Natural selection v Intelligent design

[Archaeopteryx]

Striedter's book is an excellent text Arch but it only addresses matters concerning already extant brains. It speaks to the diversity between species and changes within given already extant species.

And? Your point here is?

So right there it does not even address the point that was made by Steve's reference to the opinion of Carson. I think you just pulled this one out of a hat. Even Striedter recognizes the processes governing these "within each species" changes are driven by laws and principles that govern the changes (so much more there than simple mutation plus natural selection)...

This doesn't make sense.

Carson denies nothing about the neurobiology of the brain or its physiology and in fact makes mention as part of his point that the developmental complexity is great, in fact thats his point he uses to support his view...that it is far too complex to support the time line of the current developmental view...he also knows full well that there are different brains in different species and that these already extant brains have developed further and thus evolved...

Not seeing what point you're trying to make here?

 

[stevevw]

Yes, a joke that betrays a lack of understanding. Either Carson seriously believes that evolution posits that we came from monkeys, or he doesn't, and he was therefore misrepresenting evolution. Pick your poison.

So you have decided the two possibilities that we can draw from all the evidence. One showing him as dumb and the other as a liar and there's nothing in between. Humm you are a harsh judge. What was the evidence for it not being an off the cuff remark again.You somehow turn the audiences laughter into them all not knowing about evolution rather than a response to a joke Carson made. Talk about drawing long bows.

No, steve, that's not what he said. He said that he couldn't believe that our ability to rationalize, think, and plan, and have a moral sense of what's right and wrong, just appeared" (emphasis added). If that's what he thinks evolution means, that it entails that complex traits "just appeared," then he doesn't understand it adequately.

And that is what he meant by just appeared. He has said it before that he cant believe that our complex genomes just came into existence through random mutations. But even so what do you think he meant by just appeared. Are you honestly saying he is so dumb that he thinks evolution is complex life just popping into existence by magic without any mechanism.

He is a very smart man and he has studied biology surely you give him more credit than that. Even us lay people know enough to get the basic idea that evolution is more than this. That is almost dishonest in trying to make out a scientists is so dumb and ignorant. He even shows he knows more than this with his description of mutations, protein sequences and the genetics involved. If you say that he is just repeating creationists words then why didnt he do it here. Even creationists know what evolution claims to be and none of them really think that complex abilities just popped into existence like magic.

He spoke about mutations? So what?

He gave some insight into how evolution says it works with mutations and protein sequences and how he found it hard to believe that random mutations could evolve a genome which is like a complex code with millions of protein sequences. That shows he has some level of understanding evolution. He has studied biology and chemistry at Uni so he should at least have a basic understanding of this. Don't you cover these things in biology. If so and he passed with these subjects then he has sufficient knowledge to understand more than just its all magic.

The problem is that Carson is conflating evolution with two other questions: (1) why is there something rather than nothing?, and (2) how did life arise from non-life? These are not questions that evolutionary theory even attempts to answer. Carson apparently doesn't know this, or he does, in which case he is knowingly misrepresenting the theory. Again, pick your poison: is it ignorance or is it misrepresentation?

That is a common understanding that many people have and they still have knowledge of how evolution works. The problem is where do you draw the line. Its a little tricky and evolutionists never explain this. What is classed as life some RNA or some other simple structure that can replicate itself. Either way it takes a lot of belief to think that this structure could evolve into something so complex as life we see today. To me its all part of evolution. The part before life is still evolution but evolution of chemicals. But what point do they begin to say those chemicals are starting to form and perform the basic structures of life.

Again, so what? You seem to be bamboozled by his ability to draw on the language of biology to make silly arguments against evolution. In this respect, Carson is no different to any other creationist who borrows selectively the language of a particular field to ineffectually argue against findings from that field. In essence, you're argument boils down to: "But he's using sciencey words!" If you think that everyone who uses sciencey words has a cogent point to make, then you are liable to be duped very easily.

So if he knows about biology its because he is copying some creationists language and not because he may know about biology. This is what I mean by you are making the bar high for anyone who disagrees with evolution. If it was someone who agreed with evolution I guarantee you would accept what they say without an objection. IT seems you are looking for something to bring him down with and are not giving him the least bit of credit or possibility that he does. The fact that he studied biology and chemistry as part of his degree would suggest he knows about this. But the point is because he knows about this process shows he does know the inner workings of how mutations and protein sequences code for life. Like I said he studied biology at University as part of his degree.

No, it's not, steve. Did you watch the video I linked to on micro- versus marco-evolution? I doubt it.

Yes and I thought it was the usual stuff that evolution puts out about macro evolution. One point though is I thought the micro and macro names were something evolution says creationists made up and that its all just evolution. But I also checked out another video while there and it more or less said the same thing. The one thing I noticed in both was that when it came to the difference in micro and macro evolution they both didn't go into much detail as far as the evidence was concerned. They claimed a lot about it but didn't show any evidence. They said there would be a lot of transitions from one form to another.

If you look over a longer period but that not all the evidence in fossils is there because fossils dont always preserve well. Or there were pictures of the line of transition that had one shaped animals going to another. These transitions just showed the same animals from either end until there was a point where one of them looked 1/2 and 1/2 all of a sudden. This is what they do and there is no fossil evidence for many of these transitions. If you take the two animals at either end that is two different animals. In between there is many many transitions either slightly different to the ones at each end, So we should see many more transitional fossils than what we see now or have had in the past for any animal.

