WOW Look how complicated bacterial flagellum is. I can't understand how this could have evolved, so therefore that means God did it! Talking snakes and donkeys exist! World is 6000 years old! Pray with me now. AMEN!
@jameskguy lmao dude that is what the overall argument is. It is always using argument along the line of "i can't understand how this could have come about naturally, so therefore it must have been work of the divine". You can't deny it.
@Casshyr Complexity coupled with ignorance is not how ID is inferred. While complexity is a factor, it is an insufficient one. Specificity is also required (e.g. a function). And rather than ignorance, we already KNOW that intelligent activity is capable of designing such complex functions. And we can observe the limitations of chemistry and physics. Contrarily, we have NEVER OBSERVED a mindless material process to be capable to form even one specified & complex feature (or function).
The Flagella is just a derivation (evolution) of the needle which is a derivation of transporter !
Evolution occurs by steps and by natural selection... The flagella as never been "designed" to get this function, it's just the product of random mutations.
"Who designed the designer?" An important question. However it's also a realization that every worldview of origins potentially has infinite regress. Infinite regress is illogical. So to avoid that, all worldviews must postulate some first cause without verification. It's either (1) God always existed, or (2) The Universe always existed. Science shows at present that nonintelligent processes are grossly inadequate to explain life. Thus belief in materialism is problematic.
"the big bang makes a lot more sense than genesis"
Science knows of no processes whereby natural laws are able to explain how life can come to originate "naturally". When you say that natural processes make more sense than the Genesis account, that's the opinion based on the philosophical worldview of materialism (that excludes designers). We must evaluate which worldview makes more sense. Genesis allows for a designer, but materialism doesn't. So Genesis makes more sense.
@tubewatch59 But it's plainly obvious that one doesnt need to have a designer by Charles Darwin's theory, listen i know you have like 4 buzzwords that you hang on to because they make you seem smart but that doesnt work on me... intelligent design is not science.. nor does it have any predictive validity. Evolution does.
Not all buzzwords (or phrases) are wrong :) Here's one: Evolution correctly explains the "survival of the fittest". But what it has been quite unable to explain is this: THE ARRIVAL OF THE FITTEST.
Evolution depends on random mutations for that. Natural selection can only assist when some useful machine or organ has been created from random mutations. From IC considerations we now have realized that "parts of machines" are in almost all cases, unlikely to be useful.
But it's not just that. Even if parts of machines were useful in simple ways, we're still overwhelmingly unlikely to be able to stitch all of those parts together into a useful whole. The problem is that even parts of machines (the individual proteins) are only functional for a tiny tiny proportion of the possible arrangements. A designerless process like evolution can't know which are the functional configurations! It can easily be shown such evolution takes too long.
There's a website linked to at the top of this video called "detecting design". He has an article in there entitled "trillions upon trillions of years" which is a detailed explanation of why it takes far too long (about a million trillion trillion years) just to evolutionarily find the last 50 amino acids in a 1000 aa protein complex that already has 950 aa in the "correct" functional configuration. Here, "correct" means those rare configurations that the functional ones.
Douglas Axe did some research that is peer reviewed, which shows how this is an even more difficult problem for ambiogenesis. He found that of all the sequence space that amino acids could combine into, for a protein of short or nominal length (~150aa), that only about 1 in 10^70 combinations could even fold into a viable protein! The rest don't fold. This alone seems to be a lethal problem to any notion of spontaneous life forming from the conjectured primordial goo.
Yes, Axe's work is a detailed experimental demonstration (for proteins) of the truism that there are always going to be many many more ways that a system can be arranged so that it DOES NOT CARRY OUT some particular function, than there are ways to arrange it so that it WILL CARRY OUT that function.
The more complex the system is, the greater is that ratio of nonfunctional to functional arrangements (with respect to the carrying out of some particular function).
The main problems for abiogenesis and evolution (both mindless, goaless natural processes), is how they could have ever managed to find the ultra-rare arrangements of chemicals that manage to carry out functions important to life. It's not too difficult to demonstrate that the improbabilities of this scenario happening (just once, let alone hundreds of thousands of times) make it untenable. There's just not enough materials and time available for it to be considered feasible.
@Xero555000 ". intelligent design is not science.. nor does it have any predictive validity. Evolution does."
Interesting claim. So, please describe only three non-trivial & unique prediction that the Darwinian theory of evolution (i.e. the theory of common descent) makes. 2) And as a supposed science, identify where this same theory has lead to any unique scientific discoveries or developments that benefit man in some non-trivial way.
Note that materialism (which also implies atheism) is a philosophical worldview that has not been verified by science. Of course, theism is also a philsophical worldview that hasn't been verified by science either.
But since science CAN investigate some of the predictions of materialism (ie. that life must be able to naturally originate from non-life), then since we find that such predictions are problematic, then it's quite reasonable to infer to the theistic worldview.
@tubewatch59 They have produced simple amino acids and DNA from inorganic molecules and gases, and because DNA is self replicating, there is no reason that life cant come from nonlife
"... have produced simple amino acids and DNA from inorganic ..."
"Simple" being the relevant descriptor of what has been produced via natual means. Natural processes can produce simple non-functional amino acids etc. But natural processs don't produce the sophistication we see in life. And we also know by now that life has to be extraordinarily complex, just in order to have many functional systems to protect itself from the environment, let alone the other processes.
"Irreducible complexity has already been torn to shreds."
You won't be able to back that statement up with any good arguments. Your side is as unscientific as anything else going around, because it believes in too many just so stories and unfalsifiable hypotheses for it to be real science. What you believe in "sounds" as if it's scientific, but it really isn't. You need to think about the fact that much of your worldview hasn't been verified by science. It's just opinion.
@Xero555000 At least you can understand some of the Bible. Now read the part where Jesus said unless you repent and turn to Him you will die in your sins. Jesus said, " you will not come to me that you might be saved." Jesus did not say, " you cannot come to me that you might be saved." It is a question of the will. Will you come to Jesus and be saved?
@Xero555000 10 commandments? The whole law is 613 and if you break one, according to the Bible you break all 613. You will either be saved by Jesus Christ or judged according to the whole law, all 613. The choice is yours.
@rbosre listen... the "irreducible complexity" argument does not hold water... who say that we are spitting in God's face by believing in evolution? As a scientist I thank Him every day for all of the mysteries He left for us to unfold. Personally, I think it would be a slap in the face of God to believe the Bible word for word, considering that would do nothing but breed intolerance and hatred among his creations.
@Xero555000 I did not make up 613 commandments of the Mosaic law. If you has studied God's word you would know something as rudimentary as that. I asked you what will you do with Jesus. Either nyou are in or out. He said you can't straddle the fence. You use evolution to hide behind the simple fact..you don't know Jesus in a personal way, for had you, you would have made the post concerning salvation in Jesus Christ. For there is no other name whereby we must be saved.
@rbosre Listen, i know that it's tempting and easy to not think for yourself and have all of the thinking done for you, but you have no right to say who is an isnt going to heaven for the simple reason that the bible was written by human beings! Do you read the Quran? Where do you get off saying that yours is the "one true God" grow the fuck up... and realize that no one gives a fuck what you believe, least of all God, just be nice to people and try to better the human race, dont hold it back
@Xero555000 You quoted the Bible and I gave you what Jesus said. If you can't take it that is your problem. Jesus said it Himself, " I AM the way, the truth, and the life and NO MAN comes to the Father except through Me". That is about as plain as the Bible makes my friend. It's God's way or the highway. I have studied the Quran and not one word of love from God. It is a book of murder and slavery and those that adhere to it will surely perish. That's just the way it is. Get over it or under it.
@rbosre Did he say that? Or was it written down in a book... once you come to grips with the fact that those two are not the same... then you will be an enlightened human being
@Xero555000 It was recorded by eye witnesses and according to Dr. Simon Greenleaf who taught law and wrote the book on evidence that can be presented in a court of law, the gospels were written by eye witnesses to the fact and have never been disproven. I have been enlightened by the salvation offered only through Jesus Christ. You aught to try it because whom the Son sets free is free indeed.
@rbosre Why do all evangelists sound like idiots? This argument has gotten completely off topic, your argument boils down to... It's not in the Bible so it isnt true, and that is found to be self-evidently false. Also, your second argument is "I dun understand it... so gawd musta dun it!"
@Xero555000 I just got back into town from hunting and I read your post to me. Truth is truth no matter where it comes from. Even the Bible quote a heathen poet because he said certain gentiles were lazy and fatsos. I never said " I dun understand it..so gawd musta dun it". You are dodging the question and that is.." what will you do with Jesus". He will either be your Savior or your judge and you will decide which it shall be. You decide where you will spend eternity. May God have mercy on you.
@Xero555000 I wasn't talking about "irreducible complexity", you were. I was talking about salvation through Jesus Christ alone and none other. You want to run rabbits..well..Run Forrest Run.
@Xero555000 You know better than that and besides, you already know what Jesus said. If you don't want salvation through Jesus Christ is your decision and it will be for eternity. Remember you have made it and you will live with it.
@rbosre same goes for you! seems like you're putting all your eggs in one basket by being an intolerant redneck while still preaching Jesus Christ... He probably doesnt approve of hypocracy
@Xero555000 This has nothing to do with intolerance, it has to do with truth and Jesus being Who He claimed to be, God in the flesh. You can be cute all you want with your little snide remarks like "intolerant redneck". You don't know anything about me but I know alot about you. 1st you are full of pride and the Lord will not tolerate pride. 2nd you think you have all the answers when in fact you are missing the most important thing, salvation in Jesus Christ ALONE. 3-you will pay a heavy price.
@rbosre actually.. you've just described yourself let me explain 1. You are full of pride in that you are speaking authoritatively on God's behalf. 2 You think you have all the answers because you attribute everything to God. 3. 1 and 2 speak for themselves when it comes to your swift and painful justice
@Xero555000 Let me "spalin" something to you my friend. I speak for no one let alone God. He speaks loudly and clearly for Himself and He says this, " I AM(God) the way, the truth and the life, and NO man comes unto the Father EXCEPT through me(Jesus)."
" Unless you repent and believe that I AM(God) you WILL die in your sins". "Therefore there is no other name whereby we MUST be saved". Now that is simple enough even for someone like you to understand. When God speaks have enough sense to hear.
@rbosre You didnt explain anything... you just quoted... that's the first thing you need to learn that a quote is not an explanation... you have to look deeper than that
@Xero555000 I don't have to look "deeper" or from any other source. I quote directly from the lips of Jesus. You are the one that needs to look deeper. Either Jesus will be your Savior or He will be your judge. Any fool that can read can read what Jesus said and understand His words. Jesus said, " you will not come to me that you might be saved". Jesus did not say, "you cannot come to me that you might be saved". It is a question of the will. Your WILL will decide where you spend eternity,
@rbosre oh really? Jesus wrote the Bible? Last I checked it was written by a whole host of people all with different agendas and translated by English monks who also had their own agenda... unless you've read the dead sea scrolls in their original language... you have no idea what the Bible actually says, let alone if Jesus said it.
@Xero555000 I have not called you names because I have tried to keep a certain decorum. I never said Jesus wrote the Bible. Evidently you have not studied the Bible for the post you made shows your lack of knowledge about the word of God. How sad.
People like you never cease to amaze me with their lack of knowledge of the Bible and you fall into that mold. You have not studied classical history in Hebrew or Greek and it shows. I should not slam you for your ignorance but make better post.
