 'darwinism', which is a derogative term, not a scientific one. No, if the theory of evolution was somehow completely gone tomorrow, we'd start looking for a new theory to fit the evidence and observations we have. We don't just jump to 'oh our theory that has fit perfectly for so long is gone, god really must have been the one to have done it!' Which is what you guys already without even trying to get rid of the theory yourselves.

As just outlined, you would continue to look for evidence to refute intelligent design after the Darwinian attempt.

So a deistic god? Still gets you not a single step closer to your theistic judeo-christian god.

Intelligent Design

And yet it's still an absolutely false analogy. The theory of evolution has many different mechanisms behind it, and they've all been proven to work, and continue to work today. It doesn't matter whether you like it or not, they happen, it's part of reality.

Finally, we get past the first phase. It has only taken couple posts and several weeks. Testing and observation done on the adaptive mechanism(s) do not support Darwinian evolution.

 

[rjc34]

The mutations are selected because they are needed for the conditions which arise.

And that is natural selection... what was the point of that whole exchange if you're just confirming the science?

Actually Darwinism has never overcome multiple factors to establish itself.

Oh? And what would these 'factors' be? It is universally established in science and education everywhere. The only real place it gets any problems is from the religious creationist movement in the US, led by political goals, not science.

As just outlined, you would continue to look for evidence to refute intelligent design after the Darwinian attempt.

Intelligent Design is unfalsifiable, which automatically makes it not science. Would you also please stop calling evolution 'Darwinism'? It's disrespectful and rude. If you're here to attempt to establish creation or ID as a legitimate science, then do so, but rudely dismissing evolution with baseless claims and false statements is not doing your reputation any favors.

Intelligent Design

A meaningless political stunt. It meant nothing then and it means nothing now. It's unfalsifiable and not science.

Finally, we get past the first phase. It has only taken couple posts and several weeks. Testing and observation done on the adaptive mechanism(s) do not support Darwinian evolution.

It might help you to cite some sources rather than spouting this completely absurd nonsense. The mechanisms you talk about are the entire basis of the theory. When we discover a new mechanism we modify the theory. Saying the mechanisms don't support the theory that was created to link and explain how they work is just ludicrous to the highest degree!

 

[Greg1234]

And that is natural selection... what was the point of that whole exchange if you're just confirming the science?

It's chance and necessity.

Oh? And what would these 'factors' be? It is universally established in science and education everywhere. The only real place it gets any problems is from the religious creationist movement in the US, led by political goals, not science.

The potency of random mutations, long-term trends derived from short-term analysis, etc

Intelligent Design is unfalsifiable, which automatically makes it not science. Would you also please stop calling evolution 'Darwinism'? It's disrespectful and rude. If you're here to attempt to establish creation or ID as a legitimate science, then do so, but rudely dismissing evolution with baseless claims and false statements is not doing your reputation any favors.

Creationism uses the work done in ID. Archeology also uses ID. Neither Archeology nor Creationism are ID directly.

A meaningless political stunt. It meant nothing then and it means nothing now. It's unfalsifiable and not science.

Actually ID is falsifiable and is already used in multiple branches of physical science

It might help you to cite some sources rather than spouting this completely absurd nonsense. The mechanisms you talk about are the entire basis of the theory. When we discover a new mechanism we modify the theory. Saying the mechanisms don't support the theory that was created to link and explain how they work is just ludicrous to the highest degree!

It's okay to modify the theory. Modify it to accommodate discoveries such as the limitations of adaptation,, the impotency of random mutations, irreducibly complex systems, the intelligent mechanism used in adaptation, etc.

 

[Doveaman]

God of the gaps?

What gaps?

Verify it empirically. Do some experiments as you demand of us. What are you waiting for?

CERN.

Inferred from the evidence we have. You seem to have some kind of grudge against logical inference?

Logical inference is not truth. I prefer truth.

You can argue all you want, but you can't change the fact that genetics prove beyond any doubt at all that humans and apes have common ancestors. Unless your god is so tricky he inserted retroviral DNA in just the right locations on all of these species so it would look exactly like common descent, just to test our faith.

Maybe humans and apes ate the same fruit and picked up the same virus.