You're essentially complaining that I focused on the most relevant bits: the bits that show that Carson's understanding of evolution is questionable.

I am saying you focus was one sided and biased. What you perceived to be evidence for his lack of knowledge wasn't necessarily so. You have decided based on your own opinion and that of a atheist site that he is guilty. By including the other comments he made on the subject and his training in biology and chemistry you get a better and more complete picture. Thats when you can have all the facts to make a proper decision as they do in court.

Nope, I wasn't referring to the Washington Post article in (3). I was referring to the fact that Carson doesn't work in the relevant field to be considered an expert on the evolution of the brain.

My whole argument was that he doesn't have to be an expert in that particular filed to say the things he did. He isn't talking about in depth levels of evolution. Its basic stuff and something that many people who study even the intermediate level evolution will know. You keep coming back to him having to be an expert to comment when you said yourself you dont have to be to make a comment. All you said is you just need to know about evolution at some level. So the only dispute is about how much knowledge he really has and not his qualifications alone. But even so he has studied biology and chemistry as part of his degree at Uni. That surely counts for something.

You seem to be changing the goal posts about what is reasonable as to what can be regarded as a person able to comment on this topic. Like I said if it was a pro evolutionists I am sure you wouldn't be going to this extent. If we are going to say that only those who are experts in biology, genetics and evolution can only comment or have knowledge about evolution then we will have to exclude maybe 80% of people on this site and many many good commentators on the subject in the world today. What you need to do now is go into the forums on topics such as biology, genetics and evolution and tell all those who dont have degrees in these subjects that they are not qualified to comment to be fair and consistent.

Says the guy who selectively interpreted Carson's comments as "sarcasm."

An entire audience thought the same. So I guess you will start to spread your degeneration to many others now who were in the audience who may also understand evolution but thought it was funny. They didn't laugh because Carson said that we came from monkies. They laughed because he was calling the atheist who was putting him down fa monkey.

Go ahead, include it. It really makes no difference: Carson still doesn't evince an adequate understanding of evolution, much less the evolution of the brain.

Great but look what it takes just to have the rest of the evidence that can have some input into assessing things. The fact you are so stubborn to even include this which would have been automatic in a court of law shows you are one sided. So I am not surprised that when it is included you dismiss it anyway. To be fair it is probably the most telling evidence of where he is at with evolution. Not some mokey joke or comment from an atheist site.

steve, you really don't listen. I'm tired of having to constantly address your misconceptions and misrepresentations. This is precisely why I am "dismissive" of your posts: because you don't listen. I never claimed that a basic understanding of evolution requires one to have studied it formally at university. I even clarified this point previously when you asked me whether I had studied it at university. You then accused me of setting the bar too high for critics of evolution. I don't think that requiring critics of evolution to actually understand the theory they are critiquing is setting the bar too high, but I can understand how such a standard would be inconvenient to those who don't understand evolution but still want their criticisms to be taken seriously.

OK fair enough but I am a little confused by your changing standards. When you say he is not an expert what do you mean. Sorry I only presumed an expert was someone who studied this subject extensively at that level. Otherwise how can they be an expert. So your language in saying he is not an expert is a bit misleading or you have a different meaning for expert. I agree with you that they dont need to have this expert or uni level qualification to understand evolution. But I never said from the beginning that Dr Carson had an expert level of knowledge on evolution or of brain evolution.

I said he had more insight into how the brain works than most and with some knowledge of evolution he would know about the complexity that evolution and random mutations need to evolve complex genetics to create these complexities. He indicated this in his video when he described the process of a simple action a person does in asking a question and all the things that have to happen for this simple process so he knew many of the functions involved with the brain. Then with even his basic knowledge of how mutations and protein sequences work to code for making these complex abilities I thought he showed enough knowledge to be able to understand. Well at least understand on a reasonable level to comment on this with some credibility.

Obviously you disagree in your assessment. You have focused in on other evidence to come to your conclusions or seen the evidence differently. That happens and thats why there are courts to decide these things. But I think its unfair that you dont consider all the evidence to begin with as it only shows you bias in the first place and therefor makes any chance of a fair assessment impossible.

No, that's not the main piece of evidence and it wasn't just featured on Patheos. It was originally from YouTube. I even linked to the YouTube video and noted this point in my next comment:

Yes I seen that but that is an extract from his original speech at the faith and freedom convention. There are many internet sites who covered this but pathos is the only one who seems to have taken some exception and turned it into something else. Here is another journalists site who seen it for what it was, that Carson was giving a jibe back to an atheists who was attacking him because of his faith. So he said more or less yes you win your a monkey. This seems to be the common from most journalists who reported on the speech. The clip on Vine was played more than 100,000 times in the first 6 hours.
When Ben Carson Came Under Attack From An Atheist, He Silenced Him With One Brilliant Line
http://www.westernjournalism.com/wh...eist-he-silenced-him-with-one-brilliant-line/

This is yet another example of you not listening. So don't complain when I give your posts the level of respect they have rightly earned.

You have some nerve, steve, to ignore the fact - evident to everyone reading this - that the original source was not an atheist site, but YouTube.

Not listening or maybe because I dont agree with what your saying. I'm getting everything you say but I dont think you are getting what I'm saying. I know pathos is not the original source and I have seen your video and know that its not the original either. But thats isn't why you posted it was it like its some independent assessment of what went on. You posted the pathos link because it suits how you want to make out Dr Carson is dumb when it comes to evolution. You tagged them together because it all paints the picture you want.

