Evolution: Fossils, Genes, and Mousetraps (5-9)

[LoricaLady]

ANYONE: I am being followed around, as usual, by someone leaving comments while knowing he is on ignore for personal insults and refusal to truly debate by answerings Qs I have posed. Such folk follow me (& others) around YT consistently. If you would like to make any of their same points I will be happy to respond with what I feel is "the rest of the story." But I debate only with the civil & objective & those who actually debate.

[ABriefHistoryOfTime]

@LoricaLady Actually what you're doing is attempting to dodge the debate by accusing others of personal attacks when all we've done is refute you and ask you very plain and simple questions you cannot answer.

For instance;

How many terrestrial organisms were present in the Cambrian?

[LoricaLady]

7:24 Note the word "system" as it will be very significant shortly. 9:27 "The indidvidual parts can have no function." This is bait & switch. A strawman logical fallacy. This is adding to Behe's words! Please click back on 7:24 and see that he made no such statement. He talked, accurately, about a system that cannot work if all the parts are not there. He said nothing about whether or not any individual parts within the system could have any additional purposes. To be cont. on vid 6/9

[LoricaLady]

Cont. It's not going to happen. Evolutionists can spin stories about how things happened millions of years ago that no one ever has seen happen and call that science. Initelligent design advocates use real science with what is observable, repeatable & testable - like the real sciences. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

Cont. One is useless w/o the other. How is evo going to drive them to completion thru millions of years while they are incomplete & useless? Of if they have some other use - what the evolutionists are calling "co option" - what could it possibly be?

Further it's not just a matter of a flagellar motor "evolving." If it gets a whip & motor that means innumerable many chemical systems & interactions throughout the body must also change in conjunction with it - all in synch. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

Cont. They also lead the public to believe that those simpler organisms "evolved" into the more complex organism that Behe talks about though there is 0 evidence that this happened or that it could work thru evo. There is nothing testable, repeatable, or observable in what they say. So they are the ones who are not using real science.  I would like to present another part of the bacteria flagellum for anyone to look at. The whip & the rotary motor below it. They are codependent. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

Cont. Evolutionists go off on tangents and say "Well, this part over there and this part over here have other functions so it's not irreducibly complex...." But they don't show how if those parts are taken out the flagellar motor will still be able to function as before since that could not happen. They also talk about simpler organisms and say, "Look they don't have all those parts & they function." But they don't function the same way!  Cont.

[LoricaLady]

Cont. ...and says it is "unscientific." But this is untrue. The concept of intellilgent design is based on what is observable, testable and repeatable. Evolution is what is based on what is not testable, observable or repeatable. For ex. Behe shows the actual flagellar motor and describes how it cannot work until all parts are in place and fully functional. The evolutioinary argument against this is bogus. Behe talked about the entire flagellar motor's ability to move thru the body. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

Cont. Go figure. Apparently Miller thinks its ok & scientific to think that all the time, space, inorganic matter & energy in the universe got here thru intelligent design but that it is outrageous & unacceptable to think that the same Creator intelligently designed organic matter. And we're not supposed to step over his line drawn in the sand because?? 6:07 "Actually a doctrine of special creation." But both statements are!  He says intelligent design is "just religion spiffed up..." Cont.

[LoricaLady]

0:01 Backtracking for just a minute. Is this a Freudian slip resulting from evo indoctrination? "Did that play in our devil-up-ment?" 5:08 How professional is this to a fellow scientist? First we are shown the New Yorker cruel caricature of microbiologist Behe who represents the opposition. Then we see a court sketch of Miller looking like a normal human being. Again, this ain't science. This is propaganda. 6:03 Miller says that he believes in the top statement, but not the 2nd. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

Cont. Why is the hideous cartoon shown to the students? What does it say? Anything at all about science? No. Is it necesssary to make any points about logic or the trial? No. It's saying, If you go against politically correct, Darwinian orthodoxy look what will happen to you - public ridicule. Ridicule is 1 of the most popular forms of propaganda used to keep people from agreeing with an opposing view. This isn't about science, it's about using the state & propaganda to squelch dissent. Cnt.

