Dembski makes great points hes just a terrible debater. Its so frustrating. Just answer the mans questions without hesitating every single fucking time. YEESH!!! You makin us look bad.LOL
They go on about Science not researching ID, and there closed minds etc. yet theres nothing stopping them doing "research", all these debates they provide no new data or knowledge, they just try and find problems with Evolution,
This has to be the most useful discourse and debate on the subject of falsifiable intelligent causal agency claims. If one is new to the discourse and contentions between Evolutionary Biologists and purporters of ID, this may be quite a healthy intro. Thanks NCSE for sharing this.
I love to watch Dembski squirm and whine. The end of the sentence, "If I'm hesitating on this, it's because I know when you're going with it..." is "...and it's horribly destructive to my dumb ideas." Why else would he be standing up there waffling, drenched in flop sweat as he is, rather than take on his detractors like a man and prevail with the superior argument? Because he is a knowing fraud.
“Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, et cetera.
“Creation is the theory that various forms of life began abruptly, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales,...
doesn't the both quotes of different drafts dembski's book fly in face of common decent
Miller and Pennock think like children. Really. They are so stuck in the evolution paradigm that they come up with silly questions that they seem convinced are legit. Spotting design is far more important and independent of when or who the designer was. You cannot be honest and ignore obvious design just because you don't know the designer. You do not do that In any other field except this one, simply because evolution supports atheism and ID does not. Just silly.
LOL, if Dembski's explanation is correct then the shit my dog just took has such a horrendously low probability to be in the shape it is that is must be an example of specified complexity. What an idiot...
Through the many peer-reviewed biological research from the Discovery Institute's credentialed-academics, what practical applications in the life-sciences have resulted from Dr. Dembski's "specified complexity" & "Law of Conservation of Information"? .
@schraughts Applications could be enormous.Scientist could use examples of biological design to create highly advanced technology.Scientists have already done that.Theory of Evolution obscures examples of design, thus extinguishing source ideas for making better technology.
@MrPsychedelia101 I think the question was what HAVE resulted not what COULD result. Are you on the payroll trying to swindle funding for this bent organisation. If you are right take your idea to the corporations - if there is a practical benefit they will fund you - trust me that is how the real world works - not the fairy tale fantasy you are peddling.
The claim that the validity of ID rests on financial and religious agenda of its proponents is irrelevant to the arguments and evidence they present, which must be evaluated on its own 4:01.The fact that most of the world population doesn't take Bible seriously, is a result of predjudice's and gross misunderstanding of the bible it self.Your question's still constitute argument from ignorance.
@MrPsychedelia101 Argument from ignorance? I have studied science to degree level and then qualified as a lawyer (barrister in the UK). I grew up a moslem having read the koran by the age of eight and then rejected religion for science. I have travelled the world and for the past two years been working in the Middle East running an international law firm. What evidence is there for ID? don't just point at an eye and say it is too complex to have evolved so god must have done it. Explain?
@vohshkab The DNA is a good example:what is a probability of extremely complex engineering blueprint coming into existence by a chance?The DNA is unimaginably complex blueprint of the whole human body.
@vohshkab The evidence for intelligent design comes from irreducible complexity. All life is irreducibly complex from the celluar level on up but I will give you the simplest case I can think of. Feel free, of course, to search any evolutionary literture for the Qs I will ask you. But also,. please use your own eyes and your own mind. You know how evo is supposed to work - slowly over aeons with no ability to plan the future. So Google a sperm cell & look at the flagellar whip. Cont.
@vohshkab Cont. Now look at the nano technology rotary motor that moves it. How is evo going to drive both the whip & the motor to completion while they are useless for aeons? What "co option" or "dual purpose" as evolutionists talk about, could they possibly have? Now think of the egg in a totally other body. How & why would evo drive it to completion while waiting for the sperm's whip & motor (really the whole thing & more of course) to be finished? Then there are the fallopian...
@LoricaLady Oh, and the sperm flagellum is not a rotary motor. That's the bacterial flagellum. Consider for a moment what the designer must be like to have designed such a system. These flagella are important tools to the bacteria that infect us and cause us much suffering. This designer has less consideration for us than we do for lab rats.
@LoricaLady "How is evo going to drive both the whip & the motor to completion while they are useless for aeons?" Bacteria do not need aeons. They reproduce and change quite rapidly. But no "evolutionist" claims that the whip and motor need to go through a period of no function while being developed. That's not how it works. Part or parts with function(s) A (and maybe b) develop a secondary function C. Eventually A (and B) are dropped and C is perfected. Look up Lenski and E Coli.
@Maxdwolf "Bacteria do not need aeons...They reproduce & change quite rapidly." Oh how right you are. Yet all we ever see are micro organisms, like bacteria & algae in astronomcal numbers, multiplying at lightning speed, and all staying steadfastly, every single time, bacteria or algae. So, what "2ndary function" do the whip & motor have while they are "evolving" before they are able to work together as a unit? Give evidence.
Dataless theories presented as evidence = pseudo science.
@Maxdwolf Cont. "Look up Lenski". No, use YOUR words and YOUR mind to show me how E coli is "evolving." Remember, it's still a bacteria, which gives evidence against evolution, not for it. Life can change within limits. We always knew that, hence animal husbandry. Speciation occurs for ex. But you are being told things climb up Darwin's Tree & there is a change in genus. I've asked for evidence for that... Waiting...
@LoricaLady Ok, make up your mind. Do you want my works or do you want evidence. Evidence does not come up ex-nihilo. Your kidding, "It's still a bacteria." Ok, I'm not going to take you seriously anymore as you're falling back on the god of the gaps. You know there is greater difference between various bacteria than between ourselves and chickens.
@Maxdwolf "There is a greater difference between various bacteria than between ourselves and chicken." So? I'm asking you for 1 single example anywhere of a bacteria that stoped being a bacteria, a chicken that stoped being a chicken, a person that stopped being a person and began to climb up Darwin's "Tree." I've asked you a lot of things, but still no answers... Ask yourself this Q: Why can't I answer her Qs?
@LoricaLady "So? I'm asking you for 1 single example anywhere of a bacteria that stoped being a bacteria, a chicken that stoped being a chicken a person stopped being a person and began to climb up Darwin's Tree" 1) That's not what ToE says happens. Organisms don't morph into other organisms. You are asking for evidence of a theory when you don't understand what the theory is. Why not ask for evidence that one type of bacteria become another? That's evolution.
@LoricaLady I have answered all your questions. Sometimes with other questions, sometimes by pointing out your question is bullshit and dishonest. You might not like those answers, but they are answers. You keep squawking "o evidence" but have already made it clear there is no evidence that you will accept. Have you seen and understood the fossil, dna, and taxonomic evidence? Answer, no.
@Maxdwolf "I have answered all your Qs." You are not being honest. You have also followed the usual pattern of evo-ites on YT, when pressed for evidence start in with the personal insults, i.e. "Your Q is bullshit and dishonest." The insults always escalate and become more virulent if the debate continues. But it won't continue. I debate with people as long as they are civil & objective. You have ceased to be either. You are now on ignore. BYE!
@vohshkab ...tubes, the liquid to transport the sperm cells and, well the list just goes on and on. They all need one another and they all need to be in place and fully complete before the reproductive system for 2 genders will work. You are looking at irreducibly complexity - but, again, it is everywhere.
@LoricaLady No, all these systems do not need to be in place and complete for there to be a 2 gender system. There are simpler organisms with simpler reproductive systems. The flagella has been refuted many times, Google it. There are many complex systems and the questions as to how they evolved are challenging ones. But presuming impossibility is simply lazy.
@Maxdwolf "No all these systems do not need to be in place." Give me some data, some evidence to back up that statementm something in nature, in the fossil record. "There are simpler organisms with simpler reproductive systems." Give me some data, some evidence that shows one kind turning into another. All the fossil record shows, all nature shows, are differences suited to the particular individuals, no transition from one to another. "The flagella has been refuted many times. Google it."
@LoricaLady ""No all these systems do not need to be in place." Give me some data, some evidence to back up that statementm something in nature, in the fossil record." Don't need to got to the fossil record. Look at plants. Look at fish. Compare marsupials and placental mammals. You went off track a little bit, asking for evidence of other methods of sexual reproduction, when what you are challenging is the transition.
@Maxdwolf Cont. If we understand something we are able to articulate it using our own words and our own minds rather than simply saying, Google it. For ex. I will tell how it has NOT been debunked. They give the examples of co option and dual purpose as strawmen logical fallacies. Yes, some parts of the flagellar whip have more than 1 function. But take away any of the parts and just as Behe said, you don't have a working bug anymore. Further we are to assume based on magical thinking...
@LoricaLady "If we understand something we are able to articulate it using our own words and our own minds rather than simply saying, Google it. " "So Google a sperm cell & look at the flagellar whip" Make up your mind. Co-option and dual purpose are not logical fallacies. Change or take away a part and you can still have a working "bug". No magical thinking here.
@Maxdwolf This time you can give me a Google. Tell me where in the evo lit it shows lab ev-i-dence that if you take away a part of the bacterial flagellum that it will still work & do its job. Of course co option & dual purpose are not logical fallacies in and of themselves, only when they are a bait and switch. I don't care what Behe acknolwedges about common descent. I'm asking you not for what ANYONE belieeeeves, but for where the evidence is. So far I see 0. Cont.
@LoricaLady "Tell me where in the evo lit it shows lab ev-i-dence that if you take away a part of the bacterial flagellum that it will still work & do its job."
Now THAT's a strawman. the question is whether it will still perform A job. "Of course co option & dual purpose are not logical fallacies in and of themselves" Glad you finally admit that. But they are not bait and switch.
@Maxdwolf I'm still asking for whatyou claimed: Tell me where in the evo lit it shows lab ev-idence that if you take away a part of the bacterial flagellum it will still work and do its job. No I did not admit what you said I "admitted", I showed you why talking about co option & dual function does not demonstrate that the flagellum will function w/ missing parts. That's what the man said - the evoevangelists switched the topic.
@LoricaLady Now you are simply lying. I never claimed "lab ev-idence[sic]". We find the evidence in nature. The system minus a part exists in other species, but now you will do your little dodge again as you always do and start screaming "No evidence!"
Say, speaking of dodges, why are you so uncomfortable speaking about the nature of this designer you imagine?
@Maxdwolf ...that because some bugs are less complex that millions of untestable, unrepeatable & observable years ago those bugs turned into the more complex flagellum. Is there any evidence the current, simpler, bugs ever have been or ever will be anything but what they are - little creatures with different functions suited to a different niche? Of course not! But is so - provide it. "How they evolved are challlenging" Qs. All I'm asking for is evidence. "Preuming impossibilty is...lazy...."
@LoricaLady "Is there any evidence ... Of course not!" Even Behe acknowledges common descent. There is genetic evidence and fossil evidence and taxonomic evidence, all of which tie together and all of which you ignore.
