Three Ways that Plants Defy Darwin’s Mechanism

[Anguspure]

Why should anyone try to support your strawman? It's your strawman, you need to support it.

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.

 

[loveofourlord]

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.....

View attachment 266151​

*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.

 

[loveofourlord]

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.

the strawman is linking what I said which was talking about there is no wall between micro and mcro and then pretending abiogensis has anything to do with the subject. Were talking once life has arisen. We know that by any definition of information it shows up in life forms every time, you have at least 50 bits of different and new information that your parents didn't have.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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.

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.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

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.

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:

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.

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.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

A mutation causes a degradation, and natural selection ensures that the mutation has as little negative effect on the population as possible.

A mutation is a change, which may be advantageous, neutral, or disadvantageous. Natural selection restricts the spread of the disadvantageous changes in the population.

 

[SLP]

*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.

Rather Hovind-esque, eh?

 

[SLP]

A mutation causes a degradation...

By what definition/standard?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

By what definition/standard?

All change makes things worse? (a conservative canard)

 

[Anguspure]

*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.

 

[loveofourlord]

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.

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.

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.

 

[loveofourlord]

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.

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.

 

[loveofourlord]

http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/111864/1/Flagellum%20paper%20Last%20Submitted%20Version.pdf

Link to the mobility experiment.

 

[Anguspure]

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.

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.

Michael Behe did this and the results are recorded in his book the Edge of Evolution.
Douglas Axe did this and his results are recorded in his book Undeniable.
Michael Denton has discussed the appearance of novel forms in the record extensively in his book Evolution Still a Theory in Crisis.

These men and a number of others have actually applied the scientific method rather than leaning on gross extrapolation and just so stories to uphold an ideaology.

All I have ever seen in response is shouty adhominem attacks from gutless wonders who can't even be bothered engaging the argument. This alone tells me the nature of the crowd that decries what these guys are trying to do, and the strength of their arguments.

 

[Anguspure]

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.

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.
No science has refuted his claim.
An Icon Revisited: Flagellar Hook Shows Further Aspects of Design | Evolution News

 

[Anguspure]

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.

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.
If these things did not appear by design then what mechanism produced them?
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.

 

[Anguspure]

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.

I am not using Behe, I am using the argument he presents.

 

[Anguspure]

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.

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

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.

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.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

The biological record shows evidence of many inventions that appear without antecedant.

Evidence please. Without that this is just another assertion, and you wouldn't do that, would you?

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.

ID is neither reasonable nor rational, and saying that evolution must follow your arbitrary rules (which ID does not actually propose) is absurd.

 

[loveofourlord]

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.

you do realize both are evolution and nice using a AIG member definetly has zero reason to question evolution and definetly a good source.

Thats how evolution works, it uses something else from a different source for a new purpose. What do you think evolution will suddenly form a brand new fully functioning organ from scratch? Of course the cecal valves are evolution.

As for the other, the point is, they create a new feature, thats how many new genes are formed, from gene duplication as once it's duplicated it can now have a new usage. Your saying, "thats not evolution." when that is the definition of evolution, by the scientists that accept evolution.