Why Theistic Evolution Does not "fit".

[KerrMetric]

as to your reason of fundamental blunder...clarify

Go back and look at the post I made where I said " why do this... not mesh with this...."

Are you telling me you cannot spot the fundamental blunder that led me to post that? I even give it away for you.

 

[KerrMetric]

Kerr is technically correct. Science is the compilation of evidence and accepting that the conclusion that most reasonably fits the evidence is probably correct. They never really prove anything. Maybe you're thinking of mathematics?

Man - you let him off the hook.


Yes proof is for mathematics, courts of law (ideally) and bottles of scotch.

 

[withreason]

this is what I mean..nobody wants to argue detail...there is no substance to any of these posts, Mallon argued his intellect, you argue obscurity...define yourself!! and I will try you !!

 

[Melethiel]

this is what I mean..nobody wants to argue detail...there is no substance to any of these posts, Mallon argued his intellect, you argue obscurity...define yourself!! and I will try you !!

It is not possible to argue detail when the entire foundation of the argument is flawed. However, maybe you could bring up what specific points that you want to argue?

 

[KerrMetric]

this is what I mean..nobody wants to argue detail...there is no substance to any of these posts, Mallon argued his intellect, you argue obscurity...define yourself!! and I will try you !!

In other words you know you made a faux pas but want to skirt the issue. Fine.


Why did you argue a strawman in your longer post. I don't believe anyone claimed redundant complexity existed in all biochemical systems. Behe's vitamin C example was basically explained as soon as he mentioned it.

 

[withreason]

It is not possible to argue detail when the entire foundation of the argument is flawed. However, maybe you could bring up what specific points that you want to argue?

you must not be fallowing...I am not in argument, I am in defence.... I have made My argument very precise and clear, nobody has yet to produce a defined rebutal that I can engage....I have just been acussed of a fundamental blunder by someone that will not clarify...yet this entire thread is a lack of knowledge

 

[KerrMetric]

I have just been acussed of a fundamental blunder by someone that will not clarify...yet this entire thread is a lack of knowledge

I gave you enough hints and someone else even mentioned it.

Science never "proves" a thing. Something that should have been learned in undergrad.

 

[withreason]

In other words you know you made a faux pas but want to skirt the issue. Fine.


Why did you argue a strawman in your longer post. I don't believe anyone claimed redundant complexity existed in all biochemical systems. Behe's vitamin C example was basically explained as soon as he mentioned it.

now you are saying lactose is vitamine C I am through with you!!

 

[Xaero]

this is what I mean..nobody wants to argue detail...there is no substance to any of these posts, Mallon argued his intellect, you argue obscurity...define yourself!! and I will try you !!

.. flagella consists of microtubuli, a tunnel-like structure of the protein tubulin that is found throughout the whole cell, as transport system, as cell stabilization and involved in cell division.
It was only a matter of time until bacteria arrived that had microtubuli attached outside the cell wall. And sure these first structures had selective advantages:

An obvious intermediate stage between spindle and cilium would be a non-swimming appendage made of microtubules with a selectable function like increasing surface area, helping the protozoan to remain suspended in water, increasing the chances of bumping into bacteria to eat, or serving as a stalk attaching the cell to a solid substrate. One can't argue that such a non-swimming appendage is merely convenient or unlikely to be selectable, as modern protist with analogous non-swimming microtubular appendages do exist and find them perfectly useful, the axopodia of heliozoa being an example.

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella

 

[KerrMetric]

now you are saying lactose is vitamine C I am through with you!!

Who mentioned lactose??????? I didn't. I did hint at the gene for L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase though.

Are you sure you know Behe's work?

 

[withreason]

Parminio & KerrMetric....you have resolved my interest in this thread...I wish you the best life has to offer God Bless

 

[KerrMetric]

Parminio & KerrMetric....you have resolved my interest in this thread...I wish you the best life has to offer God Bless

ROTF.

As soon as something technical was asked back at you - you run away.

LOL.


Why did you ask as to why I said lactose when I NEVER mentioned it?

I challenge anyone viewing this thread to go back and check and see if I ever said lactose never mind that it is Vitamin C.


What a joke!

 

[withreason]

Who mentioned lactose??????? I didn't. I did hint at the gene for L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase though.

Are you sure you know Behe's work?

as I mentioned your obscurity and failure to engage with clarity lends to your motive....good evening

 

[KerrMetric]

as I mentioned your obscurity and failure to engage with clarity lends to your motive....good evening

Did you lie about the lactose comment deliberately or was it an accident.

Others viewing this thread are going to see this as deceitful. You might want to answer or at least edit.

What's up - did the question back at you get a little complex for you? I made it simple.

 

[KerrMetric]

Does anyone else see this as the con job I do?

 

[KerrMetric]

I never mentioned lactose. And I never quoted your lactose example.

I mentioned Behe's main argument against the redundant complexity concept was that the vitamin C pathway in many mammals that is absent in humans.

I threw a question about that back at you and you clammed up - went into a hissy fit and used that as an excuse not to get technical.

 

[grimbly]

I spent 30 minutes of my life pouring over this thread and I couldn't find lactose either. Got me where this is coming from

 

[KerrMetric]

I spent 30 minutes of my life pouring over this thread and I couldn't find lactose either. Got me where this is coming from

I went back and I don't actually see it in his posts except when he brings it up to me asking why I brough it up.

So I'm not blind this evening? I don't even see him using it in a post for himself either. I'm tired but not that tired.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I went back and I don't actually see it in his posts except when he brings it up to me asking why I brough it up.

So I'm not blind this evening? I don't even see him using it in a post for himself either. I'm tired but not that tired.

you are not blind. his posting:
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=30903601&postcount=109

As for “proving the reducibility of the Flagellum” if one accepts Millers conclusions, “ and reference to the works and study of Barry Hall” at face value, without considering the induction of IPTG to the growth medium, allowing for permease activity, then it would appear to be a reasonable conclusion.

is incoherent if it is conflating the flagellum and the lactose systems. which it appears to be doing.

see:
http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_responsetokmiller0101.htm

fortunately i unsubscribed to this thread when i read this posting, thinking it was going to ignite a firestorm of replies. the poster appears to think the two systems are the same.

 

[withreason]

I went back and I don't actually see it in his posts except when he brings it up to me asking why I brough it up.

So I'm not blind this evening? I don't even see him using it in a post for himself either. I'm tired but not that tired.

I think My post was 109 the IPTG inclusion.....lactose protien...come on guys...

any way....this is what I mean..
I certainly do not claim to be anything that I am not! I am A 43 year old Man with an education of a 43 year old man with no remarkable achievements in education to claim as outstanding, or do I try to insinuate such, but, I suffer fools lightly……..My post’s in this thread are precise for any reasonably educated person to reply to, with maintaining a linkage to understandable dialogue, I will not reduce my sensitivities to fruitless irritable frustration in trying to maintain cohesive dialogue. I feel as the environment is as a high school locker room. No disrespect intended to anybody participating in this thread. I do hope to engage in fruitful dialogue in this forum, my respects to all.