Evolution: Fossils, Genes, and Mousetraps (6-9)

[LoricaLady]

ANYONE: If you see no responses to some posters they know they are on ignore for using personal insults, false accusations, claims that they have answered Qs which they have evaded, and a general failure to actually debate. If anyone else wants to ask their same Qs and hear "the rest of the story" I will happily respond. But I do not debate where true debate is not possible, only with those who are civil & objective.

[ABriefHistoryOfTime]

@LoricaLady Don't you ever get tired of pathetically dodging and running under the guise of 'They won't have a civil debate' once you've been thoroughly trounced? I mean anyone who cares to can read the discussion and see that you had yours handed to you all throughout.

[LoricaLady]

A continued critical analysis of this vid series is carried forward on 8/9.  7/9 is missing.

[LoricaLady]

ANYONE: I would really love to expose disinformation that I see here. However, I have a policy of ignoring those who engage in verbal abuse as it is demeaning, generally escalates & make true debate impossible. I am happy to debate with anyone, though, who will be civil & objective.

[LoricaLady]

Cont.  I see that Nethius has apparently not posted 7/9, so will continue with his 8/9.

[LoricaLady]

9:25 I don't know what Behe actually said about astrology and have learned not to count on he-said reports from evolutionists about the Dover trial. Regardless, though, mentioning astrology is another major strawman. Behe was not trying to defend astrology. It was not the subject of the trial. Irreducible complelxity and evolutions stand or falls not based on what anyone thinks about astrology, but based on what can be observed, tested and repeated in life forms.

To be cont. on vid 7/9.

[LoricaLady]

9:16 "Supernatural forces might be real...but they are certainly not part of science." So, something can be real and not be part of science? That's a perfect quote showing evolutionists trying to squeeze "science" into their highly limited & highly biased box. "Considering them as science profanes religion..." No explanation for that peculiar statement is given. So, Miller, a cell biologist gets to tell us not only what science is, but also what "profanes religion?" Based on what? Cont.

[LoricaLady]

9:16 "Supernatural forces might be real...but they are certainly not part of science." So, something can be real and not be part of science? That's a perfect quote showing evolutionists trying to squeeze "science" into their highly limited & highly biased box. "Considering them as science profanes religion..." No explanation for that peculiar statement is given. So, Miller, a cell biologist gets to tell us not only what science is, but also what "profanes religion?" Based on what? Cont.

[LoricaLady]

8:51 "The ground rules have to change...so that supernatural forces can be considered." What ground rules? The evolutionists' of course. There is 0 in science saying everything has to have a natural cause. In science you follow the evidence wherever it leads. You don't start out with a predjudice that only "natural" things can be considered. Once again, remember that Miller said He belives Yeshua, aka Jesus, ":created all that is, seen & unseen." So, He did it "naturally?" Cont.

[LoricaLady]

8;51 "The ground rules have to change...so that supernatural forces can be considered." What ground rules? The evolutionists' of course. There is 0 in science saying everything has to have a natural cause. In science you follow the evidence wherever it leads. You don't start out with a predjudice that only "natural" things can be considered. Once again, remember that Miller said He belives Yeshua, aka Jesus, ":created all that is, seen & unseen." So, He did it "naturally?" Cont.

[LoricaLady]

8;51 "The ground rules have to change...so that supernatural forces can be considered." Whose ground rules? Why the evolutionists' of course.  There is 0 in science saying everything has to have a natural cause. In science you follow the evidence wherever it leads. You don't start out with a predjudice that only "natural" things are to be considered. Once again, remember that Miller said He belives Yeshua, aka Jesus, ":created all that is, seen & unseen." So, He did it "naturally?" Cont.

[LoricaLady]

Cont. Just as the state, via Dover & other places, is being used to force an evolutionary type definition of science on the public, so are evolutionists trying to force us to accept that science can only deal with the "natural." In 9/99 Nature Mag. one scientist put it this way "Even if all the data points to intelligent design, it is not science because it it not natural." So....data doesn't count, even if all of it (!) disagrees with evo? So...dogma comes first & truth 2nd or never? Cont.

[LoricaLady]

8:42 Again, evo is seen continuously to be a sort of religion for it upholds a strong belief system in things never seen. There is the lack of evidence just shown in this vid, for any connection whatever between fish & dolphin blood clotting & ours, & 0 evidence mice are killed by a mangled mouse trap. Evo lit is replete with words that reply on faith rather than data, i.e. "Millions of years ago...likely...probably...mayb­e...could have...must have...simulation....we propose a model." Cnt.

[LoricaLady]

Cont. Another problem w/this "debunk" of the mousetrap's irreducible complexity is that we're told small changes in organsms build & lead to more complex parts inside THAT organism. How are parts in a nose ring, a toothpick (for whom? Godzilla?) etc. going to build up over time to make something that catches mice? 8:21 We are told intelligent design is "masquerading as science." What are all the "evo" examples we've seen so far but strawmen logical fallacies masquerading as science? Cont.