I said that pathos is an atheists site and they are the only ones who are making something out of it that isn't there in the first place. I wonder why that is, it would have anything to do with them being an atheist site would it. There are many other sites who covered it or commented on it who are independent journalists who dont see it like pathos but you conveniently dont include those.

The joke is only funny if you believe that hominid evolution entails that human beings must have descended from monkeys, which reinforces my point: Carson's "joke" betrays an inaccurate understanding of hominid evolution.

No its not according to the many independent journalists who also covered the speech.
Ben Carson Had a Mic-Dropping Response To An Atheist Who Denigrated His Belief in God
http://www.ijreview.com/2015/06/350...-an-atheist-who-denigrated-his-belief-in-god/

So what? As I have already emphasised previously, having a background in neurosurgery, neurology, or neuropsychology doesn't preclude expertise in the evolution of the brain, but it also doesn't guarantee it! Based on his publication record, Carson has no discernible expertise in the evolution of the brain. Based on his comments, he has a poor understanding of evolution. Taken together, he is NOT an authority on this topic.

But you have also stated that you have a background in evolution meaning you havnt studied it directly as part of any course you have done. You have used this as support for how you know evolution and how you can be in a position to know better about who is able to be credible about knowing evolution. So what is the difference. Dr Carson covered biology and chemistry of which will also cover evolution or aspects or evolution as part of his degree. You seem to be saying it can hold some weight with you and not Dr Carson in your opinion once again.

I appreciate it may not automatically make the person an expert but I would say they have some knowledge. You seem to think it does in certain situations but only when it applies to yourself of pro evolutionists it seems. You keep saying so what no matter what is presented like its dismissed no matter what is said. Nothing seems to impress you and everything he has done to do with knowing evolution doesn't count. I think you are being harder on Dr Carson once again and this is my view of things based on all the evidence.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

So you have decided the two possibilities that we can draw from all the evidence. One showing him as dumb and the other as a liar and there's nothing in between. Humm you are a harsh judge. What was the evidence for it not being an off the cuff remark again.You somehow turn the audiences laughter into them all not knowing about evolution rather than a response to a joke Carson made. Talk about drawing long bows.

The joke is only funny if you hold a mistaken view of hominid evolution, according to which human beings descended from monkeys.

And that is what he meant by just appeared. He has said it before that he cant believe that our complex genomes just came into existence through random mutations. But even so what do you think he meant by just appeared. Are you honestly saying he is so dumb that he thinks evolution is complex life just popping into existence by magic without any mechanism.

Evolution doesn't entail that complex traits "just appeared."

He is a very smart man and he has studied biology surely you give him more credit than that. Even us lay people know enough to get the basic idea that evolution is more than this. That is almost dishonest in trying to make out a scientists is so dumb and ignorant.

Based on his comments, steve, his understanding of evolution doesn't appear to be adequate, especially given his background. What's dishonest about this observation?

He even shows he knows more than this with his description of mutations, protein sequences and the genetics involved. If you say that he is just repeating creationists words then why didnt he do it here. Even creationists know what evolution claims to be and none of them really think that complex abilities just popped into existence like magic.

I've listened to enough creationists to know that many, perhaps most, have a flawed understanding of what evolution is.

He gave some insight into how evolution says it works with mutations and protein sequences and how he found it hard to believe that random mutations could evolve a genome which is like a complex code with millions of protein sequences.

So what? Why should we care about one man's incredulity?

That shows he has some level of understanding evolution. He has studied biology and chemistry at Uni so he should at least have a basic understanding of this. Don't you cover these things in biology. If so and he passed with these subjects then he has sufficient knowledge to understand more than just its all magic.

I've already addressed this, steve.

That is a common understanding that many people have and they still have knowledge of how evolution works. The problem is where do you draw the line. Its a little tricky and evolutionists never explain this. What is classed as life some RNA or some other simple structure that can replicate itself. Either way it takes a lot of belief to think that this structure could evolve into something so complex as life we see today. To me its all part of evolution. The part before life is still evolution but evolution of chemicals. But what point do they begin to say those chemicals are starting to form and perform the basic structures of life.

You're rambling again, rather than addressing the point. Yet another reason why I don't take your posts seriously: you never stick to the point at issue. I'll repeat it again: Carson is conflating evolution with two other questions that evolution doesn't even attempt to address.

So if he knows about biology its because he is copying some creationists language and not because he may know about biology. This is what I mean by you are making the bar high for anyone who disagrees with evolution.

Nope, that's not what I said. Go back and re-read. I'm sick of having to repeatedly correct your misconceptions and misrepresentations. Go back, re-read.

If it was someone who agreed with evolution I guarantee you would accept what they say without an objection. IT seems you are looking for something to bring him down with and are not giving him the least bit of credit or possibility that he does.

You haven't established that Carson has any credibility in this area to begin with.

The fact that he studied biology and chemistry as part of his degree would suggest he knows about this. But the point is because he knows about this process shows he does know the inner workings of how mutations and protein sequences code for life. Like I said he studied biology at University as part of his degree.

I already addressed this multiple times. I am NOT repeating myself again and again. Go back, re-read.

Yes and I thought it was the usual stuff that evolution puts out about macro evolution. One point though is I thought the micro and macro names were something evolution says creationists made up and that its all just evolution. But I also checked out another video while there and it more or less said the same thing. The one thing I noticed in both was that when it came to the difference in micro and macro evolution they both didn't go into much detail as far as the evidence was concerned. They claimed a lot about it but didn't show any evidence. They said there would be a lot of transitions from one form to another.

