hey think with time a non-living thing can start to live, a non aware being can start to aware,Information (like DNA) can be formed without intellegence,
social behaviour and techniques of animals and insects is in the genes ! an the best is this stuff : /watch?v=dOyc98tV5kA did? evolve wings ! and the ability to fly !
throug random mutations and naturel selection, needless to speak about the evolution of plantes ...
@divvy1400yam600 "Religious believers" point to what is testable, observable and repeatable instead of making up ridiculous stories like evolution which never is. We point to the fossil record and say "Gee, it shows abrupt appearance & stasis. Where are those fins to feet, fish to tetrapods, scales to feathers, reptiles to birds that we were taught, as fact, evolution caused? Funny with tons & billions of fossils 0 such things are seen anywhere - just 100% of each kind, no inbetweeners. Cont.
@divvy1400yam600 Cont. When they tell us that nylon eating bacteria are evolving we look at what is testable, observable & repeatable. And what do we see? It's still a bacteria! It's even the same species! When they tell us mutations & natural selection lead to climbs up Darwin's "Tree" we look at what's testable, repeatable & observable & see 0 evidence those things lead to anything but speciation at most, never to a new genus. We believe in irreducible complexity because of the DATA.
@divvy1400yam600 Not this nonsensical claim again...Rational people believe after being presented with evidence, thus for the most part removes the "believing" as it simply transfers to knowledge. Religious cooks replace mounds of evidence, with an ancient book of fairytales.
Yes, they actually could. Many inventions came about from cross-application and happy accidents. In the case of the mousetrap, as with many other things, NONE of its components were invented with mouse-catching in mind. Not woodworking, not metallurgy, not pins, not springs, and not bait. The mousetrap did not appear out of a vaccuum.
@divvy1400yam600 There is one critical flaw in your comparison: selection. In your scenario there is randomness, but no selection. In nature, there is selection. With technology, human needs is the selective force (which is why eg. the laserdisc went the way of the dodo, because it was outcompeted by other media, such as the CD). Evolution is not random, even if the accidents are.
@divvy1400yam600 Your little example bears no resemblance to evolutionary theory and so it does not apply. And what do you mean, "FOR EXAMPLE" sexual reproduction? Example to what?
As for advantages, they can hardly be selected for until they already have appeared, can they? A mutation happens - if it is harmful, it will die out. If it is useful, it will stick around. Who has the best odds at survival and reproduction, after all?
To present an item created by a thought process and change it by giving some thought to the matter and somehow conclude he has provided an argument in favour of evo is quite frankly ...stupid.
@divvy1400yam600 Not at all...In fact you have revealed who is really stupid...Yourself. this is an argument against irreducible complexity, you either do not know what that is..Or you are so biased that you reject any answer. Both are probable. Evolution is a fact, it doesnt matter if some children refuse to believe it. It doesnt make the theory wrong when people chose to ignore it...It just makes them stupid.
@rudyalpha "It's a funny explanation and somewhat right, but it does not solve the problem of irreducible complexity in nature."
Hey, it's Behe's own example. And technological evolution is absolutely comparable to biological evolution: there is one key difference, however, and that's reproduction. Life reproduces organically, whereas technology needs a third party for manufacture. And so the mutations in nature are analoguous to the random ideas of the manufacturer/designer.
ANYONE: If you see no reply to some posters they know they are on ignore for things like personal insults, name calling, gross obscenities & general verbal abuse. Some of these folk follow me (& others) around YT with such tactics, tactics which impede the true cause of science and make rational debate impossible. I am happy to debate with those (sadly, very, very few of YT evo fans) who are able to remain civil & objective.
You love crap. I mean: you like homeopathy, you like herbalism, everything that is quackery! lolol
no wonder you are a cretard. More than that... it's obvious you are one of those crazy enema-lover christians! LOLOLOL
you are as fucked up as a human being can be. LOLOL and you want ppl to be civil with you? you are a complete MORON who has no fucking idea how a Cell works! ffs....
it's funny because Michael Behe has refuted this argument. and this guy is a serious laughable dick. "one of my great scientific discoveries, i'm very proud of this."
atheists will make up whatever they want to "refute" arguments for ID, and then the rest of the atheists can breathe easy and go, "there! you see. he refuted it."
@TheDowntown86 do we really need to "refute" an idea whose main thrust is "there are things we don't yet understand and are very complex, therefore Magical Man did it?"
@BillKiernan You don't like magical thinking? How about these evoutionary examples (only the tip of the iceberg). Miller wants us to believe that his mangled mousetrap will catch "really stupid mice" but he shows no dead mice or any data whatsoever to back that up. The primal pond theory,, taught as fact all over the media and found in little kids; library book on evo, and on which evoutionists still hold workshops, has 0 evidence. In fact the LAW of biogenesis says it can't happen. Cont.
You clearly failed to understand the Miller's example regarding mousetraps.
You show NO DATA whatsoever for IC. None, zero, nada, niente.
The "primal pond", abiogenesis, is not biological evolution. Abiogenesis is taught as the best hypothesis to explain the origin of life, not of the species. Afterall...everything has a natural cause. no god anywhere.
And you have TONS of evidence for Abiogenesis - RNA, pre-biotic membranes, pre-biotic metabolism, etc.
@BillKiernan Cont. All observed in history or in labs shows that life comes only from life. Then there is the Geologic Column that supposedly suports evo. See if you can find a single ex. of one on the planet earth. We were told lizards & scales turned into birds & feathers & fins & fish turned into feet and lizards. Is there a shred of evidence for that? No, tons & billioins of fossils show only 100% fish or fins or feet or lizards or birds or feathers. Don't like magical thinking? Cont.
@LoricaLady cont. There is no law of "biogenesis". you are just making stuff up.
Actually...in labs we have shown our capacity to create life from non-life. Venter's lab. Cynthia. Quite amazing.
Geologic column disproves biblical floods and supports evolution. Your ignorance does not substitute the fact that you are wrong. What you are told is that reptiles share a common ancestor with birds, in fact birds ARE reptiles, we just separate them from the reptiles to simplify classification.
@LoricaLady " We were told lizards & scales turned into birds & feathers & fins & fish turned into feet and lizards. Is there a shred of evidence for that? No" you see, that whole "bury your head in the sand and keep repeating "there's no evidence there's no evidence" tactic only works when you're preaching to the choir. for anyone who has done ACTUAL research on this matter, all we can do is laugh at you, write you off as ignorant, crazy, or dishonest, and move on.
@BillKiernan I've researched evoutionary literature for years. Be so kind as to provide a Google phrase that will link us to where there is a shred of evidence for the following things: Geologic column, something part tetrapod-part fish, something part scale-part feahter, something part fin- foot, something part bird-reptile. (Don't bother with archaepteryx as even some evolutionary ornithologists are saying no way reptiles led to birds & that archy is just "a perching bird.") Show your data.
@LoricaLady "I've researched evoutionary literature for years" via answers in genesis and the discovery institute? everyone give the retard a round of applause.
@BillKiernan It's easy enough to paraphrase virulent comments such as "crazy, ignorant or dishonest" via such people as Dawkins. (That doesn't exactly give the impression of a civilized & objective scientist , now does it?) It's easy enough to insult someone and make claims about how the research is out there. It's super easy enough to give some Google links and demonstrate that what you say is accurate. So do it already.
" It's super easy enough to give some Google links and demonstrate that what you say is accurate. So do it already" i did, and you ignored it like a good creationist. now, please go sacrifice a calf and shut the fuck up.
@BillKiernan I'll quote from the article which you say shows the flagellar whip evolved from a simpler stage, just to show that it does no such thing. (Notice that you don't address any of the other Qs & examples which I gave you.) Then indeed I will be quiet for I don't continue to "debate" with those who follow the usual YT evo fan pattern, namely: Use obscenities & personal insults. Use the strawman logical fallacy of the Bible Bash Dance. Don't really use science or logic. Cont.
@LoricaLady "Don't really use science or logic" that's nice dear. now all you, and the rest of the ID/creationist community has to do is produce some actual scientific material. you know, like experiments, make some predictions, you know, DO SCIENCE. oh i forgot, you rely an lawyers and legislation and "refutations" instead. you're the trolls of the scientific world, that's why you're ignored, until you need to be battled in court, where you lose.
@BillKiernan Cont. Your reference is from Matzke, A Model For the Origin of the Bacterial Flagellum. I stated that it had 0 testable, repeatable, or observable about it, you know, like real science should, but was only armchair theorizing. Some quotes: [1.3, chapter 3] "Therefore, improvement...at the system level might be [! i.e. purely theoretical, i.e. use of the typical evo buzz words like...could have...must...likely....probably...we infer...a model..." instead of any real data.] Cont.
@LoricaLady of course it's theoretical, it's about something we don't yet understand how the evolutionary process of it came about. QUICK, FILL IN THE GAP WITH AN INVISIBLE SPACE WIZARD! but ID/Creationism is just FILLED with "testable, repeatable and observable" things right? oh wait, no, you have nothing of the kind. back to the bronze age with ye.
@BillKiernan I will post to you 1 last time. Its dandy to be theoretical. But when you call armchair theorizing scientific evidence you are pushing psuedo science. Try to explain something that is testable, observable & repeatable. Explain how the nano tehcnology motor (more complex than the motor on an outboard motor) and it's whip on a sperm cell, plus the egg in a totally other body, are all going to be driven to completion by evo while they are "evolving", so to speak nubs of stubs. Cont.
@BillKiernan Cont. Explain how & why evo would drive them to completion while they are useless for aeons. Or if you can think of some use, some "dual purpose" some "co-option" (& don't forget to include any backup data!) they would have until they are all completely formed and completely connected in their interdependent states by all means say what they "might" be.
All of life is irreducibly complex & this is just the simplest, concrete ex. I have. But tell yourself. You're on ignore with me.
Now...last post: there's no IC, Behe admitted IN COURT, in PUBLIC, he lied, he has nothing to back up IC.
ALL the structures observed in a cell are explained by an evolutionary mechanism. ALL of them. And the ones we still can't explain in detail, DO NOT destroy the FACT that many are explained ALREADY, and in DETAIL by evolution theory.
@BillKiernan Cont. "...Change of function at the system level might [!] occur...cooption may [!] also occur...functional shift might [!] occur...Many contradictory models have been published for the...motor action in the flagellum..." So we've got might...may...and other people who disagree with this guy's purely hypothetical model.. Doesn't sound like evidence to moi. Before calling people moron's, why not learn to use YOUR mind & actually read & analyze what evo is & is NOT saying. BYE!
@BillKiernan Cont. They tell you they know how creatures like Tiktaalik produced invisible progeny. Since it has, their humble opinion, "characteristics of" Tetrapods, then they don't say maybe it's a transitional form, they you it IS & that they know how its invisible descendants' invisible descendants turned into a tetrapod. It's not the complexity of evidence that bothers creationists - its the nonevidence presented as if it is evidence by evoutionists. We LOVE complexity that's real.
@LoricaLady cont. You have fish with "hand" like structures, fish with lungs, fish with no eyes, but with eye sockets!
Lizards with feathers on the fossil record... the sole magic thinking is on your side. It's astonishing the crap you come up with in order to deny the facts.
"invisible progeny"? lolol no, you say that. Science doesn't. you are just lying now.
Experts..."humble opinion"? at least it's better than your delusional uneducated opinion.
Ofc speciation is a FACT that supports evolution. Your denial doesn't substitute the fact that you are wrong.
Darwin showed dozens of examples in his book. But the point here is that i am showing with evidence from NOW that speciation occurs. Darwin's book is not the school textbook, the BIOLOGY textbook is. You learn about the 150 years of evidence supporting evolution theory. not the from 150 years ago evidence only.
Speciation was explained ONLY recently (last 60 years).
@BillKiernan So, you're gonna let someone else be your mouthpiece? If you like what transatlantic says, then put it in your own words and be prepared to defend it with data. If you really don't feel up to it, just use personal insults & name calling the way he did (& soooooo many others) and I'll put you on ignore and you will be conveniently off the hook.
@LoricaLady " just use personal insults & name calling the way he did" well, when dealing with creatards such as yourself, one eventually gets to the point where you have no other option but insults. it's always a mistake to take you seriously. it's the 21st century, evolution is a fact. the entire community of biological scientists, aside from a handful of religious wingnuts, knows this. now, go read a book of fables and shut the fuck up.
ANYONE: If you see no reply to some posters below they know they are on ignore for personal insults and name calling, sometimes gross obscenities. Some of them follow me, and others, around YT with such tactics. It is not possible to have a scientific debate under such circumstances. I would like to dispel some of the confusion I see, but I limit my time to those (very, very few among YT evo fans) who are civil & objective.