[LoricaLady]

7:55 We are shown "other purposes" the mousetrap could be used for, besides a tie clip. Each time the example is pretty silly, Behe said the trap was irreducibly complex for catching mice not for use as a door knocker. Again, each time a manmade intelligently designed machine - the mousetrap - is used to supposedly show something (??) about how evo works tho evo is never supposed to use man made parts, or man's intelligent design or fingers. The trap stands as irreducibly complex. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

7:08 I could use a computer to drape-dry wet ties too, but that would have 0 to do with what the machine is supposed to do. This is another strawman argument. Also, Miller has to use outside intervention through his fingers, along with intelligent design even to be able to use it as a tie clip. He is also using the parts of a man made, intelligently designed machine to hold the tie in place. So once again the supposed debunks actually show the need for intelligent design. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

Cont. In both these exs. we are to see imaginary lines somehow, 1st in our heads between those seas creatures' systems & our own, & then between mangled mousetraps & dead mice, and then believe "You don't really need all the parts." This is all just dataless speculation presented as science with, 0 use of the scientific method, very similar to what is in The Origin of Species, which shows 0 origin of species & has 0 scientific method at all, & very similar to primal pond theories ditto. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

6:37 Here we are told that the mousetrap will be able to catch mice w/only 3 parts, then 2, then 1. Of course 0 evidence of dead mice is seen with them. Of course they're still using an intelligently designed machine, a mousetrap, or at lest man made spring, even to catch theoretical mice. Their own "evidence" shows need for intelligent design. Back to 3:45 Miller says, "We can do an experiment & check." That is NOT an experiment, just as the moustrap ex. was not! It is only a chart. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

Cont. Another factor that is being overlooked in this "debunk" of Behe's example of intelligent design, is that even using a mutilated & twisted mousetrap to catch a supposedly "really stupid mouse", he is still using a mousetrap, a mousetrap made through intelligent design! Let's say lab tests showed that the trap could catch "reallly stupid mice" in its mutilated state. You're just back to seeing that a normal mouse will not be caught unless all the parts are there. Cont.

[neobiognosis]

Not one single species on this planet, from the millions of forms of life that exist today, not one can be used as an example of irreducible complexity. Behe has been forced out of necessity to look at miniscual components in obscure species in his futile efforts 'prove' IC. Nothing demonstrates the paucity of evidence for this 'theory' that the simple absence of species evidence. All life fits perfectly with the theory of evolution.

[LoricaLady]

@neobiognosis Lets stick to the vid, shall we? Plz explain how the blood clotting mechanisms of a whale & puffer fish show HUMANS don't need al the parts they have. Tell what evidence there is showing Miller's mangled mousetrap can catch even a "really stupid mouse." Tell what evidence shows a flagellum was ever less "evolved." Explain how its whip & rotary motor could "evolve" synchronously & what "co option" or "dual purpose" either could have in the aeons before completion.

[neobiognosis]

The IC argument requires the clotting proteins to have no useful purpose outside of the specified function, and each component to be integral to the function of the clotting mechanism. As these proteins exists elsewhere in the natural world, perform similar functions in different combinations, the presentation of clotting agents as an example of irreducible complexity is dis-proven. Did you miss that?

[LoricaLady]

@neobiognosis I will respond just this one time for the benefit of anyone who can't see the obvious. Did you miss that there is no evidence that HUMANS can do without all parts of the blood clotting system? Did you miss that Miller himself even says in this vid series that we must have all of them? Did you miss that we are not sea creatures like puffer fish & cetaceans and that our bodies are not structured like theirs? Di you miss that even evolutionists don't say we "evolved" from them?

[neobiognosis]

I didn't miss the fact that Dr Miller states that the human blood clotting system needs all components present to work. This is a simple scientific fact. You miss the point that this on it's own is not evidence of irreducible complexity, only that as the system stands in humans it will not work properly if components are missing. What is more, the presence of alternative, functional blood clotting systems based on partial assemblies of these components work perfectly in other species.

[LoricaLady]

@neobiognosis A blood clotting system that needs all of its components to work - fully completed in all parts & fully connected - is irreducibly complex. If you can't see that, or don't want to see that, sorry. Looking at what happens in other species is a strawman logical fallacy since....we aren't other species! We're humans. We have different body parts internally & externally because our bodies function in different ways from theirs. If you can't, or don't want to see, that, sorry.

[neobiognosis]

@LoricaLady So intent are you to include your clichés on fallacies you omit consideration of the condition haemophilia. The blood clotting system does not exist in everyone in the uniform, fully formed system. And what do you know, the gene causing haemophilia has persisted, people without all the required factors appear to survive and pass on their genes through the x-chromosome. Or is the x-chromosome a logical fallacy.

[LoricaLady]

@neobiognosis Just how is hemophilia leading to any climb up Darwin's so called Tree of Life? It is an aberation, an often deadly defect. The people who have it are less likely to pass on their genetic material. Furthermore they are still 100% people with no evidence they are even changing their species. It shows nothing about evo. It would lead to the opposite of evo.

[neobiognosis]

@LoricaLady Haemophilia results from the mutation of a single gene. It cannot be that deadly, as the gene persists within our population. Sickle cell anaemia is another example of such gene changes. In the latter case, people with the sickle cell gene have greater resistance to malaria, an excellent example of how genes and environment interact, the mutation originating in Africa. We do not know what benefits haemophilia may bestow.

[neobiognosis]

@LoricaLady What is more, the same gene causes haemophilia in several placental mammals. Medical research suggests the gene corruption dates back to the Cretaceous period some 60 million years ago. But obviously I suppose the Cretaceous period is a logical fallacy formulated by Geologists and Medical researchers obviously research straw-man subjects whenever they have the opportunity.

[LoricaLady]

@neobiognosis "Suggests the gene corruption." Again, "suggests,..if...could have...might have..." = dataless speculation & dataless speculation presented as evidence is psesudo science. What medical researchers have formulated anything about the "Cretaceous" period? Notice that in medical school no one has to take evo courses because as usual it has no practical, useful function whatsoever. Geologists put the Geologic Column in textbooks with no disclaimer too. But it doesn't exist anywhere.

