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.
Your point?"Well, all a scientist has to do to prove me wrong is to take a bacterium without a flagellum, or knock out the genes for the flagellum in a bacterium, go into his lab and grow that bug for a long time and see if it produces anything resembling a flagellum. If that happened, intelligent design, as I understand it, would be knocked out of the water."--Michael Behe
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/michael-behe-on-falsification/
You didn't show how ID would not produce a nested hierarchy.
No, I said ID as a science would be falsified if an evolutionary pathway for IC systems did not provide step by step increments that were beneficial and functional for an organism.
Show where they have been solved.
And your point?
You are really reaching.
Rolling my eyes.
What!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! When humans design life!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! When have humans designed life?
Your mistaken assumption once again...if evolution no God.
Why would the purpose be to make it look like evolution happened. Evolution does happen.I showed why it would take tons of extra energy and resources to produce a nested hierarchy for no other purpose than to make it look like evolution happened.. Are you going to address it or not?
No, not really.Same thing.
Are you claiming that the paper I provided was incorrect and faulty in their conclusions?The gorilla and orangutan genome papers are really good examples. They compare the whole genomes of humans, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans to get the full picture of evolution in our clade. When you use whole genomes you find the full extent of incomplete lineage sorting that can confound comparisons where only a handful of genes are used.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v483/n7388/full/nature10842.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v469/n7331/full/nature09687.html
I think we are looking at all of them.What you propose doesn't affect the species we are looking at.
I don't think your idea of what we are talking about and mine are the same.Seriously????? This is the point I have been with FROM THE VERY START!!!!!
I think it is you who isn't.Ignoring the evidence, as usual.
I did. Did you miss it?Show me anyone who has constructed a nested hierarchy of automobiles based on shared and derived features. Just one. Show me. So far you haven't.
1. Humans are not designing life.Yes. You will notice that when humans design life THEY VIOLATE THE NESTED HIERARCHY!!!!!!!!!
Pot kettle blackYour unfalsifiable dogma.
Why would the purpose be to make it look like evolution happened. Evolution does happen.
No, not really.
Are you claiming that the paper I provided was incorrect and faulty in their conclusions?
I did. Did you miss it?
1. Humans are not designing life.
2. Humans design with materials that are not genetically inclined.
3. This is irrelevant because it doesn't provide a reason why ID would not produce nested hierarchy.
Pot kettle black
Show me where I have denied that humans evolved from a common ancestor shared with all vertebrates. I want thread, post number and exact quote in context.You have denied that humans evolved from a common ancestor shared with all other vertebrates. If you think I am wrong, then now would be the time to explain that you have no problem with it.
A path can always be hypothesized and has been but it hasn't been shown that each of these steps would allow strong working function to select from.Notice that you can't describe the difference between them.
What am I not understanding incorrectly?Not at all. Your understanding of the paper is incorrect and faulty. The problems that they describe are real. What you ignore is the solutions that are used to overcome these problems.
You are adding to your request now. You didn't include "with several different models" in your request. I showed you what you asked for.What did I miss? Show me where you used the shared and derived features of cars to produce a nested hierarchy with several different models.
I want you to read this very carefully. Really think about what I am saying. Evolution is a term we have chosen for a process seen in nature. Nature that has been around long before this concept of evolution has been around. Evolution is a process that God has created, He doesn't make anything to look like evolution. Evolution is what we see of God's creation and interpret what we find.You didn't address the main argument. Why would a designer change the sequence of an entire genome FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE of making it consistent with what evolution produce? If you can't produce an answer, then you have your reason. There is absolutely no reason why ID should produce a nested hierarchy. As William of Conches once said:
[They say] "We do not know how this is, but we know that God can do it." You poor fools! God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so.
Shifting the burden again.Show us a reason why God would create life so that it would fall into a nested hierarchy. If you can't, you have no explanation.
You haven't shown why ID wouldn't produce it.I have an objective measure for nested hierarchies that is falsifiable. You don't for design. You lose.
Show me where I have denied that humans evolved from a common ancestor shared with all vertebrates. I want thread, post number and exact quote in context.
What am I not understanding incorrectly?
I asked for the paper that shows they found solutions.
You are adding to your request now. You didn't include "with several different models" in your request. I showed you what you asked for.
I want you to read this very carefully. Really think about what I am saying. Evolution is a term we have chosen for a process seen in nature. Nature that has been around long before this concept of evolution has been around. Evolution is a process that God has created, He doesn't make anything to look like evolution. Evolution is what we see of God's creation and interpret what we find.
Shifting the burden again.
You haven't shown why ID wouldn't produce it.
.
It would appear this thread is about design and ID. Further attempts to muddy the waters will be noted.
y
When you know how it works,
ID and design extends to DNA and life. LOL....you can note whatever you wish but i doubt seriously a mod will say DNA and its origin is excluded from any identification of design
Intelligent design discusses Dna and it being designed so it s just nonsense to claim that talking about life and the origin of life does not relate to intelligent design.Again, ID does not discuss the origin of life and neither does evolution. If you wish to open a thread on the origin of life,
Intelligent design discusses Dna and it being designed so it s just nonsense to claim that talking about life and the origin of life does not relate to intelligent design.
Total nonsense.
If you wish to go ask a mod to tell me people who are IDist cannot talk about the design implicit in DNA then go try your luck but you certainly as an atheist will not be defining for anyone else what they adhere to as in ID and not.
DNA shows all the hallmarks of Intelligent design and the implausibility of it no being designed will be discussed in this thread unless you go fool some mod that it does not relate.
Can you provide a scientific definition of design?
Can you please provide a reliable test to determine if ID is present, that is falsifiable?
Better. I can give you an illustration - DNA. You know one of the basic building blocks of life. You know what I was talking about before - the beginning of life
Better - anything that can't be shown rationally (not imaginatively) to be derived by natural processes like the complexibility of DNA and umm the origin of LIFEas I was discussing before.
Now that I have answered your question your turn
Do you have a workable provable model of abiogenesis and the Origin of LIFE
Now why didn't Michael Behe think of that when he was on the stand
I don't know how life originated. When I do, I will let you know.
All this, and Greek, and Hebrew? AmazingBetter. I can give you an illustration - DNA. You know one of the basic building blocks of life. You know what I was talking about before - the beginning of life
Better - anything that can't be shown rationally (not imaginatively) to be derived by natural processes like the complexibility of DNA and umm the origin of LIFEas I was discussing before.
Now that I have answered your question your turn
Do you have a workable provable model of abiogenesis and the Origin of LIFE
Don't know. Read slowly and you will see it says Mike Enders not Mike Behe
Great we will be here waiting and mean while thanks for establishing that "I dunno" is an acceptable answer to any question you should ask.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?