@Maxdwolf What genetic evidence shows that a flagellum ever evolved from a simpler form? Pointing to simpler forms that have different niches & show 0 evidence of every having been anything but what they are is not evidence, it's faith. What fossil evidence shows the flagellum was ever different? And yes, bacteria have been fossilized. I don't ignore taxonomic evidence & fossil evidence. I show they are based on magical thinking. Miller said Tiktaalik is "as good as it gets for...
@LoricaLady Why genetic and why simpler? Evolution doesn't have a direction. What do you consider evidence would you consider ERVs genetic evidence of evolution? If not, I say you have an unrealistic notion of evidence or that you have twisted it on this subject.
@Maxdwolf Notice that you are not answering my Qs. If you answer "You have an unrealistic notin of evidence"? I consider that a cop out, frankly. I don't what you are referring to when you mention ERVs but I am quite sure they show nothing beyond the level of speciation - because nothing ever does regardless of Darwin's book which btw showed no origin of any species & had nothing but armchair theorizing in it.
@LoricaLady "I don't what you are referring to when you mention ERVs but I am quite sure they show nothing beyond the level of speciation" This pretty much sums up the situation. You have a set position and refuse to acknowledge the existence of evidence, by your own words.
@LoricaLady "I don't ignore taxonomic evidence & fossil evidence. I show they are based on magical thinking." Really? Where have you shown this? I've seen you claim it a dozen times. I've never seen you show anything other than your own ignorance.
@Maxdwolf ...for a transtional form. It is 100% FISH. There is 0 evidence it ever had any progeny significantly different from itself. Yet we are told to draw imaginary lines to invisible dots between its invisible descendants' invisible descendants until we get to a tetrapod. ALL the fossil & taxonomic evidence is EXACTLY like that - based purely on magical thinking presented as if it is Gawd's truth scientific evidence. You were told fins turned into feet, fish into tetrapods...
@LoricaLady So would you say Australopithecus is 100% great ape or 100% human? Is Archeopteryx 100% bird. To hold any of these positions or that Tiktaalik is all fish is to deny evidence to the contrary. Imagining connections along clear trend lines is not magical thinking.
@Maxdwolf Tiktaalik is 100% lobe finned fish. Look it up. They say it has "characteristics of" and "similar homology" to a tetrapod. But is 100% FISH! Many evolutionists have said Archy is just 'a perching bird." Again, there is 0 evidence it or Australopithecus had any descendants signiciantly different from itself whatsover. You aren't being given evidence you are being given wishful thinking, psuedo scientifically. Your mind was meant for greater things than that.
@LoricaLady ID of the gaps. There is a fun article in talkorigins where they do a comparison of hominid skulls and show how creationists can't agree where to draw the line between humans and other hominids. You have drawn a line in your mind and refuse to acknowledge anything crossing no matter how close something gets.
@Maxdwolf Talk Spin, er I mean Talk Origins, is my fave sites t debunk, tho generally I prefer to avoid it the way I avoid National Enquirer. I have seen them in the same article claim evolution for something using both gradualism (Gee it happened millyunz of years ago, so slowly so we have no evidence) and punctuated equilibria (Gee it happened so fast that we have no evidence.) Quit quoting sites & evo lit headlines & kindly answer my Qs. Science requires evidence not statements of faith.
@LoricaLady You are becoming quite the model of the Dunning-Kruger effect. You debunk talkorigins? I suppose you've debunked all the paleontology and anthropology and geology papers they cite.
Yes, science requires evidence and reasoning. Evolution has it. You won't acknowledge it. You don't even know the basics put presume to tell the experts.
@Maxdwolf ...scales into feather, tetapods into birds. I'm not ignoring the evidence. I'm seeing the truth. Uncounted billioins of fossils - billions of just 1 kind of nautiloid in the Grand Canyon alone - show the exact opposite! 100% of each only, 0 inbetweeners at all - just fanciful storires that have 0 evidence whatsoever to back them up & evidence in the exact opposite direction. Give evidence mutations or natural selection can lead beyond the level of speciation, i.e. to a new genus.
@Maxdwolf If the sperm flagellum does not have a rotary motor, what is moving it rournd and round. Give its name. "There are reasons from experience...not to expect..." "There are reasons,to believe" based on listeing to many evoevangelists and reading much of evo lit, not to expect evolutionary theory to ever have anything but sophistry, dataless speculation presented as scientific evidence & logical fallacies "all of which tie together" to deceive a great many people. Cont.
@LoricaLady You really don't read my posts to closely do you? The sperm flagellum doesn't rotate. It waves back and forth like a tail. Like I told you before. Wikipedia has a decent explanation, give it a look see.
I don't think you're ever really read much evo lit. Not with any real comprehension. You've made to many errors already.
@Maxdwolf Qs. you;ve evaded so far: Where is the evidence that natural selection or mutations can lead to a new genus. Where is there any evidence anywhere that bacteria, chickens, people, have ever been anything else? Where is the evidence that, as you stated, Tiktaalik isn't 100% fish? And (implied Q) how can you tell an animal is "transitional" with 0 evidence it had any progeny significantly different from itself? What is an ERV & what evidence shows it was ever a different genus...Cont.
@LoricaLady We have evidence of common descent, both genetic and in fossils. We have evidence of the mechanisms of change. You yourself have acknowledged speciation. Why on earth would there be a barrier at the genus level.
How much change would Tiktaalik have to evidence before you said it wasn't "100% fish". Wouldn't you then say it's 100% amphibian? Again, what do you consider evidence? There are "significantly different" progeny of our ancestors walking around (i.e. us).
@Maxdwolf "We have evidence...genetic and in the fossils." I've gone over this already. Where is the evidence Austrailopithicus, or Ida or Lucy or any hominid had descendants significantly different from themselves? Nowhere. Further even evoltuionists don't agree on one single one of them as being "transitional." (Not that I care what they think - but disagreement is a hallmark amongst evolutioniosts because they have no real evidence, only conjectures.) Where is the genetic evidence for evo?
@LoricaLady Define "significantly". Then tell us why it has to be a significant difference. There are sufficient differences in every generation of every animal or plant where it has been measured.
Human-Specific Integrations of the HERV-K Endogenous Retrovirus Family" by Medstrand and Mager in the Journal of Virology. There's your genetic evidence. Have fun.
@Maxdwolf I have no read your posts. You are on ignore. If you want to go on thinking you are nothing more than a modified ape, who am I to burst your bubble? But since you have insulted me more than once I feel that leaves me with the "excuse" to say what I want to say to you, meant for your benefit. Come out of the matrix. And please don't clutter up my inbox with more of your posts. Thank you and have a great 2012.
@LoricaLady I've been on ignore right from the beginning. You have been insulting from the beginning, making claims that simply were not true and ignoring the points I was trying to make. Your dishonesty is insulting.
If I'm on ignore, I don't think my posts will show up in your inbox. If they do, that's your problem. As long as your posts are up I have the right to respond to them.
"Thank you and have a great 2012." Please stop lying. You know you don't wish that for me.
@Maxdwolf Cont. Miller tells us we came from apes because of Chrom. 2. That is based on the usual logical fallacies. 1) Fallacy of the Single Cause, i.e. "We see something and only evo can explain it!" But 1 in 1000 people have an additional fused chromosome which they conveniently don't mention. If 1 came from apes, why not the other? 2) Fallacy of Incomplete Comparison. Chimps aren't even believed by evolutionists to have led to us so there's another reason the argument makes no sense.
@LoricaLady No, Miller does not say that. Try listening closer. The details are important. Examining chromosome 2 provided one way to test the hypothesis. Chromosome 2 is the fused chromosome common to all of us and which fused during our split. That it occurs today is not evidence against and not ignored. Again, before you ask for evidence, you need to know what evidence is. You clearly do not.
@Maxdwolf Cont. Further, the chromosomes that are fused are human chromosomes, not ape to man or chimp to man. Apes have chromosomes that are different in size, frequency, etc. 3) Correlation Does Not Imply Causation. Snakes look like worms. Bats, brids & bees fly. Does that show one came from another? As for Tik it is 100% FISH with 0% evidence it had any progeny becoming tetrapod like no matter how many "characteristsics of" it has. Logical fallacies presented as evidence = anti science.
@LoricaLady "Further, the chromosomes that are fused are human chromosomes, not ape to man or chimp to man" Further evidence that you don't even understand the theory enough to question it. Given that they're in us, of course they're human. That's by definition. This has got to be the dumbest thing you've written so far.
"Apes have chromosomes that are different in size, frequency, etc" Really? Care to elucidate? How "frequent" are they? lol
@Maxdwolf Cont. If you want to look at an animal that is 100% fish, then tell me you know how its descendants' descendants reproduced & what kind of invisible progeny they had in the invisible aeons, and you want to call that science, have fun. I'm going for REAL science. You are using the appeal to authority logical fallacy. Instead of telling me all the people who support the orthodox, politically correct position of Darwinianism, use YOUR mind & YOUR words to answer all those Qs you evade.
@LoricaLady You wouldn't know "REAL science" if it bit you on the ass. There isn't a major field of science which doesn't use the sort of inductive reasoning.
Use YOUR mind to go look at the actual evidence (not some youtube videos and ID sites) and then use YOUR mind to wonder why you're being so arrogant.
@LoricaLady ERV are endogenous retroviruses. Put simply, they are the remnants of a previous infection by a retrovirus that has inserted itself into the germ line. They are like scars in our dna (although not exactly as they can become reactivated). They can thus become viral fossils and provide further genetic evidence of common ancestry.
@Maxdwolf Where is your evidence that viruses, retro or other kinds, ever have been or ever will be anything but viruses etc.? With all those gazillions of examples, funny thing, not one of them can be seen to be climbing up Darwin's so called Tree of Life. Funny thing, the fossil record doesn't show that either & finches stay finches even if their beaks change some. No evo has ever been observed anywhere ever, only a plethora of logical fallacies & "possible...millions of years ago" etc.
@LoricaLady "Where is your evidence that viruses, retro or other kinds, ever have been or ever will be anything but viruses etc.?" See? I use my words and you completely ignore what I wrote. Why should I bother when you are encased in an inviolable cocoon of ignorance and denial? Try reading again and then use YOUR words to show you understood what I wrote.
@LoricaLady "And (implied Q) how can you tell an animal is "transitional" with 0 evidence it had any progeny significantly different from itself?" Cute little weasel word we have in there; "significantly". There are differences in our progeny. They are not large. Disadvantageous ones get weeded out. It's that simple.
@Maxdwolf Cont. Where is evidence that fins turned into feet, fish into tetrapods, scales into feathers, tetrpods into birds and why are we told that happened when the fossil evidence shows the exact opposite? Where is evidence that "change or take away a part [of the flagellum] and you still have a working bug"? Where is evidence the flagellum evolved from anything simpler? What 2ndary function or dual purpose, co option whatever, is there for the whip & the mechanism that moves it? Cont.
@LoricaLady Still arguing ID of the gaps. What evidence do you want? From what I can see you won't be happy with anything less than the entire chronology of descent from one being to another. There are three models of possible evolution on wikipedia (search: evolution of flagella). The flagella is only a few steps away from a stinging mechanism or secretory system.
