User Tag List

Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 171

Thread: The evolution game is up!!!

  1. #16
    Over 500 post club PlastikBuddha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Still going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it- but now looking up.
    Posts
    650
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Blog Entries
    3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    488
    Quote Originally Posted by eveningsky339 View Post
    Wait, you said it doesn't bother anyone else? Have you ever read Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe?
    I guess I should have been more specific. Anyone who is taken seriously by the rest of the biology world. Behe's has precious complexity has failed to pan out, time and again.
    "Those who have crossed
    With direct eyes, to death's other Kingdom
    Remember us--if at all--not as lost
    Violent souls, but only
    As the hollow men
    The stuffed men." ... T.S. Eliot
    γνῶθι σεαυτόν

  2. #17
    Journeyman macguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    148
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    134
    Quote Originally Posted by PlastikBuddha View Post
    Behe's has precious complexity has failed to pan out, time and again.
    How exactly has it failed? Just curious...
    The voiceless, the wasted...You soaked your hearts in gasoline. Now light it up and burn.

  3. #18
    Journeyman DoogieTalons's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    208
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Blog Entries
    5
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    133
    Behe has failed many times to prove irriducable complexity. His work on the Flagellum was lorded as the deathnell for Evolution... it was shown to be evolvable... oh this bell tols so often and is silences the minute real science is done.

    Do you know how to do this properly Behe, here's a lesson.

    Devise a hypothesis, test it, test it again, let other scientists test it, publish it with scientist... let other scientists test it again. Then when is accepted publish it to the people.

    What you shouldn't do, is through your ignorance and beacuse you don't understand how it could be evolvable... publish a book full of flawed theories when you have done no real work on it.

    Every thing he simply "claimed" as too complex to exisit on it's own has been show time and time again to be rather simply evolved from combinations of already usefull chromosones or genes.

    The problem with Creation Science is thus.

    1) It's not science.

    2) The people that are sated by it's answers never look for rebutal. Hence why AIG still has many outdated theorys. They hardly ever take them down for the people that believe it rarley look further.

    Many scientist prove Behe wrong time and again, only it never seems to filter through to the people that believed it in the first place. I guess ignorance is bliss.
    Stay Sharp
    Doogie Talons
    ----------------------------------------
    [ Richard Dawkins ]

  4. #19
    Science Lover
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    South Bend, IN
    Posts
    1,968
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1461
    Apparently Doogie believes if he will only close his eyes and repeat over and over "Behe is wrong, Behe is wrong" that this will make irreducible complexity go away.

    I have examined all of the challenges to irreducible complexity and none of them are even worth the paper they are printed on. "Co-option" is only a buzz word like "convergence" and has no scientific meaning or content.

    And the evolutionary "shell game" goes on and on.
    Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
    Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

  5. #20
    Over 500 post club Evoken's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    510
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 9 Times in 8 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by DoogieTalons View Post
    His work on the Flagellum was lorded as the deathnell for Evolution...it was shown to be evolvable...
    Where? In the Matzke paper written by a non-biologist(?) and which has not been published in any scientific journal nor has it passed the peer-review process?


    Evo

  6. #21
    Journeyman DoogieTalons's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    208
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Blog Entries
    5
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    133
    Behe is wrong and irriducable complexity is bunkem being slowly stepped away from even the creation dataminers from for thestench it produces anytime its poked or prodded.

    Show me ONE irriducable complex organism. or part, I'll show you some science that say's its not. Why do you insist on this global conspiracy do debunk creationism, it's only debunked because it's false if it were true the world would be a different place.
    Stay Sharp
    Doogie Talons
    ----------------------------------------
    [ Richard Dawkins ]

  7. #22
    Old Timer Damian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    492
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 10 Times in 10 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    5080
    Quote Originally Posted by bob b View Post
    "The modern evolutionary, synthesis (often referred to simply as the new synthesis, the modern synthesis, the evolutionary synthesis, neo-Darwinian synthesis or neo-Darwinism), generally denotes the integration of Charles Darwin's theory of the evolution of species by natural selection, Gregor Mendel's theory of genetics as the basis , for biological inheritance, random genetic mutation as the source of variation, and mathematical population genetics. Major figures in the development of the modern synthesis include Thomas Hunt Morgan, R. A. Fisher, Theodosius Dobzhansky, J.B.S. Haldane, Sewall Wright, Julian Huxley, Ernst Mayr, Bernhard Rensch, George Gaylord Simpson, and G. Ledyard Stebbins."

    From the Wikipedia article: "The modern evolutionary, synthesis".
    To have pure chance events, there has to be uncaused (at least physically) events. An uncaused event is a logical absurdity. Therefore, the metaphysical naturalist is forced by the dictates of logic and his belief in materialism to subscribe to a deterministic worldview.
    If determinism is true, then nothing is left to chance. Gene mutations are not random events but predetermined ones. The implication is clear. If determinism is true, human life is not an accident but a predetermined fact that could not have been otherwise.