Somebody's been drinking the 'Expelled' kool-aid. Still on about some massive global scientific conspiracy to cover up all that evidence for creationism?

No. I’m just saying innocent people are sent to prison wrongfully simply because of poor interpretation of the evidence by the experts.

Well, yes, originally those common ancestors were deduced via the massive pile of evidence and reason, but now they are proven true by DNA evidence.

You obviously don’t know how science works. “Proven true” does not apply to scientific theories.

This is not a very good analogy, so I made a more fitting one:

It's like a suspect being arrested due to inferred guilt from the weapon found at the scene belonging to the suspect, shoe prints matching the suspects, fibers matching the suspects clothes and his fngerprints on the gun and a window of the house. This would normally be quite enough evidence to convict a criminal. But it's like have all this evidence, and being quite certain, then having the lab come back and say that the DNA in the blood found on the suspect matched the DNA of the victim.

Even with all this evidence an innocent man can still be convicted. So to each man his own analogy. Either analogy can be applicable, in my opinion.

Yes, we built CERN to help search for the Higgs Boson. It's an experiment to verify a theory... isn't that what you wanted?

Yep. We can finally prove the existence of God once and for all.

And extraterrestrial life? Very little funding goes to that, and because of the odds of there being at least some sort of life present somewhere else in the galaxy are so astronomically good, we're taking our chances.

Good luck.

Did you really think I was going to let you get away with quote mining? Here's the part you took out with the '...'
"To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[3]
Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge."
And the part directly following:
"Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. Theories, in turn, may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context."

So basically all that's been proven is your ability to make use of dishonest tactics. I think your intent was to try to get the quote mine to suggest that experimentation was the only way to verify and corroborate scientific evidence. Well, just by reading the rest of the quote, your entire premise becomes moot.

Actually, I was just focusing on the most important part. Experimentation is the most reliable way in making sure our eyes are not deceiving us. After all, eyewitness reports are very unreliable. I don’t think we should trust our eyes alone to try to figure out what we are seeing at such great distances, otherwise we might only see 4% of the universe and miss the other 96%.

Again, all this says is that in science we run experiments to test ideas...

What experiment have you run to test dark matter and dark energy? Where can we even find some dark matter and dark energy to test?

We are pretty set on how it went down.

I’m aware of that.

What part are you curious about?

Dinosaur becoming bird and ape becoming man.

 

[rjc34]

It's chance and necessity.

Calling it by another name just makes you look ignorant, rather than intelligent.

The potency of random mutations, long-term trends derived from short-term analysis, etc

And yet if you would look at some peer-reviewed papers you'd see how all of these support the theory.

Creationism uses the work done in ID. Archeology also uses ID. Neither Archeology nor Creationism are ID directly.

The fundamental problem is that no 'work' gets done in ID, it's a politically motivated sham. Archeology does not in any way, shape or form 'use' ID, and I know quite a few archeologists who would frown upon you making such an accusation.

Actually ID is falsifiable and is already used in multiple branches of physical science

Show me how it's falsifiable, rather than just make the claim that it is. And no, it's not used any any branch of science whatsoever. Curious as to why? Because ID isn't science!

It's okay to modify the theory. Modify it to accommodate discoveries

You had the right idea until about here...

such as the limitations of adaptation

And what are these fabled limitations that only you and your creationist ilk have stumbled upon? I'm sure the scientific community would love to hear about them!

the impotency of random mutations

Been debunked multiple times, so stop using it. Again, just makes you look ignorant.

irreducibly complex systems

None have been shown to exist. They have been proposed, and all of them have been debunked. Irreducible complexity is Behe's little pride and joy, yet has no basis in science. It's was simply designed as another god of the gaps idea.

the intelligent mechanism used in adaptation

Natural selection is just that; natural. It's very good at forming the illusion of design though.

 

[Blayz]

Maybe humans and apes ate the same fruit and picked up the same virus.

This glorious piece of nonsense deserves being singled out. You hear that all you HIV positive people? Nothing to do with sex at all. It's all because you ate the same fruit.