@Maxdwolf "What evidence do you want?" The evidence I asked for. Just saying "It's so, they say so" is not evidence. Perhaps you don't yet see that. This society has been indoctrinated with the belief that speculation presented as evidence is science. It's not. You need something testable, observable & hopefully repeatable. You need something that isn't CONTRARY to the actual evidence, like lack of species to genus evidence, fossils that show abrupt appearance & stasis,etc.
@LoricaLady Ok, you want specific evidence. Let's start with whales- pakelocetidae, ambulocetus natans, remingtonocetidae, protocetidae, basilosauridae, dorudontidae. There's your homework.
"You need something that isn't CONTRARY to the actual evidence, like lack of species to genus evidence, fossils that show abrupt appearance & stasis,etc." Again, you show an inability to understand what evidence is.
@Maxdwolf "What evidence do you want?" The evidence I asked for. Just saying "It's so, they say so" is not evidence. Perhaps you don't yet see that. This society has been indoctrinated with the belief that speculation presented as evidence is science. It's not. You need something testable, observable & hopefully repeatable. You need something that isn't CONTRARY to the actual evidence, like lack of species to genus evidence, fossils that show abrupt appearance & stasis,etc...
@Maxdwolf ,,,"The flagella is only a few steps away..." That's your evidence? That's not evidence! That's a statement of faith. It gives 0 testable, observable or repeatable to show that the flagella ever did or ever will come from some other kind of mechanism. It evades the fact that there is no imaginable "co option" or "dual purpose" that the whip & the motor below it, can have. It evades that evo cannot predict the future or hold incomplete, codepdendent parts in limbo for aeons.Cont.
@Maxdwolf "There are 3 models of possible evolution.." Lol! They can't even decide on how it happened but boy are they sure it did happen. Or at least they want to make you sure of that. If YOU will search evolution of flagella you will see what is in all evo lit always. (And Wiki is not a good source - anyone can post anything there.) It tells you what's "possible....maybe...likely...could have...inferred...we propose a model..." And they call that evidence. It's only wishful thinking.
@LoricaLady I thought it curious how furious you were to avoid the question of religion. From the particular ignorance you evinced I came to the conclusion that you were a closet creationist. I go look at your channel and voila! You not only reject the clear evidence of evolution, you believe in Genesis and the Noachian flood. LOL
@Maxdwolf Cont. How does E coli show evidence for evolution when its still a bacteria? Where is any evidence whatsoever for climbs up Darwin's "Tree" either in the fossil record, in animal husbandry or in labs? (Of course in labs we are talking about intelligent design if things are changed, so I'm just talking about observation of what naturally occurs.) Where is evidence less simpler reproductive systems gave rise to more complex ones?
Telling me "You're wrong" is just another evasion.
@LoricaLady Where is your evidence that there is an arbitrary barrier? You acknowledge evolution and speciation, but then say it can't cross genuses (by the way bacteria is not a genus). So basically you're say that ancestral forms changed to a point but couldn't cross this imaginary line and then "poof" something came along and designed it across.
@Maxdwolf "Where is your evidence there is an arbitrary barrier?" There you go evading my Qs. again. I asked for what evidence there was that a new genus can come from a species but you won't answer that. But the evidence is that there is no evidence. The evidence there is no tooth fairy is that there is 0 observable, testable or repeatable to demonstrate she ever came to anyone. Same is true for evoltuion. There is no evidence. Just fairy tales based on "possibly...maybe...could have..."
@LoricaLady No, your question is part of an evasion. You are presuming a barrier and telling me to prove it isn't there. The onus is on you to prove it does.
And let's face it. You are lying. If I state the evidence you call it a just so story. Should I cite articles you'll make up other excuses. Just admit it flies in the face of your faith.
There is 0 evidence of any "designer" and yet you pray to him.
@Maxdwolf "You acknowledge evolution and speciation." I certainly don't acknowledge any evoltuion whatsoever any time ever! I acknowledge speciation. That was observed millenia before Darwin. Speciation is NOT evollution. Yes I am saying that ancestral forms & present life forms have demonstrated the ability to change within LIMITS. That's the evidence. There is 0 evidence a bacteria will ever be or ever has been a non bacteria. I've asked you to show me any but...you evade in your faith.
@LoricaLady Yes, speciation is evolution. Variation within a species is evolution. If you're going to argue against a position you need to understand it. You clearly don't.
There you go with the bacteria again. You do know they're a whole kingdom don't you? If the barrier you imagine is at the genus level, a bacteria species can cross it and still be a bacteria. Just like we're still apes despite speciating from a common ancestor.
@Maxdwolf h ave not read your posts. You are on ignore. If you want to go on thinking you are nothing more than a modified ape, who am I to burst your bubble? But since you have insulted me more than once I feel that leaves me with the "excuse" to say what I want to say to you, meant for your benefit. Come out of the matrix. And please don't clutter up my inbox with more of your posts. Thank you and have a great 2012."
Any change in an organism is evolution, according to most biologists now a days. You can't argue against and/or falsify that. It's basically meaningless. Evolution has become so ambiguous it no longer says anything about reality.
@circusOFprecision "In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next" Curtis and Barnes from the Talkorigins website. So no, not any change.
More importantly, you are confusing evolution with the theory of evolution by natural selection and common descent. The first is defined. The third is observed. The second is a well established theory.
I'm not confusing anything, you are the one carelessly using the term. I'm just letting you know that you are causing confusion. Change in organisms over time, not exactly an earth shattering concept. But when you invent a mechanism to explain it, which also attempts to explain all diversity and novelty, you start abusing the definition.
@Maxdwolf Cont. Every day you assume certain things are impossible. You don't expect to wake up and be an elephant. You don't expect to find the tooth fairy anywhere. What's lazy - what's psuedo science - is telling people that things happened and then not providing any evidence for that whatsoever. Yes, the sperm flagellum has a rotary motor. You are ignoring my Qs about it and its whip etc. and just giving me faith based evo sound bytes and the religion strawman logical fallacy instead.
@LoricaLady No, the sperm flagellum does not have a rotary motor its function is more akin to that of a tail (as the bacterial flagella were once thought to be).
There are reasons from experience and knowledge to not expect to wake up and be an elephant. There are reasons to believe that we all have a common ancestor and that we evolve via random mutation and natural selection. It is unreasonable to assume impossibility when we can't immediately produce a mechanism for each step.
@LoricaLady "Please go through my requests for evidence, count them, and tell me how many times you answered. I believe the answer is 0." Actually, I answered every time. You just didn't like the answer. You want me to provide the mountains of evidence in a 500 word sound bite. That's either a rhetorical ploy or just insane. How much evidence have you provided? None. You just say "look, it's too complex" and "show me the evidence". Cop out.
@LoricaLady Finally, you claim I bring in a religion strawman logical fallacy. Not so. If ID is to be considered a scientific theory, it is entirely reasonable to come up with notions of about the nature and limitations of the designer and its intentions and to try to come of with means of testing these notions. You telling me you haven't?
@Maxdwolf Strawman logical fallacy. You have given 0 evidence whatsoever at all for anyting I requested. So you do a bait and switch to Let's talk relgion. Sorry. I don't go there. Evolution stands or falls on logic & science alone. Just between you & the mirror & your wallet ask if there is even 1 "evidence" for evo that you would bet your salary on dbl or 0. Then you will know that you know what evidence really is and that they are only pretending to give it to you.
@LoricaLady You don't seem to clear on what a strawman is (please note, bait and switch is not analogous). I never said anything about religion. You make claims for a designer, but completely dodge questions for what it is, how it operates, e.t.c. I never made claims about religion, but your avoidance seems rather dogmatic.
@LoricaLady Ok, I will bet all the money I will ever make on ERVs. Oh look, that's good enough. I win! Pay up.
Stupid you say? No dumber than your asking what piece of evidence I would bet my salary on. Who would judge and by what standards? What would I stand to gain.
My belief in evolution doesn't stand on one piece of evidence but on the mountains accumulated over 150 years.
I do not view this as a debate. It APPEARS to me as an inquisition! It's downright silly if it weren't of the issue at hand. Does the APPEARANCE of randomness imply no designer?
I am a Christian so I might be a little biased, but I must say that I am impressed by Dembski. I'm used to seeing most people who are debating on the Christianity, or even intelligent design side of the house get embarrassed on stage. I thought he held his own quite nicely, and exposed many flaws in the thinking of modern science. I've often thought that modern science is drifting too far in the direction of groupthink where only a certain spectrum of belief is allowed.
@jimbo525SE "I must say that I am impressed by Dembski... I thought he held his own quite nicely." I look at the sequence 33:00 to 50:00 and I have to ask you, what do you find impressive about anything in that sequence, and how did you determine that he is "holding his own?" If you mean that his purpose was to be vague and deliberately avoid taking any stand at all about what his "theory" postulates, then I will agree. But I fail to see how that is at all impressive. I find it sad.
The killer question is "if it was designed - when was it designed?" Dumpski is saying that the flagellum had to be built in one go - when did that happen? shrugging shoulders, shuffling feet, looking down at his notes, whingeing and then says "we haven't got enough money to do the research" - Son of a bitch - caught out - this is just one big fraudulent money making scam.
@vohshkab You are not making an argument against ID, you are merely asking questions that you don't know answers(argumentum ad ignorantiam).Does the fact that nobody knows the specifics of the construction the stonehenge and the egyptian pyramids mean that nobody designed them .Science without questions is a dead science.
@MrPsychedelia101 we know when and how the pyramids were constructed - ID asserts that complex biological mechanisms spontaneously came into existence - when did this happen a thousand years ago, two thousand - oh wait it was four thousand years ago - of course it was thats what the bible says? Give me a break and stop defending this intellectual dishonesty masquerading as legitimate enquiry. This is creationism through the back door- if God did it then just say so - bu that is not science
Instead of mating for love, nature mates for survival. So, due to ever changing environments and un/availability of Earths necessary components for survival, nature will adapt. Just as homosexuality has never survived real nature, a Finch knows it can't walk around pecking cock it's whole life or it will die. Unfortunately, we have created an environment where homosexuality will not die off due to providing all of the benefits of mating for survival in a sweet little package called adoption.
Irreducible complexity and the flagellum are very important for us to understand. Now take a Finch, you need to learn it's enviro, it's needs for survival and it's mating traits. If a Finch knows by exp. that it's life is made easier by having a certain quality, it will then rate a potential mate on ability to survive and creation of a superior offspring. If I want a tall kid, I want to do a tall chick. A mulatto, a black woman. I think animals have this figured out just like gold-diggers do.
This is bullshit. Why must we humans limit our progress in real knowledge due to a bi-partisan approach on enlightening issues. The whole point is, we don't know, therefore eliminating virtually anything would be unfair to learning the truth about our creation. I think both men have solid pints that are possible in many aspects of design and evolution. There is a fabric of life and must overlap. Intelligent design will evolve after creation due to time AND catastrophic or utopian environments.