@rbosre You said... "from the lips of Jesus" not everything from the Bible is "from the lips of Jesus" you were implying that Jesus wrote the Bible.. and no I havent studied Greek or Hebrew... and I feel like it's safe to say that you havent either. I study chemistry and mathematics and how the world works... you know jesus was trying to abolish religion? He called the self righteous fools... seems you fall into that mold.. "you dun speek jewbrew or greak! herp derp!"
@Xero555000 Typical atheistic jargon. When you don't have a decent arguement go for the out of context quote, then call the person you can't rebut names to hide your ignorance. I really like the chemistry & math line, I see some of you do that when you have no foot to stand on. I have studied greek and hebrew also, the customs, the syntax, context, and grammar of the NT. When you can talk like a grown-up and leave a coherent post I'll be more than happy to converse with you.
@rbosre No.. pretty sure the bible says sex slavery is ok.. if you're going to say that the bible is the only thing that matters... you can't pick and choose what you believe when it's expedient... listen evolution has proof without certainty... idiots like you have certainty without proof... see the difference?
Tube, have a Merry Christmas my brother and all my brothers and sisters around the world, may our Lord smile on you and your family at this time of celebration and great joy.
How is this evolution's nightmare and demise? Irreducible complexity? Wouldn't all these proteins then be non-functional when you take them apart? If you take out 40 of these proteins you get a functional type 3 secretory system.
@haohyou12 How long did it take to make our eyes? Evolutionists say 120 million years. I guess we laid around for a 120 million years blind. What about the brain? Where does consciousness come from? Where does the plant life come from? Don't tell me non-organic life because there is no such thing as non-organic life. Everything came from nothing and consciousness came from non-consciousness. C'mom man use your brain. Odds against evolution 10 to the 220 power. More than all the atoms in the univ
@rbosre My, what a painful and astounding lack of understanding you have for what the theory actually proposes and how probability and logistics actually work; you are an embarrassingly vacuous individual.
@haohyou12 You did speak one truth in your post. Evolution is a theory, not a fact.
I don't have enough faith to believe in evolution even after all the years I had to endure that crap in school. Teachers and profs could not or would answer simple little questions. You have more faith than I do I guess and I envy you for the amount of faith you have to have to believe in evolution.
@rbosre I just cannot muster the will to care about educating you; what I will say is you have an extremely perverted understanding of how science works, logistics and probability work, what the theory of evolution proposes, and even what a scientific theory is. You are wrong; it is that simple. Whether by accident or virtue of denial you misunderstand what people with real understandings of these subjects teach and know. That is a fact; you are wrong. Educate yourself and try again.
@rbosre And this is something I never do, but I reserve this privilege for you: LOL. When I see someone type lol I lose some respect for them but I literally laughed at my computer."They still can't tell you how we have all this vegetation came from."That's your big hitter? Plants? Hahahaha, we have a very intimate knowledge of the evolution of plants.What are you talking about? Do you actually believe biologists are scratching their heads over plants? "FUCKING PLANTS, HOW DO THEY WORK??" Hahaha
@haohyou12 There is no sense in discussing anything with someone that can't carry on a conversation without you revealing your IQ and shoe size to be the same..9D.
@rbosre Haha, delusional and vacuous. About, "I heard a PHD say his right hand came from a comet and his left hand from an exploding star." He's not far off the mark. Where do you think the minerals we use come from? Rocks, salts,etc. Early earth was bombarded with comets. And about 300mil yrs aft the big bang adiabatic cooling allowed atoms to condense forming H and He. These made stars which made every other element. Every piece of matter in you was once in a star.
@rbosre Seriously, haha, shoe size IQ's, crack pipe? Bargain bag insults that can be applied to anyone for any reason don't, as much as your delusions may hope, make anyone irritated. Least of all ones that attempt to insult my intelligence when they come from you, someone who believes irreducible complexity and tried to back it up with a probability of evolution figure, haha.
@Xibons You've done this so I can hear why it's why wrong as well? I didn't base my opinion of this matter on youtube videos, in particular this one. I've read numerous peer reviews and studies and articles of research showing why the hypothesis does not hold up. Perhaps you should do the same; there are quite a number of reasons why it is wrong.
@rbosre I can't imagine what it must be like to have such a simple, dull mind. I guess that's why you find the stories in the bible without any explanatory power to be sufficient. Reality is far more complex, beautiful, and mysterious than your biblical philosophy would ever allow. Do no be so conceited to presume your dull, simple, uninspired god story is all there is.
Also, get better at insults; that shoe thing was abysmal.
Plants, hahahaha. I'd never heard that one, thanks for the laugh.
The reason this video has no sound is that the people who made it cannot actullay make an argument against evolution. Ask a biologist, the title of the vid is absolute bullshit. Is it odd that the scientists agree that evolution is real, and 99.9%+ of the time the people who say that evolution is untrue have no scientific background whatsoever? Dolts.
@PalulukanMakto Since I am not a biologist can you please explain to me how life came from nothing or how the universe came from nothing? How non-life exploded in the Cambrian layer from nothing?
@rbosre We don't know what the universe came from or IF it came from something. Out of the entire human race - if anyone were to say that they do know, they would be lying. We do, however, know what came AFTER the bang (this is what the Big Bang theory is actually about). We can actually track stars and galaxies moving apart, and we can track the speed at which they are doing it. If you rewind the movie that is the universe, everything comes closer and closer together at a rate that is (cont)
if you want an explanation on biology and possible ways for life to have come to be, I recommend you read a biology textbook. There are some rather accurate online textbooks that would do the trick, I can send you a link to one if you wish (it's not letting me post this comment if I copy in the URL). It takes some reading.
The position of most biologists (say 88.8%) is they're convinced macroevolution is as well established a fact (if not more so) than gravity. The problem these biologists have, is the weak reasoning they use to justify belief in such claims. So long as the "argumentum from consensusum" is their "final word", they mostly don't bother with trying. Why is it that 88.8% of evolution advocates have no actual scientific background?
@tubewatch59 You're simply incompetenat if you think science is a BELIEF in aything. EVIDENCE is what supports evolution, it doesn't matter what someone BELIEVES is true.
BIOLOGISTS almost unanimously support evolution. Then there are people like me, who can read, understand basic biology, chemistry, anatomy, paleontology, and understand what evidence is, but don't have degrees. You'll find that there are also religious and nonreligious people who support evolution - pro IDers are all religious.
@PalulukanMakto Darwin was not a biologist, his degree was theology. This I do know about Darwin, he was a 1st rate racist. Y'all won't say the whole name of the Origin of Species. Why? Because Darwin's book speaks to black people being a "sub-species and in a letter to his son that was marrying a girl from the US, Darwin said and I quote, "you will be her nigger". She saw the bitterness and hatred in this crusty old fart and canceled their wedding. She was smarter than Darwin's son & Darwin.
@rbosre Social Darwinism has nothing to do with Evolution and is not based on science.
Many of the people who pioneered schools of sciece had little to no scientific background beforehand, they were simply highly observant in areas where others had not yet been. Like Darwin, or Einstein.
I know the difference between science and belief. Science is the study of the natural world. Belief is holding an opinion on some issue that is not fully (or even barely) understood.
Evidence cited supporting MACROevolution (not laboratory observed evolution) doesn't make the case very well in support of macroevolution. Quite often, the same evidence can be used to make a case against macroevolution.
People believe in macroevolution because they want to believe it.
John Wilkins (in the talk origins faq on macroevolution) says:
"Macroevolution is at least evolution at or above the level of speciation, but it remains an open debate among scientists whether or not it is solely the end product of microevolutionary processes or there is some other set of processes that causes higher level trends and patterns."
It's seems to be a fairly general and debated concept, so I'll define what I usually mean by it...
Here is my approach to macroevolution (MEv). Basically, microevolution (mEv) can be regarded as random mutations acted on by natural selection (mEv = RM & NS). There is also a role for the processes of evolutionary development P(EvDv), but far enough back, P(EvDv) must have originated from RM & NS if evolution is true. So though P(EvDv) may explain changes unexplainable by mEv, the P(EvDv) themselves, must be explained by RM & NS. So in theory, we reduce back to mEv...
So having (in this discussion) sidestepped the processes of evolutionary development = P(EvDv), we then look at random mutations and natural selection, which is microevolution: mEv = RM & NS.
We could refer back to a time before the P(EvDv) had supposedly evolved. So it's all just microevolution back then anyway.
So in mEv, the novel changes come from random mutations, then NS provides the guidance as to which of these novel changes get kept, or discarded. OK so far?
Given that scenario, we can say that NS selects each RM depending on what the effect is of that RM on the already existing biological organism. So the RM has an effect (bad, good or neutral) on the various already existing functional systems that make up the organism. Agree so far?
So we have a set of already existing systems or functions that are affected (or not much) by RM. RM can be considered to be modifications of these already existing functional systems. Yes?
Alright, given all of that, then as I have already said, microevolution is the effect of RM & NS. So microevolution (mEv) can explain (at least some) modifications to already existing functional systems in an organism.
What I consider macroevolution (MEv) to be, is the evolutionary processes that are supposed to give rise to NEW functional systems.
I define "new functional system" to be something that is not merely a slight modification of an existing system...
The term "slight modification" might appear to be arbitrary. Even though the idea has merit, yes, to a certain extent it is an arbitrary idea. However I can introduce Behe's idea of irreducible complexity (IC, which is the property that irreducibly complex systems have) to be a non-arbitrary example of the difference between a "new functional system" versus a "slightly modified existing system".
So I will consider MEv in this case to be the evolution of an IC system.
1. Slight changes GRADUALLY lead to large changes.
2. You bring up Irreducible Complexity: support it. I know the definition, but you (nor anyone else so far) has given an example of why something MUST be irreducibly complex, not just that it COULD.
If you're going to refer back to an unsupported hypthesis to base your belief (that's what it is unless you have evidence) of ID upon, then your argument is invalid. Cont>
@PalulukanMakto When you give an example of irreducible complexity, do not use anything that has been specifically proven NOT to be irreducibly complex. Ex: the bacterial flagellum, eyes, the Bombardier beetle, etc.
The flagellum does, in fact, have an irreducible complex core (composed of ~20 protein components). Behe defines irreducible complexity as:
"A single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts wherein removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." Behe was wrong in assuming that an IC system automatically cannot be explained by evolution. But the flagellum is IC: removal of FliG, e.g., results in a non-flagellate phenotype.
@Genomiques If that is the accepted definition of IC, then it's simply stupid to support it as any sort of opposition to evolution, because that definition of IC allows evolution to still exist, which does not support the 'other, opposing theory to evolution' (creationism/ID).
If you take the words 'irreducibly' and 'complex' and combine them into a term (irreducibly complex), most would assume that the concept does not do away with or alter the meaning of the terms that compose it.
IC doesn't automatically mean that a system could not have had evolved. However, an IC system cannot be evolved through the evolutionary mechanism of gradual improvement on just one function. Either scaffolding, cooption, or elimination of functional redundancy must be invoked to explain the origin of an IC system.
Well, the examples you have given: "do not use anything that has been specifically proven NOT to be irreducibly complex. Ex: the bacterial flagellum, eyes," haven't been "proven" not to be irreducibly complex. I see that user Genomiques has given you Behe's definition of irreducible complexity. Eyes and the bacterial flagellum (amongst a large number of other biological systems) fit those properties. It's not unusual you'd have different ideas on what IC means. (cont...)