[neobiognosis]

@LoricaLady Absolute rubbish. There is plenty of data on genetics supporting evolution. “Notice that in medical school” ... researching the use of calcium in the body, doctors note that the job carried out by gills in fish is also carried out by an organ expressed from the same genes as generates the gills in fish, except in humans.

[neobiognosis]

Respond to this video...

Notice that the research is carried out by a pair of medical professors. Notice they find it LOGICAL to conclude “that the parathyroid gland evolved from a transformation of the gills when animals made the transition from the aquatic to the terrestrial environment”.

[LoricaLady]

@neobiognosis 1st of all you have switched the topic. You said that a fetus has pharyngeal gills. It never does. All parts of the fetus are totally human from conception. If some medical professors want to support evo by saying that parathyroid glands transtioned from gills based on "logic" but no, ahem!, data whatsoever (got fossils?) all they are showing the usual dataless speculation presented as if it is somehow evidence. Armchair theorizing with invisible support ain't science.

[LoricaLady]

@neobiognosis A blood clotting system that needs all of its components to work - fully completed in all parts & fully connected - is irreducibly complex. If you can't, or don't want to, see that, sorry. Looking at what happens in other species is a strawman logical fallacy since....we aren't other species! We're humans. We have different body parts internally & externally because our bodies function in different ways from theirs. If you can't, or don't want to see, that, sorry.

[neobiognosis]

@LoricaLady Of course, the blood clotting system cannot work properly without factor X, or IX or VIII, that is why haemophiliacs are a logical fallacy. And there is no evidence that species are connected, just because some placental mammals share a common blood clotting mutation from some mythical evolutionary forbearer, because its just a coincidence without a possible explanation involving evolution for which there is no evidence in the slightest.

[neobiognosis]

Respond to this video...  Oh, better add correlation doesn't imply causation just for safekeepies.

[LoricaLady]

@neobiognosis What do you mean "Respond to this video"? I have gone thru the whole thing with a critical analysis of what seemed to be all the salient points. I'm currently doing the same thing at 8/9.

[LoricaLady]

@neobiognosis If someone saw a kid who looked just like you & he was no way your child, you would be saying "Correlation Does Not Imply Causation." Ditto if you were in 2 buildings that later were subsequently set on fire, if you had a headache at the same time as Queen Elizabeth, if you found out a new neighbor had the same name as yours etc.etc. Whether you or anyone likes it or not fella, Correlaiton Does NOT Imply Causation and quickly leads to the Fallacy of the Single Cause.

[neobiognosis]

@LoricaLady This is abysmal misrepresentation, and typical of your approach. I certainly wouldn’t say that "Correlation Does Not Imply Causation." to your first example, I would though observe that as most humans outside of Africa share 99% of their DNA, I would say the correlation is down to the specific expression of genes in both individuals, as this is the real and valid reason they look alike, because they are actually related!

[neobiognosis]

Single coincidences are not correlations, again you confuse correlation of variables with specific coincidences. 

[neobiognosis]

The world-wide, consistent geological fossil record shows the progression of life. There is NOT ONE SINGLE COUNTER EXAMPLE showing an unrelated species appearing out of nothing. It is a huge database supporting evolution.

[neobiognosis]

@LoricaLady There is a correlation between the age of rocks and the complexity of the life found within. And FYI, most correlations of variables in science are valid, exception are rare. So fella, stop spreading the manure of ignorance around. You know nothing about the subject of correlation and that is very evident. 

[neobiognosis]

‘Fallacy of a single cause’ is another cliché you repeat ad nauseam, it is meaningless drivel. The mecanism is clear to science, only misguided religious zealots cannot accept it. Many human beings, religious or otherwise, have no trouble accepting the explanation. Evolution is the interaction of environment, species, genetic inheitance and is far from a simple process. It is certainly not "A single cause" which you need to explain further.

[neobiognosis]

And again, you still haven't offered any explanation as to why this intelligent designer, who designs perfect working systems such as the "irreducible complex - reducible flagellum" Would design vestigial wings on an Emu. This is something you could do that would be really impressive if it's within your powers.

[neobiognosis]

Firstly, the assertion that 'in the absence of any of these components blood does not clot and the system fails and evolution would have to produce all these components pre-defined in order to deliver a working system' is demonstrably false, because there are different combinations in existence of the blood clotting proteins working equally as well. Secondly, this also provides an evolutionary pathway to the human blood clotting system that is consillient with evolutionary theory.

[LoricaLady]

@neobiognosis Cont. Cetaceans & puffer fish can never show an "evoltuionary pathway" to human blood clotting since even evolutionists don't say we evolved from them. There is n0evidence for any "evolutionary pathway" to anything. There are just a few, paltry fossils that we are told are "transitions" as if it is Gawd's truth when there is 0 way to know if they ever had any descendants significantly different from themselves. There is just dataless speculation piled on logical fallacies.