If you want a scientific debate, you have one right here:
What do you call the phenomena where a population of individuals originate another distinct population of individuals by random mutation and natural selection?
What sort of "confusion" is there? We observe AB resistance and Plant speciation all the time.
I am being civil and asking you a straight question.
if you run... it's just a sign that you are fearing something.
@transtlantic You aren't being that civil at all. You keep accusing me of running instead of like, maybe apologizing for your offensive remarks. Even if you apologize, sorry. My experience has been that when you give the person a 2nd chance they will start up with the verbal doo doo again pretty soon, and sometimes at lower levels. If I responded to all the YT evo fans who keep insulting, cussing etc. me I'd need several lifetimes. I screen & limit to those very few who show basic respect.
@transtlantic No, you don't even know how to be civil yet. Your responses don't show you are sorry but are mocking and sneering. That's fine. You get to be that way, but I get to avoid such. The only reason I am responding, this very, very last time, is that I think I may be hearing - between the lines - some actual willingness to hear another side if there is one. You spoke of "other vids." You can check out favorited vids on my channel page and get an ear full. Best wishes but byeeeee!
I am being civil. My response has no insults, no passive agressive intent, no second intents to put you down. It's a plain and simple question.
You don't get to avoid my question. The question i am presenting is put every single time we observe a population of individuals originate a NOVEL distinct population of individuals by random mutations and natural selection (an example being Plant speciation)
I am willing to hear your side after you answer to my question, but in a dialogue
0:23 Here is a beautiful example of how evolutionists ask us to believe things with 0 evidence. Where's the ev-i-dence that the mangled mousetrape caught any mice? We're told "really stupid mice" will be caught by it. We're just supposed to believe that. It gets more ridiculous (if possible) the more he mangles the trap & calls us to assume it kills mice. Notice that even the theoretical mangled mouse trap which catches theoretical evidenceless mice is still the product of intelligent design!
@LoricaLady How can I argue with you, if you don't even want to understand the point made by Miller? Be honest. First of all, wanting to disprove something is unscientific, by definition. Either you fully understand the Theory and perform observations that are not compatible with it, or you can't disprove it. Evolution does not explain the history of life, that is the work of paleontologists. It simply provides an explanation for the diversity of life. Plain and simple.
@raviept Sometime in the middle of the night when no one is watching, you need to admit to yourself that you dodged my example of irreducible complexity because you haven't got a clue how to anser it (and you never will because evolution could not make those parts over time and hold them unfinished until - presto! the sperm is finally ready for that finally fully "evolved" egg.)
Probably you think the answer is out there somewhere & you just haven't found it. Seek and you will not find.
@LoricaLady Just to conclude, look at the pages of these computer scientists: "Leslie Lamport", "Doug Terry", "Barbara Liskov", "Dahlia Malkhi", see their publications and compare them with the publications of Behe.
He refutes the irreducibility of mousetraps. So? When will this clown stop the buffoonery and get around to refuting the irreducibility of the bacterial flagellum? Or cilia? Or the clotting system? Or the immune system? He acts like his followers are in mental kindergarten ... and I saw the debate. Behe was not "horrified." He just calmly explained that the mousetrap was an analogy, and that he hadn't touched his point at all. Apparently, Miller will never get it.
@LoricaLady Odd, how people like Milller prefer to live in a logical and philosophical cesspool rather than admit even just the mere possibility of an intelligent influence in nature. They resort to the most outlandish folly and think they are being so rational and clever ! "Thinking themselves wise, they became fools ..." Perfect example.
@GospelHouseKat Miller purports to be a Christian. You can see a vid clip of him on the Colbert show sayng he believes Yeshua, aka Jesus Christ, "Created all that is, seen and unseen." Then he turns around and has workshops on "The Collapse of Intelligent Design"! I find it odd that people can accept that a Diety could created this vast universe - time, space, matter & energy. But yet He supposedly can't create plant & animal life fully formed & ready to go (But I used to be that way, too.)
@LoricaLady He says he Catholic. Which makes him a "useful" fool for the evolutionary biologists whose approval he obviously craves. It is a self-contradictory position that defies all logic and the plain physical evidence. Life, says Miller, is here because of mere happenstance. But Bill Buckley pointed out in the debate that mere happenstance, "it just happened," is not a "theory" -- much less a "scientific" one. (Yes, at one time I swallowed whole the"evolution is a fact" lie myself ...!)
@GospelHouseKat ps I saw his video trying to explain why evolution is not just a chance process. However, it is driven by supposed RANDOM mutations, without these unpredictable, CHANCE events evolution cannot happen. How can he be confused about this? That is the whole point of the evolutionary story. To get rid of God and make "evolution" (nature) our true creator. Sneaking God in through the back door just doesn't workl.
@GospelHouseKat No. It is driven by Natural Selection, which is not random. Random changes in genetic code just provide the required variety for Natural selection to operate. Nevertheless, what is the problem of these changes being random?
@raviept Saying words doesn't make a random process not random. Proof of which is easy to see when you try to make predictions -- and "it just happens" doesn't require a theory to explain it, does it? Natural selection is entirely useless without something "just happening." BTW it is not MY problem, the problem is with the so-called theory and those who attempt to salvage it by rhetorical, rather than observable, methods and.test it for God's sake. Predictions? No? Then pure metaphysical fancy,
@raviept What is the best reason you have for believing that random mutations guided by a purposeless process such as "natural selection" is responsible for creating ALL the mind-boggling varieties and species and the molecular machinery of ;life as we find it on our planet today? HONEST QUESTION.
@GospelHouseKat HONEST ANSWER: It is accepted by the scientific community as the best explanation for the diversity of species, and that is why it is teached in science classes. Also, just because it seems to you ridiculous doesn't mean it is. Common sense is wrong very oftenly. Take for example the relativity of Einstein. That is just counter-intuitive. Still, no one says it is wrong just because of that. Leave science to scientists.
@raviept I never used the word "ridiculous.I don't find it ridiculous prima facia, but I don;t find the evidence supporting it persuasive.
"Because all the smart people say so" Is the BEST EVIDENCE you have for believing that an unintelligent puposeless process evolved a land-dwelling mammal into a sea-dwelling mammal, among a million other incredible feats?Is that really what completely convinces you of the absolute truth of the theory of evolution?
@GospelHouseKat BTW I have no quarrel with Einstein because there is much better experimental, obsrvational and evidence that supports it. Relativity theory is confirmed empirically not just by imaginative speculation.-- it isn't accepted just because some smart people believe it. LOL.
@GospelHouseKat Micro-evolution, genetic similarities, vestigial organs, fossil record, etc. Notice that i'm not a biologist, yet i am aware of many evidence in favour of Evolution. There are hundreds of papers published in peer reviewed scientific journals and conferences supporting Evolution. Biologists are constantly making experiences that never contradict Evolution, so the argument that it is imaginative speculation is not correct.
@raviept These all work for you if you use your imagination the way "they" tell you to, while assuming a priori the theory is true. Hundreds or thousands of papers by people who could not pubish UNLESS they toe the party line. Genetic similarities. SO? The fossil record after 170 years of sweaty digging for MISSING fossil sequences that would support evolution remains about as unDarwinian as it can get.But lets discuss the evidence that works for YOU.What is it, specifically?
@raviept "Micro-evolution" is just a word that usually refers to changes made by natural selection which are not evolution at all since they never go beyond the level of species. Darwin's Tree of Life & the whole evo spiel is saying fins turned into feet, scales turned into feathers, etc. when countless billions of fossils shown only 100% feet, 100% fins, 100% scales, 100% feathers, 100% fish, 100% tetrapods, etc. "Tetrapod like" btw ain't a part tetrapod, it's a faith based assumption. Cont.
@raviept Cont. "Genetic similalrities" is not evidence It's simply the constant use by evolutionists of the Correlation Does Not Imply Causation logical fallacy. Vestigial organs are another evolutionary myth as usual based on no evidence whatever. Based on 0 evidence whatever we were told, for ex., that the appendix & tonsils were "vestigial." Oops. Turns out they are very useful in immunology, the latter especially for very young chlldren. We're told whales have "vestigial legs". Cont.
@raviept Cont. Whales use those "vestigial leg bones" to help anchor their massive bodies when they are mating. The fossil record? It shows abrupt appearance & stasis. Even some famous evolutionists like Dr. Colin Patterson have acknowledged "there is not 1 water tight case' for a transitional fossil. (Don't tell me that's a quote mine unless you want to give quotes where he said he was misquoted or furhter words showing he's quoted out of context - & no evo fan ever does that.) Cont.
@raviept Cont. "Hundreds of...peer reviewed." Yep peer reviews raved about coelacanth as being a transitional fossil moving onto land. Then they found some living ones & saw it was simply a blue fish. Yep, peer reviews hailed the Miller & Urey experiment as an ex. of life coming from inorganic matter. Kids in school were told abiogenesis had been demonstrated. But their experiment got l & r amino acids - which KILL life. And they didn't bother to explain how even the correct kind...Cont.
@raviept Cont. ...if created could have led to life since it would be d-e-a-d, nor could they explain how it would get all the rest of the parts of a cell that are more complex than a block of factories & cause all that nano technology inside them to get put together for one "simple cell." Biologists have not come up with 1 experiment to demonstrate that evoution is true. The fruit fly experiments mutate thousands of generations of fruit flies & they all stay fruit flies. Cont.
@raviept Cont. What lab experirments actually show is that tho you can change a bacteria somewhat, ditto an algae & watch them having generations of offspring at staggering rates, the most you ever get is maybe a new species. But the bacteria stay bacteria and the algae stay algae. Every single time. Evo is not just "imaginative speculation, friend, it's a bunch of lies."
Look at "imaginative speculation in this vid that supposedly refutes Behe's argument for irreducible complexity. Cont.
@raviept Cont. Miller mangles the mousetrap & tells us it is going to catch "stupid mice" - based on what? Imaginative speculation. As usual there is 0 real evidence for anything, in this case dead, dumb mice.
We are even asked to believe it will still kill mice (this part is shown in other vids) when it is reduced to nothing but a coil and a piece of cheese. Of course all the parts killing the invisible mice were still made by intelligent design! And that mousetrap tie? Get real. Cont.
@raviept Cont. If I use my cellphone for a necktie holder or to squash bugs, & use my computer as a paper weight, uh, somehow it eludes me how this proves those items weren't intelligently designed.
Friend, you have been fed a bunch of "stuff" since you were a kid. It's a bunch of stuff that is not only not true, its illogical and UNscientific. You have a mind of your own. I hope you will learn to really use it. Learn logical fallacies (evo is built firmly upon them) and critical thinking.
@LoricaLady I will just reply to your last argument regarding the cellphone.I think you misunderstood the point made by Ken Miller.According to Behe (correct me if i'm wrong), a structure is irreducibly complex if it is composed by one or more parts,which cannot be removed nor simplified, otherwise it doesn't provide the intended funtionality.Dr Behe states that this makes impossible for these structures to evolve,as there couldn't be any simpler predecessor that would provide the same function.
@raviept Behe said the SYSTEM is irreducibly complex if itis composed of one or more parts which cannot be removed or simplified. And Miller was not able to demonstrate how changing his mousetrap example made it still work. Again, we were supposed to accept that on faith, since no dead mice were evidenced, even "really stupid" ones. Behe's analogy stands. Take away parts of the SYSTEM of the mousetrap and it will not catch mice. Or did those i.d. engineers just put in useless parts? Cont.
@raviept I did not misunderstand about the cellphone. If you can explain to me how using a cellphone for a tie clip or to squash bugs shows that it is not irreducibly complex, then please do so. Miller is using what is called a strawman logical fallacy, one of many logical fallacies that evolutionary literature is replete with, in fact totally dependent upon. A simpler cellphone can be found. Does that show that either the simpler one or the more complex one wasn't intelligently designed?
@LoricaLady What do you want? Absolute truths? Then, you are the one who is not being scientific. The mousetrap does not catch any mouse but it still provides other functionalities. That's the whole point. If it seems to you ridiculous, then look at the bacteria flagellum and syringe example. And i'm done with you. It is clear that you opened an account just to try to disprove on youtube. LOL. I don't care if Evolution is right or wrong, as long as there are evidence to support that position.
@raviept You think there are no absolute truths? There are LAWS of science, where you can see things happen - with the evidence you say you want - with 100% consistency, things that are testable, observable & repeatable. If it's 0 of those things & you're told it's science then you're told pseudo science. Do you want real science or not? There is zip, zilch, nada evidence to support evolution friend. In fact the real (not "might...could...".)evidence is in the opposite direction. Cont.