One reason I chose a maze analogy is because it seems to fairly well represent a real situation where we have a fitness terrain that has peaks and valleys and (in the case of a maze) walls that cannot be crossed that constrain movement. But we don't HAVE to use a maze. We could have a partial maze, or even have an analogy with shifting terrain with level areas, cliffs, slopes, impassable areas, traps, rewards, etc.
"... but you (nor anyone else so far) has given an example of why something MUST be irreducibly complex, not just that it COULD."
It's not all that difficult (once a system is reasonably understood of course) to show whether or not it is IC. If it fits Behe's definition (or Dembski's updated definition, virtually the same, but discussing some ambiguous points), then the system is IC.
Note, we aren't claiming that to evolve an IC system is theoretically impossible!
In my (crude) walking analogy, it is theoretically impossible to walk to the moon from earth. However, a better analogy perhaps for evolving an IC system, might be like walking out of a maze in a given amount of time. Now if the maze is very large, then provided that the maze does actually have a path to the exit from the initial position (which may or may not be the case), and if the correct routes are chosen, then perhaps the exit will be found in the required time.
Say that for example, for some very large maze (that has a non walled off pathway to the exit from the initial starting point) we might (by taking the correct turns pretty much all of the way along maze) manage to exit it in a couple of years. So it's certainly possible to exit the maze inside a deadline of 10 years.
But what if we miss many correct turns? As a result, we'll wander around in the maze for maybe hundreds to thousands of years, thus missing the deadline!
As you can imagine, with no specific guidance as to how to get out of the maze, then it might take ages to find the exit. It would be correct to say, that for a large number of maze existing experiments, then in a small number of cases, the maze would be exited quickly, but in most cases, it would take longer to exit the maze. If there is some particular deadline time for finding an exit, then in most cases (depending on the size of the maze) the deadline will be missed.
Let's continue with the maze analogy to evolution for a while. Let's say that our decision at each turn, is analogous to a random mutation. We must take this or that exit (or maybe even go backwards).
So, what do you think is analogous to natural selection, in the maze?
Here is my answer: NS would be analogous to whether I'm doing measurably better somehow as the result of having taken a certain turn, compared to (another version of me) if I'd taken some other turn.
So we'd have to simulate a population, right? In that way, if we put a large number of individuals in the maze, then as they progress and take either the same, or different turns, then if some turns result in the individuals doing measurably better (or worse) than others who took different turns, then natural selection represents the differential fitness resulting from taking some turns versus taking other turns.
eg. taking a particular turn may lead to some hazard.
It doesn't matter whether there is a GOAL of exiting the maze, or not. Individuals wandering around in the maze, might exit the maze by the deadline, or they might not exit it. There's no goal as such (since evolution doesn't have goals). Either the maze is exited by the deadline, or it isn't.
However, goal or not, the analogy to evolving an IC system, is managing to exit the maze. The deadline, is analogous to the time taken to evolve the IC system.
(1) What do you think is the analogy to natural selection insiode the maze?
(2) Do you agree with my points so far?
(3) If not, can you elaborate on your points of disagreement? Perhaps if you have some valid points, we might even adjust the maze analogy to make it more accurate with respect to evolution.
The issue here, is whether the evolution of IC systems, is explainable in terms of mEv over time.
Some assume it must be. However as a (rather crass) analogy of whether gradualism explains all, consider the following question. Are there some positions that cannot be arrived at via walking?
Walking explains how we cross flat and hilly ground (to a limited extent) to get to most locations from any other location. BUT, we both agree that we can't "walk to the moon".
Also, here's another thing. A better analogy is that we have an infinitely large maze, and that if you are at a particular point in the maze, that represents that the individual at that point (and there may be many) does have the irreducibly complex system up and running. Assume that there are separate mazes for each biological system. eg. A certain maze to represent the flagellum. Only a small number of locations in the maze represent correctly functioning flagella....
So even though evolution has no goal as such, you do have to arrive at the particular few points in the maze that represent functioning IC systems, and if the systems didin't originally exist from the start (they couldn't have if macroevolution is true) then you do have to be able to arrive at those points from different starting points (close or far away in the maze) in order to have managed to evolve the IC system in question. Right?
So the question in biology is, are there biological systems within living organisms (analogous to a "position" in the analogy) that cannot be arrived at via microevolution (which is analogous to "walking" in the analogy).
Since positions are known to exist that cannot be walked to from certain other positions, it is at least worth investigating as to whether or not there may be some biological systems that cannot be evolved to from other (supposedly related) biosystems.
While the majority of pro-IDists are religious, it is not the case that all of them are. ID has it's fair share of agnostics. To infer design in life (and some other phenomena perhaps) doesn't automatically mean that the designer is "od" or one of many "gods". It merely holds that some kind of designer exists.
What is the nature of that designer? It's up to us to form an opinion about that.
Just as some people believe in macroevolution, some also believe in God.
@tubewatch59 Having not found ONE atheist or agnostic supporter of creationism (Intelligent Design) I'll wait for you to point one out. If you're going to stick up for something that tries to deny evolution, perhapse you could note ONE flaw in evolution? One.
I'd quote David Berlinksi as an IDist who would be an example of an agnostic (though not of course an atheist).
There would likely be some supporters of SETI, who may consider the idea that what we call God or "the gods" may just be aliens that may also have designed life on earth. (ie. Thor)! Most of these people would be agnostics and some atheists too. Most consider earth life evolved, but some partly designed, etc. The problem there is "who designed the ET's?"
@tubewatch59 Where did all the plant life come from? All the grasses around the world. All the trees, bushes, fruits, vegetables, vines, roots, mushrooms, fungi, cacti, etc. Evolutionist say all things come from one cell. What made a tree and did it spin off from a dionsaur? They cannot answer that question. They cannot answer the odds of non-life producing life. The odds of evolution actually happening are 10 to the 220 power which is double all the atoms in the known universe. Plant life?
@rbosre ACtually, they can and did. Google 'evolutionary tree of life'. The odds of non life producing life don't mtter, because we can demonstrate that inorganic molecules produce organic molecules, and organic molecules form organisms.
And the answer to your first question is no: plants didn't evolve from dinosaurs.
Before you say that someone cannot do something, try looking into your own supposition first. It might blow your mind to find out that what you think cannot be done, has.
@PalulukanMakto The so-called " tree of life" is just that..."so-called", because it is not a shred of proof of being being real. That was a drawing by Darwin and in no way shape or form has anything to do with a "tree of life". Inorganic molecules? LOL. What you call "inorganic molecules" is what real scientists call cynide and formaldehyde or as us lay people call them, embalming fluid". Now, how does "embalming fluid" produce organic molecules? Tree of life/inorganic molecules...ROTFLMBO!!!
Well, the Tree of Life now a days is constructed on the basis of 16s rRNA sequences, as well as plain ole' protein sequences. It's not something that was just thought up one night in some biologist's sleep.
"What made a tree and did it spin off from a dionsaur? They cannot answer that question."
Ha ha! In THAT particular case, they'd definitely say plants didn't come from dinosaurs.
I take your point that they tend to believe in things which haven't been demonstrated scientifically. Having decided to specifically reject the idea of a creator, they need to make the best of what material processes offer them to put together their origins theories. They have unexplained problems!!
@tubewatch59 The Bible said in Isaiah that the heatens would say they came from rocks and I heard a PHD say his right hand came from a comet and his left hand from an exploding star. How idioctic is that and this "PHD" with a doctorate degree has such a belief. I guess he has rocks in his head where his brain should be.LOL. They still can't tell you how we have all this vegetation came from. How, that's right, it's inorganic(embalming fluid) that cause all the trees, grasses, bushes, fruit/vegge
The naturalistic worldview's effects on peoples thinking is unfortunate.
As Lord Monkcton might say: It manages to take fairly reasonable deductions from the evidence, and make such deductions appear as if they are insane, while taking insane ideas and attempting to portray them as reasonable and fairly obvious facts.
I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on the front-loading hypothesis, which is a design hypothesis that incorporates evolution into the hypothesis. The front-loading hypothesis is not creationism, so someone who advocates the front-loading hypothesis (like myself) is not a creationist, even though the hypothesis involves an intelligence or intelligences.
The front-loading hypothesis suggests that the genomes of the first cells on earth contained the necessary information such that future life forms (e.g., multicelluarity) would be more probable to evolve. In other words, the first cells were designed such that they could shape future evolution.
I'm not sure what all you guys have been talking about, but it seems to be relevant to a morality issue. Observing one of you has the nickname "OrthodoxDarwinist", I find it too tempting to inject a question into your exchange: What is your position on morality compared to Tubewatch's? Specifically, do you hold that morality is objective or relative?
It's been an interesting argument about what the Bible teaches about slavery (but I admit that it is a bit far off the topic of this particular video.)
cont: Abraham's foreman was the next in line to gain all that Abraham had accumulated over his life. Slaves were not beaten like some want to portray
it's just that they are looking for a reason not to come to God and will look for anything to justify their lives. That will not wash at the GWT judgement. Everyone will bend their knees and bow their heads and confess to the glory of God that Jesus Christ is Lord whether they want to or not.
Surah 54, Ayah 49 "Verily, all things have we created in proportion and measure (perfection)." - Quran,
("And thy Lord taught the Bee to build its cells in hills, on trees, and in (men's) habitations; *Then to eat of all the produce (of the earth), and find with skill the spacious paths of its Lord: there issues from within their bodies a drink of varying colours, wherein is healing for men: verily in this is a Sign for those who give thought") (16: 68, 69).
Please watch this NOVA video if you believe that the bacterial flagellum is proof of Irreducible Complexity. It is on youtube and titled: "Irreducible Complexity? The Bacterial Flagellum."
The video doesn't quite manage to actually demonstrate that Behe's claims are incorrect. They do in fact correcftly put Behe's position in the first 4 minutes of so (which is a nice change :-)
When asked whether other scientists have "acknowledged the design features of the flagellum" Behe isn't claiming these scientists believe in creation. He's pointing out their comments (as hostile witnesses) that the flagellum does seem to resemble a machine that humans might design...
Listen to what DeRosier actually says as a response to Behe claiming that he (DeRosier) had said that the "structure of the flagellum APPEARS designed". This is what DeRosier says immediately afterwards - "What I wrote was - this is a machine that appears like it was designed by a human. But that doesn't mean it was designed."
Think about it. Did Behe misquote DeRosier? Not at all. Did Behe IMPLY that DeRosier actually believed the flagellum was designed? No he didn't...
Behe had been asked whether there were other scientists who "acknowledged the design features of the flagellum". And Behe pointed out DeRosier's satement to that effect. Behe didn't claim that DeRosier himself believed the flagellum was designed. DeRosier states the obvious here (clearly intending to distance himself from looking sympathetic to ID (and IC)). Nevertheless, DeRosier did in fact claim what Behe said he had claimed - That the flagellum had the APPEARANCE of design.
But having initially stated Behe's position correctly earlier on, in this statement at : "according to Behe, if any one of these parts is missing, the MOTOR can't function." (Note my capitalization of the word MOTOR).
However at 5:57 they state this subtly wrong version of what Behe had claimed: "Michael Behe has argued, that the flagellum could not have evolved, since it's parts have no function for natural selection to act on until they are fully assembled." (cont.)
Around the 6 minute point they subtly alter what Behe had claimed.