I have watched 3 minutes of this video, and judging solely by the body language of the gentleman sitting in the back, he is nervous and unprepared to deliver and defend his points, showing that he may not even completely believe them himself. I will continue to watch to see who he is and what he thinks.
Behavior is not random, since the Universe had a beginning, that an eternal past steady state would not be the elements or a materialism, but a behavioral effect, something that is Intelligent in the method of it's behavior, by means of being able to impute a Memory from what the world was before as One, now split into many parts, each part bearing an innate Intelligent behavior, that is supernatural in view of materialism. If we have intelligent behavior, then that is not randomness
I don't think probabilities about something that has ALREADY happened mean anything. Odds may have some predictive capabilities, but what has already occurred, has already occurred. No matter how seemingly improbable it was.
Debates between ID and Evo are almost pointless. As a pro-evolutionist I believe the data is there in support of Evolution and at this current point there is NO other theory that can compare with the Theory of Evolution in terms of supportive evidence. So I have to say that believers in ID are the ones that need convincing, but they won't budge. You have to see their point of view. Evolution to them is the means to everything evil. Of course they're not going accept it. They're scared.
@steponme208 There are plenty of great christians who are unprecedented scholars and scientists who believe in an ancient earth origin, that is, billions not thousands, and that the 6 "days" are merely six long periods of time. Do yourself a favor and don't get the wrong idea about christianity and the bible because of the secular, literal creationists. There are highly intelligent Christians out there
@Sextonius I know. I didn't say christians, I said "believers in Intelligent Design(ID) are the ones that need convincing". Sorry, I probably didn't specify enough. I don't mean to downgrade Christianty as a whole.
As much as I despise Dembski, I'm glad this debate was held because it really showed that IDists have no theoretical framework of their own whatsoever. All they do is walk around repeating same old god-of-the-gaps argument. Ditto.
Did Dumbski even answer one question at all? I can't find any actual answer to any of the questions posed to him, just dodging and changing the subject.
Of all the great scientific discoveries of the last three centuries, discoveries before and after Darwin, not one was dependent on a belief in the theory of evolution, and not one denied the existence of God. Only of late has there been a rabid, fanatical insistence on a belief in evolution. The priests of evolution say that in order to do science, you must believe in evolution. It has become a militant anti-science cult, worshiping Darwin as the one true god and chanting kill the ID infidels.
"The priests of evolution say that in order to do science, you must believe in evolution."
There are no priests of evolution, it is not a religion, it has just as many priests as gravity and germcell theory do. And no one is saying you must accept the facts of evolution to accept other sciences, just like you don't need to accept germ cell theory to be an electrician or study physics.
"It has become a militant anti-science cult"
No, it hasnt, this is a dishonest ploy from fundies.
@Feralus69 You need to see Ben Stein's movie "Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed" and then tell me that Evolution is not a militant anti-science cult. If you disagree with these evolutionist or propose a different theory, you are an considered an infidel. True science should allow any and all thories to be put forward and to be tested and debated. But with Evolutionist, there is no room for a competing theory. It is therefore as I said "a militant anti-science cult". ID is a theory from design.
I've watched it twice, I watch it when I need a good laugh.
"then tell me that Evolution is not a militant anti-science cult"
Evolution is not a militant anti-science cult, evolution is part of science and is the unifying theory of biology. If you liked expelled you might want to look into why those people were actually scrutinized, hint, it wasn't because of evolution.
@Feralus69 Look at the list of videos to the right and you will see one titled "Creation vs. Darwin 1/4. It is a CNN Special on Evolution and ID. The first part is with M. Behe. In it they show the various parts of a flagellum and how it is very much like a motor.The conclusion that any rational person would make about the complexity of this organism and its function is that it was designed. You and other evolutionist can deny design or attribute it to whatever, but it remains and is a wonder.
"In it they show the various parts of a flagellum and how it is very much like a motor."
Irreducible complexity of the flagellum has been thoroughly destroyed by the likes of men like Ken Miller.
"The conclusion that any rational person would make about the complexity of this organism and its function is that it was designed."
And a rational person a few thousand years ago would say the earth is flat, but that's not what the evidence says and the evidence doesn't support Behe.
@Feralus69 When you come up with contradictory statements how about backing them up with something intelligent. Ken MIller is a moron, but you Darwiniac empty headed asses would drink piss if he said it was delicious. And WTF is the evidence contradicting Behe saying the flagellum is like a rotary motor. Anybody can see that. Are you saying it is not like a rotary motor or are you saying it doesn't show design or are you saying it is not irreducibly complex?
"When you come up with contradictory statements how about backing them up with something intelligent."
What was contradictory?
"Ken MIller is a moron"
Oh really, is that why he utterly destroys every single opponent in every single debate with evidence? And not to mention is outstanding credentials, saying he's a moron is like saying the sun is cold.
"And WTF is the evidence contradicting Behe saying the flagellum is like a rotary motor"
That's not what i said was being contradicted, I said irreducible complexity, which Behe says the flagellum is, has been thoroughly debunked and shown it works without parts.
"are you saying it doesn't show design"
I'm saying it doesn't show design with regards to it being designed from and outside intelligence, nor is it irreducibly complex. I agree it functions like a motor.
Evolution is nothing but a system of control. They have to keep it alive, despite it being ludicrous, in order to keep euthanasia, abortion, and eugenics going.
@Pilgrim1411 "Evolution is nothing but a system of control..." I'm not sure how you've come to this conclusion, but it's rather evident that the examples you cite are completely without basis.
Euthanasia is illegal;
Eugenics, by which I assume you mean forced sterilization to select for particular traits, isn't practiced or advocated by anyone;
And the abortion debate centers around competing conceptions of moral rights.
Actually, several aspects of evolutionary theory have been falsified. The primary one lately has to do with junk DNA. There really is no such thing as junk DNA, but the "junk" is termed epigenetic. In other words, the "junk" controls gene expression. Now, just because I've shown a prediction is false, does that falsify the theory? Evolution can take a beating, it is an extremely vague idea, it adapts to criticism by reverting to it's basic tenet in the form of Darwinism of the Gaps.
@circusOFprecision Actually, there are still "junk" DNA. Some of the so called junk DNA have functions. But there are truly junk DNA. Like endogenous retroviruses. Which also beautifully shows the common ancestry with our closest primate relatives.
Like I said, just because a prediction is falsified, it doesn't destroy the theory. Junk DNA may indeed have some junk it. But isn't it interesting that the overall genetic expression system takes this into account?
@circusOFprecision Junk DNA was never part of evolutionary theory. Junk DNA is not epigenetic (and by definition cannot be), you dont even know what epigenetic means, do you? Evolution does not predict accumulation of "junk DNA."
@bioman123 Sure it does (or at least the two aren't inconsistent). Natural selection would predict that genes coding for traits conferring no survival advantage may, over time, degrade, as there is no selective pressure enforcing the fidelity of their transfer. Similarly, random mutations anywhere in the genome may tend to be inherited if they don't have any impact on survivability.
Pedantic point, perhaps, but I felt it might be appreciated in light of your 'epigenetic' bitchslap.
"yes or no, have you stopped beating your wife lately?" lol, trying to pin him on yes & no questions is a set-up
jfly888 2 weeks ago
Dembski makes great points hes just a terrible debater. Its so frustrating. Just answer the mans questions without hesitating every single fucking time. YEESH!!! You makin us look bad.LOL
ScholarVisual 1 month ago
Hasbro own science, but they don't want anyone to wreck the game.
circusOFprecision 1 month ago
"You can't just pull a piece out..." What, are we playing games now? Is science Janga?
circusOFprecision 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IDT vs IDC
I Don't Think vs I Don't Care
Intelligent Design Theorists vs Intelligent Design Creationists.
Who know Intelligent Design could be summed up in two sets of three letters?
NoNamesLeft0102 1 month ago
Comment removed
NoNamesLeft0102 1 month ago
They go on about Science not researching ID, and there closed minds etc. yet theres nothing stopping them doing "research", all these debates they provide no new data or knowledge, they just try and find problems with Evolution,
deepwinter77 2 months ago
Dembski and Behe know that they're spouting nonsense. It's much more lucrative not to mention easier than real research.
Nhurm 2 months ago
This has to be the most useful discourse and debate on the subject of falsifiable intelligent causal agency claims. If one is new to the discourse and contentions between Evolutionary Biologists and purporters of ID, this may be quite a healthy intro. Thanks NCSE for sharing this.
thedeeliciousplum 2 months ago in playlist Mechanisms of Evolution vs Intelligent Design
I love to watch Dembski squirm and whine. The end of the sentence, "If I'm hesitating on this, it's because I know when you're going with it..." is "...and it's horribly destructive to my dumb ideas." Why else would he be standing up there waffling, drenched in flop sweat as he is, rather than take on his detractors like a man and prevail with the superior argument? Because he is a knowing fraud.
dpowens 2 months ago
time stamp 14:14????
“Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, et cetera.
“Creation is the theory that various forms of life began abruptly, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales,...
doesn't the both quotes of different drafts dembski's book fly in face of common decent
splendiferific 3 months ago
Miller and Pennock think like children. Really. They are so stuck in the evolution paradigm that they come up with silly questions that they seem convinced are legit. Spotting design is far more important and independent of when or who the designer was. You cannot be honest and ignore obvious design just because you don't know the designer. You do not do that In any other field except this one, simply because evolution supports atheism and ID does not. Just silly.
semitope 3 months ago
Wow.... Dembski just got ass rushed and really felt it, I thought he was going to cry at the end...
Feralus69 3 months ago
Holy shit, is it just me or did Dumbski not answer 1 single question?
Feralus69 3 months ago
LOL, if Dembski's explanation is correct then the shit my dog just took has such a horrendously low probability to be in the shape it is that is must be an example of specified complexity. What an idiot...
Feralus69 3 months ago
Just one question: .
Through the many peer-reviewed biological research from the Discovery Institute's credentialed-academics, what practical applications in the life-sciences have resulted from Dr. Dembski's "specified complexity" & "Law of Conservation of Information"? .
schraughts 4 months ago
@schraughts Applications could be enormous.Scientist could use examples of biological design to create highly advanced technology.Scientists have already done that.Theory of Evolution obscures examples of design, thus extinguishing source ideas for making better technology.
MrPsychedelia101 3 months ago
@MrPsychedelia101 I think the question was what HAVE resulted not what COULD result. Are you on the payroll trying to swindle funding for this bent organisation. If you are right take your idea to the corporations - if there is a practical benefit they will fund you - trust me that is how the real world works - not the fairy tale fantasy you are peddling.
vohshkab 3 months ago in playlist Liked videos
The claim that the validity of ID rests on financial and religious agenda of its proponents is irrelevant to the arguments and evidence they present, which must be evaluated on its own 4:01.The fact that most of the world population doesn't take Bible seriously, is a result of predjudice's and gross misunderstanding of the bible it self.Your question's still constitute argument from ignorance.