@raviept Cont. I don't get your point about the bacteria flagellum. Maybe you're referring to how Miller supposedly refuted that ex. from Behe of irreducible complexity just as he supposedly refuted the mousetrap ex.?. That ""refuation"" too was based on 0 testable, observable or repeatable. We are just to assuuuume that because some bacteria are more simple, welll naturally Behe's was once too & naturally in the never to be observed millions of years ago it evolved from such a state. Cont.
@raviept Cont. Before you sign off, do be sure to tell me what "other functionalities" the mousetrap has even though as you admit (good for you) it's not going to catch any mice. Please provide something non ridiculous - not like a tie clip. Oh and Miller even said part of it could be used for a tooth pick. By Godzilla? Friend, you've been treated like you ain't too bright. That's because you haven't yet learned to use your brights. Find them, and start using them to get out of the matrix.
@LoricaLady cont. If you remove a single component, then the structure shouldn't be functional, therefore it is useless to the organism. Dr Behe used the mousetrap analogy to ilustrate his point. What Ken Miller did was to show that although it may be true that an irreducibly complex system cannot provide the same function if some of its components is removed, it still may provide other functions, therefore being useful to the organism. Do you understand what i mean?
@raviept "It still may provide..." Typical evo speak. "May....might....could...probably...must have...we propose a model....here is a simulation...." Miller's example is so evo classic for it's all theory, no evidence. The mangled trap Miller showed isn't going to catch any mice, no "may" about it. If you saw that broken thing in a hardware store for 1 cent you would laugh at it and not buy it. Do you understand that Miller is giving you faith based arguments & psueod science?
@GospelHouseKat By the way, what alternative do you propose? ID? LOL. I guess that believing in a designer that, by magic, created all species is not imaginative speculation.
@GospelHouseKat Just one more question. Why does a natural process must have a purpose? Does gravity has a purpose? Does an electric force has a purpose. Of course you will say that charges with the same sign repel each other while charges with opposite signs attract each other. But if that is a purpose, then the purpose of Natural Selection is to select the specimens which are more fit to the environment. That is a very good purpose, in my opinion.
@raviept Oh my, Gravity is not the point at issue. Let's sweep away the red herrings and talk about a bird's wing or a mammalian eye. It looks like the wing was designed for the purpose of flight; the eye for sight. But you say it wasn't , really. How so? What convinces YOU that these engineering masterpieces of aerodynamic and optic engineering just happened by a purposeless process working on random changes ? I would really love to know.
@GospelHouseKat Red herrings? Forget about Evolution. Just answer to these questions: 1) What is the Intelligent Designer and what is to be Intelligent; 2) By what mechanism that designer created so many different species; 3) Why there are living beings more similar to each other than others; 4) Why did some species become extinct. You have to support your answers with evidence, of course, and the bible does not count.
1 andn 2designing something for a purpose requires intelligence, in contrast to things that come about my rarndom events and natural, non-purposeful laws. Francis Crick guessed the designer was intelligent space aliens- and he outa know. My guess is its God. What's your guess? Similarly, by what mechanism does gravity exert its force? (Not even Einstein knows.)
3 Why wouldn't a common designer use a common design?
4 Don't know. But extinction recorded is abrupt, not Darwinian..
@GospelHouseKat 1 and 2) It is the reality of ID. You don't have any verifiable explanation that allows us to make predictions. "designing something for a purpose requires intelligence" - That may be true for things you know that were designed, but no one has shown that this is also true for living matter. It is true that a stone cannot become an almost perfect statue without the work of an intelligent being, such as man, because there is no natural mechanism capable of doing that.
@GospelHouseKat The same applies to the parts used to build a car. An allien not aware of human presence would say that a car was designed because of the perfection of the design and due to the knowledge that steel and plastic can only turn into a car by the work of an intentional force. But this is not true in living beings. We know a mechanism called natural selection that can change living beings in a certain direction. This has been observed for instance in micro-evolution.
@GospelHouseKat 3) Why would a designer choose a particular pattern of similarities and differences that is consistent with Evolution, among many other possible patterns? Why are there vestigial organs? 4) Never heard of Darwinian extinction. I think the scientific community accepts that the extinction of dinosaurs was abrupt, although there are other alternative explanations.
@raviept What might be a possible pattern not consistent with evo? What might be a living creature or organ that evolution can't produce? Evo is unfalsified in your mind because it inconceivable to your PHILOSOPHY that any creative force other than a strictly materialistic one did the job. It doesn't matter that it cannot be put to the test, because what else is there? Like the gambler in the back alley said: So what if its a crooked crap game? Its the only game in town! That is the mindset.
@GospelHouseKat Have you heard of the nested tree? Any pattern that does not fit this tree is not consistent with Evolution. Actually, it is ID that is consistent with any pattern and therefore is not falsifiable. But we should stop arguing because I'm not going to convince you, neither you will convince me. The truth is simple. If you want ID to be recognized as a valid scientific theory, then you must convince the scientific community. I'm not a biologist, so my opinion is irrelevant.
@GospelHouseKat Cont. I was glad to read that you saw the exchange with Behe & that - as I always believed - Behe was no way "horrified." Miller has trashed that poor man in various ways. But who cares in a way? The truth is the truth is the truth and no one can change that.
@GospelHouseKat Cont. I was glad to read that you saw the exchange with Behe & that - as I always believed - Behe was no way "horrified." Miller has trashed that poor man in various ways. But who cares in a way? The truth is the truth is the truth and no one can change that.
@GospelHouseKat "So? When will this clown stop the buffoonery and get around to refuting the irreducibility of the bacterial flagellum?" he's talked about the flagellum and the ways it could develop at length, fool. now, back to holding your sign on the corner and selling pencils in a cup.
@BillKiernan The only "refutation of the irreducible complexity of bacterial flagellum" is, like the mangled mouse trap which is never seen to catch even "really stupid" mice. We're shown less simple organisms. Tho they are fully functional for their very diff-er-ent purposes in the body, we are just, believe on...faith...and connect the...invisible....dots between them and the modern bacterial flagellum. The usual dataless speculation is presented as Gawds' truth. Or show supporting data.
@LoricaLady "he only "refutation of the irreducible complexity of bacterial flagellum" is, like the mangled mouse trap" nope. that's a quick example he uses to get the point across. he, and others, have gone into great detail about how the flagellum can evolve. see "Evolution in (Brownian) space: a model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum" by N.J Matzke for one example.
@BillKiernan "Can evolve (I.e. no actual evidence whatsoever, just theories about things that no one can observe, test or repeat)...we infer....we propose a model...." That ain't science & when you're told it IS science, you are getting pseudo science - which is always the case with evoutionary theory.
Show me some real data, not armchair speculations all gussied up with fancy looking charts & pictures & logical fallacies like Correlation Does Not Imply Caustion, & Incomplete Comparison.
@BillKiernan Cont. Oh, and do tell what "point "Miller is getting across by telling us that a mangled mouse trap is going to catch mice then providing 0 evidence it will do any such thing. (You wouldn't buy that thing on sale for a penny if you had REAL, as opposed to theoretical, mice.)( And do tell what point Miller is making when he uses it to hold a tie with a clasp made with technology & of courrse i.d., to show that the mousetrap wasn't i.d.? Don't forget to answer those Qs now.
@LoricaLady you know what? you've convinced me! evolution is a lie! now i know the truth, God did things like put mammals in the water that have to come up for air and have vestigial arms and legs and hip joints for the LULZ! god 's such a joker, always throwing in things to confuse us. praise jeebus and death to adulteresses!
This man is an idiot...he is making Dr Behe's point perfectly. This dope is, relatively speaking, intelligent person. It is his intelligence that reconfigures the mouse traps. The mouse trap did NOTHING to change itself. The universe consists of MATTER, ENERGY AND INTELLIGEMCE. Dr. Behe should pay you money to do this. You are the weakest link! You bonehead!
What Miller did to change the mousetrap is irrelevant, as there already exists a demonstrable mechanism for organisms to change. Miller's point is that certain features of living organisms can have more than one function, which is how organisms requiring multiple functioning parts can evolve.
@StutteringDave No, what Miller did do the mousetrap is totally relevant and a classic example of how evolutoinary "proofs" work. He takes a mousetrap & then mangles it & asks us to believe that it can catch "really stupid" mice. In another vid he even says the coil alone, w/a piece of cheese, can catch mice. As usual in evo theory he provides no evidence for that. And btw all the invisibly dead mice would still have been caught by something made by intelligent design. Cont.
@StutteringDave Cont. Tell me what "other function" that mousetrap could have had? Name just one that would lead it to being a better mousetrap. The whole tie clip example is an insult to your intelligence friend.
Explain how my using a cell phone, for example, for a tie clip, shows that it was not the product of intelligent design. How would using my skull to crush a nut show that my skull is evolving into anything at all? But 1st show me those dead mice.
@LoricaLady I will try to explain this as simple as possible. Behe used the mousetrap as an analogy, not as proof. Analogies cannot be used as proofs, because you cannot say an inanimate object has the same properties as a living being. The analogy is to explain that an inrreducibly complex system does not provide the expected function if you remove one part.
@raviept Let's see if I get this straight. Miller says he has refuted the irreducible complexity argument of Behe's mousetrap because he can mangle it and it will still catch :"really stupid mice." He even tells us that just the coil and the cheese will catch mice. No dead mice are seen. None of what he says is true. So it's a totally failed analogy, totally bogus, totally imaginary & useless. Yet you still think it taught anyone anything? Rhetorical Q. Cont.
@LoricaLady Cont. The Theory of Evolution states that any structure evolved through variations across generations, inheritage of most of the traits, and Natural Selection, that favours some of the newly introduced traits. Therefore, according, any irreducibly complex system would have to evolve from simpler structures with less componentes, and then gradually new components would appear through evolution.
@raviept Cont. Give one example of where natural selection has ever been observed to lead to any climbs up Darwin's so called Tree of Life. Don't just quote theory. Give examples. The truth is natural selection and ditto mutations, which have never been observed to build the kinds of DNA necessary for transforming say a fin into a foot or scales into feathers - & tons & billioins of fossils show no such things happening) You are the one using circular reasoning. Cont.
@raviept Cont. You start with the assumption that all changes are the result of evo. Then you say, "Look, changes! See, that proves evo." What you never see, what you're never taught,to see, is the changes don't keep going & going up that so called Tree of Life. Fins change into other fins, feet into other feet. scales into other scales, feathers into other feathers. You' were TOLD one changed to the other. So give just 1 fossil ex. with fins changing to feet & scales to feathers. Cont.
@LoricaLady Cont. The argument agains evolution is that any of those intermediate forms of an irreducibly complex structure that missed some of its components would be useless to the organism. Hence, Natural Selection would never select them as useful traits, and evolution would never occur, at least in that direction. This argument is based on the assumption that evolution requires that structures always provide the same function.
@raviept You never answered my Q. asking for what other "functionalities" a mousetrap, mangled or otherwise, could possibly have that relates to catching mice - not something ridiculous like using it as a tie clip, which btw uses an intelligently designed instrument that clips things tightly through human technology,not to mention needs human fingers & a human mind to use it in that ridiculous way. I've already been given an "example" of how i.c. isn't :real." By Miller. It's bogus. Cont.
@LoricaLady Cont. What Biologists such as Miller did was to show that this assumption might not be necessarily true. There are structures simpler (or more complex) than systems regarded by Behe as irreducibly complex, that are useful to the organism by providing other functions. That is the case of the bacteria flagellum.
@raviept Cont. The bacterial flagellum. Miller "refuted" that the same way he "refuted" the mousetrap. He gave imaginary scenarios w/0 evidence any of them ever happened! We're supposed to assuuume, on faith, that because some bacteria are less complex, in the evidenceless conveniently unobserbable aeons ago, Behe's bacterial flagellum was also like them - though they all serve different purposes for different bio niches - and evolved from them. Let's look at a bacterial flagellum. Cont.
@raviept Cont. Let's look at irreducible complexity. Something observable, testable, repeatable. Not "millions of years ago" and "might...probably...likely...all scientists believe..." Let's see you use YOUR mind & YOUR eyes to answer some Qs. Google a flagellar whip & motor. Please answer some Qs. The usual strategy with YT evo fans is to avoid the Qs., Some of them have even said after awhile "We already answered them!" when they didn't even address them. Let's see how you do. Cont.
@LoricaLady If you really want to see examples of how complex structures have evolved, you have several videos on Youtube. For instance, this one "watch?v=W96AJ0ChboU". But please, watch them with honest intentions. Don't immediately discard the ideas explained there. At least, for a moment, ask yourself if they are right and you are wrong. I did the same with many scientific theories. In fact, there is a lot i don't understand in science or with which i dont agree.