But just after the MOTOR quote (at 3:51) Steve Fuller correctly says: "... in other words, it was VERY UNLIKELY they could have come about through just a kind of a contingent combination of parts, over even millions or billions of years, but rather in a sense, had to be created of whole cloth, all together at once, because everything fits together so well, that to remove one part the "THING" wouldn't function."
It's pretty important to understand that what Fuller calls the THING, and what the prior quote had said about the MOTOR, are getting at the heart of what Behe had claimed. Behe DID NOT say that on taking away parts from the flagelum, that there could be no function of any kind. What Behe was referring to was the "characteristic function", which was the MOTOR function of propulsion. Take away any of the parts, and the propulsion function ceases...
You have to realize that Behe didn't say that evolution of the flagellum was impossible. But as Fuller had correctly stated, that it's evolution was VERY UNLIKELY. There's an important difference there in principle, if not in practice, because it matters as to how rebuttals to IC are framed.
Misquoting IC to claim that: "evolution of IC machines is impossible", means to rebut IC, one only need show that evolution is possible in principle - without addressing the feasibilities!
@tubewatch59 Most of what you are addressing is irrelevant. The point is that if an organ or system of organs could be slightly reduced and still serve a viable function then it is NOT irreducibly complex. The fact that it doesn't serve the same function in no way supports a valid claim against evolution, all it says is that if you change something it is no longer the same thing. I think that is fairly obvious.
"The point is that if an organ or system of organs could be slightly reduced and still serve a viable function then it is NOT irreducibly complex."
That would be true, if it was true, but it's not! Do we observe that? No. In the case of the flagellum, one must remove 30(!) proteins to get to the "similar" machine. That's not even close to being "slightly reduced"! A slightly reduced IC structure loses it's characteristic function, period. The rest is wishful speculation.
The reason IC is a really good argument for thinking that the evolution of IC machines is infeasible is because IC machines (with the requirement that they need to change their characteristic functions) is that the proces now requires there to be an indirect Darwinian pathway, instead of a direct one. That is a huge problem for evolution, because of the somewhat recent understanding that protein function is astronomically rare in sequence space...
In a direct Darwinian pathway, due to natural selection, the initial function might at least be able to preserve that function under the actions of random mutations, and perhaps even fine tune that function to a very limited extent.
With an indirect Darwinian pathway, one must depend on random mutations alone to generate each new change in function. Natual selection can only come later, after each new function appears via random mutation! That's a rather difficult problem...
It's doubly difficult, because not only do random mutations have to be depended on to find an incredibly small needle in a haystack (before which the available population sizes and billions of years pale into insignificance besides the numbers involved) but in addition each "novel function" that comes along ALSO has to be beneficial AND be able to function in an interlinked manner with what came before. It's rather easy to imagine, and extremely unlikely to occur. It's a belief!
I wanted to point out why the protein transporter (that's similar to the syringe (T3SS)) is in the flagellum. It's mainly because so much of the flagellum exists outside of the cell wall. Thus there needsto be a system capable of unfolding proteins and transporting them in their unfolded state, to a different locality (outside of the cell wall). Thus we have this particular machine there for a good reason. The syringe, is another variation on that theme of protein transporter.
@tubewatch59 As for social Darwinism being viewed as scientific at one point in time, you are wrong. If you have done ANY research regarding the issue you would find that it was a short lived idea that a very few people used to support imperialism and even among those that supported imperialism most did not support social darwinism.
I'd say Social Darwinism had the support that the belief in manmade global climate disaster has now. True, it's already fallen out of favour, but nonetheless, both had their adherents, and in the case of social Darwinism it was believed in by the elites until it was actually put into practise! Let's hope we don't see global policy to prevent the so called manmade climate disaster being put into practise also! Fear of climate, is being used to facilitate global leftist policy.
As Fuller had correctly stated of Behe's position - the IC claim is that the evolution of IC machines is VERY UNLIKELY. Therefore to rebut IC, even to address it at all, requires that one address the issue of how feasible (probable or unlikely) an evolutionary pathway to the flagellum would be.
To claim as this video does, that the existence of the syringe (similar to the protein transporter) rebuts IC, does not logically follow. They're ignoring Behe's ACTUAL claims about IC.
The argument doesn't logically follow, because if you listen to what DeRosier is saying late in the video (around 7 minutes in) he has misunderstood Behe's claims.
DeRosier (and the video) now misunderstand IC to mean the floowing: "That any subset of an IC machine can have (by definition) no functions at all. WRONG!
What IC actually says, is this: "Removing just one part (of the IC core) causes the CHARACTERISTIC FUNCTION of the IC machine to be lost." BIG DIFFERENCE!
The fact that the syringe IC machine (itself a somewhat less complex, though still very complex IC machine in it's own right) is similar to the protein transporter in the flagellum (which has an integrated motor assembly as well) is irrelevant to the claims that IC is actually making.
This is the basic claim of IC as the idea pertains to the flagellum: That any evolutionary pathway from a nonflagellum (ie. the syringe), to the flagellum, is going to be extremely improbable.
In order to begin to address the claims of IC, and attempt to rebut them, this video would have to address whether or not, various hypothetical evolutionary pathways from a nonflagellum of some kind (possibly the syringe) are going to be likely enough to happen.
As it satnds, the video didn't adress that at all. It merely pointed out that a somewhat similar machine to the flagellum, exists elsewhere. While interesting, that observation has little bearing on the claims of IC.
One can imagine that if evolution is true, that the existence of similar machines may imply a common ancestor for each. However, if intelligent design is true, then the existence of similar machines may imply that a common designer (an "ancestral design concept) has been reused in each machine.
Just pointing out one without the other, isn't really achieving too much, right? To rebut IC, one must demonstrate that such machines can feasibly evolve. The video didn't show that.
Did you ever think that maybe the non-Christians don't profess to be non-Christians while they are helping you out? That maybe they are there too, you just don't know it because they are busy helping you just because it is the right thing to do?
@archy526 What a crock you posted. I saw Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterians, Lutherns etc and I guess the atheist showed up with them incognito uh? Atheists did not show up so don't try to blow that smoke up my arse. I ain't no mullet. You are trying to cover for them when in fact they are to selfish and self centered to help the down and out. They have an evolutionary mind that others are to fall by the way-side for this is the evolutionary way...only the strong survive. Christians show first.
@rbosre So you are telling me that ONLY Christians showed up to help? And MY comment was a crock? And what makes you assume that if a person believes in evolution that they would automatically write off people as "weaker" and there for let them die? That is a fascist idea that a group of people in the early 1900's came up with. those people were called "Social Darwinists". This idea had nothing to do with science and was condemned by most people as it should have been.
WOW Look how complicated bacterial flagellum is. I can't understand how this could have evolved, so therefore that means God did it! Talking snakes and donkeys exist! World is 6000 years old! Pray with me now. AMEN!
Casshyr 1 week ago
@Casshyr Do you always make arguments using misrepresentations?
jameskguy 6 days ago
@jameskguy lmao dude that is what the overall argument is. It is always using argument along the line of "i can't understand how this could have come about naturally, so therefore it must have been work of the divine". You can't deny it.
Casshyr 6 days ago
@Casshyr Complexity coupled with ignorance is not how ID is inferred. While complexity is a factor, it is an insufficient one. Specificity is also required (e.g. a function). And rather than ignorance, we already KNOW that intelligent activity is capable of designing such complex functions. And we can observe the limitations of chemistry and physics. Contrarily, we have NEVER OBSERVED a mindless material process to be capable to form even one specified & complex feature (or function).
jameskguy 5 days ago
The Flagella is just a derivation (evolution) of the needle which is a derivation of transporter !
Evolution occurs by steps and by natural selection... The flagella as never been "designed" to get this function, it's just the product of random mutations.
Skylan393 1 week ago
who designed the designer?
that question is the demise of intelligent design
Xero555000 3 weeks ago
@Xero555000
"Who designed the designer?" An important question. However it's also a realization that every worldview of origins potentially has infinite regress. Infinite regress is illogical. So to avoid that, all worldviews must postulate some first cause without verification. It's either (1) God always existed, or (2) The Universe always existed. Science shows at present that nonintelligent processes are grossly inadequate to explain life. Thus belief in materialism is problematic.
tubewatch59 2 weeks ago
@tubewatch59 You cant just say "science shows" and not give any examples... because the big bang makes alot more sense than genesis
Xero555000 2 weeks ago
@Xero555000
"the big bang makes a lot more sense than genesis"
Science knows of no processes whereby natural laws are able to explain how life can come to originate "naturally". When you say that natural processes make more sense than the Genesis account, that's the opinion based on the philosophical worldview of materialism (that excludes designers). We must evaluate which worldview makes more sense. Genesis allows for a designer, but materialism doesn't. So Genesis makes more sense.
tubewatch59 2 weeks ago
@tubewatch59 But it's plainly obvious that one doesnt need to have a designer by Charles Darwin's theory, listen i know you have like 4 buzzwords that you hang on to because they make you seem smart but that doesnt work on me... intelligent design is not science.. nor does it have any predictive validity. Evolution does.
Xero555000 2 weeks ago
@Xero555000
Not all buzzwords (or phrases) are wrong :) Here's one: Evolution correctly explains the "survival of the fittest". But what it has been quite unable to explain is this: THE ARRIVAL OF THE FITTEST.
Evolution depends on random mutations for that. Natural selection can only assist when some useful machine or organ has been created from random mutations. From IC considerations we now have realized that "parts of machines" are in almost all cases, unlikely to be useful.
tubewatch59 2 weeks ago
@Xero555000
But it's not just that. Even if parts of machines were useful in simple ways, we're still overwhelmingly unlikely to be able to stitch all of those parts together into a useful whole. The problem is that even parts of machines (the individual proteins) are only functional for a tiny tiny proportion of the possible arrangements. A designerless process like evolution can't know which are the functional configurations! It can easily be shown such evolution takes too long.
tubewatch59 2 weeks ago
@Xero555000
There's a website linked to at the top of this video called "detecting design". He has an article in there entitled "trillions upon trillions of years" which is a detailed explanation of why it takes far too long (about a million trillion trillion years) just to evolutionarily find the last 50 amino acids in a 1000 aa protein complex that already has 950 aa in the "correct" functional configuration. Here, "correct" means those rare configurations that the functional ones.
tubewatch59 2 weeks ago
@tubewatch59
Douglas Axe did some research that is peer reviewed, which shows how this is an even more difficult problem for ambiogenesis. He found that of all the sequence space that amino acids could combine into, for a protein of short or nominal length (~150aa), that only about 1 in 10^70 combinations could even fold into a viable protein! The rest don't fold. This alone seems to be a lethal problem to any notion of spontaneous life forming from the conjectured primordial goo.
jameskguy 2 weeks ago
@jameskguy
Yes, Axe's work is a detailed experimental demonstration (for proteins) of the truism that there are always going to be many many more ways that a system can be arranged so that it DOES NOT CARRY OUT some particular function, than there are ways to arrange it so that it WILL CARRY OUT that function.
The more complex the system is, the greater is that ratio of nonfunctional to functional arrangements (with respect to the carrying out of some particular function).
tubewatch59 2 weeks ago
@jameskguy
The main problems for abiogenesis and evolution (both mindless, goaless natural processes), is how they could have ever managed to find the ultra-rare arrangements of chemicals that manage to carry out functions important to life. It's not too difficult to demonstrate that the improbabilities of this scenario happening (just once, let alone hundreds of thousands of times) make it untenable. There's just not enough materials and time available for it to be considered feasible.
tubewatch59 2 weeks ago
@Xero555000 ". intelligent design is not science.. nor does it have any predictive validity. Evolution does."