[neobiognosis]

@LoricaLady Here, you expose your lack of understanding of evolutionary pathways. All chordates share common ancestry, and at the earlies chordates are primitive fish. That evolutionary pathway is evident in the developmental stages of ourselves, the philtrum, the location of eyes and gonads in the developing foetus, the hiccup in adults and foetal pharyngeal gills all point to watery ancestry. But to save you the typing, correlation does not imply causation, you who understands maths so well

[LoricaLady]

@neobiognosis You are right. Correlation Does Not Imply Causation/ Further the fossil record shows all fish are 100% fish, all tetrapods are 100% fish, all scales, feathers, teeth etc. (So why were you told scales turn into feathers? Based on what data? "Could have...might have...maybe"?) The developing fetus of a human being is 100% human in every way. Surely you don't buy that admittedly fraudulent Haeckle stuff? Show me research saying any part of a fetus is not 100% human. Cont.

[neobiognosis]

@LoricaLady More clichés on fallacy. Explain the vestigial wings in flightless birds if you want to add to this debate. You still have not done anything other than issues waffle on this subject. Lorica, more and more your reveal the limitations of you mind.

[LoricaLady]

@neobiognosis Oh dear. You have gone back into insult mode so you are gonig back to ignore again. For good. "More and more you reveal the limitations of your mind." This is the standard approach of evo buffs. When presented over & over with requests for actual data,not just dataless speculation & logical fallacies, they start getting insulting. Maybe you took the ad hominem route because you knew that way I'd end this? If so, it worked. Bye!

[ABriefHistoryOfTime]

@LoricaLady So how is calling creationism invisible magic a strawman?

How many terrestrial organisms were in the Cambrian?

[LoricaLady]

@ABriefHistoryOfTime This will probably be the only Q. I answer for you because, again, I limit my responses to those who are civil & objective. Again, if I did not, if I kept swapping posts with those who personally insult me, name call & often use crude obscenities etc. & worse, my life would be on this keyboard & I still wouldn't have enough time. A strawman logical fallacy involves a switch from the real topic at hand - in this case evolution - to another target. Cont.

[ABriefHistoryOfTime]

@LoricaLady You basically just spent three comment blocks to dodge the very simple question once again, while projecting your use of ad hominem attacks onto me, once again.

How...many...terrestrial...org­anisms...were...there...in...t­he...Cambrian?

[LoricaLady]

@ABriefHistoryOfTime Cont. This topic is not about religion. I have said at least 2X that evo stands or falls based on science & logic alone, so your Bible Bash dance is irrelevant. I am not going to answer you Qs because (1) you never answered mine & most of all because (2) you need to learn that personal insults are antithetical to the true purposes of science & rob the dignity of those who engage in them. If you want your Qs answered get someone to ask me who can ask them with civility.

[LoricaLady]

@ABriefHistoryOfTime I can't resist feeling sorry for you and telling you this one absolutely final thing. There ain't any Cambrian period. There ain't any Geologic Column. Except on paper. It's a 19th cent. concept debunked by worldwide digs. How easy for evolutionists to make excuses for that with words like "uplift" & "the earth moved". More dataless speculation presented as science. There is 0 testable, repeatable or observable about any of it. It's their usual psuedo science. Wake up.

[ABriefHistoryOfTime]

@LoricaLady Yeah what's with those 'scientists' and their ' actual knowledge of geological processes'

It's like they're trying to demonstrate that ignorance isn't an argument.

[neobiognosis]

You give an example that is not valid as an example of mathematical correlation.  It is simply an example of the word in day to day use, different again from it’s mathematical definition. Please get it right, this is why people find you so frustrating to debate with, because you are confused by such nuances and misunderstand the use of words in different contexts.

[neobiognosis]

Foetus all share major parts of their genes. Basically, fish genes and vertebrate genes are broadly the same. The difference between the two is in the expression of those genes. The body plans of all vertebrates are broadly similar. Skulls in all mammals consist of five main bones. The ethmoid, sphenoid, occipital, paired frontal, and paired parietal bones. The expression of the genes creating these bones results in the same genes producing whale, mouse, horse and human skulls among others

[LoricaLady]

@neobiognosis Cnt. A human fetus NEVER has "pharyngeal gills." That is an old, outdated fraud from Haeckle. They have pharyngeal pouches. They also have no "yolk sac" or "tail". Ditto. You tell me I "lack understanding of evolutonary pathways." Friend, it's you who needs to understand better what evolution is saying and what is outdated and has been admitted as fraudulent.

[neobiognosis]

@LoricaLady WRONG! Oh dear. You are getting this very wrong. May I refer you to the work of Professor Anthony Graham and Dr Masataka Okabe who in the “Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences” link the evolutionary changes between the gills of fish and the same components fulfilling related roles in humans, specifically regulation of calcium in the body.

[neobiognosis]

@LoricaLady Example of less-evolved components within the flagellum were giving in the video in the type II secretion systems. In your haste to rubbish this video, you appear to miss the nuances. The criteria for irreducible complexity fail in this example. The route to that mechanism is immaterial in the context of the argument over irreducible complexity, you have no example of irreducible complexity.

[LoricaLady]

@neobiognosis Here is my example of irreducible complexity. There are too many to count, but this is the most simple. You will not be able to explain it away. You will try to do so with sophistry and logical fallacies maybe. You may even say, as some have even when they haven't even mentioned it, "Well, we already explained that to you." But in the mirror admit to yourself at least that you can never explain it via evo. Look at the whip and the rotary motor below it on the flagellum. Cont.

[neobiognosis]

@LoricaLady OMG not again!

[LoricaLady]

@neobiognosis Explain how evo is going to drive those 2 parts to completion while they are useless nubs of stubs "emerging" or "evolving." Explain how & why it would drive them to perfection synch-ron-ous-ly as would be necessary, while they are usesless. Explain what possible use either of them could have, what "co-option" or "dual purpose". Then explain how, also synchronously, evo is going to change innumerable other bodily systems to make chemical exchanges with the new, moving, bug.

