Boston Marathon explosions......
- Thread starter Duck Rodgers
- Start date
This reply was 6 minutes compared to 8 minutes in the reply you quoted. Damn facts...
MVP
Well-Known Member
No, you used speculations by Behe, not scientific arguments as pointed by OneBrow. Did you watched video I posted where Krauss destroys Behe? Nobody in scientific community takes Behe's theory seriously. But of course it is very atttractive to use for religious people as it gives them some kind of straw to grab on while arguing with science and against evolution. Simple thing - we have ridiculous amounts of evidence proving evolution and none of intelligent design... why would anybody believe the second one?
Did you have your wisdom teeth removed BTW? How come "intelligent designer" made them unnecessary and unable to fit in our jaws in these days
? What about other numerous vestigial organs?
No, you used speculations by Behe, not scientific arguments as pointed by OneBrow. Did you watched video I posted where Krauss destroys Behe? Nobody in scientific community takes Behe's theory seriously. But of course it is very atttractive to use for religious people as it gives them some kind of straw to grab on while arguing with science and against evolution. Simple thing - we have ridiculous amounts of evidence proving evolution and none of intelligent design... why would anybody believe the second one?
Did you have your wisdom teeth removed BTW? How come "intelligent designer" made them unnecessary and unable to fit in our jaws in these days
The funny thing is, evolution is so obvious, that a non-religious person would barely need to see a tiny sliver chiseled away from the mountain of evidence supporting the theory before s/he goes "well DUH".
Evolution is simply the inevitable result of a system that changes in response to its environment. If you "believe" mutations can happen, then the leap to evolution is pretty much a given. I think part of the problem is that humans tend to use concepts from human cognition to describe purposeless natural systems. Even the word 'evolution' implies purpose. So does the phrase 'survival of the fittest'.
In reality, evolution is driven by what mutations end up transmitting the mutated gene more efficiently. Evolution does not care about the survival of individuals, groups, species, or even entire biological kingdoms. The only "advantage" that drives evolution is chemical selection. If a mutation helps a gene propagate better than an unmutated gene, then that mutation will win out, regardless of the consequences. That means while evolution tends to produce species that are highly adapted to their environments, it does not always lead there. It sometimes make a species less adapted. Sometimes it wipes a species all together, without the presence of competing interests.
So if one agrees that mutations do happen, then they agree with evolution. One inevitably leads to the other. If a simple mutation that increases skin pigmentation, providing better protection against the sun, occurs, then the increased chance of survival of those who possess the mutation will likely cause the mutation to spread. There is no difference between "macro and micro" evolution. They are one and the same. It takes some impressive mental acrobatics to pretend that mutations can only accumulate to a certain point, but not to the point where a splinter group will have underwent too much change to maintain the ability to reproduce with its ancestor. This is like someone observing a baby over 48 hours, and then deciding the changes were too small to produce the eventual adult, and that the baby's "growth" is only restricted to tiny adaptations that don't stray from babyness.
Last edited:
None of my responses were as closer to the post to which they responded than 12 minutes. You just halved that.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
Since I have limited and interrupted time to participate in this fun discussion I respond to your posts in a savable medium to avoid losing content and make it easier on myself.
You are right that I did copy, paste, and post them in quick succession, but once that occurred it took you only 4 minutes from the time I posted my last response to reply.
Don't get me wrong. I appreciate the fast responses I just can't keep up to that speed.
I see you as a Liberal Inspector Gadget.
Go go gadget Darwiniac!
Go go gadget Radical Feminist!
Go go gadget Race Card Player!
So it is excusable when you reply fast but worthy of mocking when he does? Hypocrite.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
That was a fast edit job.I liked your first answers better
Darwiniacs(METers) may replace the first step of Darwn’s mechanism (random mutation) with a different step, but the moment they involve “natural selection” as the final step they’ve turned their “MET” into a non-disprovable pseudoscience.
I don’t see how your bacteria eating a different type of sugar is an example of the development of a complex system. It sounds like an example of a change in a system that already existed. That is what us God-believers call adapting to one’s environment. (Darwiniacs say the environment adapts you.)
“Things” may happen for no reason. But you have to have a lot of faith to believe that individual, unrelated mutations accidentally facilitated the production of the 200 necessary parts, completely by chance, to “create” the flagellum Behe was looking at.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
I don’t have a problem with Darwin the Naturalist.
Darwin’s contribution to evolutionary thought, “natural selection,” is simply tautology.
Darwiniac: The fit survive.
Critical person: Who are the fit?
Darwiniac: The ones who survive. It happens every time!
If you haven’t figured it out by now I’m not wedded to ID theory. The Darwiniac reaction to Behe’s refutation is what I find so laughably telling. Darwiniacs unwittingly provide all the criticism for “natural selection” in the name of “intelligent design.Critical person: Who are the fit?
Darwiniac: The ones who survive. It happens every time!
When AKMVVP says intelligent design is speculation he is really saying “natural selection” is speculation.
When One Brow says intelligent design is refuted, he is really saying “natural selection” is refuted.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
Did you have your wisdom teeth removed BTW? How come "intelligent designer" made them unnecessary and unable to fit in our jaws in these days
If you look at the concept behind “survival of the fittest”, wisdom teeth and the appendix don’t do much for the theory of “natural selection” either. How does a survival of the fittest system evolve an organ that kills the host organism? Why hasn’t “natural selection” evolved the appendix away? How does “natural selection” evolve unnecessary teeth that come in sideways and cause pain?
An obvious sign that your “scientific” theory is in trouble: When you argument against an opposing theory also disproves your own.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
In your rush to make your typical pot shot you missed the little detail about how the posts I was responding to happened days ago.
Shoo fly don't bother me. I hear Obongo's face is a popular attraction for your kind.