Interesting claim. So, please describe only three non-trivial & unique prediction that the Darwinian theory of evolution (i.e. the theory of common descent) makes. 2) And as a supposed science, identify where this same theory has lead to any unique scientific discoveries or developments that benefit man in some non-trivial way.
Keywords: unique and non-trivial.
jameskguy 2 weeks ago
@Xero555000
Note that materialism (which also implies atheism) is a philosophical worldview that has not been verified by science. Of course, theism is also a philsophical worldview that hasn't been verified by science either.
But since science CAN investigate some of the predictions of materialism (ie. that life must be able to naturally originate from non-life), then since we find that such predictions are problematic, then it's quite reasonable to infer to the theistic worldview.
tubewatch59 2 weeks ago
@tubewatch59 They have produced simple amino acids and DNA from inorganic molecules and gases, and because DNA is self replicating, there is no reason that life cant come from nonlife
Xero555000 2 weeks ago
@Xero555000
"... have produced simple amino acids and DNA from inorganic ..."
"Simple" being the relevant descriptor of what has been produced via natual means. Natural processes can produce simple non-functional amino acids etc. But natural processs don't produce the sophistication we see in life. And we also know by now that life has to be extraordinarily complex, just in order to have many functional systems to protect itself from the environment, let alone the other processes.
tubewatch59 2 weeks ago
Irreducible complexity has already been torn to shreds. This is a religious thread.
truvelocity 4 weeks ago
@truvelocity
"Irreducible complexity has already been torn to shreds."
You won't be able to back that statement up with any good arguments. Your side is as unscientific as anything else going around, because it believes in too many just so stories and unfalsifiable hypotheses for it to be real science. What you believe in "sounds" as if it's scientific, but it really isn't. You need to think about the fact that much of your worldview hasn't been verified by science. It's just opinion.
tubewatch59 4 weeks ago
Ugh another idiot on youtube. When are all you creationists gonna die off?
Xero555000 1 month ago
@Xero555000 They just make up shit to cover there lie !!!!
npf2135 1 month ago
@Xero555000 We will NEVER die my friend and we shall inhereit the earth. What will you inhereit....nothing.
rbosre 1 month ago
@rbosre i'm pretty sure He said the meek would inherit the Earth, not the stupid.
Xero555000 1 month ago
@Xero555000 At least you can understand some of the Bible. Now read the part where Jesus said unless you repent and turn to Him you will die in your sins. Jesus said, " you will not come to me that you might be saved." Jesus did not say, " you cannot come to me that you might be saved." It is a question of the will. Will you come to Jesus and be saved?
rbosre 1 month ago
@rbosre last i checked i wasn't breaking any of the 10 commandments by studying and believing in evolution
Xero555000 1 month ago
@Xero555000 10 commandments? The whole law is 613 and if you break one, according to the Bible you break all 613. You will either be saved by Jesus Christ or judged according to the whole law, all 613. The choice is yours.
rbosre 1 month ago
@rbosre so i'm breaking one of these new 613 commandments that you just made up... by studying and believing in evolution.
Xero555000 1 month ago
@rbosre listen... the "irreducible complexity" argument does not hold water... who say that we are spitting in God's face by believing in evolution? As a scientist I thank Him every day for all of the mysteries He left for us to unfold. Personally, I think it would be a slap in the face of God to believe the Bible word for word, considering that would do nothing but breed intolerance and hatred among his creations.
Xero555000 1 month ago
@Xero555000 I did not make up 613 commandments of the Mosaic law. If you has studied God's word you would know something as rudimentary as that. I asked you what will you do with Jesus. Either nyou are in or out. He said you can't straddle the fence. You use evolution to hide behind the simple fact..you don't know Jesus in a personal way, for had you, you would have made the post concerning salvation in Jesus Christ. For there is no other name whereby we must be saved.
rbosre 1 month ago
@rbosre Sorry i wasnt circumcised 8 days after I was born. GUESS IM GOING TO HELL!
Xero555000 1 month ago
@rbosre Listen, i know that it's tempting and easy to not think for yourself and have all of the thinking done for you, but you have no right to say who is an isnt going to heaven for the simple reason that the bible was written by human beings! Do you read the Quran? Where do you get off saying that yours is the "one true God" grow the fuck up... and realize that no one gives a fuck what you believe, least of all God, just be nice to people and try to better the human race, dont hold it back
Xero555000 1 month ago
@Xero555000 You quoted the Bible and I gave you what Jesus said. If you can't take it that is your problem. Jesus said it Himself, " I AM the way, the truth, and the life and NO MAN comes to the Father except through Me". That is about as plain as the Bible makes my friend. It's God's way or the highway. I have studied the Quran and not one word of love from God. It is a book of murder and slavery and those that adhere to it will surely perish. That's just the way it is. Get over it or under it.
rbosre 1 month ago
@rbosre Did he say that? Or was it written down in a book... once you come to grips with the fact that those two are not the same... then you will be an enlightened human being
Xero555000 1 month ago
@Xero555000 It was recorded by eye witnesses and according to Dr. Simon Greenleaf who taught law and wrote the book on evidence that can be presented in a court of law, the gospels were written by eye witnesses to the fact and have never been disproven. I have been enlightened by the salvation offered only through Jesus Christ. You aught to try it because whom the Son sets free is free indeed.
rbosre 1 month ago
@rbosre Why do all evangelists sound like idiots? This argument has gotten completely off topic, your argument boils down to... It's not in the Bible so it isnt true, and that is found to be self-evidently false. Also, your second argument is "I dun understand it... so gawd musta dun it!"
Xero555000 1 month ago
@Xero555000 I just got back into town from hunting and I read your post to me. Truth is truth no matter where it comes from. Even the Bible quote a heathen poet because he said certain gentiles were lazy and fatsos. I never said " I dun understand it..so gawd musta dun it". You are dodging the question and that is.." what will you do with Jesus". He will either be your Savior or your judge and you will decide which it shall be. You decide where you will spend eternity. May God have mercy on you.
rbosre 1 month ago
@rbosre that's what your "irreducible complexity" argument boils down to.... and of course you were hunting.. way to perpetuate the stereotype
Xero555000 1 month ago
@Xero555000 I wasn't talking about "irreducible complexity", you were. I was talking about salvation through Jesus Christ alone and none other. You want to run rabbits..well..Run Forrest Run.
rbosre 1 month ago
@rbosre no thanks... but what if i want to get my salvation for Allah? Can I get a side of redemption with that?
Xero555000 3 weeks ago
@Xero555000 You know better than that and besides, you already know what Jesus said. If you don't want salvation through Jesus Christ is your decision and it will be for eternity. Remember you have made it and you will live with it.
rbosre 3 weeks ago
@rbosre same goes for you! seems like you're putting all your eggs in one basket by being an intolerant redneck while still preaching Jesus Christ... He probably doesnt approve of hypocracy
Xero555000 3 weeks ago
@Xero555000 This has nothing to do with intolerance, it has to do with truth and Jesus being Who He claimed to be, God in the flesh. You can be cute all you want with your little snide remarks like "intolerant redneck". You don't know anything about me but I know alot about you. 1st you are full of pride and the Lord will not tolerate pride. 2nd you think you have all the answers when in fact you are missing the most important thing, salvation in Jesus Christ ALONE. 3-you will pay a heavy price.
rbosre 3 weeks ago
@rbosre actually.. you've just described yourself let me explain 1. You are full of pride in that you are speaking authoritatively on God's behalf. 2 You think you have all the answers because you attribute everything to God. 3. 1 and 2 speak for themselves when it comes to your swift and painful justice
Xero555000 3 weeks ago
@Xero555000 Let me "spalin" something to you my friend. I speak for no one let alone God. He speaks loudly and clearly for Himself and He says this, " I AM(God) the way, the truth and the life, and NO man comes unto the Father EXCEPT through me(Jesus)."
" Unless you repent and believe that I AM(God) you WILL die in your sins". "Therefore there is no other name whereby we MUST be saved". Now that is simple enough even for someone like you to understand. When God speaks have enough sense to hear.
rbosre 3 weeks ago
@rbosre You didnt explain anything... you just quoted... that's the first thing you need to learn that a quote is not an explanation... you have to look deeper than that
Xero555000 3 weeks ago
@Xero555000 I don't have to look "deeper" or from any other source. I quote directly from the lips of Jesus. You are the one that needs to look deeper. Either Jesus will be your Savior or He will be your judge. Any fool that can read can read what Jesus said and understand His words. Jesus said, " you will not come to me that you might be saved". Jesus did not say, "you cannot come to me that you might be saved". It is a question of the will. Your WILL will decide where you spend eternity,
rbosre 3 weeks ago
@rbosre oh really? Jesus wrote the Bible? Last I checked it was written by a whole host of people all with different agendas and translated by English monks who also had their own agenda... unless you've read the dead sea scrolls in their original language... you have no idea what the Bible actually says, let alone if Jesus said it.
Xero555000 3 weeks ago
@Xero555000 I have not called you names because I have tried to keep a certain decorum. I never said Jesus wrote the Bible. Evidently you have not studied the Bible for the post you made shows your lack of knowledge about the word of God. How sad.
People like you never cease to amaze me with their lack of knowledge of the Bible and you fall into that mold. You have not studied classical history in Hebrew or Greek and it shows. I should not slam you for your ignorance but make better post.
rbosre 3 weeks ago
@rbosre You said... "from the lips of Jesus" not everything from the Bible is "from the lips of Jesus" you were implying that Jesus wrote the Bible.. and no I havent studied Greek or Hebrew... and I feel like it's safe to say that you havent either. I study chemistry and mathematics and how the world works... you know jesus was trying to abolish religion? He called the self righteous fools... seems you fall into that mold.. "you dun speek jewbrew or greak! herp derp!"
Xero555000 3 weeks ago
@rbosre you know how i know you dont follow the bible to the letter... because if you did... you would advocate sex slavery... unless you do that is
Xero555000 3 weeks ago
@Xero555000 Typical atheistic jargon. When you don't have a decent arguement go for the out of context quote, then call the person you can't rebut names to hide your ignorance. I really like the chemistry & math line, I see some of you do that when you have no foot to stand on. I have studied greek and hebrew also, the customs, the syntax, context, and grammar of the NT. When you can talk like a grown-up and leave a coherent post I'll be more than happy to converse with you.
rbosre 3 weeks ago
@rbosre No.. pretty sure the bible says sex slavery is ok.. if you're going to say that the bible is the only thing that matters... you can't pick and choose what you believe when it's expedient... listen evolution has proof without certainty... idiots like you have certainty without proof... see the difference?
Xero555000 2 weeks ago
@Xero555000 You don't really whom you're speaking to do you to call me an idiot. LOL
Grow up kid. Get some sense and come back when you can talk like a grown-up.
rbosre 2 weeks ago
@rbosre who*
Xero555000 2 weeks ago
@rbosre Here... watch this you jackass... maybe you'll actually learn something... but probably not watch?v=1IAhDGYlpqY
Xero555000 3 weeks ago
Tube, have a Merry Christmas my brother and all my brothers and sisters around the world, may our Lord smile on you and your family at this time of celebration and great joy.
rbosre 1 month ago
How is this evolution's nightmare and demise? Irreducible complexity? Wouldn't all these proteins then be non-functional when you take them apart? If you take out 40 of these proteins you get a functional type 3 secretory system.