MrPsychedelia101 3 months ago
@MrPsychedelia101 Argument from ignorance? I have studied science to degree level and then qualified as a lawyer (barrister in the UK). I grew up a moslem having read the koran by the age of eight and then rejected religion for science. I have travelled the world and for the past two years been working in the Middle East running an international law firm. What evidence is there for ID? don't just point at an eye and say it is too complex to have evolved so god must have done it. Explain?
vohshkab 3 months ago
@vohshkab The DNA is a good example:what is a probability of extremely complex engineering blueprint coming into existence by a chance?The DNA is unimaginably complex blueprint of the whole human body.
MrPsychedelia101 2 months ago
@vohshkab The evidence for intelligent design comes from irreducible complexity. All life is irreducibly complex from the celluar level on up but I will give you the simplest case I can think of. Feel free, of course, to search any evolutionary literture for the Qs I will ask you. But also,. please use your own eyes and your own mind. You know how evo is supposed to work - slowly over aeons with no ability to plan the future. So Google a sperm cell & look at the flagellar whip. Cont.
LoricaLady 2 months ago
@vohshkab Cont. Now look at the nano technology rotary motor that moves it. How is evo going to drive both the whip & the motor to completion while they are useless for aeons? What "co option" or "dual purpose" as evolutionists talk about, could they possibly have? Now think of the egg in a totally other body. How & why would evo drive it to completion while waiting for the sperm's whip & motor (really the whole thing & more of course) to be finished? Then there are the fallopian...
LoricaLady 2 months ago 2
@LoricaLady Oh, and the sperm flagellum is not a rotary motor. That's the bacterial flagellum. Consider for a moment what the designer must be like to have designed such a system. These flagella are important tools to the bacteria that infect us and cause us much suffering. This designer has less consideration for us than we do for lab rats.
Maxdwolf 1 month ago
@LoricaLady "How is evo going to drive both the whip & the motor to completion while they are useless for aeons?" Bacteria do not need aeons. They reproduce and change quite rapidly. But no "evolutionist" claims that the whip and motor need to go through a period of no function while being developed. That's not how it works. Part or parts with function(s) A (and maybe b) develop a secondary function C. Eventually A (and B) are dropped and C is perfected. Look up Lenski and E Coli.
Maxdwolf 1 month ago
@Maxdwolf "Bacteria do not need aeons...They reproduce & change quite rapidly." Oh how right you are. Yet all we ever see are micro organisms, like bacteria & algae in astronomcal numbers, multiplying at lightning speed, and all staying steadfastly, every single time, bacteria or algae. So, what "2ndary function" do the whip & motor have while they are "evolving" before they are able to work together as a unit? Give evidence.
Dataless theories presented as evidence = pseudo science.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@Maxdwolf Cont. "Look up Lenski". No, use YOUR words and YOUR mind to show me how E coli is "evolving." Remember, it's still a bacteria, which gives evidence against evolution, not for it. Life can change within limits. We always knew that, hence animal husbandry. Speciation occurs for ex. But you are being told things climb up Darwin's Tree & there is a change in genus. I've asked for evidence for that... Waiting...
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@LoricaLady Ok, make up your mind. Do you want my works or do you want evidence. Evidence does not come up ex-nihilo. Your kidding, "It's still a bacteria." Ok, I'm not going to take you seriously anymore as you're falling back on the god of the gaps. You know there is greater difference between various bacteria than between ourselves and chickens.
Maxdwolf 1 month ago
@Maxdwolf "There is a greater difference between various bacteria than between ourselves and chicken." So? I'm asking you for 1 single example anywhere of a bacteria that stoped being a bacteria, a chicken that stoped being a chicken, a person that stopped being a person and began to climb up Darwin's "Tree." I've asked you a lot of things, but still no answers... Ask yourself this Q: Why can't I answer her Qs?
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@LoricaLady "So? I'm asking you for 1 single example anywhere of a bacteria that stoped being a bacteria, a chicken that stoped being a chicken a person stopped being a person and began to climb up Darwin's Tree" 1) That's not what ToE says happens. Organisms don't morph into other organisms. You are asking for evidence of a theory when you don't understand what the theory is. Why not ask for evidence that one type of bacteria become another? That's evolution.
Maxdwolf 1 month ago
@LoricaLady I have answered all your questions. Sometimes with other questions, sometimes by pointing out your question is bullshit and dishonest. You might not like those answers, but they are answers. You keep squawking "o evidence" but have already made it clear there is no evidence that you will accept. Have you seen and understood the fossil, dna, and taxonomic evidence? Answer, no.
Maxdwolf 1 month ago
@Maxdwolf "I have answered all your Qs." You are not being honest. You have also followed the usual pattern of evo-ites on YT, when pressed for evidence start in with the personal insults, i.e. "Your Q is bullshit and dishonest." The insults always escalate and become more virulent if the debate continues. But it won't continue. I debate with people as long as they are civil & objective. You have ceased to be either. You are now on ignore. BYE!
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@vohshkab ...tubes, the liquid to transport the sperm cells and, well the list just goes on and on. They all need one another and they all need to be in place and fully complete before the reproductive system for 2 genders will work. You are looking at irreducibly complexity - but, again, it is everywhere.
LoricaLady 2 months ago 2
@LoricaLady No, all these systems do not need to be in place and complete for there to be a 2 gender system. There are simpler organisms with simpler reproductive systems. The flagella has been refuted many times, Google it. There are many complex systems and the questions as to how they evolved are challenging ones. But presuming impossibility is simply lazy.
Maxdwolf 1 month ago
@Maxdwolf "No all these systems do not need to be in place." Give me some data, some evidence to back up that statementm something in nature, in the fossil record. "There are simpler organisms with simpler reproductive systems." Give me some data, some evidence that shows one kind turning into another. All the fossil record shows, all nature shows, are differences suited to the particular individuals, no transition from one to another. "The flagella has been refuted many times. Google it."
LoricaLady 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LoricaLady ""No all these systems do not need to be in place." Give me some data, some evidence to back up that statementm something in nature, in the fossil record." Don't need to got to the fossil record. Look at plants. Look at fish. Compare marsupials and placental mammals. You went off track a little bit, asking for evidence of other methods of sexual reproduction, when what you are challenging is the transition.
Maxdwolf 1 month ago
@LoricaLady You are arguing for ID. There is 0 evidence for this "designer". All that is required for its refutation is a plausible argument.
Heuck, C. J., 1998. Type III protein secretion systems in bacterial pathogens of animals and plants, Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 62: 379-433
There's some evidence for you. Have fun.
Maxdwolf 1 month ago
@Maxdwolf Cont. If we understand something we are able to articulate it using our own words and our own minds rather than simply saying, Google it. For ex. I will tell how it has NOT been debunked. They give the examples of co option and dual purpose as strawmen logical fallacies. Yes, some parts of the flagellar whip have more than 1 function. But take away any of the parts and just as Behe said, you don't have a working bug anymore. Further we are to assume based on magical thinking...
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@LoricaLady "If we understand something we are able to articulate it using our own words and our own minds rather than simply saying, Google it. " "So Google a sperm cell & look at the flagellar whip" Make up your mind. Co-option and dual purpose are not logical fallacies. Change or take away a part and you can still have a working "bug". No magical thinking here.
Maxdwolf 1 month ago
@Maxdwolf This time you can give me a Google. Tell me where in the evo lit it shows lab ev-i-dence that if you take away a part of the bacterial flagellum that it will still work & do its job. Of course co option & dual purpose are not logical fallacies in and of themselves, only when they are a bait and switch. I don't care what Behe acknolwedges about common descent. I'm asking you not for what ANYONE belieeeeves, but for where the evidence is. So far I see 0. Cont.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LoricaLady "Tell me where in the evo lit it shows lab ev-i-dence that if you take away a part of the bacterial flagellum that it will still work & do its job."
Now THAT's a strawman. the question is whether it will still perform A job. "Of course co option & dual purpose are not logical fallacies in and of themselves" Glad you finally admit that. But they are not bait and switch.
Maxdwolf 1 month ago
@Maxdwolf I'm still asking for whatyou claimed: Tell me where in the evo lit it shows lab ev-idence that if you take away a part of the bacterial flagellum it will still work and do its job. No I did not admit what you said I "admitted", I showed you why talking about co option & dual function does not demonstrate that the flagellum will function w/ missing parts. That's what the man said - the evoevangelists switched the topic.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@LoricaLady Now you are simply lying. I never claimed "lab ev-idence[sic]". We find the evidence in nature. The system minus a part exists in other species, but now you will do your little dodge again as you always do and start screaming "No evidence!"
Say, speaking of dodges, why are you so uncomfortable speaking about the nature of this designer you imagine?
Maxdwolf 1 month ago
@Maxdwolf ...that because some bugs are less complex that millions of untestable, unrepeatable & observable years ago those bugs turned into the more complex flagellum. Is there any evidence the current, simpler, bugs ever have been or ever will be anything but what they are - little creatures with different functions suited to a different niche? Of course not! But is so - provide it. "How they evolved are challlenging" Qs. All I'm asking for is evidence. "Preuming impossibilty is...lazy...."
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@LoricaLady "Is there any evidence ... Of course not!" Even Behe acknowledges common descent. There is genetic evidence and fossil evidence and taxonomic evidence, all of which tie together and all of which you ignore.
Maxdwolf 1 month ago
@Maxdwolf What genetic evidence shows that a flagellum ever evolved from a simpler form? Pointing to simpler forms that have different niches & show 0 evidence of every having been anything but what they are is not evidence, it's faith. What fossil evidence shows the flagellum was ever different? And yes, bacteria have been fossilized. I don't ignore taxonomic evidence & fossil evidence. I show they are based on magical thinking. Miller said Tiktaalik is "as good as it gets for...
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@LoricaLady Why genetic and why simpler? Evolution doesn't have a direction. What do you consider evidence would you consider ERVs genetic evidence of evolution? If not, I say you have an unrealistic notion of evidence or that you have twisted it on this subject.
Maxdwolf 1 month ago
@Maxdwolf Notice that you are not answering my Qs. If you answer "You have an unrealistic notin of evidence"? I consider that a cop out, frankly. I don't what you are referring to when you mention ERVs but I am quite sure they show nothing beyond the level of speciation - because nothing ever does regardless of Darwin's book which btw showed no origin of any species & had nothing but armchair theorizing in it.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@LoricaLady "I don't what you are referring to when you mention ERVs but I am quite sure they show nothing beyond the level of speciation" This pretty much sums up the situation. You have a set position and refuse to acknowledge the existence of evidence, by your own words.
Maxdwolf 1 month ago
@LoricaLady "I don't ignore taxonomic evidence & fossil evidence. I show they are based on magical thinking." Really? Where have you shown this? I've seen you claim it a dozen times. I've never seen you show anything other than your own ignorance.