If you look over a longer period but that not all the evidence in fossils is there because fossils dont always preserve well. Or there were pictures of the line of transition that had one shaped animals going to another. These transitions just showed the same animals from either end until there was a point where one of them looked 1/2 and 1/2 all of a sudden. This is what they do and there is no fossil evidence for many of these transitions. If you take the two animals at either end that is two different animals. In between there is many many transitions either slightly different to the ones at each end, So we should see many more transitional fossils than what we see now or have had in the past for any animal.

The 9th episode in the series focuses on transitional fossils.

I am saying you focus was one sided and biased. What you perceived to be evidence for his lack of knowledge wasn't necessarily so.

But it is, steve. It is evidence that Carson's understanding of this subject matter is inadequate.

You have decided based on your own opinion and that of a atheist site that he is guilty.

First, we examined Carson's understanding prior to finding that video, based on his debate comments (specifically, the "just appeared" comment). Second, as I have repeatedly emphasised, the original source is not Patheos (the atheist site), but YouTube. Third, it's not the only piece of evidence I presented, as you well know.

By including the other comments he made on the subject and his training in biology and chemistry you get a better and more complete picture. Thats when you can have all the facts to make a proper decision as they do in court.

And as I noted previously, the same judgment holds: Carson cannot legitimately be considered an authority on this subject matter.

My whole argument was that he doesn't have to be an expert in that particular filed to say the things he did.

That's right, any fool can say what he said, and many creationists have indeed echoed exactly those sentiments. But apparently having a neurosurgery background means that some will lend his comments greater credence than they deserve.

He isn't talking about in depth levels of evolution. Its basic stuff and something that many people who study even the intermediate level evolution will know.

And he's gotten the basics wrong: evolution doesn't mean that things "just appear;" humans didn't descend from monkeys; and evolution doesn't even attempt to address the question of how life arose from non-life or why there is something rather than nothing. If he has gotten the basics wrong, what makes you think that his comments deserve the level of credence you have assigned to them? Apparently it's because he uses sciencey words while making such claims.

You keep coming back to him having to be an expert to comment when you said yourself you dont have to be to make a comment. All you said is you just need to know about evolution at some level. So the only dispute is about how much knowledge he really has and not his qualifications alone. But even so he has studied biology and chemistry as part of his degree at Uni. That surely counts for something.

I have already addressed this multiple times. I'm not repeating myself. Go back, re-read.

You seem to be changing the goal posts about what is reasonable as to what can be regarded as a person able to comment on this topic. Like I said if it was a pro evolutionists I am sure you wouldn't be going to this extent. If we are going to say that only those who are experts in biology, genetics and evolution can only comment or have knowledge about evolution then we will have to exclude maybe 80% of people on this site and many many good commentators on the subject in the world today. What you need to do now is go into the forums on topics such as biology, genetics and evolution and tell all those who dont have degrees in these subjects that they are not qualified to comment to be fair and consistent.

I'm sick of addressing your constant misrepresentations, so to save time, I'm just going to use one-word or one-line responses whenever they arise: e.g., misrepresentation.

An entire audience thought the same. So I guess you will start to spread your degeneration to many others now who were in the audience who may also understand evolution but thought it was funny. They didn't laugh because Carson said that we came from monkies. They laughed because he was calling the atheist who was putting him down fa monkey.

The only way for the joke to make sense is on a mistaken understanding of hominid evolution. It doesn't make sense any other way.

Great but look what it takes just to have the rest of the evidence that can have some input into assessing things. The fact you are so stubborn to even include this which would have been automatic in a court of law shows you are one sided.

What stubbornness? I never denied the inclusion of such information. I merely noted that it was inconsequential; it doesn't change the outcome.

So I am not surprised that when it is included you dismiss it anyway. To be fair it is probably the most telling evidence of where he is at with evolution. Not some mokey joke or comment from an atheist site.

Misrepresentation.

OK fair enough but I am a little confused by your changing standards. When you say he is not an expert what do you mean. Sorry I only presumed an expert was someone who studied this subject extensively at that level. Otherwise how can they be an expert. So your language in saying he is not an expert is a bit misleading or you have a different meaning for expert. I agree with you that they dont need to have this expert or uni level qualification to understand evolution. But I never said from the beginning that Dr Carson had an expert level of knowledge on evolution or of brain evolution.

I said he had more insight into how the brain works than most and with some knowledge of evolution he would know about the complexity that evolution and random mutations need to evolve complex genetics to create these complexities. He indicated this in his video when he described the process of a simple action a person does in asking a question and all the things that have to happen for this simple process so he knew many of the functions involved with the brain. Then with even his basic knowledge of how mutations and protein sequences work to code for making these complex abilities I thought he showed enough knowledge to be able to understand. Well at least understand on a reasonable level to comment on this with some credibility.

What changing standards? The standard has always been the same. I've articulated it at least three times now. Go back, re-read.

Obviously you disagree in your assessment. You have focused in on other evidence to come to your conclusions or seen the evidence differently. That happens and thats why there are courts to decide these things. But I think its unfair that you dont consider all the evidence to begin with as it only shows you bias in the first place and therefor makes any chance of a fair assessment impossible.

I don't care for your opinion of the impartiality of my assessment.