AnAverageNobody 1 month ago
אלוהים תן להיות אמיתי וכל אדם שקרן
davidmas0 1 month ago in playlist More videos from jameskguy
@davidmas0 That's all well and good considering god is one of man's greatest lies.
haohyou12 1 month ago
thou shalt not steal...videos from harvard.bear false witness...taking the sound off
thanksforthemessdick 1 month ago
Haha, irreducible has been destroyed time and again
haohyou12 1 month ago
@haohyou12 How long did it take to make our eyes? Evolutionists say 120 million years. I guess we laid around for a 120 million years blind. What about the brain? Where does consciousness come from? Where does the plant life come from? Don't tell me non-organic life because there is no such thing as non-organic life. Everything came from nothing and consciousness came from non-consciousness. C'mom man use your brain. Odds against evolution 10 to the 220 power. More than all the atoms in the univ
rbosre 1 month ago
@rbosre My, what a painful and astounding lack of understanding you have for what the theory actually proposes and how probability and logistics actually work; you are an embarrassingly vacuous individual.
haohyou12 1 month ago
@haohyou12 You did speak one truth in your post. Evolution is a theory, not a fact.
I don't have enough faith to believe in evolution even after all the years I had to endure that crap in school. Teachers and profs could not or would answer simple little questions. You have more faith than I do I guess and I envy you for the amount of faith you have to have to believe in evolution.
rbosre 1 month ago
@rbosre Hahaha, give it a rest; mind-numbingly vacuous.
haohyou12 1 month ago
@rbosre I just cannot muster the will to care about educating you; what I will say is you have an extremely perverted understanding of how science works, logistics and probability work, what the theory of evolution proposes, and even what a scientific theory is. You are wrong; it is that simple. Whether by accident or virtue of denial you misunderstand what people with real understandings of these subjects teach and know. That is a fact; you are wrong. Educate yourself and try again.
haohyou12 1 month ago
@rbosre And this is something I never do, but I reserve this privilege for you: LOL. When I see someone type lol I lose some respect for them but I literally laughed at my computer."They still can't tell you how we have all this vegetation came from."That's your big hitter? Plants? Hahahaha, we have a very intimate knowledge of the evolution of plants.What are you talking about? Do you actually believe biologists are scratching their heads over plants? "FUCKING PLANTS, HOW DO THEY WORK??" Hahaha
haohyou12 1 month ago
@haohyou12 There is no sense in discussing anything with someone that can't carry on a conversation without you revealing your IQ and shoe size to be the same..9D.
rbosre 1 month ago
@haohyou12 I see I can't carry on an adult conversation with someone that reveals their IQ to be the same size as their shoe...9D.
rbosre 1 month ago
@rbosre Haha, delusional and vacuous. About, "I heard a PHD say his right hand came from a comet and his left hand from an exploding star." He's not far off the mark. Where do you think the minerals we use come from? Rocks, salts,etc. Early earth was bombarded with comets. And about 300mil yrs aft the big bang adiabatic cooling allowed atoms to condense forming H and He. These made stars which made every other element. Every piece of matter in you was once in a star.
haohyou12 1 month ago
@haohyou12 Hey dude lay off the crack pipe.
rbosre 1 month ago
@rbosre Seriously, haha, shoe size IQ's, crack pipe? Bargain bag insults that can be applied to anyone for any reason don't, as much as your delusions may hope, make anyone irritated. Least of all ones that attempt to insult my intelligence when they come from you, someone who believes irreducible complexity and tried to back it up with a probability of evolution figure, haha.
haohyou12 1 month ago
@haohyou12
Irreducible Complexity - Why It's Real
watch?v=S4tpYozY2CM
Xibons 1 month ago
@Xibons You've done this so I can hear why it's why wrong as well? I didn't base my opinion of this matter on youtube videos, in particular this one. I've read numerous peer reviews and studies and articles of research showing why the hypothesis does not hold up. Perhaps you should do the same; there are quite a number of reasons why it is wrong.
haohyou12 1 month ago
@rbosre I can't imagine what it must be like to have such a simple, dull mind. I guess that's why you find the stories in the bible without any explanatory power to be sufficient. Reality is far more complex, beautiful, and mysterious than your biblical philosophy would ever allow. Do no be so conceited to presume your dull, simple, uninspired god story is all there is.
Also, get better at insults; that shoe thing was abysmal.
Plants, hahahaha. I'd never heard that one, thanks for the laugh.
haohyou12 1 month ago
The reason this video has no sound is that the people who made it cannot actullay make an argument against evolution. Ask a biologist, the title of the vid is absolute bullshit. Is it odd that the scientists agree that evolution is real, and 99.9%+ of the time the people who say that evolution is untrue have no scientific background whatsoever? Dolts.
PalulukanMakto 2 months ago
@PalulukanMakto Since I am not a biologist can you please explain to me how life came from nothing or how the universe came from nothing? How non-life exploded in the Cambrian layer from nothing?
rbosre 2 months ago
@rbosre We don't know what the universe came from or IF it came from something. Out of the entire human race - if anyone were to say that they do know, they would be lying. We do, however, know what came AFTER the bang (this is what the Big Bang theory is actually about). We can actually track stars and galaxies moving apart, and we can track the speed at which they are doing it. If you rewind the movie that is the universe, everything comes closer and closer together at a rate that is (cont)
PalulukanMakto 2 months ago
@rbosre entirely predicatable.
if you want an explanation on biology and possible ways for life to have come to be, I recommend you read a biology textbook. There are some rather accurate online textbooks that would do the trick, I can send you a link to one if you wish (it's not letting me post this comment if I copy in the URL). It takes some reading.
PalulukanMakto 2 months ago
@PalulukanMakto
"99.9%" - A Hermann Cain supporter? :-)
The position of most biologists (say 88.8%) is they're convinced macroevolution is as well established a fact (if not more so) than gravity. The problem these biologists have, is the weak reasoning they use to justify belief in such claims. So long as the "argumentum from consensusum" is their "final word", they mostly don't bother with trying. Why is it that 88.8% of evolution advocates have no actual scientific background?
tubewatch59 2 months ago
@tubewatch59 You're simply incompetenat if you think science is a BELIEF in aything. EVIDENCE is what supports evolution, it doesn't matter what someone BELIEVES is true.
BIOLOGISTS almost unanimously support evolution. Then there are people like me, who can read, understand basic biology, chemistry, anatomy, paleontology, and understand what evidence is, but don't have degrees. You'll find that there are also religious and nonreligious people who support evolution - pro IDers are all religious.
PalulukanMakto 2 months ago
@PalulukanMakto Darwin was not a biologist, his degree was theology. This I do know about Darwin, he was a 1st rate racist. Y'all won't say the whole name of the Origin of Species. Why? Because Darwin's book speaks to black people being a "sub-species and in a letter to his son that was marrying a girl from the US, Darwin said and I quote, "you will be her nigger". She saw the bitterness and hatred in this crusty old fart and canceled their wedding. She was smarter than Darwin's son & Darwin.
rbosre 2 months ago
@rbosre Social Darwinism has nothing to do with Evolution and is not based on science.
Many of the people who pioneered schools of sciece had little to no scientific background beforehand, they were simply highly observant in areas where others had not yet been. Like Darwin, or Einstein.
PalulukanMakto 2 months ago
@PalulukanMakto
I know the difference between science and belief. Science is the study of the natural world. Belief is holding an opinion on some issue that is not fully (or even barely) understood.
Evidence cited supporting MACROevolution (not laboratory observed evolution) doesn't make the case very well in support of macroevolution. Quite often, the same evidence can be used to make a case against macroevolution.
People believe in macroevolution because they want to believe it.
tubewatch59 2 months ago
@tubewatch59 Please define (in order to clarify) macroevolution in your own words.
PalulukanMakto 2 months ago
@PalulukanMakto
Regarding Macroevolution:
John Wilkins (in the talk origins faq on macroevolution) says:
"Macroevolution is at least evolution at or above the level of speciation, but it remains an open debate among scientists whether or not it is solely the end product of microevolutionary processes or there is some other set of processes that causes higher level trends and patterns."
It's seems to be a fairly general and debated concept, so I'll define what I usually mean by it...
tubewatch59 2 months ago
@PalulukanMakto
Here is my approach to macroevolution (MEv). Basically, microevolution (mEv) can be regarded as random mutations acted on by natural selection (mEv = RM & NS). There is also a role for the processes of evolutionary development P(EvDv), but far enough back, P(EvDv) must have originated from RM & NS if evolution is true. So though P(EvDv) may explain changes unexplainable by mEv, the P(EvDv) themselves, must be explained by RM & NS. So in theory, we reduce back to mEv...
tubewatch59 2 months ago
@PalulukanMakto
So having (in this discussion) sidestepped the processes of evolutionary development = P(EvDv), we then look at random mutations and natural selection, which is microevolution: mEv = RM & NS.
We could refer back to a time before the P(EvDv) had supposedly evolved. So it's all just microevolution back then anyway.
So in mEv, the novel changes come from random mutations, then NS provides the guidance as to which of these novel changes get kept, or discarded. OK so far?
tubewatch59 2 months ago
@PalulukanMakto
Given that scenario, we can say that NS selects each RM depending on what the effect is of that RM on the already existing biological organism. So the RM has an effect (bad, good or neutral) on the various already existing functional systems that make up the organism. Agree so far?
So we have a set of already existing systems or functions that are affected (or not much) by RM. RM can be considered to be modifications of these already existing functional systems. Yes?
tubewatch59 2 months ago
@PalulukanMakto
Alright, given all of that, then as I have already said, microevolution is the effect of RM & NS. So microevolution (mEv) can explain (at least some) modifications to already existing functional systems in an organism.
What I consider macroevolution (MEv) to be, is the evolutionary processes that are supposed to give rise to NEW functional systems.
I define "new functional system" to be something that is not merely a slight modification of an existing system...
tubewatch59 2 months ago
@PalulukanMakto
The term "slight modification" might appear to be arbitrary. Even though the idea has merit, yes, to a certain extent it is an arbitrary idea. However I can introduce Behe's idea of irreducible complexity (IC, which is the property that irreducibly complex systems have) to be a non-arbitrary example of the difference between a "new functional system" versus a "slightly modified existing system".
So I will consider MEv in this case to be the evolution of an IC system.
tubewatch59 2 months ago
@tubewatch59 Okay here are some of your problems:
1. Slight changes GRADUALLY lead to large changes.
2. You bring up Irreducible Complexity: support it. I know the definition, but you (nor anyone else so far) has given an example of why something MUST be irreducibly complex, not just that it COULD.
If you're going to refer back to an unsupported hypthesis to base your belief (that's what it is unless you have evidence) of ID upon, then your argument is invalid. Cont>
PalulukanMakto 2 months ago
@PalulukanMakto When you give an example of irreducible complexity, do not use anything that has been specifically proven NOT to be irreducibly complex. Ex: the bacterial flagellum, eyes, the Bombardier beetle, etc.
PalulukanMakto 2 months ago
@PalulukanMakto
The flagellum does, in fact, have an irreducible complex core (composed of ~20 protein components). Behe defines irreducible complexity as:
"A single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts wherein removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." Behe was wrong in assuming that an IC system automatically cannot be explained by evolution. But the flagellum is IC: removal of FliG, e.g., results in a non-flagellate phenotype.
Genomiques 2 months ago
@Genomiques If that is the accepted definition of IC, then it's simply stupid to support it as any sort of opposition to evolution, because that definition of IC allows evolution to still exist, which does not support the 'other, opposing theory to evolution' (creationism/ID).