Maxdwolf 1 month ago
@Maxdwolf ...for a transtional form. It is 100% FISH. There is 0 evidence it ever had any progeny significantly different from itself. Yet we are told to draw imaginary lines to invisible dots between its invisible descendants' invisible descendants until we get to a tetrapod. ALL the fossil & taxonomic evidence is EXACTLY like that - based purely on magical thinking presented as if it is Gawd's truth scientific evidence. You were told fins turned into feet, fish into tetrapods...
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@LoricaLady So would you say Australopithecus is 100% great ape or 100% human? Is Archeopteryx 100% bird. To hold any of these positions or that Tiktaalik is all fish is to deny evidence to the contrary. Imagining connections along clear trend lines is not magical thinking.
Maxdwolf 1 month ago
@Maxdwolf Tiktaalik is 100% lobe finned fish. Look it up. They say it has "characteristics of" and "similar homology" to a tetrapod. But is 100% FISH! Many evolutionists have said Archy is just 'a perching bird." Again, there is 0 evidence it or Australopithecus had any descendants signiciantly different from itself whatsover. You aren't being given evidence you are being given wishful thinking, psuedo scientifically. Your mind was meant for greater things than that.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@LoricaLady ID of the gaps. There is a fun article in talkorigins where they do a comparison of hominid skulls and show how creationists can't agree where to draw the line between humans and other hominids. You have drawn a line in your mind and refuse to acknowledge anything crossing no matter how close something gets.
What was my mind "meant for"? :)
Maxdwolf 1 month ago
@Maxdwolf Talk Spin, er I mean Talk Origins, is my fave sites t debunk, tho generally I prefer to avoid it the way I avoid National Enquirer. I have seen them in the same article claim evolution for something using both gradualism (Gee it happened millyunz of years ago, so slowly so we have no evidence) and punctuated equilibria (Gee it happened so fast that we have no evidence.) Quit quoting sites & evo lit headlines & kindly answer my Qs. Science requires evidence not statements of faith.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@LoricaLady You are becoming quite the model of the Dunning-Kruger effect. You debunk talkorigins? I suppose you've debunked all the paleontology and anthropology and geology papers they cite.
Yes, science requires evidence and reasoning. Evolution has it. You won't acknowledge it. You don't even know the basics put presume to tell the experts.
Maxdwolf 1 month ago
@Maxdwolf ...scales into feather, tetapods into birds. I'm not ignoring the evidence. I'm seeing the truth. Uncounted billioins of fossils - billions of just 1 kind of nautiloid in the Grand Canyon alone - show the exact opposite! 100% of each only, 0 inbetweeners at all - just fanciful storires that have 0 evidence whatsoever to back them up & evidence in the exact opposite direction. Give evidence mutations or natural selection can lead beyond the level of speciation, i.e. to a new genus.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@Maxdwolf If the sperm flagellum does not have a rotary motor, what is moving it rournd and round. Give its name. "There are reasons from experience...not to expect..." "There are reasons,to believe" based on listeing to many evoevangelists and reading much of evo lit, not to expect evolutionary theory to ever have anything but sophistry, dataless speculation presented as scientific evidence & logical fallacies "all of which tie together" to deceive a great many people. Cont.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@LoricaLady You really don't read my posts to closely do you? The sperm flagellum doesn't rotate. It waves back and forth like a tail. Like I told you before. Wikipedia has a decent explanation, give it a look see.
I don't think you're ever really read much evo lit. Not with any real comprehension. You've made to many errors already.
Maxdwolf 1 month ago
@Maxdwolf Qs. you;ve evaded so far: Where is the evidence that natural selection or mutations can lead to a new genus. Where is there any evidence anywhere that bacteria, chickens, people, have ever been anything else? Where is the evidence that, as you stated, Tiktaalik isn't 100% fish? And (implied Q) how can you tell an animal is "transitional" with 0 evidence it had any progeny significantly different from itself? What is an ERV & what evidence shows it was ever a different genus...Cont.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@LoricaLady We have evidence of common descent, both genetic and in fossils. We have evidence of the mechanisms of change. You yourself have acknowledged speciation. Why on earth would there be a barrier at the genus level.
How much change would Tiktaalik have to evidence before you said it wasn't "100% fish". Wouldn't you then say it's 100% amphibian? Again, what do you consider evidence? There are "significantly different" progeny of our ancestors walking around (i.e. us).
Maxdwolf 1 month ago
@Maxdwolf "We have evidence...genetic and in the fossils." I've gone over this already. Where is the evidence Austrailopithicus, or Ida or Lucy or any hominid had descendants significantly different from themselves? Nowhere. Further even evoltuionists don't agree on one single one of them as being "transitional." (Not that I care what they think - but disagreement is a hallmark amongst evolutioniosts because they have no real evidence, only conjectures.) Where is the genetic evidence for evo?
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@LoricaLady Define "significantly". Then tell us why it has to be a significant difference. There are sufficient differences in every generation of every animal or plant where it has been measured.
Human-Specific Integrations of the HERV-K Endogenous Retrovirus Family" by Medstrand and Mager in the Journal of Virology. There's your genetic evidence. Have fun.
Maxdwolf 1 month ago
@Maxdwolf I have no read your posts. You are on ignore. If you want to go on thinking you are nothing more than a modified ape, who am I to burst your bubble? But since you have insulted me more than once I feel that leaves me with the "excuse" to say what I want to say to you, meant for your benefit. Come out of the matrix. And please don't clutter up my inbox with more of your posts. Thank you and have a great 2012.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LoricaLady I've been on ignore right from the beginning. You have been insulting from the beginning, making claims that simply were not true and ignoring the points I was trying to make. Your dishonesty is insulting.
If I'm on ignore, I don't think my posts will show up in your inbox. If they do, that's your problem. As long as your posts are up I have the right to respond to them.
"Thank you and have a great 2012." Please stop lying. You know you don't wish that for me.
Maxdwolf 1 month ago
@Maxdwolf Cont. Miller tells us we came from apes because of Chrom. 2. That is based on the usual logical fallacies. 1) Fallacy of the Single Cause, i.e. "We see something and only evo can explain it!" But 1 in 1000 people have an additional fused chromosome which they conveniently don't mention. If 1 came from apes, why not the other? 2) Fallacy of Incomplete Comparison. Chimps aren't even believed by evolutionists to have led to us so there's another reason the argument makes no sense.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@LoricaLady No, Miller does not say that. Try listening closer. The details are important. Examining chromosome 2 provided one way to test the hypothesis. Chromosome 2 is the fused chromosome common to all of us and which fused during our split. That it occurs today is not evidence against and not ignored. Again, before you ask for evidence, you need to know what evidence is. You clearly do not.
Maxdwolf 1 month ago
@Maxdwolf Cont. Further, the chromosomes that are fused are human chromosomes, not ape to man or chimp to man. Apes have chromosomes that are different in size, frequency, etc. 3) Correlation Does Not Imply Causation. Snakes look like worms. Bats, brids & bees fly. Does that show one came from another? As for Tik it is 100% FISH with 0% evidence it had any progeny becoming tetrapod like no matter how many "characteristsics of" it has. Logical fallacies presented as evidence = anti science.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@LoricaLady "Further, the chromosomes that are fused are human chromosomes, not ape to man or chimp to man" Further evidence that you don't even understand the theory enough to question it. Given that they're in us, of course they're human. That's by definition. This has got to be the dumbest thing you've written so far.
"Apes have chromosomes that are different in size, frequency, etc" Really? Care to elucidate? How "frequent" are they? lol
Maxdwolf 1 month ago
@Maxdwolf Cont. If you want to look at an animal that is 100% fish, then tell me you know how its descendants' descendants reproduced & what kind of invisible progeny they had in the invisible aeons, and you want to call that science, have fun. I'm going for REAL science. You are using the appeal to authority logical fallacy. Instead of telling me all the people who support the orthodox, politically correct position of Darwinianism, use YOUR mind & YOUR words to answer all those Qs you evade.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@LoricaLady You wouldn't know "REAL science" if it bit you on the ass. There isn't a major field of science which doesn't use the sort of inductive reasoning.
Use YOUR mind to go look at the actual evidence (not some youtube videos and ID sites) and then use YOUR mind to wonder why you're being so arrogant.
Maxdwolf 1 month ago
@LoricaLady ERV are endogenous retroviruses. Put simply, they are the remnants of a previous infection by a retrovirus that has inserted itself into the germ line. They are like scars in our dna (although not exactly as they can become reactivated). They can thus become viral fossils and provide further genetic evidence of common ancestry.
Maxdwolf 1 month ago
@Maxdwolf Where is your evidence that viruses, retro or other kinds, ever have been or ever will be anything but viruses etc.? With all those gazillions of examples, funny thing, not one of them can be seen to be climbing up Darwin's so called Tree of Life. Funny thing, the fossil record doesn't show that either & finches stay finches even if their beaks change some. No evo has ever been observed anywhere ever, only a plethora of logical fallacies & "possible...millions of years ago" etc.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@LoricaLady "Where is your evidence that viruses, retro or other kinds, ever have been or ever will be anything but viruses etc.?" See? I use my words and you completely ignore what I wrote. Why should I bother when you are encased in an inviolable cocoon of ignorance and denial? Try reading again and then use YOUR words to show you understood what I wrote.
Maxdwolf 1 month ago
@LoricaLady "And (implied Q) how can you tell an animal is "transitional" with 0 evidence it had any progeny significantly different from itself?" Cute little weasel word we have in there; "significantly". There are differences in our progeny. They are not large. Disadvantageous ones get weeded out. It's that simple.
Maxdwolf 1 month ago
@Maxdwolf Cont. Where is evidence that fins turned into feet, fish into tetrapods, scales into feathers, tetrpods into birds and why are we told that happened when the fossil evidence shows the exact opposite? Where is evidence that "change or take away a part [of the flagellum] and you still have a working bug"? Where is evidence the flagellum evolved from anything simpler? What 2ndary function or dual purpose, co option whatever, is there for the whip & the mechanism that moves it? Cont.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@LoricaLady Still arguing ID of the gaps. What evidence do you want? From what I can see you won't be happy with anything less than the entire chronology of descent from one being to another. There are three models of possible evolution on wikipedia (search: evolution of flagella). The flagella is only a few steps away from a stinging mechanism or secretory system.
Maxdwolf 1 month ago
@Maxdwolf "What evidence do you want?" The evidence I asked for. Just saying "It's so, they say so" is not evidence. Perhaps you don't yet see that. This society has been indoctrinated with the belief that speculation presented as evidence is science. It's not. You need something testable, observable & hopefully repeatable. You need something that isn't CONTRARY to the actual evidence, like lack of species to genus evidence, fossils that show abrupt appearance & stasis,etc.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LoricaLady Ok, you want specific evidence. Let's start with whales- pakelocetidae, ambulocetus natans, remingtonocetidae, protocetidae, basilosauridae, dorudontidae. There's your homework.
"You need something that isn't CONTRARY to the actual evidence, like lack of species to genus evidence, fossils that show abrupt appearance & stasis,etc." Again, you show an inability to understand what evidence is.
