Boston Marathon explosions......

[One Brow]

Behe's testimony at the Dover trial addresses the problems of this claim after he was given a stack of articles, that supposedly addressed Darwin's proposed pathway, by opposing cousel:

"The literature has no detailed rigorous explanations for how complex biochemical systems could arise by a random mutation and natural selection and these articles do not address that."

If Behe were only claiming that biology needed more detailed, rigorous explanations, then most biologists would agree and he would not be a darling of the ID movement. Behe's claim is that irreducibly complex systems are impossible to develop without intelligence, a claim refuted every time it is brought up.

To support Darwin's theoretical mechanism (random mutation and natural selection) one has to start at "a bit of wood", and show that a "bit of wood" arose by accident and how that "bit of wood" makes the animal "more fit" than without it.

We have dozens of mechanisms Darwin never knew about. Why should we limit ourselves to just the ones Darwin knew?

We don't need to start even with a "bit of wood". Any vaguely wood-like thing that is already serving some purpose will do.

 

[One Brow]

The only alternative origin of life theory Darwiniacs have allowed to be published is the ID theory proposed by the atheist Crick called "Directed Panspermia."

1) Panspermia receives no more respect than creationism
2) Most of those publishing scientists are, nonetheless, theists

Actually there was another peer-reviewed article on ID that slipped through, but once the Darwiniac witch burners caught it they got the author fired.

I'll bet I know more about that than you. For example, I'll bet your talking about someone who published his article (without peer review) in the magazine he edited after he had already turned in his resignation of the editorship (but before it took effect), and kept his job at the NIH throughout the controversy.

 

[One Brow]

I don't understand how atheists can still insist that in order for something to be "natural" it has to be accidental, and still be considered rational.

Actually, accidents only play a small part. Significant, but small.

 

[PearlWatson]

I am quite frankly disappointed in this discussion as you can't answer ( or ignoring ) any of my questions. But I guess it is hard to agree with undeniable proof.
So if it says so in the bible it must be right? I think it is time to end this then.

I’m sorry my answers disappointed you but let’s not pretend that I ever mentioned the bible or used it as proof against Darwin’s theory. I used the scientific arguments of a Biochemist named Behe.
So your final reply to all my arguments has been to accuse me of believing in God. Well, guilty as charged!

 

[PearlWatson]

You don't always have to lead with your limitations. Repeatedly means "happens with moderate or greater frequency", and accidental is "not according to the usual occurence". There is nothing oxymoronic about saying that that things occasionally don't go according to plan. Phenomena are predictably random when any attempt to formulate a pattern regarding them can be shown to be erroneous; that is, it is the randomness itself that can be predicted.
I have no definitions. I can read a little in information theory, but don't know nearly enough to come up with unique or original definitions. However, information theory is a well-recognized branch of mathematics with many experts.
I certainly don't expect you to argue with Dembski. I'm not sure I'd be up to the task without serious help from actual experts. It takes very little math knowledge to put up a wall of obfuscation, and some expertise to demolish such a wall accurately.
However, when the experts do weigh in, it's appropriate to acknowledge they know enough to say Dembski's ideas are worthless. I don't expect you to acknowledge it, but that has more to do with your posting history than the information involved.

You see how you defined terms a after I explained what I saw as oxymorons, in an attempt to show they weren’t really oxymorons. Dembski does the same thing to address your supposed oxymoron, but in a competent manner.

It was no accident I followed your example of “leading with your limitations.” It was almost like I designed it that way on purpose.

Who the hell do you consider "actual experts?" I hope they are more knowledgeable than you when it comes to information theory, and not some random internet Darwiniac.

Even if you produce some "actual experts" I have no reason to accept your expert(s) over my own.

We have reached an impasse again.

 

[PearlWatson]

If Behe were only claiming that biology needed more detailed, rigorous explanations, then most biologists would agree and he would not be a darling of the ID movement. Behe's claim is that irreducibly complex systems are impossible to develop without intelligence, a claim refuted every time it is brought up.
We have dozens of mechanisms Darwin never knew about. Why should we limit ourselves to just the ones Darwin knew?
We don't need to start even with a "bit of wood". Any vaguely wood-like thing that is already serving some purpose will do.

Behe is my darling for kicking Darwin’s theory in the ***.

Behe concludes natural selection = intelligent design.
You then provide an example involving “selection” as a refutation of Behe
You are then kicking yourself in the *** if you think that claim(ICS’s are impossible without “natural selection”) has been refuted.

Darwin’s mechanism is a 2 part system. Random mutation followed by natural selection.
Darwin says random mutations occurs in numerous successive slight modifications.
Behe says coordinated systems(like a mousetrap) can’t come together that way.
You agree because you bring up a “co-option event” in your example.
You claim there are some randomly generated parts lying around doing other things and then an “event” happens.
Behe says even if there were randomly generated parts lying around doing other things they have no reason to come together to do something else.
You say NATURE is the reason. Behe says nature=intelligence.
This is where I use my intelligence to do a little "co-opting event."
I select “natural” and “intelligence” who were being purposeful elsewhere and design new words with them:

Natural Design
Intelligent Selection

nature=intelligence
design=selection.

The End.

 

[One Brow]

I’m sorry my answers disappointed you but let’s not pretend that I ever mentioned the bible or used it as proof against Darwin’s theory. I used the scientific arguments of a Biochemist named Behe.

Why would anyone want to argue with the theory of a long-dead biologist? Now, if Behe had any scientific arguments against modern evolutionary theory, that would be something. However, he has none.

 

[One Brow]

You see how you defined terms a after I explained what I saw as oxymorons, in an attempt to show they weren’t really oxymorons. Dembski does the same thing to address your supposed oxymoron, but in a competent manner.

Do you have the expertise to address his competence? The experts in information theory say Dembski has not addressed his fundamental oxymoron in any competent manner. would you care to try in this forum?

Who the hell do you consider "actual experts?" I hope they are more knowledgeable than you when it comes to information theory, and not some random internet Darwiniac.

Mathematicians who write on information theory professionally, for a start.

Even if you produce some "actual experts" I have no reason to accept your expert(s) over my own.

You need to have experts of your own, first. Dembski is not one.

 

[One Brow]

Behe is my darling for kicking Darwin’s theory in the ***.

Darwin's theory is no longer used, regardless. Instead, we have modern evolutionary theory (MET), and Behe has done nothing to discredit it.

Behe concludes natural selection = intelligent design.

No, he does not, at any point. It's sad you didn't even take the time to understand this person you supposedly respect so much.

You then provide an example involving “selection” as a refutation of Behe
You are then kicking yourself in the *** if you think that claim(ICS’s are impossible without “natural selection”) has been refuted.

We've seen the evolution of irreducibly complex systems even within a single lifetime (for example, the strain of bacteria that was evolved to eat a different type of sugar). Thus, Behe's claim that it can't happen is refuted by evidence.

Darwin’s mechanism ...

I accept MET based on evidence. I have no interest in defending a 150-year-old theory.

Behe says even if there were randomly generated parts lying around doing other things they have no reason to come together to do something else.

Things happen, for no reason, all the time.

 

[PearlWatson]

Wow, that is some fast response time.

Go, bot go!

 

[One Brow]

Wow, that is some fast response time.

Go, bot go!

Yours was faster, and it's not like it takes much time to look at your posts.

 

[PearlWatson]

Yours was faster, and it's not like it takes much time to look at your posts.

Several days is faster than 4 minutes. Okay.