@raviept Cont. Q. 1. While the flagellar motor & the flagellar whip are just "emerging" and "evolving", say little nubs of stubs, what use are they? What possible co-option, such as Miller & others the-or-ize about, could they possibly have? Give me something that is backed up by observable data. You know, a not fully complete motor or a not fully complete whip that is still useful in anyway in any organism. Q. 2. How & why would evo drive such useless parts to completion? Cont.
@LoricaLady You want an example? Just watch the documentary regarding the Dover's trial. There are bacterias that have exactly the same structure as the flagellum, aside from the proteins that make the falgellum spin. This structure is still useful as a syringe to inject nocive substances in other cells. If you don't know, search for it. Don't say it doesn't exist because you simply don't know it. The same happens with the eye.
@raviept Cont. Q3 How & why would it drive TWO useless parts to completion SYNCHRONOUSLY as would be needed since one is useless w/o the other?
Now, say the motor & whip are connected to a sperm cell. Q 4 How & why would evo drive an egg to completion in a different body, in a different sex, so that it is ready to receive the sperm and create new life - all before the sperm and motor are finished?
You're looking at irreducible complexity. Don't trade it for the Emperor's New Clothes. Cont
@LoricaLady Stay to one topic. "Let's see if I get this straight. Miller says he has refuted the irreducible complexity argument of Behe's mousetrap because he can mangle it and it will still catch :"really stupid mice."" No. Miller and other biologists used this analogy to explain how a biologic irreducibly complex system could have evolved by providing an alternative function.
@raviept Miller said the mousetrap would kill "really stupid mice." It didn't & it wouldn't. Why are you supporting bogusness. I gave you an ex. of irreducible complexity but your way of dodging it is to say, "Let's stay on topic." Then you tell me to go watch some vid! When people understand something well enough they are able to articulate it with their own words. "Exactly the same structure as the flagellum aside from the proteins..." and that proves it evolved how? Your data? Cont.
@LoricaLady Still, that doesn't make me say that those theories are wrong. Specially because they were ellaborated by people that know much more than i do and i'm humble enough to admit that. You clearly are not competent in Biology, so you should be humble to admit that others might know better than you. You should leave science to scientists. That doesn't mean you have to accept any scientific theory. Simply, don't say they are wrong because they contradict your beliefs.
@raviept "You clearly are not competent in biology." You evade my Qs & tell me to watch vids since you cannot articulate the answers for yourself. You defend a "refutation" by a man who is telling you something this is totally not true. "Wanting to disprove something is unscientific by definition." Lol! You really need to study basic science history & see how many great scientists made great discoveries trying to disprove things!
These are examples of someone "competent in biology"? Cont.
@raviept Instead of taking a passive, faith based position like "Humble enough to admit...." the "experts" know more than you, how about learning to look at data, using YOUR mind? How about looking at both sides, including sci-en-tists who are just as degreed & experienced as those you have put your...faith....in? You have a mind of your own. You haven't learned to really use it yet or learned what science & logic really are. But you can if you really want to do so. Learn to use YOUR mind!
@LoricaLady "how many great scientists made great discoveries trying to disprove things" Einstein didn't wake up in the morning and decided to disprove the Theory of Relativity of Galileu just because is agains your religious beliefs. He did that because it was discovered that the speed of light is constant in all referencials. Galileu and Copérnico worked on the heliocentric theory because they had evidence. And the scientific community acknowledged their discoveries.
@raviept Cont. If you think you can find scientific truth by just counting who had the most publications you're using YOUR mind. As for Einstein, as for orthodox scientific positions, originally he & all scientists thought the universe was eternal. How sad if they had just counted to see how many peer reviewed articles thought that was true, instead of examining new data. And some studies in highly prestigious universities are questioning that the speed of light is is constant btw. Cont.
@LoricaLady It was the church that burned Galileu. You, creationists/id, are basically rejecting a scientific theory that was built and tested using the scientific method, the same that led to all modern scientific discoveries, simply because it is against your beliefs. You have been using the same arguments for 50 years that were even debunked in court. You haven't performed a single experiment to support your view. You simply want people to agree with you.
@raviept "It was the Church that burned Gallieo." I don't like to get into relgion. It becomes a strawman leading from the true topic at hand, but I'll address this issue once & that's it. Yes the Roman Catholic Church, killed 10s of millions including people who did things like publishing the Bible - since it conflicts with what they teach. That's what the Protestant Reformation was about, tho I'm not Catholic or Protestant & go to no "Church". Evo falls based on science & logic alone. Cont.
@raviept Cont. Give me 1 example, just one, where the use of the scientific method showed any evo whatsoever. I can give you those that didn't (tho they still claim, falsely as is not uncommon at all) that they did. Miller & Urey tried to show that life came from inorganic matter thru creating amino acids. This got great peer reviews & MANY publications. But their amino acids were the l & r handed kind & those KILL life! They also never bothered to explain how even...Cont.
@raviept Cont. .. the right kind of amino acids could create life as they would be d-e-a-d, or how amino acids would lead to the vast number of other ingredients in a cell, not to mention the incredible nano technology for putting the little nano machines into place at the level of complexity of a block of factories. Yet little kids were told M & U had shown life can come from inorganic matter! There are many lies in evo. No, I don't just want you to agree with me, but THINK! Cont.
@raviept Cont. Another use of the scientific method was thru fruit fly experiments. They've bombarded countless thousands of generations of the bugs with radiation to show that mutations can lead to evo. As usual the experiment went in the exact opposite direction. They got deformed, often dead, never more viable than the original...fruit flies every time. Oh,ou're a computer expert. Let's see, if you take a program and start to "mutate" thru accidents as in evo, what do you get? Cont.
@LoricaLady "You haven't learned to really use it yet or learned what science & logic really are" Sure. That's because i'm a computer scientist, and i provably have much more background in logic than you do. In fact, i just started my career and I possibly have more articles published in peer-reviewed conferences than most of those "experts" in ID. I certainly have at least as much serious publications as Behe.
@raviept Cont. You can mutate a program from now til doomsday and every now and then you will maybe get an accidental, small, improvement. But you will never be able to build new programs that way. The laws for physics and for statistical probabilities are the same for inorganic as for organic matter. Oh...I see you've insulted me by saying I have a closed mind. I put those on ignore who use personal insults. Learn to use YOUR mind & come out of the matrix. Bye!
@LoricaLady I insulted you by saying you have a closed mind? You have been saying that since your first comment about me. Nevertheless, lets rewind. I came to this video to discuss about Irreducible complexity, not about Evolution in general. So, before continuing, i ask you what is your view of IC and why does it prove that Evolution is not a fact? PS: Don't spam youtube. Go straight to the point. I'm not willing to read 9 comments.
@raviept "It is useless to argue with someone that has such a closed mind." So why are you arguing? Also you do not get to dictate to me your terms, for your convenience, for how people use YT. If you don't want a full answer that is complete and concise, that's your problem not mine. And btw I am never just posting to the person to whom the reply is addressed but also hoping to help any lurkers. So I go by my rules fella. You use yours. I'l use mine. Mine say you're on ignore. Finis
@raviept P.S. I'm feeling a little guilty as your accusation was not truly horrible - not like plenty of other things I've heard from YT evo fans. The thing is if I kept posting to all who insulted me I would need several lifetimes. I screen my posting and limit my time by having the rule that those with personal insults, name calling etc. go on ignore. (This is most all of them.) Also I have noticed that once the insults start, they will continue & usually get worse. So unpleasant. Cont.
@raviept Cont. Also you don't like long comments and I think they are needful to make the points I want to make. Further, I feel that by this point you have seen enough (if you really want to) to realize that maybe all isn't quite right in evo theory land. The rest is up to you! There are plenty of resources on the net , plenty of articles by real life scientists (which I am not) showing the pros & cons of virtually any evo "proof." Seek and you will find.
@LoricaLady The way i feel about Evolution is simple. It is the accepted scientific theory that explains why there are so many different species, among other questions. I learned it in science classes, just like i learned special relativity of einstein, electromagnetism, etc. My recent interest on Evolution is due to the conflict between science and religion, not because i ever heard of any disagreement among scientists. Cont.
@LoricaLady Cont. I'm not a Biologist, so i don't know all the data available. Still, a lot of evidence has been presented to my supporting Evolution, I thought about it and never found any inconsistent. There are gaps, but that's it. I wouldn't expect science to have all the answers. On the other hand, from the proponents of ID I just heard arguments (not evidence) agains Evolution, and always the same arguments, that only point out gaps, never real inconsistencies.
@LoricaLady Never found any theory regarding what is the Intelligent Designer, what it means to be intelligent, and by what mechanism it created life. Any reasonable answers to these three questions that don't require faith or implicitly say that we don't have to know will make me think of ID as a serious hypothesis to explaining how life has emerged. Otherwise, even if you are right, the only thing you are capble of doing is to disprove Evolution, not prove any alternative.
@raviept My goal is not to "prove an alternative" but indeed is only to show that evo is unscientific & illogical. I do not have time to show that irreducible complexity & intelligent design go together. Besides, it usually leads to the Bible Bash dance strawman & red herrings & I have 0 time for those either. Sorry. Different folk have different missions. Mine is baby steps - 1st see that evo is not, & cannot be true, then hopefully inspire the person to look for more answers. The End - OK?
How can evo be "unscientific & illogical" when it's the ONLY explanation to the OBSERVED phenomena where a species originates a new distinct species by random mutation and natural selection?
You provide no reason to believe in your retarded crap when your retarded ideology can't explain how a population of individuals have a change in allele frequency due to environmental pressure.
@transtlantic Speciation is not evidence for evo. It was well known long before Darwin & btw he never showed any origin of species whatsoever. There are over 200 species of bees & all are still bees. Leo & Sylvester are still cats. Evolution tells you that speciation turns into a new genus and finches etc. keep climibing up the "Tree of Life" turning into non finches but there is 0 evidence for any of that. I would say more but I only debate with the civil & objective. You're not. BYE!
hey think with time a non-living thing can start to live, a non aware being can start to aware,Information (like DNA) can be formed without intellegence,
social behaviour and techniques of animals and insects is in the genes ! an the best is this stuff : /watch?v=dOyc98tV5kA did? evolve wings ! and the ability to fly !
throug random mutations and naturel selection, needless to speak about the evolution of plantes ...
please hold down to the real science :)
YamiYami17 2 days ago
The underlying irrationality of the presenter beggars belief.
Could the moustetrap have appeared by accidental accretion ?
Could the changes required to reduce its structure, but not functionality, have occured by accident ?
Well...could they ?
You have to be committed to a belief system to think like this.
I agree no different to religious believers...but thats the point.
You believe your outlook is different.
It aint.
divvy1400yam600 1 month ago
@divvy1400yam600 "Religious believers" point to what is testable, observable and repeatable instead of making up ridiculous stories like evolution which never is. We point to the fossil record and say "Gee, it shows abrupt appearance & stasis. Where are those fins to feet, fish to tetrapods, scales to feathers, reptiles to birds that we were taught, as fact, evolution caused? Funny with tons & billions of fossils 0 such things are seen anywhere - just 100% of each kind, no inbetweeners. Cont.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@divvy1400yam600 Cont. When they tell us that nylon eating bacteria are evolving we look at what is testable, observable & repeatable. And what do we see? It's still a bacteria! It's even the same species! When they tell us mutations & natural selection lead to climbs up Darwin's "Tree" we look at what's testable, repeatable & observable & see 0 evidence those things lead to anything but speciation at most, never to a new genus. We believe in irreducible complexity because of the DATA.
LoricaLady 1 month ago
@divvy1400yam600 Not this nonsensical claim again...Rational people believe after being presented with evidence, thus for the most part removes the "believing" as it simply transfers to knowledge. Religious cooks replace mounds of evidence, with an ancient book of fairytales.
itchygonads 1 month ago
@divvy1400yam600 "Well...could they ?"
Yes, they actually could. Many inventions came about from cross-application and happy accidents. In the case of the mousetrap, as with many other things, NONE of its components were invented with mouse-catching in mind. Not woodworking, not metallurgy, not pins, not springs, and not bait. The mousetrap did not appear out of a vaccuum.
Gilmaris 2 weeks ago
@Gilmaris lets consider a spring on the mousetrap.
What I want you to do is this...
Assembling a mousetrap minus a spring.
Fit it to a small nuclear powered motor that will keep moving in random directions for 1 million years.