    If the metaphysical naturalist insist that the world is indeterminate, then he has to account for uncaused events.

  8. #23
    Maximeee's Husband death2impiety's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    1,318
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2311
    Quote Originally Posted by DoogieTalons View Post
    Behe is wrong and irriducable complexity is bunkem being slowly stepped away from even the creation dataminers from for thestench it produces anytime its poked or prodded.

    Show me ONE irriducable complex organism. or part, I'll show you some science that say's its not. Why do you insist on this global conspiracy do debunk creationism, it's only debunked because it's false if it were true the world would be a different place.
    You're irredicubly complex.
    You have vital organs, an organism without a vital organ is dead by definition.

    By evolutionary philosophy, everyone on of your vital organs would have had to have evolve in one quick leap, functioning perfectly along side your other organs.

    As in, "organism b" lived without his lungs and now he begot "organism a" and "tada!" he has 'em. Organism b couldn't have lived without functioning lungs so you must propse some other alternative to not only how complex oxygen breathing organisms lived before lungs magically appeared, but how a complex organ like a lung miraculously formed by a genetic mishap. How did creatures live before lungs evolved?

  9. #24
    Over 500 post club Evoken's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    510
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 9 Times in 8 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by DoogieTalons View Post
    Show me ONE irriducable complex organism.
    You have been shown that already. Now show a peer-reviewed paper, that has been pusblished in a scientific journal describing the evolution of an IC structure.

    Wether you like it or not, Michael Behe's claim about irreducible complexity IS a valid scientific concept and a genuine objection to evolutionary explanations.


    Evo

  10. #25
    Over 500 post club SUTG's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Cole Valley, CA
    Posts
    626
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    158
    Behe's work has been obsolte for years. No-one worth their salt in the scientific world spends any time discussing behe. His works is about as relevant as phlogiston, the aether, and rain dancing. Read the transcripts of the Dover Trial. Quite embarrassing, really.

  11. #26
    Maximeee's Husband death2impiety's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    1,318
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2311
    Quote Originally Posted by SUTG View Post
    Behe's work has been obsolte for years. No-one worth their salt in the scientific world spends any time discussing behe. His works is about as relevant as phlogiston, the aether, and rain dancing. Read the transcripts of the Dover Trial. Quite embarrassing, really.

    Evolutionists called Behe's IC obsolete before they ever read his work. They aren't interested in truth.

    I have yet to read one rebuttal to IC that doesn't begin with a straw-man. Maybe you could present one here.

  12. #27
    Over 500 post club SUTG's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Cole Valley, CA
    Posts
    626
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    158
    Quote Originally Posted by death2impiety View Post
    I have yet to read one rebuttal to IC that doesn't begin with a straw-man. Maybe you could present one here.
    No thanks. I have no interest in teaching remedial science.

  13. #28
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Davis, CA
    Posts
    33
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by death2impiety View Post
    Evolutionist called Behe's work obsolete before they ever read his work. They aren't interested in truth.

    I have yet to read one rebuttal to IC that doesn't begin with a straw-man. Maybe you could present one here.
    Quote Originally Posted by SUTG
    Read the transcripts of the Dover Trial. Quite embarrassing, really.

  14. #29
    Over 500 post club Evoken's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    510
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 9 Times in 8 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by SUTG View Post
    No-one worth their salt in the scientific world spends any time discussing behe.
    I guess Thornhill and Ussery are not worth their salt since they spent time discussing Behe in their paper "A classification of possible routes of Darwinian evolution."


    Evo

  15. #30
    Over 750 post club
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    960
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by Evoken
    Now show a peer-reviewed paper, that has been pusblished in a scientific journal describing the evolution of an IC structure.
    Glenn R. Johnson and Jim C. Spain 2003. “Evolution of catabolic pathways for synthetic compounds: bacterial pathways for degradation of 2,4-dinitrotoluene and nitrobenzene.” Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 62(2-3), pp. 110-123

    Glenn R. Johnson, Rakesh K. Jain, and Jim C. Spain 2003. “Origins of the 2,4-Dinitrotoluene Pathway.” Journal of Bacteriology, 184(15), pp. 4219-4232

    Quote Originally Posted by Evoken
    Wether you like it or not, Michael Behe's claim about irreducible complexity IS a valid scientific concept and a genuine objection to evolutionary explanations.
    I don't feel it's a strong idea at all because it relies on the assumption that all parts in a system always serve the same purpose. We know this is not the case. Even when I was in my senior year of high school (still an ardent YEC), I knew instantly the "work-around" would be simply to have alternate functions.
    “There's nothing I like less than bad arguments for a view that I hold dear.” - Daniel Dennett

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us