Hilarious, excellent atheist witness

 

[rjc34]

This glorious piece of nonsense deserves being singled out. You hear that all you HIV positive people? Nothing to do with sex at all. It's all because you ate the same fruit.

Hilarious, excellent atheist witness

No no no, the conversation was about retroviral DNA. *staff edit*

 

[rjc34]

I'm not even going to answer any of that other drivel, because regardless of how much effort I put into researching a full and thoughtful answer, you're just going to come back with 'nope, I'm still right!'

So I'm going to turn this right back around to you.

For the sake of this thread your arguments completely dismantled evolution. It's no longer valid and has been rejected by scientists all over the world. Now that this cornerstone of biology has been wrought asunder, they're re-scrutinizing all of the evidence to construct a new theory that explains it all and can make useful predictions, like evolutionary theory used to.

Here's your chance... what kind of evidence are you going to show them so that they know your creationism idea is right?!

 

[Greg1234]

And yet if you would look at some peer-reviewed papers you'd see how all of these support the theory.

See below

The fundamental problem is that no 'work' gets done in ID, it's a politically motivated sham. Archeology does not in any way, shape or form 'use' ID, and I know quite a few archeologists who would frown upon you making such an accusation.

Intelligent design - Conservapedia

Show me how it's falsifiable, rather than just make the claim that it is. And no, it's not used any any branch of science whatsoever. Curious as to why? Because ID isn't science!

One example.

YouTube - Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design

And what are these fabled limitations that only you and your creationist ilk have stumbled upon?

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)

I'm sure the scientific community would love to hear about them!

Already have.

Been debunked multiple times, so stop using it. Again, just makes you look ignorant.

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

FRUIT FLIES SPEAK UP

None have been shown to exist. They have been proposed, and all of them have been debunked. Irreducible complexity is Behe's little pride and joy, yet has no basis in science.

They haven't been debunked.

It's was simply designed as another god of the gaps idea.

"What 'Thor' argument?"

​

Correct.

Natural selection is just that; natural. It's very good at forming the illusion of design though.

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).
​

 

[Delphiki]

@Greg:

YouTube - Irreducible Complexity (bacterial flagellum) debunked (You can skip to 3:50)
YouTube - Irreducible complexity cut down to size

DEBUNKED.

 

[Greg1234]

@Greg:

YouTube - Irreducible Complexity (bacterial flagellum) debunked (You can skip to 3:50)

Kenneth Miller's Best Arguments Against Intelligent Design
Kenneth Miller's Best Arguments Against Intelligent Design

YouTube - Irreducible complexity cut down to size

DEBUNKED.

The first part of the video mainly deals with animations on the eye.
YouTube - Sample clip "Molecular Machines/Death of Darwinism" V047
The part about beetles going from a weaker to a more potent mixture does not deal with the building of the structure itself. The case of the mouse trap removing a base, the base was not removed but another base was implemented. In the removal of the base the rest of the catch hangs baseless. It is up to the author to explain the origin of the mouse trap with a different base. You can also remove the hammer and replace it with a laser gun and call it "the hammer".

Saying that the mousetrap evolved from a function that it was ill-suited for is not viable. Miller came and removed a component of the trap and showed that he could use it as a tie holder. He removed another component and showed that he could use it as a "spit ball launcher" and so forth. The problem is that Miller and his tie are supposed to have evolved together from a less complex tie holder on a tie on a man, to what we see today. To go from a tie holder to a mouse trap configuration is a detrimental mutation to the system (despite the fact that the argument is now shifting from the fact that knowledge of changes in protein structure show that such changes don't happen).

It's just like saying that your brain was less complex as a heart, and the rest of the circulatory system evolved around it. The organism is dependent on that system for survival. Then one day a mutation occurred and you had a brain. You didn't go from a less complex nervous system to a more complex nervous system maintaining the purpose of the system overall, but from a heart to a brain with a circulatory system attached to it. And that is in light of problems in regards to changes in the tertiary structure of the protein rather than charge distribution in addition to ability of chance and necessity to even assemble a brain from microbial systems.

 

[MoonLancer]

Have fun with your astrology i guess. Back over here in the real world we will be doing science. have fun over there in the depths of the unfalsifiable