[neobiognosis]

@LoricaLady, how can you possibly know they were ever 'useless nubs and snubs'. This is speculation on your part and totally unscientific.

[LoricaLady]

@neobiognosis I certainly don't believe, the whip & rotary motor of the flagellum were ever "nubs of stubs." That is my point. Evo is supposed to cause small changes to occur over aeons. Do you think the whip & motor just sprang into existence fully formed & fully connected & ready to turn? Per evo theory aren't parts supposed to be built up sloooowly over time? So we're back to my original Qs. Why & how would evo drive them to completion - & do so synchronously - while they're incomplete?

[neobiognosis]

@LoricaLady Again, argument from ignorance is no argument, evolutionary biologists have suggested pathways, and that opens up the possibility that there are plausible pathways that may become more apparent when the bacterial gnome is decoded. However, this does nothing to disprove evolution and nothing to prove intelligent design unfortunately.

[LoricaLady]

@neobiognosis Plz learn wwhat the argument from ignorance logical fallacy really is. It asserts that something is true (or vice versa) becauses it has not been proven false (or v. v.) I am saying evo is false because the observable data and scientific laws do not support it. I have said irredudible complexity is true because observation shows it. "Possibility" & "plausible" are what evo is founded on. Those are not science words. Speculation presented as data is pseudo science.

[neobiognosis]

@LoricaLady "Plz learn what an argument from ignorance logical fallacy really is. "

"It asserts that something is true because it has not been proven false (or v. v.)"

[LoricaLady]

@neobiognosis Why are you telling me what the argument from ignorance logical fallacy is? Rhetorical Q. I have already stated the same facts when you erroneously accused me to commiting it, and showed you why I had not done so.

[neobiognosis]

@LoricaLady Your assertion is that the flagellum motor is an example of IC. You dismiss the evidence that elements of the flagellum appear in earlier bacteria, (an inappropriate dismissal of evidence conflicting with your own thesis) and use the absence of a demonstrable evolutionary path from that component as validating your assertion of irreducible complexity. This precisely is an argument from ignorance. Nowhere do you attempt to explain the appearance of irreducible complexity.

[LoricaLady]

@neobiognosis Once again you are not quoting me right. Again, I was not giving Behe's ex., but my own. It is typical of evo buffs to avoid that one and keep harping on Behe's. (There is nothing wrong with his at all however. The usual debunks against it are based on strawmen and invisible evidence that "similar" forms led to the object in Q.) I gave you an ex. of irreducible complexity. The simplest one I could think of. You are dodging it and hammering away at strawmen instead.

[LoricaLady]

@neobiognosis "Elements of the flagellum appeare in earlier bacteria." Elements ain't a whip & a rotary motor. Elements cannot be shown, except by magical thinking with invisible data, to have "evovled" into the whip or motor or anything whatsoever. All bacteria have the parts they need for their little niche w 0 evidence they are "evolving" into anything else.. Evo cannot put 2 parts like that together, and do so synchronously, no matter how many "elements' are claimed to be anywhere.

[LoricaLady]

@neobiognosis Plz learn what an argument from ignorance logical fallacy really is.It asserts that something is true (or vice versa) becauses it has not been proven false (or v. v.) I am saying evo is false because the observable data and scientific laws do not support it. I have said irredudible complexity is true because observation shows it. "Possibility" & "plausible" are what evo is founded on. Dataless speculation presented as data is pseudo science.

[neobiognosis]

Whatever!

[neobiognosis]

@LoricaLady "I am saying evo is false because the observable data and scientific laws do not support it”

The observable data does support evolution a millionfold more so than it supports i.c.

Which scientific laws are do not support evolution?

[LoricaLady]

@neobiognosis There is 0 observable data in evo. They use magical thinking to say that because something is similar in one organism that means - tho each separate organism is using all of its parts fully and none are seen to be in "transition" - the other organism developed it through eov We are to believe in invisible descendants leading from A to B to C and often none of those fossils even looks like one another. We are to believe it all happened in the invisible "millions of years ago.

[LoricaLady]

@neobiognosis "Which scientific laws do not support evolution?" All of them. There is no evidence whatsoever that it is happening or ever has happened. The evidence for i.c. is right in front of your eyes. IF you care to see it. You don't have to go back "millioins of years ago" and claim invisible evidence and make up stories about how "elements...probably...most likely...if...must have..." turned one thing into another through evoltuion.

[neobiognosis]

You yet again massively overstate what can be concluded from the evidence. The correct conclusion is this, "intermediate forms between primitive bacteria containing elements of the flagellum motor and bacteria such as Helicobacter pylori have not been found. The circumstances by which the flagellum motor came about are a matter of speculation"

[LoricaLady]

@neobiognosis "The circumstances by which the flagellum motor came about are a matter of speculation." Yes & no. How the motor & its whip came about can't be seen or repeated. But one thing we can know for sure w/o speculation. Evo can't do it! We can see that it is irreducibly complex w/o magical thinking or invisible scenarios and parts and stories about conveniently unobservable millenia ago. And oh yeal, explain how & why evo would prepare the egg before the sperm's whip is ready.

[neobiognosis]

@LoricaLady Much work has been published on the evolutionary path of the flagellum. Your example is a fine example of an "Argument from ignorance"  I put this in quotes lest you think I accuse yourself of ignorance, I do not. The evidence may well be found once the genome of these bacteria is decoded. Pardon my own ignorance, but I don't fully understand to what your statement about chemical exchanges refer.