Yes I seen that but that is an extract from his original speech at the faith and freedom convention. There are many internet sites who covered this but pathos is the only one who seems to have taken some exception and turned it into something else. Here is another journalists site who seen it for what it was, that Carson was giving a jibe back to an atheists who was attacking him because of his faith. So he said more or less yes you win your a monkey. This seems to be the common from most journalists who reported on the speech. The clip on Vine was played more than 100,000 times in the first 6 hours.
When Ben Carson Came Under Attack From An Atheist, He Silenced Him With One Brilliant Line
http://www.westernjournalism.com/wh...eist-he-silenced-him-with-one-brilliant-line/

The "brilliant line" was foolish, and only works if you presuppose a mistaken understanding of hominid evolution. Carson exposed his own ignorance with that "brilliant line."

Not listening or maybe because I dont agree with what your saying. I'm getting everything you say but I dont think you are getting what I'm saying. I know pathos is not the original source and I have seen your video and know that its not the original either. But thats isn't why you posted it was it like its some independent assessment of what went on. You posted the pathos link because it suits how you want to make out Dr Carson is dumb when it comes to evolution. You tagged them together because it all paints the picture you want.

No, I posted the link to Patheos because that's where I originally found the video. It was out of courtesy to the blogger there who brought it to my attention initially.

I said that pathos is an atheists site and they are the only ones who are making something out of it that isn't there in the first place. I wonder why that is, it would have anything to do with them being an atheist site would it. There are many other sites who covered it or commented on it who are independent journalists who dont see it like pathos but you conveniently dont include those.

Who cares? It's completely beside the point.
No its not according to the many independent journalists who also covered the speech.

Ben Carson Had a Mic-Dropping Response To An Atheist Who Denigrated His Belief in God
http://www.ijreview.com/2015/06/350...-an-atheist-who-denigrated-his-belief-in-god/

So what if other journalists didn't pick up on the inaccuracy; it's still an inaccuracy!

But you have also stated that you have a background in evolution meaning you havnt studied it directly as part of any course you have done. You have used this as support for how you know evolution and how you can be in a position to know better about who is able to be credible about knowing evolution. So what is the difference. Dr Carson covered biology and chemistry of which will also cover evolution or aspects or evolution as part of his degree. You seem to be saying it can hold some weight with you and not Dr Carson in your opinion once again.

You really don't listen, do you? This is why I don't take your posts seriously. It's a giant waste of my time to respond to your every comment when I know that you aren't even listening. I'm not addressing this again, for the third or fourth time. Go back, re-read.

I appreciate it may not automatically make the person an expert but I would say they have some knowledge. You seem to think it does in certain situations but only when it applies to yourself of pro evolutionists it seems. You keep saying so what no matter what is presented like its dismissed no matter what is said. Nothing seems to impress you and everything he has done to do with knowing evolution doesn't count. I think you are being harder on Dr Carson once again and this is my view of things based on all the evidence.

As you may have noticed from this reply, there is an increasingly prominent theme in my responses to your posts: "go back, re-read." The reason for this all relates to the fact that you really don't listen. I'm no longer wasting my time explaining things to you, especially things that I have already explained or clarified on numerous occasions. Go back, re-read.

 

[stevevw]

The joke is only funny if you hold a mistaken view of hominid evolution, according to which human beings descended from monkeys.

You obviously have avoided replying to the fact that many other sources see it differently to how you and an atheists site have decide what Dr Carson was thinking at the faith freedom speech. They have seen the true reason why he said what he said which was a response to an atheists who was attacking his belief in God. The audience understood this and laughed and the journalists understood this and said it how it was. But you still continue to use this as evidence against him.
When Ben Carson Came Under Attack From An Atheist, He Silenced Him With One Brilliant Line.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/wh...eist-he-silenced-him-with-one-brilliant-line/
Ben Carson’s Witty Response To An Atheist Who Denigrated His Belief in God
http://rightwingnews.com/religion/b...heist-who-denigrated-his-belief-in-god-video/

But this site says it the best.
BOOM: Atheist Called Ben Carson a “Moron” for Believing in God… He Shut Him Down in 1 Brilliant Line
Once, when an atheist called him a “moron” for believing in God, Dr. Ben Carson responded with one brilliant line that put the atheist in his place. At that conference, he recalled the debate and confrontation in which he delivered the one liner to the atheist who was known for bullying anyone who professed a belief in a superior being. Carson’s response to the atheist was lauded on Twitter. One Carson supporter noted, however, that the atheist was more likely evolved from a jackass rather than a monkey.

So it seems most people see his remarks about monkeys for what it was. A joke and jibe in response to an atheist bully who was giving him a hard time. I dont think we can derive much from this as any support what what he truly believes about evolution.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You obviously have avoided replying to the fact that many other sources see it differently to how you and an atheists site have decide what Dr Carson was thinking at the faith freedom speech. They have seen the true reason why he said what he said which was a response to an atheists who was attacking his belief in God. The audience understood this and laughed and the journalists understood this and said it how it was. But you still continue to use this as evidence against him.
When Ben Carson Came Under Attack From An Atheist, He Silenced Him With One Brilliant Line.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/wh...eist-he-silenced-him-with-one-brilliant-line/
Ben Carson’s Witty Response To An Atheist Who Denigrated His Belief in God
http://rightwingnews.com/religion/b...heist-who-denigrated-his-belief-in-god-video/

But this site says it the best.
BOOM: Atheist Called Ben Carson a “Moron” for Believing in God… He Shut Him Down in 1 Brilliant Line
Once, when an atheist called him a “moron” for believing in God, Dr. Ben Carson responded with one brilliant line that put the atheist in his place. At that conference, he recalled the debate and confrontation in which he delivered the one liner to the atheist who was known for bullying anyone who professed a belief in a superior being. Carson’s response to the atheist was lauded on Twitter. One Carson supporter noted, however, that the atheist was more likely evolved from a jackass rather than a monkey.