If you take the words 'irreducibly' and 'complex' and combine them into a term (irreducibly complex), most would assume that the concept does not do away with or alter the meaning of the terms that compose it.
PalulukanMakto 2 months ago
@PalulukanMakto
IC doesn't automatically mean that a system could not have had evolved. However, an IC system cannot be evolved through the evolutionary mechanism of gradual improvement on just one function. Either scaffolding, cooption, or elimination of functional redundancy must be invoked to explain the origin of an IC system.
Genomiques 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PalulukanMakto
Well, the examples you have given: "do not use anything that has been specifically proven NOT to be irreducibly complex. Ex: the bacterial flagellum, eyes," haven't been "proven" not to be irreducibly complex. I see that user Genomiques has given you Behe's definition of irreducible complexity. Eyes and the bacterial flagellum (amongst a large number of other biological systems) fit those properties. It's not unusual you'd have different ideas on what IC means. (cont...)
tubewatch59 2 months ago
@tubewatch59
One reason I chose a maze analogy is because it seems to fairly well represent a real situation where we have a fitness terrain that has peaks and valleys and (in the case of a maze) walls that cannot be crossed that constrain movement. But we don't HAVE to use a maze. We could have a partial maze, or even have an analogy with shifting terrain with level areas, cliffs, slopes, impassable areas, traps, rewards, etc.
I'm open to suggestions.
tubewatch59 2 months ago
@PalulukanMakto
"... but you (nor anyone else so far) has given an example of why something MUST be irreducibly complex, not just that it COULD."
It's not all that difficult (once a system is reasonably understood of course) to show whether or not it is IC. If it fits Behe's definition (or Dembski's updated definition, virtually the same, but discussing some ambiguous points), then the system is IC.
Note, we aren't claiming that to evolve an IC system is theoretically impossible!
tubewatch59 2 months ago
@PalulukanMakto
In my (crude) walking analogy, it is theoretically impossible to walk to the moon from earth. However, a better analogy perhaps for evolving an IC system, might be like walking out of a maze in a given amount of time. Now if the maze is very large, then provided that the maze does actually have a path to the exit from the initial position (which may or may not be the case), and if the correct routes are chosen, then perhaps the exit will be found in the required time.
tubewatch59 2 months ago
@PalulukanMakto
Say that for example, for some very large maze (that has a non walled off pathway to the exit from the initial starting point) we might (by taking the correct turns pretty much all of the way along maze) manage to exit it in a couple of years. So it's certainly possible to exit the maze inside a deadline of 10 years.
But what if we miss many correct turns? As a result, we'll wander around in the maze for maybe hundreds to thousands of years, thus missing the deadline!
tubewatch59 2 months ago
@PalulukanMakto
As you can imagine, with no specific guidance as to how to get out of the maze, then it might take ages to find the exit. It would be correct to say, that for a large number of maze existing experiments, then in a small number of cases, the maze would be exited quickly, but in most cases, it would take longer to exit the maze. If there is some particular deadline time for finding an exit, then in most cases (depending on the size of the maze) the deadline will be missed.
tubewatch59 2 months ago
@PalulukanMakto
Let's continue with the maze analogy to evolution for a while. Let's say that our decision at each turn, is analogous to a random mutation. We must take this or that exit (or maybe even go backwards).
So, what do you think is analogous to natural selection, in the maze?
Here is my answer: NS would be analogous to whether I'm doing measurably better somehow as the result of having taken a certain turn, compared to (another version of me) if I'd taken some other turn.
tubewatch59 2 months ago
@PalulukanMakto
So we'd have to simulate a population, right? In that way, if we put a large number of individuals in the maze, then as they progress and take either the same, or different turns, then if some turns result in the individuals doing measurably better (or worse) than others who took different turns, then natural selection represents the differential fitness resulting from taking some turns versus taking other turns.
eg. taking a particular turn may lead to some hazard.
tubewatch59 2 months ago
@PalulukanMakto
One more point:
It doesn't matter whether there is a GOAL of exiting the maze, or not. Individuals wandering around in the maze, might exit the maze by the deadline, or they might not exit it. There's no goal as such (since evolution doesn't have goals). Either the maze is exited by the deadline, or it isn't.
However, goal or not, the analogy to evolving an IC system, is managing to exit the maze. The deadline, is analogous to the time taken to evolve the IC system.
tubewatch59 2 months ago
@PalulukanMakto
So having said all of that:
(1) What do you think is the analogy to natural selection insiode the maze?
(2) Do you agree with my points so far?
(3) If not, can you elaborate on your points of disagreement? Perhaps if you have some valid points, we might even adjust the maze analogy to make it more accurate with respect to evolution.
tubewatch59 2 months ago
@PalulukanMakto
The issue here, is whether the evolution of IC systems, is explainable in terms of mEv over time.
Some assume it must be. However as a (rather crass) analogy of whether gradualism explains all, consider the following question. Are there some positions that cannot be arrived at via walking?
Walking explains how we cross flat and hilly ground (to a limited extent) to get to most locations from any other location. BUT, we both agree that we can't "walk to the moon".
tubewatch59 2 months ago
@tubewatch59 If something is irreducibly complex, it couldn't have evulved. I'd be careful when contradicting yourself, if I were you.
PalulukanMakto 2 months ago
@PalulukanMakto
Also, here's another thing. A better analogy is that we have an infinitely large maze, and that if you are at a particular point in the maze, that represents that the individual at that point (and there may be many) does have the irreducibly complex system up and running. Assume that there are separate mazes for each biological system. eg. A certain maze to represent the flagellum. Only a small number of locations in the maze represent correctly functioning flagella....
tubewatch59 2 months ago
@PalulukanMakto
So even though evolution has no goal as such, you do have to arrive at the particular few points in the maze that represent functioning IC systems, and if the systems didin't originally exist from the start (they couldn't have if macroevolution is true) then you do have to be able to arrive at those points from different starting points (close or far away in the maze) in order to have managed to evolve the IC system in question. Right?
tubewatch59 2 months ago
@PalulukanMakto
So the question in biology is, are there biological systems within living organisms (analogous to a "position" in the analogy) that cannot be arrived at via microevolution (which is analogous to "walking" in the analogy).
Since positions are known to exist that cannot be walked to from certain other positions, it is at least worth investigating as to whether or not there may be some biological systems that cannot be evolved to from other (supposedly related) biosystems.
tubewatch59 2 months ago
@PalulukanMakto
While the majority of pro-IDists are religious, it is not the case that all of them are. ID has it's fair share of agnostics. To infer design in life (and some other phenomena perhaps) doesn't automatically mean that the designer is "od" or one of many "gods". It merely holds that some kind of designer exists.
What is the nature of that designer? It's up to us to form an opinion about that.
Just as some people believe in macroevolution, some also believe in God.
tubewatch59 2 months ago
@tubewatch59 Having not found ONE atheist or agnostic supporter of creationism (Intelligent Design) I'll wait for you to point one out. If you're going to stick up for something that tries to deny evolution, perhapse you could note ONE flaw in evolution? One.
PalulukanMakto 2 months ago
@PalulukanMakto
I'd quote David Berlinksi as an IDist who would be an example of an agnostic (though not of course an atheist).
There would likely be some supporters of SETI, who may consider the idea that what we call God or "the gods" may just be aliens that may also have designed life on earth. (ie. Thor)! Most of these people would be agnostics and some atheists too. Most consider earth life evolved, but some partly designed, etc. The problem there is "who designed the ET's?"
tubewatch59 2 months ago
@tubewatch59 Where did all the plant life come from? All the grasses around the world. All the trees, bushes, fruits, vegetables, vines, roots, mushrooms, fungi, cacti, etc. Evolutionist say all things come from one cell. What made a tree and did it spin off from a dionsaur? They cannot answer that question. They cannot answer the odds of non-life producing life. The odds of evolution actually happening are 10 to the 220 power which is double all the atoms in the known universe. Plant life?
rbosre 2 months ago
@rbosre ACtually, they can and did. Google 'evolutionary tree of life'. The odds of non life producing life don't mtter, because we can demonstrate that inorganic molecules produce organic molecules, and organic molecules form organisms.
And the answer to your first question is no: plants didn't evolve from dinosaurs.
Before you say that someone cannot do something, try looking into your own supposition first. It might blow your mind to find out that what you think cannot be done, has.
PalulukanMakto 2 months ago
@PalulukanMakto The so-called " tree of life" is just that..."so-called", because it is not a shred of proof of being being real. That was a drawing by Darwin and in no way shape or form has anything to do with a "tree of life". Inorganic molecules? LOL. What you call "inorganic molecules" is what real scientists call cynide and formaldehyde or as us lay people call them, embalming fluid". Now, how does "embalming fluid" produce organic molecules? Tree of life/inorganic molecules...ROTFLMBO!!!
rbosre 2 months ago
@rbosre
Well, the Tree of Life now a days is constructed on the basis of 16s rRNA sequences, as well as plain ole' protein sequences. It's not something that was just thought up one night in some biologist's sleep.
Genomiques 2 months ago
@rbosre Wow... Just, wow. Okay, I deny that people this stupid exist. You must be trolling (that, or a really brainy gibbon).
PalulukanMakto 2 months ago
@rbosre
"What made a tree and did it spin off from a dionsaur? They cannot answer that question."
Ha ha! In THAT particular case, they'd definitely say plants didn't come from dinosaurs.
I take your point that they tend to believe in things which haven't been demonstrated scientifically. Having decided to specifically reject the idea of a creator, they need to make the best of what material processes offer them to put together their origins theories. They have unexplained problems!!
tubewatch59 2 months ago
@tubewatch59 The Bible said in Isaiah that the heatens would say they came from rocks and I heard a PHD say his right hand came from a comet and his left hand from an exploding star. How idioctic is that and this "PHD" with a doctorate degree has such a belief. I guess he has rocks in his head where his brain should be.LOL. They still can't tell you how we have all this vegetation came from. How, that's right, it's inorganic(embalming fluid) that cause all the trees, grasses, bushes, fruit/vegge
rbosre 1 month ago
@rbosre
The naturalistic worldview's effects on peoples thinking is unfortunate.
As Lord Monkcton might say: It manages to take fairly reasonable deductions from the evidence, and make such deductions appear as if they are insane, while taking insane ideas and attempting to portray them as reasonable and fairly obvious facts.
tubewatch59 1 month ago
@PalulukanMakto
I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on the front-loading hypothesis, which is a design hypothesis that incorporates evolution into the hypothesis. The front-loading hypothesis is not creationism, so someone who advocates the front-loading hypothesis (like myself) is not a creationist, even though the hypothesis involves an intelligence or intelligences.
Genomiques 2 months ago
@Genomiques Could you explain the front-loading hypothesis? I don't know what it is and therefore I don't know if I agree with it or not.
PalulukanMakto 2 months ago
@PalulukanMakto
The front-loading hypothesis suggests that the genomes of the first cells on earth contained the necessary information such that future life forms (e.g., multicelluarity) would be more probable to evolve. In other words, the first cells were designed such that they could shape future evolution.
Genomiques 2 months ago
@OrthodoxDarwinist and Tubewatch.