[LoricaLady]

@neobiognosis Accusations of ignorance avoid answering how a flagellar whip & its motor could synchronously develop for aeons while useless - & avoid giving a clue of how they could not be useless meanwhile. It avoids saying how the innumerable other internal parts of the body are going to synchronously develop for aeons, while useless once again, so that they can make the vital chemical exchanges with a bug that starts to swim through the body. "Evidence may well be found"= faith.

[LoricaLady]

@neobiognosis "Chemical exchanges" means that the bug with a whip & motor is traveling for a purpose in the body in order to interact with various other bodily parts in ways that cause useful biological results. It's not just zooming thru the body fluid randomly & purposely, it's chemically interacting with what it comes into contact with. Perhaps it would help to read up on what the flagellum actually does. "The evidence may well be found" is a faith based statement.

[neobiognosis]

@LoricaLady Another post which reflects your ability to cast darkness on the most enlightened of minds. Would you be so kind as to explain what you are talking about carefully, so that it makes sense. This post is complete unscientific blather. The bacterium is a cellular form which eats and secretes. What purposes are you imposing on bacteria?

[LoricaLady]

@neobiognosis "Examples of less-evolved components." You have 0 data to show any component was ever "less evolved." You are simply believing that based on faith. If you take out those secretory systems the bug will not work. Behe is talking about a SYSTEM. Look up what he said. The SYSTEM/BUG is not going to work, tho individual parts may or may not work. Btw where's ev-i-dence that those individual parts DO keep working w/o the full bug? Where is lab evidence to back that up? Nowhere.

[neobiognosis]

The point you are making is unclear. Components of the rotary flagellum exist with different functions in other species of bacteria. This immediately introduces possible evolutionary pathways to that motor.

[LoricaLady]

@neobiognosis "Components of the roatry flagellum exist with different functions in other species." This is referring to Behe's argument, not mine. However, how do you know that the "other species" turned into the flagellum that Behe describes thru "evolution." You don't. Those other species are performing different functions, different roles in the body. And, as with the flaggellum Behe talks about, they are not "in transition" but using all their parts for their specific niche.

[neobiognosis]

@LoricaLady I must assume you have a better argument than Professor Behe. This comment repeats your last two comments fro a third time. My reply remains the same as the last two times. Absence of an explanation is no proof.

[LoricaLady]

@neobiognosis "Absence of explanation is no proof." Absence of explanation is all that is ever seen in evolution, so, by your own defintion, it has "no proof." All they ever have are dataless speculations piled ontop of various logical fallacies. Science requires observable data and must always be logical.

Also, I did not give an absence of explanation but actual examples of i.c. I gave evidence, detailed verbal pictures that match the observable facts & can't be explained by evolution.

[neobiognosis]

@LoricaLady “Again in your haste to deny evolution, you draw attention to the strength of evolution, the ability to explain the development of diverse species and a clear explanation of how life on earth came about in full agreement with the fossil record”

[neobiognosis]

@LoricaLady You cannot give examples of i.c.. You can only give obscure examples of mechanisms where there is no evidence of an evolutionary path. This is a fatally flawed approach, as it is always going to be, and always has been "AN ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE".

[neobiognosis]

“It appears ID does not require any observable data - why is your favoured theory excepted?”

[neobiognosis]

“What? - You are obviously so obsessed with your favoured theory you are losing sight of what is a fact and what is opinion. It is impossible to give a ‘factual’ example of i.c. as all examples you give fit into existing phylum. This is a sad indictment of i.c., there is no species living or extinct that does not fit somewhere into the existing tree of life. Such a creature would truely prove ID, this is why you ID exponents scour life for the obscure examples you come up with”

[neobiognosis]

@LL Lets not just stick to the vid. Difficult questions which ID/IC cannot explain, the areas of argument that you steer clear of, are the more significant questions of the natural world. In the context of 'intelligent design", what 'Intelligent designer' would put wings on a Cassowary that have no useful purpose and include a claw of no useful value. What 'Intelligent designer' would put eyes into fish and lizards that are blind? A committee of designers? Millions more examples to follow!

[LoricaLady]

@neobiognosis I haven't steered clear of any such things. I have given examples for them in fact which no one has refuted. You are the one who is steering away from hard issues mentioned here that you do not want to address. But what does it matter, I see you are on the ignore list for your pattern of verbal abusiveness. Bye!

[neobiognosis]

@LoricaLady Shame!

[neobiognosis]

@LoricaLady Perhaps you can point me to the examples you refer to. It does fascinate me how intelligent design could explain a useless wing and claw given to the unfortunate cassowary?

[LoricaLady]

@neobiognosis If you want examples of i.c. you can see the videos Creatures That Defy Evolution (maybe especially the bombadier beetle one.) I believe I have already given the ex. of the codependent whip & flagellar motor, the simplest ex. I can think of - but if not let me know. Why would EVO make a useless claw & wing?? Evidently they had some purpose at one time. Devolutioin is the opposite of evolution as it is the loss of information, not an increase leading to "Tree of Life" climbs.

[neobiognosis]

Your example of i.c. is reliant on an argument from ignorance. It is evident you have not read widely about evolution. Flight is an energy intensive activity, necessary mainly to avoid predators. In the absence of predators, the preferred means of motion becomes walking. Hence a reduction in the use of wings and birds evolve a flightless lifestyle. This has happened in many isolated island ecosystems. Further evidence of the relationship between genetic development and environment.

