Boston Marathon explosions......

[babe]

You culties don't even have the same doctine. You must follow separate prophets.

AKMVP thinks “natural selection” is a negative force acting on accidentally evolved systems.

One Brow thinks “natural selection” is a positive force acting on some mysterious MET mechanisms.
The ironic thing is that One Brow is an ID theorist disguised as an METer.

I don’t know what this “chemical selection” Siro is going on about involves. It sounds like he thinks it can be both a positive and a negative force.

well, I could sorta follow the variant opinions. Don't make the mistake of supposing scientists need prophets to define the narrow way to truth. . . ..

The reason I like science is because it's all about having some new twist on things. . . .

 

[babe]

There are new developments in the original topic of this thread.

Now our guys are blaming the Russians for not sending our intel folks all their info on the bombers. . . . sorta trying to whitewash themselves, distance themselves.

How many times are we just gonna blow off sheer incompetence on the part of our anti-terrorists people? You really want idiots running the Data Center who won't do something about terrorists even the Russians say are dangerous??? Why do we even try to have people looking out for us if the best we can get for the job are this stupid???

 

[PearlWatson]

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?
Mathematicians who write on information theory professionally, for a start.
You need to have experts of your own, first. Dembski is not one.

You know how I address whether Dembski is competent or not? I look at his fat *** resume:

The dude has a doctorate in mathematics from the University of Chicago.
Master of Divinity degree from Princeton Theological Seminary. (Oh No! He's a God believer!)
He has done postdoctoral work
in mathematics at MIT
in physics at University of Chicago
in computer science at Princeton
He has held Nation Science Foundation graduate and postdoctoral fellowships.

He started up a research center at Baylor University to test theories of design in the universe.
Not one Darwiniac (9 biologists) on the committee to review his work were qualified to assess it but the apes decided to abolish his research center anyhow.

I will post Dembski's own explanation of CSI(complex specified information) since I'm not sure you trusted your own intelligence enough to read his explanation rather than trusting "experts" to make your judgements for you.
Dembski's own explanation in mostly laymans terms can be found here (the first 3 sections are particularly relevant):
https://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_idtheory.htm

 

[PearlWatson]

well, I could sorta follow the variant opinions. Don't make the mistake of supposing scientists need prophets to define the narrow way to truth. . . ..

The reason I like science is because it's all about having some new twist on things. . . .

I seriously question whether they are acting like scientists (being objective) when they present their opinions. It seems more faith based (subjective) opinion to me. Whether they care about the truth is another matter.

Actually AKMVP is moving more toward "natural selection" being a positive force now (presented the idea that humans are the highest form of evolution), and Siro is trying to talk him back down from this notion by arguing that each animal has its own adaptations. No animal is more fit than another.

So, I wonder if he thinks humans with higher IQ are more evolved, or equally evolved than those with less IQ? Most Darwiniacs of the eugenic variety would say stupid people are less fit and babies aren't fit enough.

 

[PearlWatson]

So you have to go all the way back to the Precambrian to find your crutch?
Evolution is nothing like your fantasy of perfectly adapted species. It is a fact that more than 99% of all the creatures that emerged on this planet are now extinct. So much for your clumsy bioengineer god.
It's really so simple that even you should be able to see it. There is no escaping the fact that species that survive eons of mutations will be very different from where they started. You don't need science to understand that. You don't even have to look at the incredibly obvious observation that animals are closely related to other animals (or perhaps the intelligent designer is clumsy AND lazy?). If mutations occur, then species change. There is absolutely no rational justification to the claim that species can only change until they meet your threshold for divine intervention. You may believe whatever you want, of course. But don't expect anyone to take your personal emotional attachment to an arbitrary religious principle seriously, unless they already share your ideology.

It ain’t so much a crutch as simply wanting to see some kind of evidence before I buy into it. I thought that is what science is all about. The ability to concoct a story and draw pictures about your stories ain’t science. It’s religious. Any old God-believer can do that. You can’t blame me for wanting what people dub science to have actual supportive evidence to back it up. It pisses me off that you Darwiniacs have corrupted actual science with your crazy *** stories in order to support your God-denying fantasies.

99% of all statistics are made up…mostly by Liberals.