Maxdwolf 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Maxdwolf "What evidence do you want?" The evidence I asked for. Just saying "It's so, they say so" is not evidence. Perhaps you don't yet see that. This society has been indoctrinated with the belief that speculation presented as evidence is science. It's not. You need something testable, observable & hopefully repeatable. You need something that isn't CONTRARY to the actual evidence, like lack of species to genus evidence, fossils that show abrupt appearance & stasis,etc...
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@Maxdwolf ,,,"The flagella is only a few steps away..." That's your evidence? That's not evidence! That's a statement of faith. It gives 0 testable, observable or repeatable to show that the flagella ever did or ever will come from some other kind of mechanism. It evades the fact that there is no imaginable "co option" or "dual purpose" that the whip & the motor below it, can have. It evades that evo cannot predict the future or hold incomplete, codepdendent parts in limbo for aeons.Cont.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@Maxdwolf "There are 3 models of possible evolution.." Lol! They can't even decide on how it happened but boy are they sure it did happen. Or at least they want to make you sure of that. If YOU will search evolution of flagella you will see what is in all evo lit always. (And Wiki is not a good source - anyone can post anything there.) It tells you what's "possible....maybe...likely...could have...inferred...we propose a model..." And they call that evidence. It's only wishful thinking.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@LoricaLady Actually wikipedia (wiki is not a proper shortening) is often a decent source. It has been tested.
Maxdwolf 1 month ago
@LoricaLady I thought it curious how furious you were to avoid the question of religion. From the particular ignorance you evinced I came to the conclusion that you were a closet creationist. I go look at your channel and voila! You not only reject the clear evidence of evolution, you believe in Genesis and the Noachian flood. LOL
Show me the evidence for creationism lady.
Maxdwolf 1 month ago
@Maxdwolf Cont. How does E coli show evidence for evolution when its still a bacteria? Where is any evidence whatsoever for climbs up Darwin's "Tree" either in the fossil record, in animal husbandry or in labs? (Of course in labs we are talking about intelligent design if things are changed, so I'm just talking about observation of what naturally occurs.) Where is evidence less simpler reproductive systems gave rise to more complex ones?
Telling me "You're wrong" is just another evasion.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@LoricaLady Where is your evidence that there is an arbitrary barrier? You acknowledge evolution and speciation, but then say it can't cross genuses (by the way bacteria is not a genus). So basically you're say that ancestral forms changed to a point but couldn't cross this imaginary line and then "poof" something came along and designed it across.
Maxdwolf 1 month ago
@Maxdwolf "Where is your evidence there is an arbitrary barrier?" There you go evading my Qs. again. I asked for what evidence there was that a new genus can come from a species but you won't answer that. But the evidence is that there is no evidence. The evidence there is no tooth fairy is that there is 0 observable, testable or repeatable to demonstrate she ever came to anyone. Same is true for evoltuion. There is no evidence. Just fairy tales based on "possibly...maybe...could have..."
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@LoricaLady No, your question is part of an evasion. You are presuming a barrier and telling me to prove it isn't there. The onus is on you to prove it does.
And let's face it. You are lying. If I state the evidence you call it a just so story. Should I cite articles you'll make up other excuses. Just admit it flies in the face of your faith.
There is 0 evidence of any "designer" and yet you pray to him.
Maxdwolf 1 month ago
@Maxdwolf "You acknowledge evolution and speciation." I certainly don't acknowledge any evoltuion whatsoever any time ever! I acknowledge speciation. That was observed millenia before Darwin. Speciation is NOT evollution. Yes I am saying that ancestral forms & present life forms have demonstrated the ability to change within LIMITS. That's the evidence. There is 0 evidence a bacteria will ever be or ever has been a non bacteria. I've asked you to show me any but...you evade in your faith.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@LoricaLady Yes, speciation is evolution. Variation within a species is evolution. If you're going to argue against a position you need to understand it. You clearly don't.
There you go with the bacteria again. You do know they're a whole kingdom don't you? If the barrier you imagine is at the genus level, a bacteria species can cross it and still be a bacteria. Just like we're still apes despite speciating from a common ancestor.
Maxdwolf 1 month ago
@Maxdwolf h ave not read your posts. You are on ignore. If you want to go on thinking you are nothing more than a modified ape, who am I to burst your bubble? But since you have insulted me more than once I feel that leaves me with the "excuse" to say what I want to say to you, meant for your benefit. Come out of the matrix. And please don't clutter up my inbox with more of your posts. Thank you and have a great 2012."
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@Maxdwolf
Any change in an organism is evolution, according to most biologists now a days. You can't argue against and/or falsify that. It's basically meaningless. Evolution has become so ambiguous it no longer says anything about reality.
circusOFprecision 1 month ago
@circusOFprecision "In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next" Curtis and Barnes from the Talkorigins website. So no, not any change.
More importantly, you are confusing evolution with the theory of evolution by natural selection and common descent. The first is defined. The third is observed. The second is a well established theory.
Maxdwolf 1 month ago
@Maxdwolf
I'm not confusing anything, you are the one carelessly using the term. I'm just letting you know that you are causing confusion. Change in organisms over time, not exactly an earth shattering concept. But when you invent a mechanism to explain it, which also attempts to explain all diversity and novelty, you start abusing the definition.
circusOFprecision 1 month ago
@circusOFprecision
You certainly are confusing many, many things.
Most likely because you you have only studied them from Creationist sources.
You certainly don't have ANY idea what evolution is.
"Any change in an organism is evolution, according to most biologists now a days."
That's not true--or even close.
Only hours ago you made this false claim:
"Only change that increases complexity and sophistication is considered evolution"
Why not study the subject FIRST?
odinata 1 month ago
@Maxdwolf Cont. Every day you assume certain things are impossible. You don't expect to wake up and be an elephant. You don't expect to find the tooth fairy anywhere. What's lazy - what's psuedo science - is telling people that things happened and then not providing any evidence for that whatsoever. Yes, the sperm flagellum has a rotary motor. You are ignoring my Qs about it and its whip etc. and just giving me faith based evo sound bytes and the religion strawman logical fallacy instead.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@LoricaLady No, the sperm flagellum does not have a rotary motor its function is more akin to that of a tail (as the bacterial flagella were once thought to be).
There are reasons from experience and knowledge to not expect to wake up and be an elephant. There are reasons to believe that we all have a common ancestor and that we evolve via random mutation and natural selection. It is unreasonable to assume impossibility when we can't immediately produce a mechanism for each step.
Maxdwolf 1 month ago
@Maxdwolf Please go through my requests for evidence, count them, and tell me how many times you answered. I believe the answer is 0.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LoricaLady "Please go through my requests for evidence, count them, and tell me how many times you answered. I believe the answer is 0." Actually, I answered every time. You just didn't like the answer. You want me to provide the mountains of evidence in a 500 word sound bite. That's either a rhetorical ploy or just insane. How much evidence have you provided? None. You just say "look, it's too complex" and "show me the evidence". Cop out.
Maxdwolf 1 month ago
@LoricaLady Finally, you claim I bring in a religion strawman logical fallacy. Not so. If ID is to be considered a scientific theory, it is entirely reasonable to come up with notions of about the nature and limitations of the designer and its intentions and to try to come of with means of testing these notions. You telling me you haven't?
Maxdwolf 1 month ago
@Maxdwolf Strawman logical fallacy. You have given 0 evidence whatsoever at all for anyting I requested. So you do a bait and switch to Let's talk relgion. Sorry. I don't go there. Evolution stands or falls on logic & science alone. Just between you & the mirror & your wallet ask if there is even 1 "evidence" for evo that you would bet your salary on dbl or 0. Then you will know that you know what evidence really is and that they are only pretending to give it to you.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@LoricaLady You don't seem to clear on what a strawman is (please note, bait and switch is not analogous). I never said anything about religion. You make claims for a designer, but completely dodge questions for what it is, how it operates, e.t.c. I never made claims about religion, but your avoidance seems rather dogmatic.
Maxdwolf 1 month ago
@LoricaLady Ok, I will bet all the money I will ever make on ERVs. Oh look, that's good enough. I win! Pay up.
Stupid you say? No dumber than your asking what piece of evidence I would bet my salary on. Who would judge and by what standards? What would I stand to gain.
My belief in evolution doesn't stand on one piece of evidence but on the mountains accumulated over 150 years.
Maxdwolf 1 month ago
How many books has Dembski written on this and yet he cannot comment on what a class on Intelligent Design would teach?
dramlee01 5 months ago
I do not view this as a debate. It APPEARS to me as an inquisition! It's downright silly if it weren't of the issue at hand. Does the APPEARANCE of randomness imply no designer?
taotaotatti 5 months ago
I do not view this as a debate. It APPEARS to me as an inquisition! It's downright silly if it weren't of the issue at hand.
taotaotatti 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I do not view this as a debate. It APPEARS to me as an inquisition!
taotaotatti 5 months ago
I don't view this as a debate. It APPEARS to me as an inquisition!
taotaotatti 5 months ago
I am a Christian so I might be a little biased, but I must say that I am impressed by Dembski. I'm used to seeing most people who are debating on the Christianity, or even intelligent design side of the house get embarrassed on stage. I thought he held his own quite nicely, and exposed many flaws in the thinking of modern science. I've often thought that modern science is drifting too far in the direction of groupthink where only a certain spectrum of belief is allowed.
jimbo525SE 6 months ago
@jimbo525SE Although I am a little disappointed with him during the next guys time. Poor form.
jimbo525SE 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jimbo525SE "I must say that I am impressed by Dembski... I thought he held his own quite nicely." I look at the sequence 33:00 to 50:00 and I have to ask you, what do you find impressive about anything in that sequence, and how did you determine that he is "holding his own?" If you mean that his purpose was to be vague and deliberately avoid taking any stand at all about what his "theory" postulates, then I will agree. But I fail to see how that is at all impressive. I find it sad.
alachabre 2 months ago
The moderator sucks.
msudduth06 6 months ago
They take about half hour for the introductions and then say lets keep the answers short. They sure got their priorities straight.
jouc12 7 months ago
The killer question is "if it was designed - when was it designed?" Dumpski is saying that the flagellum had to be built in one go - when did that happen? shrugging shoulders, shuffling feet, looking down at his notes, whingeing and then says "we haven't got enough money to do the research" - Son of a bitch - caught out - this is just one big fraudulent money making scam.
vohshkab 8 months ago 2
@vohshkab You are not making an argument against ID, you are merely asking questions that you don't know answers(argumentum ad ignorantiam).Does the fact that nobody knows the specifics of the construction the stonehenge and the egyptian pyramids mean that nobody designed them .Science without questions is a dead science.