[neobiognosis]

@LoricaLady What is the ID explanation of flightless birds. Despite three requests for you to do so, you have not addressed this point which evolution has such a good explanation for.

[LoricaLady]

@neobiognosis "What is your i.d. explanation for flightless birds." What 3 requests? I believe I said that flightless birds can be an example of devolution which is the exact opposite of evolution since it means the loss of information rather than increased info leading to "Tree of Life" climbs. Loss of info is seen sometimes. Some birds, such as the ostrich, actually use their wings for things like fighting and fanning themselves. Didn't I ask YOU how EVO can explain useless wings & claws?

[neobiognosis]

@LoricaLady There is no such thing as devolution in relation to biology. You introduce a meaningless term. There is only evolution, flightless wings generate from the same bits of DNA as generate flighted wings, the genes are expressed differently. Are you admitting evolution is happing?

Please expand upon how and why a designer would incorporate flightless creature. You have not given your explanation of why the intelligent designer would work this way.

[LoricaLady]

@neobiognosis You say "Let's not stick to the vid." Too bad. I wanted to hear you defend how you can tell the left over bits of the mouse trap seen in this vid are killing mice. I wanted to hear you tell me why I should believe it's kiling anything in it's less "irreducibly complex" state. The last state, where it's just a spring with a bit of cheese, would be particularly amusing to hear defended as a mouse killer.

[neobiognosis]

@LoricaLady The mousetrap metaphor was poorly chosen by Dr Behe, and has been demonstrated as thus by Dr Miller. Also -  "While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally and should not be regarded as scientific."...LeHigh University. Where he works.?

[LoricaLady]

@neobiognosis Cont. Your comment about LeHigh Univ. is an appeal to authority logical fallacy. In Einstein's time everyone, including Einstein, thought the universe was eternal until they got new info. There is also the political correctness factor and the ingrained tendency of orthodoxy to defend itself. Just as Expelled shows. And don't tell me Expelled is not true as I've been Expelled several times here on YT (and those doing name calling & obscenities were left alone.)

[neobiognosis]

@LoricaLady Evidence on the extent of the Universe is miniscual compared to the evidence supporting evolution (You know, all that correlated evidence that points to evolution being true but we can't use when arguing for evolution because your maths teacher told you once correlation does not imply causation). In the light of this wisdom, why was correlation developed as a statistical measure?

[LoricaLady]

@neobiognosis Correlation Does Not Imply Causation does not just fit into a math box. It is one of the major fallacies which people are taught to avoid in debates on any topic. Correlation being developed as a statistical measure may or may not be valid depending on many factors. Some people paint their bodies at sports games. Neither the games nor those running it CAUSED the people to do that. It is just a CORRELATION.

[LoricaLady]

Cont. I don't think anyone is going to use his mutilated mouse trap to catch mice & I don't buy it for a second that it will kill them. He even admits you must have "a really stupid mouse." But again we see no evidence at all that even a really stupid mouse would be caught by that trap.He also had to "take the hold down bar...and twist it." 'Scuze me again. He is usingi ntelligent design & intelligent intervention to alter the mouse trap. So he is showing the exact opposite of evo. Cnt.

[LoricaLady]

5:18 "It sounded like such a good argument: You need all the parts or it doesn't work at all." Let us reflect here on the fact that the biochemist Michael Behe said that you need all the parts...to...catch...mice! Miller says that he used a pair or pliers and yanked a part and still got it to work on a PBS sshow. 'Scuse me. Was there a mouse on that show? "Got it to work" is not really defined here. As usual there is no real evidence, just speculation presented as evidence. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

4:58 "When you look at these systems in detail, we can actually by comparative analysis see where the parts came from." No, they cannot do any such thing. 1st, even evolutionists don't say we came from puffer fish & cetaceans. 2nd, it's just a chart making inferences & assumptions with no data to back it up whatsoever. Again, the real evidence would be to show that HUMANS can do w/0 all those parts of the blood clotting system and as Miller has already stated at the start, they cannot. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

Cont. The fact that 0 such person is shown is a strong, silent statement. Here is another issue which is not addressed: If we don't need all those parts (tho Miller has already stated that w/o all of them present human blood will not clot, which is true) then why did evo develop them? Doe evo add useless parts over millions of years? If so, why? But those are rhetorical Qs only since I don't believe evo did any such things. We need all of the components & all at once for blood clotting. Cnt

[LoricaLady]

4:32 Next we're shown a puffer fish (O, how do Ilol & not be mean?) that has a different kind of blood clotting system & are told that since it doesn't need them all, we don't either! Gee, I wouldn't have expected a puffer fish to have the same kind of blood clotting system as we land dwelling animals any more than I would expect it to have the same kind of lungs,heart, circulatory system etc. Once again - show me a HUMAN out there missing all those components & still clotting blood. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

Cont. Why aren't we shown lab results of humans missing 1 of those components & still clotting blood? Why are we shown a cetacean? Even evolutionists don't say we evolved from them. Dolphins are not designed like human beings but for different places on the biosphere! It's like saying, "Look! Humans don't need 2 legs to walk! Dolphins & whales do just fine w/o them:" Do you think he, or any evolutionist, is willing to remove that same protein in their own blood? Of course not. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

2:57 Now we get into the argument that the blood clotting mechanism in humans is irreducibly complex also. Here Miller says, "If you are missing even 1 of these proteins your blood doesn't clot properly. That part is true." Hang onto that, there he admits you need them all.  Next at 3:50 he "removes" one on the chart and tells us things still will work. 1st, he has just said contradictory things. 2nd we see another strawman. Suddenly we are looking not at a human but at a dolphin! Cnt.

