The Pinnacle of Evolution

[-57]

I know quite a bit about human cells. I have a graduate degree in physiology.

bhsmte, You're squirming. I understand why. For someone who has such a degree....you can't explain the evolution of the human cell.

 

[bhsmte]

bhsmte, You're squirming. I understand why. For someone who has such a degree....you can't explain the evolution of the human cell.

I have not made a claim, you have.

Have any of your own words, to support your claim?

 

[-57]

I have not made a claim, you have.

Have any of your own words, to support your claim?

i never claimed you could. In fact, given the impossibility of DNA coding to make an organelle that makes other organelle to carry out a process...I know you couldn't and never will.

 

[bhsmte]

i never claimed you could. In fact, given the impossibility of DNA coding to make an organelle that makes other organelle to carry out a process...I know you couldn't and never will.

Still no support of your claim.

 

[-57]

Still no support of your claim.

Long sigh.

 

[bhsmte]

Long sigh.

Better than another video.

 

[Hoghead1]

The video show sophisticated complexity on the celluar lever...so complex no process of random mutations could develop.

Then again I'm not an atheist and don't have the faith required to believe the organelle in the videos evolved.

So you want to use the -argument -from-design to demonstrate there is a God?

 

[-57]

So you want to use the -argument -from-design to demonstrate there is a God?

Yup.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yup.

There is a huge problem with this for you. There is only an appearance of design. Do you know what that means?

 

[-57]

There is a huge problem with this for you. There is only an appearance of design. Do you know what that means?

It means you're

looking for a way out...by using the word appearance.

 

[bhsmte]

Yup.

Please show us a falsifiable test, to determine when design is present.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It means you're looking for a way out...by using the word appearance.

Wrong, it means that I am honest. Why the picture of the rotator flagellum? Don't you know that that claim of Behe's was refuted long ago?

Here is a video that explains how it easily could have evolved:

It is based upon a much more thorough paper:

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html

And that paper is supported by over 200 peer reviewed journal articles.

ETA: I said "could have evolved" because there is more than one pathway to developing this feature.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I would love to hear the atheist take on how such complexity of biological machinery...can evolve using a process that contains chance...You see, it's impossible.

I'ld love to see you explain why something is impossible because it contains chance.

 

[DogmaHunter]

so complex no process of random mutations could develop.

How did you determine that?
And did you simply forget about non-random selection, or are you just ignoring it?

Then again I'm not an atheist and don't have the faith required to believe the organelle in the videos evolved.

You don't need to be an atheist to accept sound evidence, as millions upon millions of christians prove every day. Including plenty of biologists.

 

[-57]

Wrong, it means that I am honest. Why the picture of the rotator flagellum? Don't you know that that claim of Behe's was refuted long ago?

Here is a video that explains how it easily could have evolved:

It is based upon a much more thorough paper:

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html

And that paper is supported by over 200 peer reviewed journal articles.

ETA: I said "could have evolved" because there is more than one pathway to developing this feature.

I've seen that video before. It presents a make believe pathway ...and deems it as evolution.

Just because you can line up rocks does't mean a fence can evolve.

 

[-57]

I'ld love to see you explain why something is impossible because it contains chance.

Chance was only part of it. You may have 100 red lolli pops in a jar...put on a blindfold ... and asked to pull one out and give it to 1 of 100 kids that all love red lolli pops. You're chances would be 100 % that you would draw 1 lollipop and give it to a kid who likes lollipops.
BUT,
Switch things up. Place 99 lemon and 1 red lollipop into a jar...change the kids so only one of the 100 likes red lollipops...and reach in blindfolded and pull out the red...and if you just so happen pull out the red give it to the kid and only kid that likes red. Sure you might beat the odds...but I doubt it. But lets say you did...now that kid that liked red lollipops does the drawing from the jar and he to must succeed.
NOW,
Imagine an extremely rare so-called beneficial mutation. Occurring in DNA that has 3.5 billion base pairs. This mutation is passed along...and now a second extremely rare so-called beneficial mutation has to occur in such a fashion that it increases the benefit of the previous mutation....and this must happen over and over again many many times...where the information in the DNA code increases to the point that a tubular knows where to construct itself between point a and point b so a motor protein can walk across it and deliver the package it's carrying to a precise location.

The odds say this is impossible for this process...then you must also allow for it to happen with the many other organelle in a cell.

Chance won't allow for this to happen.

 

[-57]

How did you determine that?
And did you simply forget about non-random selection, or are you just ignoring it?

I haven't even touched upon selction yet.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Chance was only part of it.

It's the only part you mentioned.

You may have 100 red lolli pops in a jar...put on a blindfold ... and asked to pull one out and give it to 1 of 100 kids that all love red lolli pops. You're chances would be 100 % that you would draw 1 lollipop and give it to a kid who likes lollipops.

Yes. I wonder where this is going.

BUT,
Switch things up. Place 99 lemon and 1 red lollipop into a jar...change the kids so only one of the 100 likes red lollipops...and reach in blindfolded and pull out the red...and if you just so happen pull out the red give it to the kid and only kid that likes red. Sure you might beat the odds...but I doubt it. But lets say you did...now that kid that liked red lollipops does the drawing from the jar and he to must succeed.

2 points:
1. this is an absurd analogy to evolution theory, if that is what it is supposed to be
2. this is not impossible. Impossible means a probability of zero. As long as the probability isn't zero, it's not impossible.

NOW,
Imagine an extremely rare so-called beneficial mutation. Occurring in DNA that has 3.5 billion base pairs. This mutation is passed along...and now a second extremely rare so-called beneficial mutation has to occur in such a fashion that it increases the benefit of the previous mutation....and this must happen over and over again many many times...where the information in the DNA code increases to the point that a tubular knows where to construct itself between point a and point b so a motor protein can walk across it and deliver the package it's carrying to a precise location.

Again an absurd analogy to evolution theory.

The odds say this is impossible for this process...

Does it?
Let's test that statement. Please share the math of your absurd-evolution-analogy above. Please demonstrate that such a thing would be "impossible". Even in the absurd non-analogy you stated above.

then you must also allow for it to happen with the many other organelle in a cell.

Why? Because you say so?

Perhaps it might be a good idea to first properly learn the model that you wish to argue against.

Chance won't allow for this to happen.

So you keep claiming.

Let's see your math that demonstrates it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I haven't even touched upon selction yet.

Maybe you should. It's kind of an important part of the entire process.

 

[-57]

It's the only part you mentioned.




Yes. I wonder where this is going.



2 points:
1. this is an absurd analogy to evolution theory, if that is what it is supposed to be
2. this is not impossible. Impossible means a probability of zero. As long as the probability isn't zero, it's not impossible.



Again an absurd analogy to evolution theory.




Does it?
Let's test that statement. Please share the math of your absurd-evolution-analogy above. Please demonstrate that such a thing would be "impossible". Even in the absurd non-analogy you stated above.



Why? Because you say so?

Perhaps it might be a good idea to first properly learn the model that you wish to argue against.


So you keep claiming.

Let's see your math that demonstrates it.

Well, for starters all I hear is you screaming from the dugout. "absurd analogy to evolution theory."

.....I've noticed that's all you do...and never really do get up an bat.