S
Sair
Guest
But he has the “sciency” credentials that religious believers think will carry some clout with unbelievers. Guess he can be appropriated when required…
- Status
Wow.
Just how old is this guy?
C
chessmane4e5
Guest
"Macro-evolution is nothing but lots and lots of “micro-evolution”!
Code:
Such a point of view is simply untenable, and it denotes a complete misunderstanding of the nature of function. Macroevolution, in all its possible meanings, implies the emergence of new complex functions. A function is not the simplistic sum of a great number of “elementary” sub-functions: sub-functions have to be interfaced and coherently integrated to give a smoothly performing whole. In the same way, macroevolution is not the mere sum of elementary microevolutionary events.
A computer program, for instance, is not the sum of simple instructions. Even if it is composed ultimately of simple instructions, the information-processing capacity of the software depends on the special, complex order of those instructions. You will never obtain a complex computer program by randomly assembling elementary instructions or modules of such instructions.
In the same way, macroevolution cannot be a linear, simple or random accumulation of microevolutionary steps.
Microevolution, in all its known examples (antibiotic resistance, and similar) is made of simple variations, which are selectable for the immediate advantage connected to them. But a new functional protein cannot be built by simple selectable variations, no more than a poem can be created by random variations of single letters, or a software written by a sequence of elementary (bit-like) random variations, each of them improving the “function” of the software.
Function simply does not work that way. Function derives from higher levels of order and connection, which cannot emerge from a random accumulation of micro-variations. As the complexity (number of bits) of the functional sequence increases, the search space increases exponentially, rapidly denying any chance of random exploration of the space itself.
S
Sair
Guest
The grains-of-sand-in-a-pile analogy was intended to point out the flaw in arbitrarily drawing a line between ‘micro’ and ‘macro’ evolution. It was not intended to imply that accumulation of genetic changes is linear, simple or random. It is none of these things, nor does the fact that many small changes manifest as larger changes over time and across populations imply that it is a linear or random process.
R
rossum
Guest
Your continued failure to produce any scientific evidence at all for ID should by now be becoming an embarrassment to you. Where is your evidence? What basis do you have for supporting ID? Where are your ID experiments? Where are your ID calculations? Where is anything at all beyond “It sure looks designed to me” and “I don’t like evolution so it can’t be right”.
You have been completely fooled by the snake oil salesmen of the Discovery Institute. You have nothing to support ID, and your continued failure to provide any evidence for ID just confirms that you have nothing.
As to 20,000 years. You actually need to go and read the Behe paper. You don’t even need to read the whole paper, you just need to read the Abstract. If you still don’t fully understand the 20,000 year figure then read Professor Behe’s evidence from the Kitzmiller case where this paper was discussed. Sometime on day 12 IIRC.
Your antics here only serve to show that ID is a hollow sham masquerading as science.
rossum
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
rossum
The title of the article you referenced is:
“Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions”
How is that proof when it says only “plausible”?
Why can’t Intelligent Design also be “plausible”?
Just because you say it can’t?
You also did not provide proof that ID is not plausible.
Michael Behe and others have provided such proof. Whether you accept it as conclusive is irrelevant. It is still plausible.
Isaac Newton, using common sense, also found intelligent design plausible and atheism entirely implausible.
By the way, the “Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions” was an intelligently designed study, right?
youtube.com/watch?v=vTkkPG7uhbs&feature=player_embedded
The title of the article you referenced is:
“Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions”
How is that proof when it says only “plausible”?
Why can’t Intelligent Design also be “plausible”?
Just because you say it can’t?
You also did not provide proof that ID is not plausible.
Michael Behe and others have provided such proof. Whether you accept it as conclusive is irrelevant. It is still plausible.
Isaac Newton, using common sense, also found intelligent design plausible and atheism entirely implausible.
By the way, the “Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions” was an intelligently designed study, right?
youtube.com/watch?v=vTkkPG7uhbs&feature=player_embedded
Is that because you can’t explain it either?