[LoricaLady]

Cont. It's so simple. The flagellar motor needs all its parts to do its job of ftraveling thru the body & making crucial chemical exchanges. If it doesn't have all those parts it cannot do its job. This is irreducible complexity. Saying, "Well, some of its inner parts have dual functions" doesn't change that truth. And btw, where is actual evidence, like lab tests, showing even those inner parts will function w/o the whole "bug" intact? We're told it's so, but w/0 data as usual. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

Cont. 0:51 "Let's take away all but 10 of its parts." If they go away is the bacterial flagellum going to travel thru the body making its essential chemical exchanges? No. But that fact is totally ignored. 1:57 As Behe said the SYSTEM will be nonfunctional w/o all its parts. You cannot build a valid science argument by using logical fallacies, i.e. in this case a strawman logical fallacy. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

0:02 "As these parts get put together new functions emerge." There is zip, zero, nada, zilch evidence that any such thing has or ever will happen. Again, pure dataless speculation is being presented as if it is observable scientific fact. It all looks so scientific with those colored charts, but where is anything showing it happening in nature? The answer is usually "Well it happened so slowly...millions of years ago..." Speculation presented as factual evidence is pseudo science. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

0:00 "Components themselves originate with different functions." So let's look at the flagellar motor again, specifically the whip & the roatry motor below it that turns it. What "different functions" could either of those parts possibly have? How could evo drive each part to perfection and do so with the parts in synch (!) while they are useless "evolving" nubs of stubs? What possible function could either part have on its own apart from the other? This is irreducible complexity. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

Here continues a critical analysis of this presentation, which began at vid 1/9 and went to 3/9, 4/9, 5/9. (Vid 2/9 is missing.) 0:14 "Now that's not evidence" Miller says after making several statements based purely on speculation & 0 evidnece that sound as if they are actual facts. He spoke the truth but how many in the audience got it? 0:23 Again, he is presenting a strawman logical fallacy by attacking something Behe did NOT say! Again, compare these words to 7:24 of 5/9. Cont.

[tparker37]

the point is that the so-called "irriducibly complex" system can be selected for starting with the smaler components being selected for different functions. The signal transduction, secretory apparatus, ion transport, and axial protein components were each being selected individually. When in one bacterium the presence of all of them produced a flagellum, it was then highly selected for, and the system was complete.

[cruelfate45]

that's the theory, but how did it happen and is their genetic evidence to support this? how are the genes expressed as the bacteria copies itself? I know what you are gonna say, the flagellum was accidentally assembled in a few bacteria and they survived better, so they reproduced and passed this function on to all bacteria...ok, genetically speaking, how was a flagellum chance assembled from these other parts already chosen for by natural selection such as the parts you mentioned?

[Aldelirium]

"I know what you are gonna say,"

a psychic! kill him!

[VoteNixon2008]

Miller already answered this! But this video is a few years old and the fugu fish genome was only released about 3 months ago.

Here's what I think is most likely

Scenario:

One of the mant DNA segments for the type3/1 secretory system mutated or was transposed next to a segment for something else (this could be a frameshift segment too)

The RNA copied this and brought the modified coding segment to a ribosome or polyribosomes(e-coli).

From here the old pump was synthesized with a modification.

[VoteNixon2008]

Or another possibility is that one of the histones in this segment moved so that a gene for other proteins emerged AFTER type 3 system was expressed.

Another possibilty is that an endogenous virus placed some of it's dna after the pump segment so that part of a virus(minus the dna/rna) was synthesized and the proteins folded in such a way that the viral parts natural form inside of the pump channel.

I'm running out of room here.

But there are many genetic mechanisms to account for this

[cruelfate45]

natural selection wouldn't choose Ken's busted ass mouse traps, I don't understand why he ignores that part of Behe's argument. It makes it seems like he is trying to con somebody

[AtheistDiscGolfer]

poor ignorant Behe didnt stand a chance. his ID fairytail got dominated by reality!

[GOPpersona]

I would have to agree, he's basically saying you could make a 1 piece flagellum.

[AthynKronos]

It probably wouldn't cruelfate, which is why it would evolve into the more complex 5-piece mousetrap over time. That is the point of evolution, simple organisms become more complex over time and adapt and become better at "their job" just like the 5-piece mousetrap would be better than the 2 or 3-piece mousetrap at its "job".

[cruelfate45]

Bacteria are still bacteria. The only true evolution that has occured in bacteria, at least that I know of, has occured due to various forms of what James Shapiro has dubbed "natural genetic engineering". But it is more precise to say this ADAPTATION is what allows the bacteria to do their job better, while you have it the other way around. The reason Behe chose the mousetrap analogy is because a 2 or 3 piece mousetrap has no job. It's not a mousetrap. We aren't in complete disagreement...

[cruelfate45]

...because if Miller can show us that the genetic coding sequence for the flagellum and the type III sec favors evolution of the more complex from the more primative, I would be listening. He of all people should know that analagous proteins means nothing, analagous structures mean nothing, WITHOUT and understanding of how each one is coded and what the genes say about their evolutionary relationship. He is completely silent on this, so I feel it's a straw man argument against Behe.

[Erech01]

lol, behe broke down:P