Find a metal scrap yard and throw the mousetrap into the middle
Every 20K years check to see if the mousetrap has acquired a spring of the right dimensions
That represents the level of improbability peeps like you accept by believing your religion of Evo.
divvy1400yam600 2 weeks ago
@divvy1400yam600 There is one critical flaw in your comparison: selection. In your scenario there is randomness, but no selection. In nature, there is selection. With technology, human needs is the selective force (which is why eg. the laserdisc went the way of the dodo, because it was outcompeted by other media, such as the CD). Evolution is not random, even if the accidents are.
Gilmaris 2 weeks ago
@Gilmaris My little example was not designed to explain how evolution is supposed to work but the impossibility of it working at all.
For example: perhaps you could explain how sexual reproduction evolved ?
It's not even more efficient than asexual reproduction.
Listing advantages AFTER it has evolved doesn't count
What advantages accrued during evolution ?
None. It follows evo is NOT an explanation.
Ditto walking upright,vision, hearing and much more.
OK ?
As for itchy gonads
divvy1400yam600 2 weeks ago
@divvy1400yam600 Your little example bears no resemblance to evolutionary theory and so it does not apply. And what do you mean, "FOR EXAMPLE" sexual reproduction? Example to what?
As for advantages, they can hardly be selected for until they already have appeared, can they? A mutation happens - if it is harmful, it will die out. If it is useful, it will stick around. Who has the best odds at survival and reproduction, after all?
Gilmaris 2 weeks ago
@Gilmar The for example list 'things' that could not possibly evolved.
Mr G when reading anything is may be necessary to link what has gone b4 with what is being read OK
So I state 'evo is impossible' and then give examples. Gerrit
Does your religion tell you how sexual reproduction can possibly have evolved ?
If so please explain.
I assume you know what sexual reproduction is.
Its when the Daddy bear puts his wonga into the Mummy bear's Donga
hehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehe
divvy1400yam600 2 weeks ago
It's a funny explanation and somewhat right, but it does not solve the problem of irreducible complexity in nature.
Nature is Mac Gyver!
rudyalpha 1 month ago
@rudyalpha Doesnt even address it.
Thoughtless flim flam.
divvy1400yam600 1 month ago
@divvy1400yam600 What is thoughtless flim flam?
itchygonads 1 month ago
@itchygonads that which this presenter presents
He is the long lost 8th dwarf.
Dopey's big sista..Dozy.
To present an item created by a thought process and change it by giving some thought to the matter and somehow conclude he has provided an argument in favour of evo is quite frankly ...stupid.
divvy1400yam600 2 weeks ago
@divvy1400yam600 Not at all...In fact you have revealed who is really stupid...Yourself. this is an argument against irreducible complexity, you either do not know what that is..Or you are so biased that you reject any answer. Both are probable. Evolution is a fact, it doesnt matter if some children refuse to believe it. It doesnt make the theory wrong when people chose to ignore it...It just makes them stupid.
itchygonads 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rudyalpha "It's a funny explanation and somewhat right, but it does not solve the problem of irreducible complexity in nature."
Hey, it's Behe's own example. And technological evolution is absolutely comparable to biological evolution: there is one key difference, however, and that's reproduction. Life reproduces organically, whereas technology needs a third party for manufacture. And so the mutations in nature are analoguous to the random ideas of the manufacturer/designer.
Gilmaris 2 weeks ago
ANYONE: If you see no reply to some posters they know they are on ignore for things like personal insults, name calling, gross obscenities & general verbal abuse. Some of these folk follow me (& others) around YT with such tactics, tactics which impede the true cause of science and make rational debate impossible. I am happy to debate with those (sadly, very, very few of YT evo fans) who are able to remain civil & objective.
LoricaLady 2 months ago
@LoricaLady
You are just trying to run away again. LOLOL and trying to fool people into them accepting your spam PMs. LOLOLOL
Look at you...you have been repeating that post for ages! and yet you are always unable to adress any of my civil arguments.
LOLOL True cause of science, as proven at the Dover trial:
Evolution = fact
Creationism/ID = magic thinking, religious nonsense
IC = magic thinking. no evidence. i repeat: no evidence for IC.
Now you'll just ignore and spam more of your nonsense
transtlantic 2 months ago
@LoricaLady
Nature. 2010 May 13;465(7295):219-22.
see? civil and objective. But LoricaLady is unable to adress such papers for some reasons:
1) Lorica lady is an uneducated person, she has no idea what Biology is.
2) Lorica lady doesn't give a shit about science. she is just spamming nonsense from ID websites, she is a sheep.
3) Lorica hates every paper i post, she just accuses it of being "false", without even reading it!
4) Lorica is just another cretard.
She can't be objective at all
transtlantic 2 months ago
@LoricaLady
lolol fun stuff that i found about you:
You love crap. I mean: you like homeopathy, you like herbalism, everything that is quackery! lolol
no wonder you are a cretard. More than that... it's obvious you are one of those crazy enema-lover christians! LOLOLOL
you are as fucked up as a human being can be. LOLOL and you want ppl to be civil with you? you are a complete MORON who has no fucking idea how a Cell works! ffs....
transtlantic 2 months ago
it's funny because Michael Behe has refuted this argument. and this guy is a serious laughable dick. "one of my great scientific discoveries, i'm very proud of this."
atheists will make up whatever they want to "refute" arguments for ID, and then the rest of the atheists can breathe easy and go, "there! you see. he refuted it."
TheDowntown86 2 months ago
@TheDowntown86 do we really need to "refute" an idea whose main thrust is "there are things we don't yet understand and are very complex, therefore Magical Man did it?"
BillKiernan 2 months ago
@BillKiernan Yeah....you.....are SO unbelievably wrong it's scary.
TheDowntown86 2 months ago
@BillKiernan You don't like magical thinking? How about these evoutionary examples (only the tip of the iceberg). Miller wants us to believe that his mangled mousetrap will catch "really stupid mice" but he shows no dead mice or any data whatsoever to back that up. The primal pond theory,, taught as fact all over the media and found in little kids; library book on evo, and on which evoutionists still hold workshops, has 0 evidence. In fact the LAW of biogenesis says it can't happen. Cont.
LoricaLady 2 months ago
@LoricaLady
You clearly failed to understand the Miller's example regarding mousetraps.
You show NO DATA whatsoever for IC. None, zero, nada, niente.
The "primal pond", abiogenesis, is not biological evolution. Abiogenesis is taught as the best hypothesis to explain the origin of life, not of the species. Afterall...everything has a natural cause. no god anywhere.
And you have TONS of evidence for Abiogenesis - RNA, pre-biotic membranes, pre-biotic metabolism, etc.
transtlantic 2 months ago
@BillKiernan Cont. All observed in history or in labs shows that life comes only from life. Then there is the Geologic Column that supposedly suports evo. See if you can find a single ex. of one on the planet earth. We were told lizards & scales turned into birds & feathers & fins & fish turned into feet and lizards. Is there a shred of evidence for that? No, tons & billioins of fossils show only 100% fish or fins or feet or lizards or birds or feathers. Don't like magical thinking? Cont.
LoricaLady 2 months ago
@LoricaLady cont. There is no law of "biogenesis". you are just making stuff up.
Actually...in labs we have shown our capacity to create life from non-life. Venter's lab. Cynthia. Quite amazing.
Geologic column disproves biblical floods and supports evolution. Your ignorance does not substitute the fact that you are wrong. What you are told is that reptiles share a common ancestor with birds, in fact birds ARE reptiles, we just separate them from the reptiles to simplify classification.
transtlantic 2 months ago
@LoricaLady " We were told lizards & scales turned into birds & feathers & fins & fish turned into feet and lizards. Is there a shred of evidence for that? No" you see, that whole "bury your head in the sand and keep repeating "there's no evidence there's no evidence" tactic only works when you're preaching to the choir. for anyone who has done ACTUAL research on this matter, all we can do is laugh at you, write you off as ignorant, crazy, or dishonest, and move on.
BillKiernan 2 months ago
@BillKiernan I've researched evoutionary literature for years. Be so kind as to provide a Google phrase that will link us to where there is a shred of evidence for the following things: Geologic column, something part tetrapod-part fish, something part scale-part feahter, something part fin- foot, something part bird-reptile. (Don't bother with archaepteryx as even some evolutionary ornithologists are saying no way reptiles led to birds & that archy is just "a perching bird.") Show your data.
LoricaLady 2 months ago
@LoricaLady "I've researched evoutionary literature for years" via answers in genesis and the discovery institute? everyone give the retard a round of applause.
BillKiernan 2 months ago
@BillKiernan It's easy enough to paraphrase virulent comments such as "crazy, ignorant or dishonest" via such people as Dawkins. (That doesn't exactly give the impression of a civilized & objective scientist , now does it?) It's easy enough to insult someone and make claims about how the research is out there. It's super easy enough to give some Google links and demonstrate that what you say is accurate. So do it already.
LoricaLady 2 months ago
@LoricaLady yes, it's very easy to insult dipshits such as yourself. now, don't you have a witch to burn or something?
BillKiernan 2 months ago
" It's super easy enough to give some Google links and demonstrate that what you say is accurate. So do it already" i did, and you ignored it like a good creationist. now, please go sacrifice a calf and shut the fuck up.
BillKiernan 2 months ago
@BillKiernan I'll quote from the article which you say shows the flagellar whip evolved from a simpler stage, just to show that it does no such thing. (Notice that you don't address any of the other Qs & examples which I gave you.) Then indeed I will be quiet for I don't continue to "debate" with those who follow the usual YT evo fan pattern, namely: Use obscenities & personal insults. Use the strawman logical fallacy of the Bible Bash Dance. Don't really use science or logic. Cont.
LoricaLady 2 months ago
@LoricaLady "Don't really use science or logic" that's nice dear. now all you, and the rest of the ID/creationist community has to do is produce some actual scientific material. you know, like experiments, make some predictions, you know, DO SCIENCE. oh i forgot, you rely an lawyers and legislation and "refutations" instead. you're the trolls of the scientific world, that's why you're ignored, until you need to be battled in court, where you lose.
BillKiernan 2 months ago
@BillKiernan Cont. Your reference is from Matzke, A Model For the Origin of the Bacterial Flagellum. I stated that it had 0 testable, repeatable, or observable about it, you know, like real science should, but was only armchair theorizing. Some quotes: [1.3, chapter 3] "Therefore, improvement...at the system level might be [! i.e. purely theoretical, i.e. use of the typical evo buzz words like...could have...must...likely....probably...we infer...a model..." instead of any real data.] Cont.
LoricaLady 2 months ago
@LoricaLady of course it's theoretical, it's about something we don't yet understand how the evolutionary process of it came about. QUICK, FILL IN THE GAP WITH AN INVISIBLE SPACE WIZARD! but ID/Creationism is just FILLED with "testable, repeatable and observable" things right? oh wait, no, you have nothing of the kind. back to the bronze age with ye.
BillKiernan 2 months ago
@BillKiernan I will post to you 1 last time. Its dandy to be theoretical. But when you call armchair theorizing scientific evidence you are pushing psuedo science. Try to explain something that is testable, observable & repeatable. Explain how the nano tehcnology motor (more complex than the motor on an outboard motor) and it's whip on a sperm cell, plus the egg in a totally other body, are all going to be driven to completion by evo while they are "evolving", so to speak nubs of stubs. Cont.
LoricaLady 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LoricaLady
DEFINITION OF Theory: EXPLANATION OF FACT.
where's a fact? Evolutiom, Gravity, electrons around protons and neutrons.
What "pseudo science"? lolol you stupid fuck.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN PLANT SPECIATION WITHOUT USING EVOLUTION THEORY? you can't? so you provide no reason to believe in your religious crap.
transtlantic 2 months ago
@BillKiernan Cont. Explain how & why evo would drive them to completion while they are useless for aeons. Or if you can think of some use, some "dual purpose" some "co-option" (& don't forget to include any backup data!) they would have until they are all completely formed and completely connected in their interdependent states by all means say what they "might" be.
All of life is irreducibly complex & this is just the simplest, concrete ex. I have. But tell yourself. You're on ignore with me.
LoricaLady 2 months ago
@LoricaLady
Now...last post: there's no IC, Behe admitted IN COURT, in PUBLIC, he lied, he has nothing to back up IC.
ALL the structures observed in a cell are explained by an evolutionary mechanism. ALL of them. And the ones we still can't explain in detail, DO NOT destroy the FACT that many are explained ALREADY, and in DETAIL by evolution theory.
Lord of the gaps is just bullshit argument.
ALL of life is diverse, there is no IC.
You are Just plain and simply in denial.
now fuck off.
transtlantic 2 months ago
@BillKiernan Cont. "...Change of function at the system level might [!] occur...cooption may [!] also occur...functional shift might [!] occur...Many contradictory models have been published for the...motor action in the flagellum..." So we've got might...may...and other people who disagree with this guy's purely hypothetical model.. Doesn't sound like evidence to moi. Before calling people moron's, why not learn to use YOUR mind & actually read & analyze what evo is & is NOT saying. BYE!