So it seems most people see his remarks about monkeys for what it was. A joke and jibe in response to an atheist bully who was giving him a hard time. I dont think we can derive much from this as any support what what he truly believes about evolution.

Go back, re-read. Not repeating myself again.

 

[KCfromNC]

How rare is the possibility of just one beneficial development from mutation? Scientists have done the math. I have been told (yes it is hearsay because I no longer remember the study)

This is a relatively easy thing to search for (e.g. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2927765/). When you look a the literature, the answer is in the single to double digit percent range. The exact answer depends on a lot of factors, but if it is 1% or 50% it doesn't present a problem for evolution.

 

[pshun2404]

Striedter's book is an excellent text Arch but it only addresses matters concerning already extant brains. It speaks to the diversity between species and changes within given already extant species.
And? Your point here is?


That Carson’s view accentuated by Steve was not questioning what happens to cause variations or development IN already extant brains (which the text you recommended as a rebuttal covers), it was expressing the improbability of a brain evolving (in the first place) by chance within the time given in the accepted evolutionary model. That is not to say once formed they do not develop or vary over time. There were provided many other examples from many other scientists (non-Creationist/non-ID) that observe this improbability regarding many other factors of present living things.


So right there it does not even address the point that was made by Steve's reference to the opinion of Carson. I think you just pulled this one out of a hat. Even Striedter recognizes the processes governing these "within each species" changes are driven by laws and principles that govern the changes (so much more there than simple mutation plus natural selection)...
This doesn't make sense.


To be driven by and conforming to extant principles and processes indicates this information preceded aggregation. It makes perfect sense if one trusts the math! It only does not make sense if one in light of the imposed theoretical view is incapable of reasoning through this demonstrable reality. In essence it Is not possible this level of complexity and inter-dependency could have come about by purely naturalistic means in only 13.5 to 16 billion years.



Carson denies nothing about the neurobiology of the brain or its physiology and in fact makes mention as part of his point that the developmental complexity is great, in fact that’s his point that he uses to support his view...that it is far too complex to support the time line of the current developmental view...he also knows full well that there are different brains in different species and that these already extant brains have developed further and thus evolved...
Not seeing what point you're trying to make here?


The process from inanimate matter to this level of complexity and interdependency cannot have occurred in such a short time. All he is implying here is that (like the 1 in 10 to the 22nd power) there has not been enough time IF the present age of the Universe can be taken as accurate. This has been confirmed by many others as shown above in other posts.

and by "JUST APPEARED" he is referring to the actual observable evidence in the geo-column! They are not there then they are, fully formed with functionally inter-dependent subsystems already in place. This fact is even noted and explained away (within the theory) by both punctuated equilibriumists and catastrophists (who are also NOT "creationists" or ID theorists). This fact does not deny evolution it re-explains it in opposition to the Darwinian model. Changes have taken place over time but not by small mutations...read the scientific papers referenced in our examples...

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That Carson’s view accentuated by Steve was not questioning what happens to cause variations or development IN already extant brains (which the text you recommended as a rebuttal covers), it was expressing the improbability of a brain evolving (in the first place) by chance within the time given in the accepted evolutionary model. That is not to say once formed they do not develop or vary over time. There were provided many other examples from many other scientists (non-Creationist/non-ID) that observe this improbability regarding many other factors of present living things.

Luckily, evolution doesn't posit that brains evolved "by chance" or "just appeared." You are committing the classic creationist error of assuming that evolution works like a tornado in a junkyard.

To be driven by and conforming to extant principles and processes indicates this information preceded aggregation. It makes perfect sense if one trusts the math! It only does not make sense if one in light of the imposed theoretical view is incapable of reasoning through this demonstrable reality. In essence it Is not possible this level of complexity and inter-dependency could have come about by purely naturalistic means in only 13.5 to 16 billion years.

Says who?

The process from inanimate matter to this level of complexity and interdependency cannot have occurred in such a short time. All he is implying here is that (like the 1 in 10 to the 22nd power) there has not been enough time IF the present age of the Universe can be taken as accurate. This has been confirmed by many others as shown above in other posts.

Citation needed. By the way, I don't think 13.8 billion years is a "short time."

and by "JUST APPEARED" he is referring to the actual observable evidence in the geo-column! They are not there then they are, fully formed with functionally inter-dependent subsystems already in place. This fact is even noted and explained away (within the theory) by both punctuated equilibriumists and catastrophists (who are also NOT "creationists" or ID theorists). This fact does not deny evolution it re-explains it in opposition to the Darwinian model. Changes have taken place over time but not by small mutations...read the scientific papers referenced in our examples...

But they haven't "just appeared" in that sense at all.

 

[pshun2404]

Luckily, evolution doesn't posit that brains evolved "by chance" or "just appeared." You are committing the classic creationist error of assuming that evolution works like a tornado in a junkyard.

Says who?

Citation needed. By the way, I don't think 13.8 billion years is a "short time."

But they haven't "just appeared" in that sense at all.