[LoricaLady]

4:38 "This judge is a republican conservative..." In a way this statement is an admission that the whole issue is political. It is also totally irrelevant in showing anything about this man's scientific understanding of the issues or lack of any bias. Are all republicans trained in science & logic? Are all "conservatives" above political and peer pressure to be politically correct & not maybe get vicously caricatured, as Behe was, in major media sources, as Miller shows here at 4:52? Cont.

[LoricaLady]

Cont. Telling us Fossil A led to Fossil B, C & etc. when there's 0 evidence A isn't just 1 of many dead end extinct animals & they have 0 evidence to show that it ever produced any progeny significantly different from itself. The phrase "missing links" - though there is 0 evidence to show the difference between "missing" & "never existed." Continual use of "probably...must have...could have...likely...simulation...w­e present a model...." presented as if it is evidence & not speculation. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

Cont. That natural selection leads to climbs up Darwin's Tree tho Mendell showed that, even with change in species, bees stay bees & peas stay peas, etc. etc. That mutations lead to evo though there is 0 evidence they pile one on top of another over time leading to the creation of any kind of DNA that would enable animals to climb up the so called Tree of Life. Any evidence any life form ever climbed up the "Tree." Saying dinos are evidence for evo when it's the opposite, extinction. Cont

[LoricaLady]

2:45 Evoevangelists present the whole evolution creation debate as a religious issue. One definition of religion is a set of beliefs based on the never seen. Here are just a few of the things that are believed & taught by evolution but are never seen: Primal pond & in general that life can come from inorganic matter. Scales to feathers. Fins to feet. Any scientific material whatsoever in The Origin of Species. For ex. there is 0 evidence beak changes lead to non finches. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

Cont. What really happened in Dover wasn't that science was upheld or even understood. What happened is that science was turned over to the state & our basic rights were violated. Where in the constitution or in any laws does a judge get the right to tell the public what is science & what is not? And that is exactly what that judge did. What matters is not what some judge said, one way or another. What matters is what the data shows whether the judge understands it, or cares, or not. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

Cont. I do not know if he will be putting up the New Yorker caricature of his opponent Behe - making him look like a retarded fish-person - that I have seen him displaying before when talking about Dover, but it certainly helps to underscore the fact that those who oppose evo will be ridiculed in the mainstream media. (In contrast a picture was also shown of Miller, a court sketch, making him look very professional & dignified.) The Judge no doubt saw such drawings & got the message. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

1:12 "And we can look around and see where those organisms are. They're the great apes." What we don't see, again, is any evidence that our fusion came from apes. We are just asked to believe that it did based on a superficial number match, while ignoring the fact that their genes are not identical to ours. 1:28 Onward to the trial in Dover. There's no scientific reason to rehash something that occured in a nonscientific, politically correct setting with a non science trained judge. Cont/

[LoricaLady]

0:55 On the one hand we hear it being said that "A lucky arrangement that occured in the line that led to us...can't" show that we evolved from apes. On the other thand we've heard since vid 1 that the fusion shows we came from apes & is evidence for evo. Again, we see speculation, w/0 evidence, presented as if it is scientific fact, and now inconsistency in what is being claimed. If the fusion "can't" show that we evolved from apes, then why has it been held up as evo evidence? Cont.

[LoricaLady]

This is a continuing critical analysis of the vid presentation, started at vid 1/9 & continued on 3/9 (2/9 is missing) & 4/9. I will go thru the entire vid series if I do not get Expelled.

0:17 Here Miller says some things really supported by data. Other animals have fusions "and for the most part the fusion doesn't have a very profound affect. The [presumed] fusion of [ape & human chromsomes] probably had very little to do with what makes us human." Probably is a big evo buzz word. Cont.

[polluxandcastor]

What an amazing teacher.

[ndjarnag]

this is great!