LoricaLady 2 months ago
@LoricaLady
Lolol look at you spamming answeringenesis crap. LOLOLOL
You clearly ignore what "Might" or "may" mean. LOlol you clearly are still stuck in primitive thinking.
LOLOL
Nature. 2010 May 13;465(7295):219-22.
A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry.
"the model selection tests are found to overwhelmingly support UCA"
Maybe you like this one more. LOLOLOL
You are a MORON! ppl keep presenting evidence and you denying it! LOLOL
transtlantic 2 months ago
@BillKiernan Cont. They tell you they know how creatures like Tiktaalik produced invisible progeny. Since it has, their humble opinion, "characteristics of" Tetrapods, then they don't say maybe it's a transitional form, they you it IS & that they know how its invisible descendants' invisible descendants turned into a tetrapod. It's not the complexity of evidence that bothers creationists - its the nonevidence presented as if it is evidence by evoutionists. We LOVE complexity that's real.
LoricaLady 2 months ago
@LoricaLady cont. You have fish with "hand" like structures, fish with lungs, fish with no eyes, but with eye sockets!
Lizards with feathers on the fossil record... the sole magic thinking is on your side. It's astonishing the crap you come up with in order to deny the facts.
"invisible progeny"? lolol no, you say that. Science doesn't. you are just lying now.
Experts..."humble opinion"? at least it's better than your delusional uneducated opinion.
transtlantic 2 months ago
@LoricaLady
Ofc speciation is a FACT that supports evolution. Your denial doesn't substitute the fact that you are wrong.
Darwin showed dozens of examples in his book. But the point here is that i am showing with evidence from NOW that speciation occurs. Darwin's book is not the school textbook, the BIOLOGY textbook is. You learn about the 150 years of evidence supporting evolution theory. not the from 150 years ago evidence only.
Speciation was explained ONLY recently (last 60 years).
LEARN
transtlantic 2 months ago
@BillKiernan
don't bother with loricalady, she is spamming answeringenesis crap. original replies is a waste of time.
transtlantic 2 months ago
@transtlantic you've done the gruntwork refuting point by point though, well done.
BillKiernan 2 months ago
@BillKiernan So, you're gonna let someone else be your mouthpiece? If you like what transatlantic says, then put it in your own words and be prepared to defend it with data. If you really don't feel up to it, just use personal insults & name calling the way he did (& soooooo many others) and I'll put you on ignore and you will be conveniently off the hook.
LoricaLady 2 months ago
@LoricaLady " just use personal insults & name calling the way he did" well, when dealing with creatards such as yourself, one eventually gets to the point where you have no other option but insults. it's always a mistake to take you seriously. it's the 21st century, evolution is a fact. the entire community of biological scientists, aside from a handful of religious wingnuts, knows this. now, go read a book of fables and shut the fuck up.
BillKiernan 2 months ago
ANYONE: If you see no reply to some posters below they know they are on ignore for personal insults and name calling, sometimes gross obscenities. Some of them follow me, and others, around YT with such tactics. It is not possible to have a scientific debate under such circumstances. I would like to dispel some of the confusion I see, but I limit my time to those (very, very few among YT evo fans) who are civil & objective.
LoricaLady 2 months ago
@LoricaLady
If you want a scientific debate, you have one right here:
What do you call the phenomena where a population of individuals originate another distinct population of individuals by random mutation and natural selection?
What sort of "confusion" is there? We observe AB resistance and Plant speciation all the time.
I am being civil and asking you a straight question.
if you run... it's just a sign that you are fearing something.
transtlantic 2 months ago
@transtlantic You aren't being that civil at all. You keep accusing me of running instead of like, maybe apologizing for your offensive remarks. Even if you apologize, sorry. My experience has been that when you give the person a 2nd chance they will start up with the verbal doo doo again pretty soon, and sometimes at lower levels. If I responded to all the YT evo fans who keep insulting, cussing etc. me I'd need several lifetimes. I screen & limit to those very few who show basic respect.
LoricaLady 2 months ago
@LoricaLady
I am apologize for my offensive remarks. Now will you answer to my question?
so your premise is that 2nd chances do not work? lolol Amazing logic of yours. What about redemption? lol
"to all"? what "all"? it's just me asking you a straight question.
You have NO other video, but me here me asking you a simple question. I am asking for a name of a phenomena we observe in nature all the time.
Why do you refuse to answer? are you afraid?
transtlantic 2 months ago
@transtlantic No, you don't even know how to be civil yet. Your responses don't show you are sorry but are mocking and sneering. That's fine. You get to be that way, but I get to avoid such. The only reason I am responding, this very, very last time, is that I think I may be hearing - between the lines - some actual willingness to hear another side if there is one. You spoke of "other vids." You can check out favorited vids on my channel page and get an ear full. Best wishes but byeeeee!
LoricaLady 2 months ago
@LoricaLady
I am being civil. My response has no insults, no passive agressive intent, no second intents to put you down. It's a plain and simple question.
You don't get to avoid my question. The question i am presenting is put every single time we observe a population of individuals originate a NOVEL distinct population of individuals by random mutations and natural selection (an example being Plant speciation)
I am willing to hear your side after you answer to my question, but in a dialogue
transtlantic 2 months ago
Comment removed
GospelHouseKat 3 months ago
0:23 Here is a beautiful example of how evolutionists ask us to believe things with 0 evidence. Where's the ev-i-dence that the mangled mousetrape caught any mice? We're told "really stupid mice" will be caught by it. We're just supposed to believe that. It gets more ridiculous (if possible) the more he mangles the trap & calls us to assume it kills mice. Notice that even the theoretical mangled mouse trap which catches theoretical evidenceless mice is still the product of intelligent design!
LoricaLady 4 months ago
@LoricaLady How can I argue with you, if you don't even want to understand the point made by Miller? Be honest. First of all, wanting to disprove something is unscientific, by definition. Either you fully understand the Theory and perform observations that are not compatible with it, or you can't disprove it. Evolution does not explain the history of life, that is the work of paleontologists. It simply provides an explanation for the diversity of life. Plain and simple.
raviept 3 months ago
@raviept Sometime in the middle of the night when no one is watching, you need to admit to yourself that you dodged my example of irreducible complexity because you haven't got a clue how to anser it (and you never will because evolution could not make those parts over time and hold them unfinished until - presto! the sperm is finally ready for that finally fully "evolved" egg.)
Probably you think the answer is out there somewhere & you just haven't found it. Seek and you will not find.
LoricaLady 3 months ago
@LoricaLady Just to conclude, look at the pages of these computer scientists: "Leslie Lamport", "Doug Terry", "Barbara Liskov", "Dahlia Malkhi", see their publications and compare them with the publications of Behe.
raviept 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@orangeswirls21
Irreducible complexity does not exist.
Its been THOROUGHLY debunked.
odinata 4 months ago
He refutes the irreducibility of mousetraps. So? When will this clown stop the buffoonery and get around to refuting the irreducibility of the bacterial flagellum? Or cilia? Or the clotting system? Or the immune system? He acts like his followers are in mental kindergarten ... and I saw the debate. Behe was not "horrified." He just calmly explained that the mousetrap was an analogy, and that he hadn't touched his point at all. Apparently, Miller will never get it.
GospelHouseKat 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GospelHouseKat
He has.
The flagellum has been shown to made of components that served other purposes.
odinata 4 months ago
@GospelHouseKat He didn't refute the i.c. of the mousetrap, either, as I think I have shown in my previous post.
LoricaLady 4 months ago
@LoricaLady Odd, how people like Milller prefer to live in a logical and philosophical cesspool rather than admit even just the mere possibility of an intelligent influence in nature. They resort to the most outlandish folly and think they are being so rational and clever ! "Thinking themselves wise, they became fools ..." Perfect example.
GospelHouseKat 4 months ago
@GospelHouseKat Miller purports to be a Christian. You can see a vid clip of him on the Colbert show sayng he believes Yeshua, aka Jesus Christ, "Created all that is, seen and unseen." Then he turns around and has workshops on "The Collapse of Intelligent Design"! I find it odd that people can accept that a Diety could created this vast universe - time, space, matter & energy. But yet He supposedly can't create plant & animal life fully formed & ready to go (But I used to be that way, too.)
LoricaLady 4 months ago
@LoricaLady He says he Catholic. Which makes him a "useful" fool for the evolutionary biologists whose approval he obviously craves. It is a self-contradictory position that defies all logic and the plain physical evidence. Life, says Miller, is here because of mere happenstance. But Bill Buckley pointed out in the debate that mere happenstance, "it just happened," is not a "theory" -- much less a "scientific" one. (Yes, at one time I swallowed whole the"evolution is a fact" lie myself ...!)
GospelHouseKat 4 months ago
@GospelHouseKat ps I saw his video trying to explain why evolution is not just a chance process. However, it is driven by supposed RANDOM mutations, without these unpredictable, CHANCE events evolution cannot happen. How can he be confused about this? That is the whole point of the evolutionary story. To get rid of God and make "evolution" (nature) our true creator. Sneaking God in through the back door just doesn't workl.
GospelHouseKat 4 months ago
@GospelHouseKat No. It is driven by Natural Selection, which is not random. Random changes in genetic code just provide the required variety for Natural selection to operate. Nevertheless, what is the problem of these changes being random?
raviept 3 months ago
@raviept Saying words doesn't make a random process not random. Proof of which is easy to see when you try to make predictions -- and "it just happens" doesn't require a theory to explain it, does it? Natural selection is entirely useless without something "just happening." BTW it is not MY problem, the problem is with the so-called theory and those who attempt to salvage it by rhetorical, rather than observable, methods and.test it for God's sake. Predictions? No? Then pure metaphysical fancy,
GospelHouseKat 3 months ago
@GospelHouseKat Explain me, then, why is Natural Selection a random process. I'm not making a rhetorical speech, but trying to argue.
raviept 3 months ago
@raviept What is the best reason you have for believing that random mutations guided by a purposeless process such as "natural selection" is responsible for creating ALL the mind-boggling varieties and species and the molecular machinery of ;life as we find it on our planet today? HONEST QUESTION.
GospelHouseKat 3 months ago
@GospelHouseKat HONEST ANSWER: It is accepted by the scientific community as the best explanation for the diversity of species, and that is why it is teached in science classes. Also, just because it seems to you ridiculous doesn't mean it is. Common sense is wrong very oftenly. Take for example the relativity of Einstein. That is just counter-intuitive. Still, no one says it is wrong just because of that. Leave science to scientists.
raviept 3 months ago
@raviept I never used the word "ridiculous.I don't find it ridiculous prima facia, but I don;t find the evidence supporting it persuasive.
"Because all the smart people say so" Is the BEST EVIDENCE you have for believing that an unintelligent puposeless process evolved a land-dwelling mammal into a sea-dwelling mammal, among a million other incredible feats?Is that really what completely convinces you of the absolute truth of the theory of evolution?
Now that IS ridiculous. But OK.
GospelHouseKat 3 months ago
@GospelHouseKat BTW I have no quarrel with Einstein because there is much better experimental, obsrvational and evidence that supports it. Relativity theory is confirmed empirically not just by imaginative speculation.-- it isn't accepted just because some smart people believe it. LOL.
But try again: what is the BEST reason you have?
GospelHouseKat 3 months ago
@GospelHouseKat Micro-evolution, genetic similarities, vestigial organs, fossil record, etc. Notice that i'm not a biologist, yet i am aware of many evidence in favour of Evolution. There are hundreds of papers published in peer reviewed scientific journals and conferences supporting Evolution. Biologists are constantly making experiences that never contradict Evolution, so the argument that it is imaginative speculation is not correct.
raviept 3 months ago
@raviept These all work for you if you use your imagination the way "they" tell you to, while assuming a priori the theory is true. Hundreds or thousands of papers by people who could not pubish UNLESS they toe the party line. Genetic similarities. SO? The fossil record after 170 years of sweaty digging for MISSING fossil sequences that would support evolution remains about as unDarwinian as it can get.But lets discuss the evidence that works for YOU.What is it, specifically?
GospelHouseKat 3 months ago
@raviept "Micro-evolution" is just a word that usually refers to changes made by natural selection which are not evolution at all since they never go beyond the level of species. Darwin's Tree of Life & the whole evo spiel is saying fins turned into feet, scales turned into feathers, etc. when countless billions of fossils shown only 100% feet, 100% fins, 100% scales, 100% feathers, 100% fish, 100% tetrapods, etc. "Tetrapod like" btw ain't a part tetrapod, it's a faith based assumption. Cont.
