proving evolution as just a "theory"

[Almost there]

How about simply supporting your claim for starters.

I've gone as deep into the weeds on this subject as I'm gonna go on this particular site. It's all out there in Bing and Google, and most of it is even out there in public libraries - which is where I had to go for this stuff back in the 70's through 90's.

 

[xianghua]

That statement you made tells me that you are not, for it seems that you think all mutations have equivalent (small) impacts on phenotype and function.

i never said that.

 

[Speedwell]

But that's the problem with this science. Since ID leads into the realm of of a designer therefore only evolution can be true. ID cannot be looked at because of where it leads. It's a blind eye. The refusal to look at any other option is the epitome of closed mindedness. The evolutionist closes their mind because a designer cannot be falsified therefore it cannot be considered which leaves no option.

Well, you can't accuse me of that, since I already believe in God. I reject ID because it is bad science, not because it "leads into the realm of a designer." And since atheists appear to reject ID for the same reasons I do, it is hard for me to believe that they are only rejecting it because they are afraid it might be true.

 

[Almost there]

But that's the problem with this science. Since ID leads into the realm of of a designer therefore only evolution can be true. ID cannot be looked at because of where it leads. It's a blind eye. The refusal to look at any other option is the epitome of closed mindedness. The evolutionist closes their mind because a designer cannot be falsified therefore it cannot be considered which leaves no option.

That right there is the conundrum the evolution theory proponents find themselves in. It's one thing to say, "We don't have the tools to test that, therefore we don't know if it is true or not." It's quite another to say, "Science can't be used to test that therefore it is not true."

Science is just a tool. If all you have is a hammer, it doesn't mean bolts don't exist.

 

[xianghua]

No. You haven’t established that flagella are irreducibly complex.

if so i can say the same for the car. you never proved that a car cant evolve stepwise.

And again, it seems silly to place arbitrary limits on a fictional scenario such as a self-replicating camera. If cameras self-replicate, pigs fly.

fine. can you as intelligent designer able to change a simple camera stepwise into a video camera? in this case we are talking about reality and not about self replicating objects.

 

[xianghua]

Nested hierarchies have been explained to you on a number of occasions.

and in any of those cases i falsified it.

 

[Speedwell]

and in any of those cases i falsified it.

No, you only think you falsified it because you don't really understand what a nested hierarchy is.

 

[xianghua]

It has been explained to you why you are wrong ad nauseam yet you continue to parrot your incredibly ignorant comparisons and analogies. You can't really blame him for not wasting any more of his time explaining things to you.

the same to you. i already falsified the claim about non-hierarchy in nature. so why are you still use it as valid argument?

 

[xianghua]

No, you only think you falsified it because you don't really understand what a nested hierarchy is.

if you say so.

 

[AV1611VET]

Interesting how evolutionists balk at using a car as an example against evolution -- since a car isn't biological -- but won't think twice about equating a flagellum with a mouse trap in a discussion on Irreducible Complexity.

 

[Speedwell]

Interesting how evolutionists balk at using a car as an example against evolution -- since a car isn't biological -- but won't think twice about equating a flagellum with a mouse trap in a discussion on Irreducible Complexity.

It wasn't "evolutionists" who brought up the mousetrap example--that was Michael Behe's failed attempt to demonstrate irreducible complexity

 

[tas8831]

i never said that.

i did not say you did -

You wrote:

"if there is a system that cant evolve stepwise then small steps cant make big step."

'Small steps can't make big step' = all mutations = small steps

That is my interpretation.

Are you a scientist?

I only ask because you tried to use that 'argument' to reject Judge Jones' findings.

 

[Almost there]

This picture demonstrates the way evidence is percieved in the evolution/id debate. One side sees evidence that PROVES this is two faces, but the other sees evidence that proves it is a vase. It isn't until you get past the picture to full knowledge do you really know which it is.

Personally, I see both, but I know which view has the most evidence supporting it.

 

[tas8831]

so what? the question here is about ic systems. since both camera\car and biological systems has such systems we can conclude that both cant evolve stepwise.

Non sequitur - you keep using this naive argument via analogy.

Do you know what a gene family is?

Do you know how many new genes are produced (hint - it is via mutation-based 'repetition' or rearrangement of already-existing exons).

think about a self replicating (simple) camera. do you think in this case it will evolve into a video camera?

Why would anyone think about a self-replicating HUMAN-MADE DEVICE?

 

[Almost there]

Why would anyone think about a self-replicating HUMAN-MADE DEVICE?

No problem. Just throw some monkeys and typewriters at it.

 

[bhsmte]

I've gone as deep into the weeds on this subject as I'm gonna go on this particular site. It's all out there in Bing and Google, and most of it is even out there in public libraries - which is where I had to go for this stuff back in the 70's through 90's.

Uh huh

 

[bhsmte]

This picture demonstrates the way evidence is percieved in the evolution/id debate. One side sees evidence that PROVES this is two faces, but the other sees evidence that proves it is a vase. It isn't until you get past the picture to full knowledge do you really know which it is.

Personally, I see both, but I know which view has the most evidence supporting it.

Is that picture an accurate description of the abundance of objective evidence to support the theory of evolution? Those defense mechanisms must be working overtime.

 

[Almost there]

Is that picture an accurate description of the abundance of objective evidence to support the theory of evolution? Those defense mechanisms must be working overtime.

It demonstrates how one's bias causes them to see evidence for their position, even though that same evidence can be used to disprove their position.

Note that in my post I didn't even get into which side may or may not be right. My post was not about that. It was about how our minds process information.

 

[gaara4158]

if so i can say the same for the car. you never proved that a car cant evolve stepwise

Cars can’t evolve because they can’t reproduce. I don’t need to resort to an argument from ic to prove that.

As far as designing a video camera stepwise from a still camera, that’s pretty much how the progression of technology works. Existing designs are improved upon continuously as long as they’re profitable. As I said before, it does parallel biological evolution in some ways.

 

[AV1611VET]

It wasn't "evolutionists" who brought up the mousetrap example--that was Michael Behe's failed attempt to demonstrate irreducible complexity

I mean here.