I mean come on…we are going to say that these systems can evolve (even though this is only theory we somehow know) but then turn around and say it takes 20,000 years to do it.
This amount of time precludes any lab having duplicated the effort.
You really stepped in it this time.
The time required precludes testability.
All of the reasons you have specified of ID to make it a non-science this is guilty of in spades.
I invite you to step back a minute from this 20,000 year precipice and have a laugh with me.
A
AntiTheist
Guest
Is this ridiculous thread still going on?
Francis Collins – former head of the human genome project and a Christian – has said that DNA evidence alone is sufficient to confirm evolution from common ancestors.
But we have more than DNA evidence, of course. We have fossils, comparative anatomy, the application of the theory to produce vaccines, geographical distribution of species, and more.
There’s so much evidence that evolution is true that to deny it you have to actually put your fingers in your ears and chant “la la la la la” at the top of your lungs. Collins is also on record as saying that “nothing in biology makes sense without evolution.”
As Rossum has been saying, as soon as ID produces some evidence comparable to the mountains of evidence that support evolution, then there’ll be something to talk about. Until then, it’s just a bunch of ear-pluggers chanting “la la la la la.”
Francis Collins – former head of the human genome project and a Christian – has said that DNA evidence alone is sufficient to confirm evolution from common ancestors.
But we have more than DNA evidence, of course. We have fossils, comparative anatomy, the application of the theory to produce vaccines, geographical distribution of species, and more.
There’s so much evidence that evolution is true that to deny it you have to actually put your fingers in your ears and chant “la la la la la” at the top of your lungs. Collins is also on record as saying that “nothing in biology makes sense without evolution.”
As Rossum has been saying, as soon as ID produces some evidence comparable to the mountains of evidence that support evolution, then there’ll be something to talk about. Until then, it’s just a bunch of ear-pluggers chanting “la la la la la.”
R
rossum
Guest
Proof is for mathematics, not science. If you do not understand science then you are in the wrong discussion. The word “plausible” is used here because the scientists writing the article have a great respect for the truth. We do not know exactly what conditions were on Earth before life arose. Because we do not know exactly scientists cannot be definite. 95% sure is not exact, but it is “plausible”.
Show me the papers and I will tell you. Where are your references? I can provide you with references, why can’t you provide me with references?
Professor Behe has shown that IC systems can evolve. Behe and Snoke (2004). Read it.
Isaac Newton, using common sense, also found trinitarianism entirely implausible. His theory of gravity was wrong, as shown by Einstein. Arguments from authority do not cut it in science. Darwin made mistakes in Origins. He didn’t know about DNA for example.
I built an intelligently designed model of God in my back garden. So God must be designed as well then?By the way, the “Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions” was an intelligently designed study, right?
rossum
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
rossum
Proof is for mathematics, not science. If you do not understand science then you are in the wrong discussion. The word “plausible” is used here because the scientists writing the article have a great respect for the truth. We do not know exactly what conditions were on Earth before life arose. Because we do not know exactly scientists cannot be definite. 95% sure is not exact, but it is “plausible”.
Exactly, you don’t know what conditions were on earth before life arose. It is all, therefore, theory as to how life arose. It certainly did not arise by evolution. There was nothing to evolve from!
Also, your notion that Isaac Newton couldn’t think straight about hardly anything is laughable in the extreme. What a silly put-down artist you are! A 2005 Royal Society survey ranked him above Einstein as a scientist. What does that make you to speak so disparagingly of him?
You don’t have to be a biologist to draw the conclusion that the universe and everything in it is intelligently designed. You can be an evolutionist and still believe that evolution is intelligently designed. You can be a biologist or a physicist and still believe that the universe and everything in it is intelligently designed.
Only with the scientism of a Richard Dawkins do you get the argument that nothing can be intelligently designed except what Richard Dawkins intelligently designs.
Proof is for mathematics, not science. If you do not understand science then you are in the wrong discussion. The word “plausible” is used here because the scientists writing the article have a great respect for the truth. We do not know exactly what conditions were on Earth before life arose. Because we do not know exactly scientists cannot be definite. 95% sure is not exact, but it is “plausible”.