LoricaLady 3 months ago
@raviept Cont. "Genetic similalrities" is not evidence It's simply the constant use by evolutionists of the Correlation Does Not Imply Causation logical fallacy. Vestigial organs are another evolutionary myth as usual based on no evidence whatever. Based on 0 evidence whatever we were told, for ex., that the appendix & tonsils were "vestigial." Oops. Turns out they are very useful in immunology, the latter especially for very young chlldren. We're told whales have "vestigial legs". Cont.
LoricaLady 3 months ago
@raviept Cont. Whales use those "vestigial leg bones" to help anchor their massive bodies when they are mating. The fossil record? It shows abrupt appearance & stasis. Even some famous evolutionists like Dr. Colin Patterson have acknowledged "there is not 1 water tight case' for a transitional fossil. (Don't tell me that's a quote mine unless you want to give quotes where he said he was misquoted or furhter words showing he's quoted out of context - & no evo fan ever does that.) Cont.
LoricaLady 3 months ago
@raviept Cont. "Hundreds of...peer reviewed." Yep peer reviews raved about coelacanth as being a transitional fossil moving onto land. Then they found some living ones & saw it was simply a blue fish. Yep, peer reviews hailed the Miller & Urey experiment as an ex. of life coming from inorganic matter. Kids in school were told abiogenesis had been demonstrated. But their experiment got l & r amino acids - which KILL life. And they didn't bother to explain how even the correct kind...Cont.
LoricaLady 3 months ago
@raviept Cont. ...if created could have led to life since it would be d-e-a-d, nor could they explain how it would get all the rest of the parts of a cell that are more complex than a block of factories & cause all that nano technology inside them to get put together for one "simple cell." Biologists have not come up with 1 experiment to demonstrate that evoution is true. The fruit fly experiments mutate thousands of generations of fruit flies & they all stay fruit flies. Cont.
LoricaLady 3 months ago
@raviept Cont. What lab experirments actually show is that tho you can change a bacteria somewhat, ditto an algae & watch them having generations of offspring at staggering rates, the most you ever get is maybe a new species. But the bacteria stay bacteria and the algae stay algae. Every single time. Evo is not just "imaginative speculation, friend, it's a bunch of lies."
Look at "imaginative speculation in this vid that supposedly refutes Behe's argument for irreducible complexity. Cont.
LoricaLady 3 months ago
@raviept Cont. Miller mangles the mousetrap & tells us it is going to catch "stupid mice" - based on what? Imaginative speculation. As usual there is 0 real evidence for anything, in this case dead, dumb mice.
We are even asked to believe it will still kill mice (this part is shown in other vids) when it is reduced to nothing but a coil and a piece of cheese. Of course all the parts killing the invisible mice were still made by intelligent design! And that mousetrap tie? Get real. Cont.
LoricaLady 3 months ago
@raviept Cont. If I use my cellphone for a necktie holder or to squash bugs, & use my computer as a paper weight, uh, somehow it eludes me how this proves those items weren't intelligently designed.
Friend, you have been fed a bunch of "stuff" since you were a kid. It's a bunch of stuff that is not only not true, its illogical and UNscientific. You have a mind of your own. I hope you will learn to really use it. Learn logical fallacies (evo is built firmly upon them) and critical thinking.
LoricaLady 3 months ago
@LoricaLady I will just reply to your last argument regarding the cellphone.I think you misunderstood the point made by Ken Miller.According to Behe (correct me if i'm wrong), a structure is irreducibly complex if it is composed by one or more parts,which cannot be removed nor simplified, otherwise it doesn't provide the intended funtionality.Dr Behe states that this makes impossible for these structures to evolve,as there couldn't be any simpler predecessor that would provide the same function.
raviept 3 months ago
@raviept Behe said the SYSTEM is irreducibly complex if itis composed of one or more parts which cannot be removed or simplified. And Miller was not able to demonstrate how changing his mousetrap example made it still work. Again, we were supposed to accept that on faith, since no dead mice were evidenced, even "really stupid" ones. Behe's analogy stands. Take away parts of the SYSTEM of the mousetrap and it will not catch mice. Or did those i.d. engineers just put in useless parts? Cont.
LoricaLady 3 months ago
@raviept I did not misunderstand about the cellphone. If you can explain to me how using a cellphone for a tie clip or to squash bugs shows that it is not irreducibly complex, then please do so. Miller is using what is called a strawman logical fallacy, one of many logical fallacies that evolutionary literature is replete with, in fact totally dependent upon. A simpler cellphone can be found. Does that show that either the simpler one or the more complex one wasn't intelligently designed?
LoricaLady 3 months ago
@LoricaLady What do you want? Absolute truths? Then, you are the one who is not being scientific. The mousetrap does not catch any mouse but it still provides other functionalities. That's the whole point. If it seems to you ridiculous, then look at the bacteria flagellum and syringe example. And i'm done with you. It is clear that you opened an account just to try to disprove on youtube. LOL. I don't care if Evolution is right or wrong, as long as there are evidence to support that position.
raviept 3 months ago
@raviept You think there are no absolute truths? There are LAWS of science, where you can see things happen - with the evidence you say you want - with 100% consistency, things that are testable, observable & repeatable. If it's 0 of those things & you're told it's science then you're told pseudo science. Do you want real science or not? There is zip, zilch, nada evidence to support evolution friend. In fact the real (not "might...could...".)evidence is in the opposite direction. Cont.
LoricaLady 3 months ago
@raviept Cont. I don't get your point about the bacteria flagellum. Maybe you're referring to how Miller supposedly refuted that ex. from Behe of irreducible complexity just as he supposedly refuted the mousetrap ex.?. That ""refuation"" too was based on 0 testable, observable or repeatable. We are just to assuuuume that because some bacteria are more simple, welll naturally Behe's was once too & naturally in the never to be observed millions of years ago it evolved from such a state. Cont.
LoricaLady 3 months ago
@raviept Cont. Before you sign off, do be sure to tell me what "other functionalities" the mousetrap has even though as you admit (good for you) it's not going to catch any mice. Please provide something non ridiculous - not like a tie clip. Oh and Miller even said part of it could be used for a tooth pick. By Godzilla? Friend, you've been treated like you ain't too bright. That's because you haven't yet learned to use your brights. Find them, and start using them to get out of the matrix.
LoricaLady 3 months ago
@LoricaLady cont. If you remove a single component, then the structure shouldn't be functional, therefore it is useless to the organism. Dr Behe used the mousetrap analogy to ilustrate his point. What Ken Miller did was to show that although it may be true that an irreducibly complex system cannot provide the same function if some of its components is removed, it still may provide other functions, therefore being useful to the organism. Do you understand what i mean?
raviept 3 months ago
@raviept "It still may provide..." Typical evo speak. "May....might....could...probably...must have...we propose a model....here is a simulation...." Miller's example is so evo classic for it's all theory, no evidence. The mangled trap Miller showed isn't going to catch any mice, no "may" about it. If you saw that broken thing in a hardware store for 1 cent you would laugh at it and not buy it. Do you understand that Miller is giving you faith based arguments & psueod science?
LoricaLady 3 months ago
@GospelHouseKat By the way, what alternative do you propose? ID? LOL. I guess that believing in a designer that, by magic, created all species is not imaginative speculation.
raviept 3 months ago
@raviept I sugest the cars people drive around in are intelligently designed for a purpose. Is that "magical" theory funny too? LOL
GospelHouseKat 3 months ago
@GospelHouseKat Just one more question. Why does a natural process must have a purpose? Does gravity has a purpose? Does an electric force has a purpose. Of course you will say that charges with the same sign repel each other while charges with opposite signs attract each other. But if that is a purpose, then the purpose of Natural Selection is to select the specimens which are more fit to the environment. That is a very good purpose, in my opinion.
raviept 3 months ago
@raviept Oh my, Gravity is not the point at issue. Let's sweep away the red herrings and talk about a bird's wing or a mammalian eye. It looks like the wing was designed for the purpose of flight; the eye for sight. But you say it wasn't , really. How so? What convinces YOU that these engineering masterpieces of aerodynamic and optic engineering just happened by a purposeless process working on random changes ? I would really love to know.
GospelHouseKat 3 months ago
@GospelHouseKat Red herrings? Forget about Evolution. Just answer to these questions: 1) What is the Intelligent Designer and what is to be Intelligent; 2) By what mechanism that designer created so many different species; 3) Why there are living beings more similar to each other than others; 4) Why did some species become extinct. You have to support your answers with evidence, of course, and the bible does not count.
raviept 3 months ago
@raviept OK
1 andn 2designing something for a purpose requires intelligence, in contrast to things that come about my rarndom events and natural, non-purposeful laws. Francis Crick guessed the designer was intelligent space aliens- and he outa know. My guess is its God. What's your guess? Similarly, by what mechanism does gravity exert its force? (Not even Einstein knows.)
3 Why wouldn't a common designer use a common design?
4 Don't know. But extinction recorded is abrupt, not Darwinian..
GospelHouseKat 3 months ago
@GospelHouseKat 1 and 2) It is the reality of ID. You don't have any verifiable explanation that allows us to make predictions. "designing something for a purpose requires intelligence" - That may be true for things you know that were designed, but no one has shown that this is also true for living matter. It is true that a stone cannot become an almost perfect statue without the work of an intelligent being, such as man, because there is no natural mechanism capable of doing that.
raviept 3 months ago
@GospelHouseKat The same applies to the parts used to build a car. An allien not aware of human presence would say that a car was designed because of the perfection of the design and due to the knowledge that steel and plastic can only turn into a car by the work of an intentional force. But this is not true in living beings. We know a mechanism called natural selection that can change living beings in a certain direction. This has been observed for instance in micro-evolution.
raviept 3 months ago
@GospelHouseKat 3) Why would a designer choose a particular pattern of similarities and differences that is consistent with Evolution, among many other possible patterns? Why are there vestigial organs? 4) Never heard of Darwinian extinction. I think the scientific community accepts that the extinction of dinosaurs was abrupt, although there are other alternative explanations.
raviept 3 months ago
@raviept What might be a possible pattern not consistent with evo? What might be a living creature or organ that evolution can't produce? Evo is unfalsified in your mind because it inconceivable to your PHILOSOPHY that any creative force other than a strictly materialistic one did the job. It doesn't matter that it cannot be put to the test, because what else is there? Like the gambler in the back alley said: So what if its a crooked crap game? Its the only game in town! That is the mindset.
GospelHouseKat 3 months ago
@GospelHouseKat Have you heard of the nested tree? Any pattern that does not fit this tree is not consistent with Evolution. Actually, it is ID that is consistent with any pattern and therefore is not falsifiable. But we should stop arguing because I'm not going to convince you, neither you will convince me. The truth is simple. If you want ID to be recognized as a valid scientific theory, then you must convince the scientific community. I'm not a biologist, so my opinion is irrelevant.
raviept 3 months ago
@GospelHouseKat See this video "watch?v=SY0Mvbg4Kyg". It talks about the pattern of similarities.
raviept 3 months ago
@GospelHouseKat Cont. I was glad to read that you saw the exchange with Behe & that - as I always believed - Behe was no way "horrified." Miller has trashed that poor man in various ways. But who cares in a way? The truth is the truth is the truth and no one can change that.
LoricaLady 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GospelHouseKat Cont. I was glad to read that you saw the exchange with Behe & that - as I always believed - Behe was no way "horrified." Miller has trashed that poor man in various ways. But who cares in a way? The truth is the truth is the truth and no one can change that.
LoricaLady 4 months ago
@GospelHouseKat "So? When will this clown stop the buffoonery and get around to refuting the irreducibility of the bacterial flagellum?" he's talked about the flagellum and the ways it could develop at length, fool. now, back to holding your sign on the corner and selling pencils in a cup.
BillKiernan 2 months ago
Comment removed
LoricaLady 2 months ago
@BillKiernan The only "refutation of the irreducible complexity of bacterial flagellum" is, like the mangled mouse trap which is never seen to catch even "really stupid" mice. We're shown less simple organisms. Tho they are fully functional for their very diff-er-ent purposes in the body, we are just, believe on...faith...and connect the...invisible....dots between them and the modern bacterial flagellum. The usual dataless speculation is presented as Gawds' truth. Or show supporting data.
LoricaLady 2 months ago
@LoricaLady "he only "refutation of the irreducible complexity of bacterial flagellum" is, like the mangled mouse trap" nope. that's a quick example he uses to get the point across. he, and others, have gone into great detail about how the flagellum can evolve. see "Evolution in (Brownian) space: a model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum" by N.J Matzke for one example.