MrPsychedelia101 3 months ago
@MrPsychedelia101 we know when and how the pyramids were constructed - ID asserts that complex biological mechanisms spontaneously came into existence - when did this happen a thousand years ago, two thousand - oh wait it was four thousand years ago - of course it was thats what the bible says? Give me a break and stop defending this intellectual dishonesty masquerading as legitimate enquiry. This is creationism through the back door- if God did it then just say so - bu that is not science
vohshkab 3 months ago in playlist Liked videos
Instead of mating for love, nature mates for survival. So, due to ever changing environments and un/availability of Earths necessary components for survival, nature will adapt. Just as homosexuality has never survived real nature, a Finch knows it can't walk around pecking cock it's whole life or it will die. Unfortunately, we have created an environment where homosexuality will not die off due to providing all of the benefits of mating for survival in a sweet little package called adoption.
OurTroopsRule 8 months ago
@OurTroopsRule The point of mating is to pass on one's genes. Adoption doesn't provide that at all.
nin8halos 8 months ago
@nin8halos Good point. Please, continue...
OurTroopsRule 8 months ago
Irreducible complexity and the flagellum are very important for us to understand. Now take a Finch, you need to learn it's enviro, it's needs for survival and it's mating traits. If a Finch knows by exp. that it's life is made easier by having a certain quality, it will then rate a potential mate on ability to survive and creation of a superior offspring. If I want a tall kid, I want to do a tall chick. A mulatto, a black woman. I think animals have this figured out just like gold-diggers do.
OurTroopsRule 8 months ago
This is bullshit. Why must we humans limit our progress in real knowledge due to a bi-partisan approach on enlightening issues. The whole point is, we don't know, therefore eliminating virtually anything would be unfair to learning the truth about our creation. I think both men have solid pints that are possible in many aspects of design and evolution. There is a fabric of life and must overlap. Intelligent design will evolve after creation due to time AND catastrophic or utopian environments.
OurTroopsRule 8 months ago
I have watched 3 minutes of this video, and judging solely by the body language of the gentleman sitting in the back, he is nervous and unprepared to deliver and defend his points, showing that he may not even completely believe them himself. I will continue to watch to see who he is and what he thinks.
OurTroopsRule 8 months ago
Behavior is not random, since the Universe had a beginning, that an eternal past steady state would not be the elements or a materialism, but a behavioral effect, something that is Intelligent in the method of it's behavior, by means of being able to impute a Memory from what the world was before as One, now split into many parts, each part bearing an innate Intelligent behavior, that is supernatural in view of materialism. If we have intelligent behavior, then that is not randomness
CarmineFragione 9 months ago
That moderator should STFU.
nemirn 9 months ago
I don't think probabilities about something that has ALREADY happened mean anything. Odds may have some predictive capabilities, but what has already occurred, has already occurred. No matter how seemingly improbable it was.
atoz7983 9 months ago
I don't accept ID and I consider it to be mostly pseudoscience, but I found Penncock to be extremely annoying and unimpressive.
ClamCrunchy 9 months ago
someone needs to learn how to argue about evolution from phoebe from the show friends.. xD
izaatmusic 10 months ago
Debates between ID and Evo are almost pointless. As a pro-evolutionist I believe the data is there in support of Evolution and at this current point there is NO other theory that can compare with the Theory of Evolution in terms of supportive evidence. So I have to say that believers in ID are the ones that need convincing, but they won't budge. You have to see their point of view. Evolution to them is the means to everything evil. Of course they're not going accept it. They're scared.
steponme208 10 months ago
@steponme208 There are plenty of great christians who are unprecedented scholars and scientists who believe in an ancient earth origin, that is, billions not thousands, and that the 6 "days" are merely six long periods of time. Do yourself a favor and don't get the wrong idea about christianity and the bible because of the secular, literal creationists. There are highly intelligent Christians out there
Sextonius 10 months ago
@Sextonius I know. I didn't say christians, I said "believers in Intelligent Design(ID) are the ones that need convincing". Sorry, I probably didn't specify enough. I don't mean to downgrade Christianty as a whole.
steponme208 10 months ago
dembski: a-bu--a-du, nah, nah, i mean, uh-a-dub, i meant, hmm=dmm-ah, not intention, a- dub -sum, etc.
birdlivesforever 10 months ago
As much as I despise Dembski, I'm glad this debate was held because it really showed that IDists have no theoretical framework of their own whatsoever. All they do is walk around repeating same old god-of-the-gaps argument. Ditto.
RaggedM88 10 months ago
He's got Dembski stuttering more than porky pig
Joshden1 10 months ago
Did Dumbski even answer one question at all? I can't find any actual answer to any of the questions posed to him, just dodging and changing the subject.
Feralus69 11 months ago
This is going to be awsome
TrueTaike 11 months ago
Of all the great scientific discoveries of the last three centuries, discoveries before and after Darwin, not one was dependent on a belief in the theory of evolution, and not one denied the existence of God. Only of late has there been a rabid, fanatical insistence on a belief in evolution. The priests of evolution say that in order to do science, you must believe in evolution. It has become a militant anti-science cult, worshiping Darwin as the one true god and chanting kill the ID infidels.
stagn41 11 months ago
@stagn41
"The priests of evolution say that in order to do science, you must believe in evolution."
There are no priests of evolution, it is not a religion, it has just as many priests as gravity and germcell theory do. And no one is saying you must accept the facts of evolution to accept other sciences, just like you don't need to accept germ cell theory to be an electrician or study physics.
"It has become a militant anti-science cult"
No, it hasnt, this is a dishonest ploy from fundies.
Feralus69 11 months ago
@Feralus69 You need to see Ben Stein's movie "Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed" and then tell me that Evolution is not a militant anti-science cult. If you disagree with these evolutionist or propose a different theory, you are an considered an infidel. True science should allow any and all thories to be put forward and to be tested and debated. But with Evolutionist, there is no room for a competing theory. It is therefore as I said "a militant anti-science cult". ID is a theory from design.
stagn41 11 months ago
@stagn41
"You need to see Ben Stein's movie"
I've watched it twice, I watch it when I need a good laugh.
"then tell me that Evolution is not a militant anti-science cult"
Evolution is not a militant anti-science cult, evolution is part of science and is the unifying theory of biology. If you liked expelled you might want to look into why those people were actually scrutinized, hint, it wasn't because of evolution.
Feralus69 11 months ago
@stagn41
"True science should allow any and all thories to be put forward and to be tested and debated"
It does, but not everything qualifies as a scientific theory.
"But with Evolutionist, there is no room for a competing theory"
There sure is, mind citing any theory that competes against evolution and has equal or almost equal weight evidence and facts-wise?
"ID is a theory from design."
Actually ID is a hypothesis from ignorance, nothing more, it has no evidence supporting it.
Feralus69 11 months ago
@Feralus69 Look at the list of videos to the right and you will see one titled "Creation vs. Darwin 1/4. It is a CNN Special on Evolution and ID. The first part is with M. Behe. In it they show the various parts of a flagellum and how it is very much like a motor.The conclusion that any rational person would make about the complexity of this organism and its function is that it was designed. You and other evolutionist can deny design or attribute it to whatever, but it remains and is a wonder.
stagn41 11 months ago
@stagn41
"In it they show the various parts of a flagellum and how it is very much like a motor."
Irreducible complexity of the flagellum has been thoroughly destroyed by the likes of men like Ken Miller.
"The conclusion that any rational person would make about the complexity of this organism and its function is that it was designed."
And a rational person a few thousand years ago would say the earth is flat, but that's not what the evidence says and the evidence doesn't support Behe.
Feralus69 11 months ago
@Feralus69 When you come up with contradictory statements how about backing them up with something intelligent. Ken MIller is a moron, but you Darwiniac empty headed asses would drink piss if he said it was delicious. And WTF is the evidence contradicting Behe saying the flagellum is like a rotary motor. Anybody can see that. Are you saying it is not like a rotary motor or are you saying it doesn't show design or are you saying it is not irreducibly complex?
stagn41 11 months ago
@stagn41
"When you come up with contradictory statements how about backing them up with something intelligent."
What was contradictory?
"Ken MIller is a moron"
Oh really, is that why he utterly destroys every single opponent in every single debate with evidence? And not to mention is outstanding credentials, saying he's a moron is like saying the sun is cold.
Feralus69 11 months ago
@stagn41
"And WTF is the evidence contradicting Behe saying the flagellum is like a rotary motor"
That's not what i said was being contradicted, I said irreducible complexity, which Behe says the flagellum is, has been thoroughly debunked and shown it works without parts.
"are you saying it doesn't show design"
I'm saying it doesn't show design with regards to it being designed from and outside intelligence, nor is it irreducibly complex. I agree it functions like a motor.
Feralus69 11 months ago
the debate starts at 12:47
duality2527 11 months ago 2
if ID is true but god isnt does that prove aliens? that would be cool
Hypastpist 11 months ago
when was this, why is Dumbski still beating on the flagellum dead horse? the case was closed in 2005
currylee 1 year ago
@currylee 2002, read the description
aantiawp 1 year ago
Evolution is nothing but a system of control. They have to keep it alive, despite it being ludicrous, in order to keep euthanasia, abortion, and eugenics going.
Pilgrim1411 1 year ago
@Pilgrim1411 "Evolution is nothing but a system of control..." I'm not sure how you've come to this conclusion, but it's rather evident that the examples you cite are completely without basis.
Euthanasia is illegal;
Eugenics, by which I assume you mean forced sterilization to select for particular traits, isn't practiced or advocated by anyone;
And the abortion debate centers around competing conceptions of moral rights.
Perhaps you'd like to clarify?
mindgrapes 1 year ago
Evolutionists need to get educated and realize that evolution is a fairytale.
Pilgrim1411 1 year ago
@Pilgrim1411 Then disprove it, i dare you.
baldurus1 1 year ago 8
@baldurus1
Actually, several aspects of evolutionary theory have been falsified. The primary one lately has to do with junk DNA. There really is no such thing as junk DNA, but the "junk" is termed epigenetic. In other words, the "junk" controls gene expression. Now, just because I've shown a prediction is false, does that falsify the theory? Evolution can take a beating, it is an extremely vague idea, it adapts to criticism by reverting to it's basic tenet in the form of Darwinism of the Gaps.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision Actually, there are still "junk" DNA. Some of the so called junk DNA have functions. But there are truly junk DNA. Like endogenous retroviruses. Which also beautifully shows the common ancestry with our closest primate relatives.
baldurus1 1 year ago
@baldurus1
Like I said, just because a prediction is falsified, it doesn't destroy the theory. Junk DNA may indeed have some junk it. But isn't it interesting that the overall genetic expression system takes this into account?
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision Junk DNA was never part of evolutionary theory. Junk DNA is not epigenetic (and by definition cannot be), you dont even know what epigenetic means, do you? Evolution does not predict accumulation of "junk DNA."
bioman123 1 year ago
@bioman123 Sure it does (or at least the two aren't inconsistent). Natural selection would predict that genes coding for traits conferring no survival advantage may, over time, degrade, as there is no selective pressure enforcing the fidelity of their transfer. Similarly, random mutations anywhere in the genome may tend to be inherited if they don't have any impact on survivability.
Pedantic point, perhaps, but I felt it might be appreciated in light of your 'epigenetic' bitchslap.
mindgrapes 1 year ago