I'm not sure what all you guys have been talking about, but it seems to be relevant to a morality issue. Observing one of you has the nickname "OrthodoxDarwinist", I find it too tempting to inject a question into your exchange: What is your position on morality compared to Tubewatch's? Specifically, do you hold that morality is objective or relative?
jameskguy 2 months ago
@jameskguy
It's been an interesting argument about what the Bible teaches about slavery (but I admit that it is a bit far off the topic of this particular video.)
tubewatch59 2 months ago
cont: Abraham's foreman was the next in line to gain all that Abraham had accumulated over his life. Slaves were not beaten like some want to portray
it's just that they are looking for a reason not to come to God and will look for anything to justify their lives. That will not wash at the GWT judgement. Everyone will bend their knees and bow their heads and confess to the glory of God that Jesus Christ is Lord whether they want to or not.
So it is written, so shall it be done.
rbosre 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Verily! It is Allâh Who causes the seed-grain and the fruit-stone (like date-stone) to split and sprout" (Quran 6:9)
anasiaj 2 months ago
Comment removed
anasiaj 2 months ago
Surah 54, Ayah 49 "Verily, all things have we created in proportion and measure (perfection)." - Quran,
("And thy Lord taught the Bee to build its cells in hills, on trees, and in (men's) habitations; *Then to eat of all the produce (of the earth), and find with skill the spacious paths of its Lord: there issues from within their bodies a drink of varying colours, wherein is healing for men: verily in this is a Sign for those who give thought") (16: 68, 69).
anasiaj 2 months ago
Comment removed
anasiaj 2 months ago
Comment removed
anasiaj 2 months ago
Please watch this NOVA video if you believe that the bacterial flagellum is proof of Irreducible Complexity. It is on youtube and titled: "Irreducible Complexity? The Bacterial Flagellum."
archy526 2 months ago
@archy526
The video doesn't quite manage to actually demonstrate that Behe's claims are incorrect. They do in fact correcftly put Behe's position in the first 4 minutes of so (which is a nice change :-)
When asked whether other scientists have "acknowledged the design features of the flagellum" Behe isn't claiming these scientists believe in creation. He's pointing out their comments (as hostile witnesses) that the flagellum does seem to resemble a machine that humans might design...
tubewatch59 2 months ago
@archy526
Listen to what DeRosier actually says as a response to Behe claiming that he (DeRosier) had said that the "structure of the flagellum APPEARS designed". This is what DeRosier says immediately afterwards - "What I wrote was - this is a machine that appears like it was designed by a human. But that doesn't mean it was designed."
Think about it. Did Behe misquote DeRosier? Not at all. Did Behe IMPLY that DeRosier actually believed the flagellum was designed? No he didn't...
tubewatch59 2 months ago
@archy526
Behe had been asked whether there were other scientists who "acknowledged the design features of the flagellum". And Behe pointed out DeRosier's satement to that effect. Behe didn't claim that DeRosier himself believed the flagellum was designed. DeRosier states the obvious here (clearly intending to distance himself from looking sympathetic to ID (and IC)). Nevertheless, DeRosier did in fact claim what Behe said he had claimed - That the flagellum had the APPEARANCE of design.
tubewatch59 2 months ago
@archy526
But having initially stated Behe's position correctly earlier on, in this statement at : "according to Behe, if any one of these parts is missing, the MOTOR can't function." (Note my capitalization of the word MOTOR).
However at 5:57 they state this subtly wrong version of what Behe had claimed: "Michael Behe has argued, that the flagellum could not have evolved, since it's parts have no function for natural selection to act on until they are fully assembled." (cont.)
tubewatch59 2 months ago
@archy526
Around the 6 minute point they subtly alter what Behe had claimed.
But just after the MOTOR quote (at 3:51) Steve Fuller correctly says: "... in other words, it was VERY UNLIKELY they could have come about through just a kind of a contingent combination of parts, over even millions or billions of years, but rather in a sense, had to be created of whole cloth, all together at once, because everything fits together so well, that to remove one part the "THING" wouldn't function."
tubewatch59 2 months ago
@archy526
It's pretty important to understand that what Fuller calls the THING, and what the prior quote had said about the MOTOR, are getting at the heart of what Behe had claimed. Behe DID NOT say that on taking away parts from the flagelum, that there could be no function of any kind. What Behe was referring to was the "characteristic function", which was the MOTOR function of propulsion. Take away any of the parts, and the propulsion function ceases...
tubewatch59 2 months ago
@archy526
You have to realize that Behe didn't say that evolution of the flagellum was impossible. But as Fuller had correctly stated, that it's evolution was VERY UNLIKELY. There's an important difference there in principle, if not in practice, because it matters as to how rebuttals to IC are framed.
Misquoting IC to claim that: "evolution of IC machines is impossible", means to rebut IC, one only need show that evolution is possible in principle - without addressing the feasibilities!
tubewatch59 2 months ago
@tubewatch59 Most of what you are addressing is irrelevant. The point is that if an organ or system of organs could be slightly reduced and still serve a viable function then it is NOT irreducibly complex. The fact that it doesn't serve the same function in no way supports a valid claim against evolution, all it says is that if you change something it is no longer the same thing. I think that is fairly obvious.
archy526 2 months ago
@archy526
"The point is that if an organ or system of organs could be slightly reduced and still serve a viable function then it is NOT irreducibly complex."
That would be true, if it was true, but it's not! Do we observe that? No. In the case of the flagellum, one must remove 30(!) proteins to get to the "similar" machine. That's not even close to being "slightly reduced"! A slightly reduced IC structure loses it's characteristic function, period. The rest is wishful speculation.
tubewatch59 2 months ago
@archy526
The reason IC is a really good argument for thinking that the evolution of IC machines is infeasible is because IC machines (with the requirement that they need to change their characteristic functions) is that the proces now requires there to be an indirect Darwinian pathway, instead of a direct one. That is a huge problem for evolution, because of the somewhat recent understanding that protein function is astronomically rare in sequence space...
tubewatch59 2 months ago
@archy526
In a direct Darwinian pathway, due to natural selection, the initial function might at least be able to preserve that function under the actions of random mutations, and perhaps even fine tune that function to a very limited extent.
With an indirect Darwinian pathway, one must depend on random mutations alone to generate each new change in function. Natual selection can only come later, after each new function appears via random mutation! That's a rather difficult problem...
tubewatch59 2 months ago
@archy526
It's doubly difficult, because not only do random mutations have to be depended on to find an incredibly small needle in a haystack (before which the available population sizes and billions of years pale into insignificance besides the numbers involved) but in addition each "novel function" that comes along ALSO has to be beneficial AND be able to function in an interlinked manner with what came before. It's rather easy to imagine, and extremely unlikely to occur. It's a belief!
tubewatch59 2 months ago
@archy526
I wanted to point out why the protein transporter (that's similar to the syringe (T3SS)) is in the flagellum. It's mainly because so much of the flagellum exists outside of the cell wall. Thus there needsto be a system capable of unfolding proteins and transporting them in their unfolded state, to a different locality (outside of the cell wall). Thus we have this particular machine there for a good reason. The syringe, is another variation on that theme of protein transporter.
tubewatch59 2 months ago
@tubewatch59 As for social Darwinism being viewed as scientific at one point in time, you are wrong. If you have done ANY research regarding the issue you would find that it was a short lived idea that a very few people used to support imperialism and even among those that supported imperialism most did not support social darwinism.
archy526 2 months ago
@archy526
I'd say Social Darwinism had the support that the belief in manmade global climate disaster has now. True, it's already fallen out of favour, but nonetheless, both had their adherents, and in the case of social Darwinism it was believed in by the elites until it was actually put into practise! Let's hope we don't see global policy to prevent the so called manmade climate disaster being put into practise also! Fear of climate, is being used to facilitate global leftist policy.
tubewatch59 2 months ago
@archy526
As Fuller had correctly stated of Behe's position - the IC claim is that the evolution of IC machines is VERY UNLIKELY. Therefore to rebut IC, even to address it at all, requires that one address the issue of how feasible (probable or unlikely) an evolutionary pathway to the flagellum would be.
To claim as this video does, that the existence of the syringe (similar to the protein transporter) rebuts IC, does not logically follow. They're ignoring Behe's ACTUAL claims about IC.
tubewatch59 2 months ago
@archy526
The argument doesn't logically follow, because if you listen to what DeRosier is saying late in the video (around 7 minutes in) he has misunderstood Behe's claims.
DeRosier (and the video) now misunderstand IC to mean the floowing: "That any subset of an IC machine can have (by definition) no functions at all. WRONG!
What IC actually says, is this: "Removing just one part (of the IC core) causes the CHARACTERISTIC FUNCTION of the IC machine to be lost." BIG DIFFERENCE!
tubewatch59 2 months ago
@archy526
The fact that the syringe IC machine (itself a somewhat less complex, though still very complex IC machine in it's own right) is similar to the protein transporter in the flagellum (which has an integrated motor assembly as well) is irrelevant to the claims that IC is actually making.
This is the basic claim of IC as the idea pertains to the flagellum: That any evolutionary pathway from a nonflagellum (ie. the syringe), to the flagellum, is going to be extremely improbable.
tubewatch59 2 months ago
@archy526
In order to begin to address the claims of IC, and attempt to rebut them, this video would have to address whether or not, various hypothetical evolutionary pathways from a nonflagellum of some kind (possibly the syringe) are going to be likely enough to happen.
As it satnds, the video didn't adress that at all. It merely pointed out that a somewhat similar machine to the flagellum, exists elsewhere. While interesting, that observation has little bearing on the claims of IC.
tubewatch59 2 months ago
@archy526
One can imagine that if evolution is true, that the existence of similar machines may imply a common ancestor for each. However, if intelligent design is true, then the existence of similar machines may imply that a common designer (an "ancestral design concept) has been reused in each machine.
Just pointing out one without the other, isn't really achieving too much, right? To rebut IC, one must demonstrate that such machines can feasibly evolve. The video didn't show that.
tubewatch59 2 months ago
'' ID theory is so satisfying to the many open minded scientists.''
ID is not a theory. It has no evidnece, makes no predictions and is not testable. It is not even science.
Science is what scientists do, and they don't do ID.
gregrutz 2 months ago
''based strictly on materialistic beliefs. And this is a true detriment to real science''
Real science does not use magic, voodoo or the supernatural. They change no experiment.
Religion, superstition and myths keep us in the Dark Ages long enough.
gregrutz 2 months ago
It's complex, I don't understand it, so Gawd dunit that way. Proof.
gregrutz 2 months ago
@gregrutz I think your missing the point...
tKrave 2 months ago
@tKrave What is your point? Is this not an argument for god?
gregrutz 2 months ago
Did you ever think that maybe the non-Christians don't profess to be non-Christians while they are helping you out? That maybe they are there too, you just don't know it because they are busy helping you just because it is the right thing to do?
archy526 3 months ago
@archy526 What a crock you posted. I saw Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterians, Lutherns etc and I guess the atheist showed up with them incognito uh? Atheists did not show up so don't try to blow that smoke up my arse. I ain't no mullet. You are trying to cover for them when in fact they are to selfish and self centered to help the down and out. They have an evolutionary mind that others are to fall by the way-side for this is the evolutionary way...only the strong survive. Christians show first.
rbosre 3 months ago
@rbosre So you are telling me that ONLY Christians showed up to help? And MY comment was a crock? And what makes you assume that if a person believes in evolution that they would automatically write off people as "weaker" and there for let them die? That is a fascist idea that a group of people in the early 1900's came up with. those people were called "Social Darwinists". This idea had nothing to do with science and was condemned by most people as it should have been.
archy526 3 months ago