Exactly, you don’t know what conditions were on earth before life arose. It is all, therefore, theory as to how life arose. It certainly did not arise by evolution. There was nothing to evolve from!
Also, your notion that Isaac Newton couldn’t think straight about hardly anything is laughable in the extreme. What a silly put-down artist you are! A 2005 Royal Society survey ranked him above Einstein as a scientist. What does that make you to speak so disparagingly of him?
You don’t have to be a biologist to draw the conclusion that the universe and everything in it is intelligently designed. You can be an evolutionist and still believe that evolution is intelligently designed. You can be a biologist or a physicist and still believe that the universe and everything in it is intelligently designed.
Only with the scientism of a Richard Dawkins do you get the argument that nothing can be intelligently designed except what Richard Dawkins intelligently designs.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
rossum
Show me the papers and I will tell you. Where are your references? I can provide you with references, why can’t you provide me with references?
You gave me a single reference which offered a “plausible” theory without proof. Big deal!
I gave you a single reference from Isaac Newton.
We’re even.
Show me the papers and I will tell you. Where are your references? I can provide you with references, why can’t you provide me with references?
You gave me a single reference which offered a “plausible” theory without proof. Big deal!
I gave you a single reference from Isaac Newton.
We’re even.
R
rossum
Guest
Firstly, you continue to fail to respond to my requests for evidence for ID. All you can do it to try to pick holes in evolution. You cannot prove astrology by picking holes in astronomy.
So, since you have obviously not understood Professor Behe’s paper, I will try to explain it to you. Pay attention now.
First look at the title of the paper. You did read the title, didn’t you? Look at the first word of the title. Is says “Simulating”. Do you know what “simulating” means? If you don’t know then you should go and look it up in a dictionary. In this context it means that Professor Behe ran a computer model, as he himself explains in the section of his paper titled “The Model”. Did you read that section of the paper? Do you know what “model” means in this context? The figure of 20,000 years is the result of the calculations within Professor Behe’s own computer model. Now, what part of “simulating” and “model” do you still have a problem with?
Here is the relevant section of Behe’s abstract:We conclude that, in general, to be fixed in 10[sup]8[/sup] generations, the production of novel protein features that require the participation of two or more amino acid residues simply by multiple point mutations in duplicated genes would entail population sizes of no less than 10[sup]9[/sup].
Did you read that? Did you understand it? Did you understand that the part “10[sup]8[/sup] generations” refers to the passage of time? Do you know that “10[sup]8[/sup]” is equivalent to the number 100,000,000? You are allowed not to know offhand that 100,000,000 generations of a typical bacterium will take around 20,000 years. That is why I referred you to the Kitzmiller evidence where, under oath, Professor Behe agreed to the 20,000 year figure while discussing this very paper in his evidence.
Believe you me I am not laughing with you. You have been lied to by the scamsters at the Discovery Institute. You are out of your depth here; you do not know enough about science to be able to engage in a reasonable discussion. You have insufficient understanding of the basics of science. You either cannot understand, or do not read, the references I post.
You have nothing but failed attempts to poke holes in papers that you do not fully comprehend. ID has nothing that establishes it as science. IC was a failure, an interesting and useful failure but in the end a failure. CSI never got off the ground. ID has no reliable scientific method of detecting design.
Yes, I am getting irritated by your antics. Post some scientific support for ID or go away and learn some more science. At the moment all you are doing is making ID look even sillier than it already is.
rossum
meltzerboy
New member
Why are intelligent design (not as outlined by the Discovery Institute, but as a concept in itself) and evolutionary science so incompatible in the first place? The mechanism of evolution might very well have been initiated by G-d. Judaism has no problem with the theory of evolution (except for SOME of the Orthodox, when it totally disposes of G-d who created the mechanism) as a biological process. Does current evolutionary theory flatly state that G-d cannot have originated the process?Proof is for mathematics, not science. If you do not understand science then you are in the wrong discussion. The word “plausible” is used here because the scientists writing the article have a great respect for the truth. We do not know exactly what conditions were on Earth before life arose. Because we do not know exactly scientists cannot be definite. 95% sure is not exact, but it is “plausible”.
