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.
How is the expectation of evidence a strawman? Is it a strawman to claim that the as yet unidentified invention mechanism of evolution be demonstrated by evidence? If the effect exists it will be as evident as the creative effect of intelligence.Why should anyone try to support your strawman? It's your strawman, you need to support it.
Evidence please.
Just one novel invention from Darwins molecular fiddler would be of interest. Just one sentence of abstract instruction on how to build something new that arises completely unguided from a pre-biotic solution.
But in order to convince you will need to produce, or rather the mechanism of evolution will need to produce a few completely new inventions daily.
At that point I would not be the slightest bit surprised to find the recipe for alphabet soup floating in the top of the pot and at that point I would pat "Evolution" on the back and say.....
How is the expectation of evidence a strawman? Is it a strawman to claim that the as yet unidentified invention mechanism of evolution be demonstrated by evidence? If the effect exists it will be as evident as the creative effect of intelligence.
Ad hominem comments don't address the argument.
I am flattered when a person turns to attack the source of an argument because it does mean that they are unwilling to face the argument itself.
Despite the content of this post I will pretend you know what a strawman argument is. Then I'll quote this part (bolding mine to make it really clear) of your previous post as evidence of the strawman:How is the expectation of evidence a strawman? Is it a strawman to claim that the as yet unidentified invention mechanism of evolution be demonstrated by evidence? If the effect exists it will be as evident as the creative effect of intelligence.
But in order to convince you will need to produce, or rather the mechanism of evolution will need to produce a few completely new inventions daily.
A mutation is a change, which may be advantageous, neutral, or disadvantageous. Natural selection restricts the spread of the disadvantageous changes in the population.A mutation causes a degradation, and natural selection ensures that the mutation has as little negative effect on the population as possible.
Rather Hovind-esque, eh?*laughs* nice little million dollar challenge there, set the peramitors in such a way that they can't be done and then pretend you won something.
Yes, In the book the edge of Evolution by Michael Behe we see evolution demostrated, and it does indeed take place.*laughs* nice little million dollar challenge there, set the peramitors in such a way that they can't be done and then pretend you won something. it's been fun playing along with the whole abiogenesis part, but lets actually stick to evolution for now, because I have no problem with god creating the first life, or making the first life appear through a method he created, we still don't know how it happened, but we do know that evolution happened. so fine god jumps started abiogenesis, now stick to the topic.
Yes, In the book the edge of Evolution by Michael Behe we see evolution demostrated, and it does indeed take place.
However the mechanism is observed is insufficient to explain the effect observed.
There are many biological inventions in the historic record that are not explained by a series of mutations subject to natural selection.
Just so stories and clever simulations (that only confirm the need for intelligent design) don't cut it. What is need is observational evidence from actual biological forms of a mechanism (not influenced or designed by an intelligence) that is capable of producing a functional and new invention.
Yes, In the book the edge of Evolution by Michael Behe we see evolution demostrated, and it does indeed take place.
However the mechanism is observed is insufficient to explain the effect observed.
There are many biological inventions in the historic record that are not explained by a series of mutations subject to natural selection.
Just so stories and clever simulations (that only confirm the need for intelligent design) don't cut it. What is need is observational evidence from actual biological forms of a mechanism (not influenced or designed by an intelligence) that is capable of producing a functional and new invention.
Honesty would be applying the scientific method to the question of whether mutation and natural selection are capable of producing the sort of development observed in the biological record.You have no argument. All you have is an argument from incredulity and an aprior belief in a creator, an intelligent designer, which you cannot present evidence for. No-one who knows about a jot about science is going to accept anything you say about a intelligent design or a creator unless you present evidence.
And I'm sorry that you want me to accept an anonymous post on a non-scientific website run by a pseudo-religious and pseudo-scientific group. Yes, I'm such a bad guy for wanting something honest.
The triumph of just so stories and scientism and the political pressure exerted over considered scientific thought. The only thing new here is the name of the religion.behe is the last person you should be using as a example after his whole flagella got him laughed out of court when he was shown the evidence for the flagella evolution.
It is clear as day that mutation and natural selection are insufficient to produce new things, they are at best, and if very lucky, only capable if development in small incremental steps The biological record shows evidence of many inventions that appear without antecedant.Despite the content of this post I will pretend you know what a strawman argument is. Then I'll quote this part (bolding mine to make it really clear) of your previous post as evidence of the strawman:
I also suspect you have no idea what "pre-biotic" means.
Are you humble enough to admit your error? I'd admire you greatly if you did.
I am not using Behe, I am using the argument he presents.behe is the last person you should be using as a example after his whole flagella got him laughed out of court when he was shown the evidence for the flagella evolution.
Sorry, this does not fly....nice rhetoric, the whole, "Tails we win, heads you lose." stuff, oh sorry that experiment was done by intelligent people so proves intelligence is required. And just have to look at the e-coli experiment with citrate I think it was, only thing the experimenters did was provide the food, the bacteria on it's own digested it, and in fact, it was a two stage mutation from a neutral mutation, the kind of thing creationists and intelligent designers like to claim we don't have.
you have the italian wall lizard that in a few decades formed cecal valves that none of the lizards related to it have that let it digest plant matter.
So an organism suffers a loss of function but manages to recover functionality be it with some irreparable damage, and this is an invention? Certainly the redundancy built into biological systems that allows this sort of survivability is amazing but it is not a new invention.You have one of my favorites where they took e-coli, broke the ability for the e-coli to use it's flagellum and after a while they regained the mobility of their flagella but funny enough it awsn't in the same way that it originally had, it managed to get it back up using a totally novel way.
Evidence please. Without that this is just another assertion, and you wouldn't do that, would you?The biological record shows evidence of many inventions that appear without antecedant.
ID is neither reasonable nor rational, and saying that evolution must follow your arbitrary rules (which ID does not actually propose) is absurd.This is a perfectly reasonable and rational question to ask, and it is also reasonable to expect that any mechanism identified would be apparent in the natural world on a daily basis, as is the case for the proposition that intelligent agents design and develop things.
Sorry, this does not fly....
“The ‘new’ muscular valve they found between the small and large intestine is simply an enlargement of muscles already present in the gut wall at this juncture.” Dr David Menton
So an organism suffers a loss of function but manages to recover functionality be it with some irreparable damage, and this is an invention? Certainly the redundancy built into biological systems that allows this sort of survivability is amazing but it is not a new invention.
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?