Let’s look at the real fossil record not your made up estimates:

There are about 250,000 species that have been identified in the fossil record and over a million that exist today. Even if every species in the fossil record has gone extinct(they haven’t) we still have 80% of species that are still alive. Where do you Darwiniacs get your “facts?” Out of your atheist-driven assumptions that “innumerable varieties” existed in the transitional species. Why do you make this assumption? Because you must have “innumerable varieties” of transitional species to make your theory/story true.
Well sorry Darwiniac, the REAL fossil record doesn’t match your God-denying fantasies.

It might just be time to shake off your Darwiniac faith and realize you don’t have the answers for our origins.
Maybe just maybe there is a bioengineer god, or a “DNA code monkey” god. Could be we did start out as amoebas and an intelligent/natural force drove it toward humans. It could be we don’t share a common ancestry at all. It could be that spiders didn't accidentally acquire the ability to make spider webs and maybe my beautiful breasts were designed to produce milk for any babies that pop out of my lower regions.

But if it turns out that a series of lucky accidents produced my awesome God-believing brain than anything is damn near possible.

 

[One Brow]

Where did you find my picture?

 

[One Brow]

I don’t see how your bacteria eating a different type of sugar is an example of the development of a complex system.

To meet Behe's definition of Irreducible Complexity, you actually only need two parts.

However, I need to apologize for an error. It was not lactose, it was citric acid that the bacteria learned to eat. It did require the development of a new gene, orginating from gene duplication. It easily meets the IC test.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._co...on_of_aerobic_citrate_usage_in_one_population

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.)

The creation of IC systems is still adaptation. Why don't you recognize that?

 

[One Brow]

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!​

In many populations, the ones who die at the right time are the most fit, as opposed to the survivors.

Of course, natural selection is not really a tautology.

https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html

Darwiniacs unwittingly provide all the criticism for “natural selection” in the name of “intelligent design.”

How so? Why do you think the former concept involves the latter?

 

[One Brow]

How does a survival of the fittest system evolve an organ that kills the host organism?

The appendix is a highly useful organ in herbivores.

Why hasn’t “natural selection” evolved the appendix away?

It's actually much smaller, compared to our body size, than it was in our ancestors.

How does “natural selection” evolve unnecessary teeth that come in sideways and cause pain?

Ancestors with larger mouths had room for more teeth.

An obvious sign that your “scientific” theory is in trouble: When you argument against an opposing theory also disproves your own.

Natural selection doesn't work miracles. It doesn't make things disappear overnight. In fact, as long as an organ does kill much or often, it has very little effect at all.

 

[One Brow]

The problem with your baby analogy is that you Darwiniacs catapult your way from a one-celled organism to the “ape-like” ancestor you can’t even produce for “observation.”

Can you produce a native speaker of Old English? Koine Greek? Sanskrit? Does that mean no one ever spoke those languages? Is that a good reason to doubt those languages existed?

We don't have living organisms from single-cell to ape, but we have records that the creatures existed, just like we have records for dead languages.

 

[moevillini]

OK, you lost me on that last post...

 

[MVP]

Questions posed to you: 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?

Your answer to the second question: The appendix existed (with or without a purpose?) for our “ape-like” ancestors and now “natural selection” is in the process of evolving it away. So “natural selection” is negative force.

It is not natural selection. It is adaptation process. It perfectly evolved our tail away and is evolving wisdom teeth away. It evolved legs of the snakes away, it evolved back legs of the whales away and it evolved breathing hole in whales as well. Thousands and thousands examples of it around just look at any animal and you will see it. Will it evolve appendix away? Who knows? I can't predict future, but we can look in the past and see what happened which you stubbornly ignoring.
Not sure I understand your first question about organ that kills host organism - what do you mean by that? Any organ can kill host organism if malfunctioning. Liver killed poor Hanneman from Slayer for example... Don't we all need liver?

You know perfectly that it would be enough to find single more advanced species fossil in the same period as early primitive species to destroy evolution theory - yet nobody has ever done that. All fossil records are indicating that we have common ancestor and that more complicated organisms evolved from primitive ones. Evidence is so clear yet you try to deny it.
I would accept your belief that "intelligent designer" planted first live cell on earth ( gave it a start if you want to say so) and left it here to develop and evolve to all species we have here now. We do not know that and nobody can prove or deny it. Maybe we are all just lab rats of some more advanced species in the universe - who can tell it is true or not?
But we have undeniable proof that today's live organisms developed from the most primitive ones millions millions years ago - there is just no way of denying that, it is to obvious. So you trying to do that that based on Behe's speculations is not really giving you credit. Please stop it. We can speculated about origins of life but not about evolution.