Show me the papers and I will tell you. Where are your references? I can provide you with references, why can’t you provide me with references?
Professor Behe has shown that IC systems can evolve. Behe and Snoke (2004). Read it.
Isaac Newton, using common sense, also found trinitarianism entirely implausible. His theory of gravity was wrong, as shown by Einstein. Arguments from authority do not cut it in science. Darwin made mistakes in Origins. He didn’t know about DNA for example.
I built an intelligently designed model of God in my back garden. So God must be designed as well then?
rossum
The part where proven fact is claimed by simulation and model instead of actual testable experimentation.
I am really surprised you do not have the same issue with it.
R
rossum
Guest
Neither do you, so you cannot say whether or not your proposed designer was able to design anything in those conditions, whatever they were. ID falls at the first hurdle because you have no proof that the designer was able to cope with the conditions at the time.
Nobody with any sense claims that life arose by evolution. The origin of life from non-life is called “abiogenesis”. Evolution explains the origin of species (hey, I’m sure there’s a book title in there somewhere). Abiogenesis explains the origin of life. The Powner et al paper is part of ongoing abiogenesis research.
He was a great physicist; he was not a great biologist. Darwin was a better biologist than Newton. Newton’s opinion on ID is not scientific data in support of ID.
That is just another version of “it sure looks designed to me”. I don’t want opinion polls, I want scientific data. Where is your data? What did the designer do? When did he/she/it/they do it? What method(s) did he/she/it/they use? Could it be that you don’t have any data? Oh what a pity. You will have to go away and try to persuade the Discovery Institute to stop spending all their money on propaganda and start spending some on actual scientific research.
Your misrepresentation of what Dawkins says reflects more on you than on Dawkins. Lots of things are designed; what we do not have any proven examples of a things that are designed by the proposed ID designer. Where is your evidence of the work of this supposed designer that ID is always talking about? Show me some evidence.
rossum
Having taken a step back to read the entire post and take in the entirety of the vehemence and non-charity demonstrated, all I can say is wow.
The sheer volume of ad hominem in the single post is noteworthy if for no other reason then I have never seen that much directed towards me at one time before.
I recall many posts ago advising you that your credibility is on the line.
I do not believe it is any longer.
R
rossum
Guest
Show me one ID paper that is a direct experiment, not a simulation or a model, that demonstrates the ID designer at work. Just one.
You are inconsistent is you demand a higher standard from the evolution side than you do from the ID side.
You have no data and are frantically trying to cover up your lack of data.
Where are your ID experiments? Where are your ID references?
rossum
They aren’t.
It is when evolution is accepted as fact that problems arise.
Likewise ID.
In point of fact, there are no witnesses for either that can attest to the fact.
There is only speculation on either side. Some speculate well and explain much.
Others speculate poorly.
I happen to believe that ID offers a better explanation for what I see then evolution.
R
rossum
Guest
You are correct. I talked about this in post #12 on this thread.
The incompatibility is between evolution and the ID version of Intelligent Design. As scientists like Francis Collins and Ken Miller show there is no necessary incompatibility between the general concept if ID and belief in a creator God.
“God created the world and evolution was one of the methods He used.”
rossum
Is that how it works?
We cannot critically examine evolution without pulling out experimentation for ID?
Sorry, but that is a science I do not subscribe to.
If evolution cannot stand the scrutiny, then it simply cannot.
It has nothing to do with ID.
I think we need to step back and consider who has claimed fact that which is only demonstrated in models but never seen or tested in the real world.
Actually, I am simply scrutinizing evolution.
If evolution cannot stand the scrutiny, then it simply cannot.
Why do you keep crying out for data from the ID side of the argument rather then answer the scrutiny?
Do you really believe people will believe evolution if you can disprove ID?
If that is the case, you are mistaken. Evolution must stand or fall alone.
- Status