First off re-read post 707 for the opinion of other non-Creationist/non-Id theorist scientists...indeed regarding "Just Appeared" just look at the evidence that is actually there...for example (and there are so very many) consider triops cancriformis...they have no predessesors nor any example of semi-evolved forms, but suddenly appear fully formed...the same with Nautilus and many invertebrate creatures...not there, then there...simple! And after millions and millions of years no apparent change...Now many offer a number of explanatory attempts to understand "HOW" but just let the data speak for itself and stop imposing human opinion (which is not science).

 

[Archaeopteryx]

First off re-read post 707 for the opinion of other non-Creationist/non-Id theorist scientists...indeed regarding "Just Appeared" just look at the evidence that is actually there...for example (and there are so very many) consider triops cancriformis...they have no predessesors nor any example of semi-evolved forms, but suddenly appear fully formed...the same with Nautilus and many invertebrate creatures...not there, then there...simple! Now many offer a number of explanatory attempts to understand "HOW" but just let the data speak for itself and stop imposing human opinion (which is not science).

Much of the content of #707 seems to be an amalgamation of excerpts from creationist websites.

 

[pshun2404]

Much of the content of #707 seems to be an amalgamation of excerpts from creationist websites.

Great accusation but have you read them?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Great accusation but have you read them?

I don't read creationist websites.

 

[pshun2404]

Ignorance does not become you....I provided the proper citations but if you insist

http://www.genetics.org/content/180/3/1501.abstract

http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.4/BIO-C.2010.4

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15321723

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10966772

file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Administrator/My%20Documents/Downloads/33-185-1-PB.pdf

https://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6019/920.abstract

For a few....have fun, I did...these source documents are NOT creationist websites although some of them may have drawn from this pool as well as from those other NON-CREATIONIST scientists Steve cited...

 

[Archaeopteryx]

One idea essential for so long is called a "classic sweep", a process "in which a new, strongly beneficial mutation increases in frequency to fixation in the population." Evolutionist researchers Hernandez, Ryan D., Joanna L. Kelley, Eyal Elyashiv, S. Cord Melton, Adam Auton, Gilean McVean who went looking for classic sweeps in humans reported their findings in Science. Why? "To evaluate the importance of classic sweeps in shaping human diversity, we analyzed resequencing data for 179 human genomes from four populations...In humans, the effects of sweeps are expected to persist for approximately 10,000 generations or about 250,000 years." These Evolutionists identified "more than 2000 genes as potential targets of positive selection in the human genome". They anticipated they would find that "diversity patterns in about 10% of the human genome have been affected by linkage to recent sweeps."

They concluded "In contrast to expectation," their test detected nothing, but they could not quite bring themselves to say it. They said there was a "paucity of classic sweeps revealed by our findings". They "were too infrequent within the past 250,000 years to have had discernible effects on genomic diversity." In other words, "Classic sweeps were not a dominant mode of human adaptation over the past 250,000 years." 18 February 2011, "Classic Selective Sweeps Were Rare in Recent Human Evolution", Science, Vol. 331, no. 6019, pp. 920-924. (See, also "1000 Genomes Project", Guy Sella and Molly Przeworski).

This is why you don't look to creationist sources to interpret the implications of groundbreaking new research.

But when the two groups were compared, the troughs of low diversity were similar for genes that produce functional changes and genes with synonymous substitutions that do not. The result suggests that classic selective sweeps could not have been the most common cause of these low diversity troughs, leaving the door open for other modes of evolution.

"Phenotypic variation in humans isn't as simple as we thought it would be," Hernandez said. "The idea that human adaptation might proceed by single changes at the amino acid level is quite a nice idea, and it's great that we have a few concrete examples of where that occurred, but it's too simplistic a view."

Further evidence against common selective sweeps was provided by comparing genome variation in different populations. Because Nigerian, European, and Chinese/Japanese populations separated roughly 100,000 years ago and subsequently adapted to different environments, frequent selective sweeps would be expected to fix clear genetic differences between the populations.

Based on these that many other studies (some of which you provided that I am sure neither Arche or Paulm have read) it is apparently becoming clear that even on this level, far less complex and organized than the human brain (which actually the development of the modern brain has depended on), that the standard mantra of the indoctrinated EBs (not all by far) does not fit reality. For it to have come about their way there just has not been enough time in the Universe.

Citation needed!

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Ignorance does not become you....I provided the proper citations but if you insist

http://www.genetics.org/content/180/3/1501.abstract

From the abstract: "In addition, we use these results to expose flaws in some of Michael Behe's arguments concerning mathematical limits to Darwinian evolution."

http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.4/BIO-C.2010.4

Creationist source.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15321723

Relevance?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10966772

Relevance?

file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Administrator/My%20Documents/Downloads/33-185-1-PB.pdf

This is a document on your own computer. I can't access this.

https://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6019/920.abstract

Addressed this one above.

For a few....have fun, I did...these source documents are NOT creationist websites although some of them may have drawn from this pool as well as from those other NON-CREATIONIST scientists Steve cited...

I've noticed that creationists have a fondness for citing sources that do not support their claims, so I'll wait for you to explain how these sources lend support to your claims, whatever your claims are (I couldn't glean much from what you wrote).

 

[pshun2404]

Forget it...no talking to a brick wall!

When Frederick Hoyle’s team did the math for a single protein based cell they used the most liberal definition of a living cell and assumed a Universe 20 billion years old. For this functional structure they only drew on a small number of related factors that would have to be in place and came to 1 in 10 to the 27th power chance for just the formation of ONE protein based cell to have arisen by naturalistic materialistic means in a 20 billion year old Universe. That would be 1 chance in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000!!!! And that’s not counting all the related systems and structures that must be in place just to produce the proteins necessary nor does it offer explanation for the billions upon billions of protein based cells of near infinite variety.


Now do not intentionally misinterpret what I am saying. Hoyle is not “against evolution” (nor am I) nor was he trying to refute it OR support ID, he was demonstrating the irrationality of abiogenesis! But the point is, that for such an event to happen with such regularity so many times in such a time frame the information guiding the process HAS TO precede the formation stage for it could not happen by chance. The preceding informational laws and principles indicate intentional purpose of form related to function. This is a totally logical non-assumptive conclusion. It has NOTHING to with supernatural things or belief in God. One can certainly attribute to Nature such intelligent forethought if they wish (some do). Scholars like Dr. James Bales, in his book, Evolution and the Scientific Method, have no problem honestly saying “I believe in attributing to nature whatever power is necessary for nature to do everything which is required to create...!”


Now both Darwinian bulldogs and Creationist bulldogs bark a lot about his findings either way but put your mind to the test…at one time there had to be no functional proteins and no DNA to produce them let alone protein based cells. If natural selection is a principle based guided process then these principles and guidelines had to exist before natural selection produced anything. Indeed they must have if NS is not by chance (or at least at first). In The Intelligent Universe (London: Michael Joseph, 1983, 256 pp.), Hoyle says, “…as biochemists discover more and more about the awesome complexity of life, it is apparent that its chances of originating by accident are so minute that they can be completely ruled out. Life cannot have arisen by chance” (pp. 11-12). So you see he agrees but knows full well this negates the Darwinian model once held sacred. The same conclusion was reached by Harvard University research physiologist Harold Blum years before. In other words many fine scientists have seen the same thing in the evidence….mutations are not part of the explanation for anything other than production of variety or demise. Period! And many fine scientists (non-creationists before and after the ID movement) have concluded the immense improbabilities (even a simple protozoan, or a bacterium, requires the prior formation of about 2,000 enzymes, themselves also complex proteins, which are critical to the successful formation of over 100,000 or so additional requisite proteins).


How then did natural selection produce the first millions of different “function determined”proteins? Was it following chemical laws and principles and being guided at that time? Why are there not remnants of these first (or for that matter even new ever becoming ones) “functional” proteins found being formed in nature outside of living systems at this time?


This leads us back to the fair and logical question. Since there are no functional proteins being formed outside of living systems anywhere that we can find or ever have found in the past 200 years of research, does this not beg the question that perhaps such a living system must precede their formation? But then if that be true, that begs the question as to how a living system existed prior to their formation (in order to form them) since the living system itself depends on them in order to BE a living system?

Your explanation just does not fit all the facts.

 

[pshun2404]

Once again...true natural selection (which I totally believe in) merely states that if long necked and shorter necked giraffes lived in an environment similar to the Serengeti where most trees are tall....the one that can get to the food supply will survive and the ones that cannot will perish...false natural selection (science fiction) says that small necked giraffes grew longer necks from continually reaching for the food they could not obtain over 1,000s of generations...

If you are a scientifically oriented person that's great. God has made it possible for us to learn and know all about creation (within limits of course)...but let the data speak for itself. The data should shape and adjust the Hypothesis to create the theory....NEVER use the theory to interpret the data...

 

[stevevw]

Go back, re-read. Not repeating myself again.

I have and I have already given my rebuttal of your evidence. Just like with the so called monkey joke you keep trying to say is evidence for his lack of knowledge we see that most people see it for what it was " a joke and a jibe". You still dont acknowledge this. Well you do in a round about way by now saying that this is not the only evidence.

But this is why I persist and this is why you think I ignore your points. There is a difference between ignoring and disagreeing. I understand everything you have said and implied, I just dont agree. And like the point I am making with the monkey comment it turns out not to be the evidence you think it is if you dig enough to see what is really going on. Because you first point about the monkey comment has been shown to be false and it actually shows that your interpretation is suspect and therefore I question tyhe rest of your evidence against Dr Carson.

But enough said now as this has taken the whole debate off topic and it would be good to get back to the OP of natural selection V ID. Luckily pshun2404 has stepped in and helped us get things back on track.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I have and I have already given my rebuttal of your evidence. Just like with the so called monkey joke you keep trying to say is evidence for his lack of knowledge we see that most people see it for what it was " a joke and a jibe". You still dont acknowledge this.

A joke that only makes sense if... go back, re-read.

Well you do in a round about way by now saying that this is not the only evidence.

It was never the only piece of evidence. You've barely touched the others.

But this is why I persist and this is why you think I ignore your points. There is a difference between ignoring and disagreeing.

You do ignore them. That much is clear. I'm constantly having to address your misconceptions and misrepresentations. And I'm sick of it.

I understand everything you have said and implied, I just dont agree. And like the point I am making with the monkey comment it turns out not to be the evidence you think it is if you dig enough to see what is really going on. Because you first point about the monkey comment has been shown to be false and it actually shows that your interpretation is suspect and therefore I question tyhe rest of your evidence against Dr Carson.

First, the monkey comment hasn't been discredited as evidence. It still stands. The joke only works if you assume a mistaken understanding of hominid evolution, which is precisely the point. Second, you have barely touched the other pieces of evidence.

 

[KCfromNC]

Much of the content of #707 seems to be an amalgamation of excerpts from creationist websites.

True. And one of the journals referenced is an ID/creationist publication, despite the claims to the contrary.