BillKiernan 2 months ago
@BillKiernan "Can evolve (I.e. no actual evidence whatsoever, just theories about things that no one can observe, test or repeat)...we infer....we propose a model...." That ain't science & when you're told it IS science, you are getting pseudo science - which is always the case with evoutionary theory.
Show me some real data, not armchair speculations all gussied up with fancy looking charts & pictures & logical fallacies like Correlation Does Not Imply Caustion, & Incomplete Comparison.
LoricaLady 2 months ago
@BillKiernan Cont. Oh, and do tell what "point "Miller is getting across by telling us that a mangled mouse trap is going to catch mice then providing 0 evidence it will do any such thing. (You wouldn't buy that thing on sale for a penny if you had REAL, as opposed to theoretical, mice.)( And do tell what point Miller is making when he uses it to hold a tie with a clasp made with technology & of courrse i.d., to show that the mousetrap wasn't i.d.? Don't forget to answer those Qs now.
LoricaLady 2 months ago
@LoricaLady you know what? you've convinced me! evolution is a lie! now i know the truth, God did things like put mammals in the water that have to come up for air and have vestigial arms and legs and hip joints for the LULZ! god 's such a joker, always throwing in things to confuse us. praise jeebus and death to adulteresses!
BillKiernan 2 months ago
Miller is so stuck on himself. As a child,noone must have ever bragged on him.
USAFreedomReform 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@USAFreedomReform
Refute the facts.
Your ad hominem is worthless.
odinata 4 months ago
This man is an idiot...he is making Dr Behe's point perfectly. This dope is, relatively speaking, intelligent person. It is his intelligence that reconfigures the mouse traps. The mouse trap did NOTHING to change itself. The universe consists of MATTER, ENERGY AND INTELLIGEMCE. Dr. Behe should pay you money to do this. You are the weakest link! You bonehead!
Hagion7206 4 months ago
@Hagion7206
What Miller did to change the mousetrap is irrelevant, as there already exists a demonstrable mechanism for organisms to change. Miller's point is that certain features of living organisms can have more than one function, which is how organisms requiring multiple functioning parts can evolve.
StutteringDave 4 months ago
@StutteringDave No, what Miller did do the mousetrap is totally relevant and a classic example of how evolutoinary "proofs" work. He takes a mousetrap & then mangles it & asks us to believe that it can catch "really stupid" mice. In another vid he even says the coil alone, w/a piece of cheese, can catch mice. As usual in evo theory he provides no evidence for that. And btw all the invisibly dead mice would still have been caught by something made by intelligent design. Cont.
LoricaLady 3 months ago
@StutteringDave Cont. Tell me what "other function" that mousetrap could have had? Name just one that would lead it to being a better mousetrap. The whole tie clip example is an insult to your intelligence friend.
Explain how my using a cell phone, for example, for a tie clip, shows that it was not the product of intelligent design. How would using my skull to crush a nut show that my skull is evolving into anything at all? But 1st show me those dead mice.
LoricaLady 3 months ago
@LoricaLady I will try to explain this as simple as possible. Behe used the mousetrap as an analogy, not as proof. Analogies cannot be used as proofs, because you cannot say an inanimate object has the same properties as a living being. The analogy is to explain that an inrreducibly complex system does not provide the expected function if you remove one part.
raviept 3 months ago
@raviept Let's see if I get this straight. Miller says he has refuted the irreducible complexity argument of Behe's mousetrap because he can mangle it and it will still catch :"really stupid mice." He even tells us that just the coil and the cheese will catch mice. No dead mice are seen. None of what he says is true. So it's a totally failed analogy, totally bogus, totally imaginary & useless. Yet you still think it taught anyone anything? Rhetorical Q. Cont.
LoricaLady 3 months ago
@LoricaLady Cont. The Theory of Evolution states that any structure evolved through variations across generations, inheritage of most of the traits, and Natural Selection, that favours some of the newly introduced traits. Therefore, according, any irreducibly complex system would have to evolve from simpler structures with less componentes, and then gradually new components would appear through evolution.
raviept 3 months ago
@raviept Cont. Give one example of where natural selection has ever been observed to lead to any climbs up Darwin's so called Tree of Life. Don't just quote theory. Give examples. The truth is natural selection and ditto mutations, which have never been observed to build the kinds of DNA necessary for transforming say a fin into a foot or scales into feathers - & tons & billioins of fossils show no such things happening) You are the one using circular reasoning. Cont.
LoricaLady 3 months ago
@raviept Cont. You start with the assumption that all changes are the result of evo. Then you say, "Look, changes! See, that proves evo." What you never see, what you're never taught,to see, is the changes don't keep going & going up that so called Tree of Life. Fins change into other fins, feet into other feet. scales into other scales, feathers into other feathers. You' were TOLD one changed to the other. So give just 1 fossil ex. with fins changing to feet & scales to feathers. Cont.
LoricaLady 3 months ago
@LoricaLady Cont. The argument agains evolution is that any of those intermediate forms of an irreducibly complex structure that missed some of its components would be useless to the organism. Hence, Natural Selection would never select them as useful traits, and evolution would never occur, at least in that direction. This argument is based on the assumption that evolution requires that structures always provide the same function.
raviept 3 months ago
@raviept You never answered my Q. asking for what other "functionalities" a mousetrap, mangled or otherwise, could possibly have that relates to catching mice - not something ridiculous like using it as a tie clip, which btw uses an intelligently designed instrument that clips things tightly through human technology,not to mention needs human fingers & a human mind to use it in that ridiculous way. I've already been given an "example" of how i.c. isn't :real." By Miller. It's bogus. Cont.
LoricaLady 3 months ago
@LoricaLady Cont. What Biologists such as Miller did was to show that this assumption might not be necessarily true. There are structures simpler (or more complex) than systems regarded by Behe as irreducibly complex, that are useful to the organism by providing other functions. That is the case of the bacteria flagellum.
raviept 3 months ago
@raviept Cont. The bacterial flagellum. Miller "refuted" that the same way he "refuted" the mousetrap. He gave imaginary scenarios w/0 evidence any of them ever happened! We're supposed to assuuume, on faith, that because some bacteria are less complex, in the evidenceless conveniently unobserbable aeons ago, Behe's bacterial flagellum was also like them - though they all serve different purposes for different bio niches - and evolved from them. Let's look at a bacterial flagellum. Cont.
LoricaLady 3 months ago
@raviept Cont. Let's look at irreducible complexity. Something observable, testable, repeatable. Not "millions of years ago" and "might...probably...likely...all scientists believe..." Let's see you use YOUR mind & YOUR eyes to answer some Qs. Google a flagellar whip & motor. Please answer some Qs. The usual strategy with YT evo fans is to avoid the Qs., Some of them have even said after awhile "We already answered them!" when they didn't even address them. Let's see how you do. Cont.
LoricaLady 3 months ago
@LoricaLady If you really want to see examples of how complex structures have evolved, you have several videos on Youtube. For instance, this one "watch?v=W96AJ0ChboU". But please, watch them with honest intentions. Don't immediately discard the ideas explained there. At least, for a moment, ask yourself if they are right and you are wrong. I did the same with many scientific theories. In fact, there is a lot i don't understand in science or with which i dont agree.
raviept 3 months ago
@raviept Cont. Q. 1. While the flagellar motor & the flagellar whip are just "emerging" and "evolving", say little nubs of stubs, what use are they? What possible co-option, such as Miller & others the-or-ize about, could they possibly have? Give me something that is backed up by observable data. You know, a not fully complete motor or a not fully complete whip that is still useful in anyway in any organism. Q. 2. How & why would evo drive such useless parts to completion? Cont.
LoricaLady 3 months ago
@LoricaLady You want an example? Just watch the documentary regarding the Dover's trial. There are bacterias that have exactly the same structure as the flagellum, aside from the proteins that make the falgellum spin. This structure is still useful as a syringe to inject nocive substances in other cells. If you don't know, search for it. Don't say it doesn't exist because you simply don't know it. The same happens with the eye.
raviept 3 months ago
@raviept Cont. Q3 How & why would it drive TWO useless parts to completion SYNCHRONOUSLY as would be needed since one is useless w/o the other?
Now, say the motor & whip are connected to a sperm cell. Q 4 How & why would evo drive an egg to completion in a different body, in a different sex, so that it is ready to receive the sperm and create new life - all before the sperm and motor are finished?
You're looking at irreducible complexity. Don't trade it for the Emperor's New Clothes. Cont
LoricaLady 3 months ago
@LoricaLady Stay to one topic. "Let's see if I get this straight. Miller says he has refuted the irreducible complexity argument of Behe's mousetrap because he can mangle it and it will still catch :"really stupid mice."" No. Miller and other biologists used this analogy to explain how a biologic irreducibly complex system could have evolved by providing an alternative function.
raviept 3 months ago
@raviept Miller said the mousetrap would kill "really stupid mice." It didn't & it wouldn't. Why are you supporting bogusness. I gave you an ex. of irreducible complexity but your way of dodging it is to say, "Let's stay on topic." Then you tell me to go watch some vid! When people understand something well enough they are able to articulate it with their own words. "Exactly the same structure as the flagellum aside from the proteins..." and that proves it evolved how? Your data? Cont.
LoricaLady 3 months ago
@LoricaLady Still, that doesn't make me say that those theories are wrong. Specially because they were ellaborated by people that know much more than i do and i'm humble enough to admit that. You clearly are not competent in Biology, so you should be humble to admit that others might know better than you. You should leave science to scientists. That doesn't mean you have to accept any scientific theory. Simply, don't say they are wrong because they contradict your beliefs.
raviept 3 months ago
@raviept "You clearly are not competent in biology." You evade my Qs & tell me to watch vids since you cannot articulate the answers for yourself. You defend a "refutation" by a man who is telling you something this is totally not true. "Wanting to disprove something is unscientific by definition." Lol! You really need to study basic science history & see how many great scientists made great discoveries trying to disprove things!
These are examples of someone "competent in biology"? Cont.
LoricaLady 3 months ago
@raviept Instead of taking a passive, faith based position like "Humble enough to admit...." the "experts" know more than you, how about learning to look at data, using YOUR mind? How about looking at both sides, including sci-en-tists who are just as degreed & experienced as those you have put your...faith....in? You have a mind of your own. You haven't learned to really use it yet or learned what science & logic really are. But you can if you really want to do so. Learn to use YOUR mind!
LoricaLady 3 months ago
@LoricaLady "how many great scientists made great discoveries trying to disprove things" Einstein didn't wake up in the morning and decided to disprove the Theory of Relativity of Galileu just because is agains your religious beliefs. He did that because it was discovered that the speed of light is constant in all referencials. Galileu and Copérnico worked on the heliocentric theory because they had evidence. And the scientific community acknowledged their discoveries.
raviept 3 months ago
@raviept Cont. If you think you can find scientific truth by just counting who had the most publications you're using YOUR mind. As for Einstein, as for orthodox scientific positions, originally he & all scientists thought the universe was eternal. How sad if they had just counted to see how many peer reviewed articles thought that was true, instead of examining new data. And some studies in highly prestigious universities are questioning that the speed of light is is constant btw. Cont.
LoricaLady 3 months ago
@LoricaLady It was the church that burned Galileu. You, creationists/id, are basically rejecting a scientific theory that was built and tested using the scientific method, the same that led to all modern scientific discoveries, simply because it is against your beliefs. You have been using the same arguments for 50 years that were even debunked in court. You haven't performed a single experiment to support your view. You simply want people to agree with you.
raviept 3 months ago
@raviept "It was the Church that burned Gallieo." I don't like to get into relgion. It becomes a strawman leading from the true topic at hand, but I'll address this issue once & that's it. Yes the Roman Catholic Church, killed 10s of millions including people who did things like publishing the Bible - since it conflicts with what they teach. That's what the Protestant Reformation was about, tho I'm not Catholic or Protestant & go to no "Church". Evo falls based on science & logic alone. Cont.
LoricaLady 3 months ago
@raviept Cont. Give me 1 example, just one, where the use of the scientific method showed any evo whatsoever. I can give you those that didn't (tho they still claim, falsely as is not uncommon at all) that they did. Miller & Urey tried to show that life came from inorganic matter thru creating amino acids. This got great peer reviews & MANY publications. But their amino acids were the l & r handed kind & those KILL life! They also never bothered to explain how even...Cont.
LoricaLady 3 months ago
@raviept Cont. .. the right kind of amino acids could create life as they would be d-e-a-d, or how amino acids would lead to the vast number of other ingredients in a cell, not to mention the incredible nano technology for putting the little nano machines into place at the level of complexity of a block of factories. Yet little kids were told M & U had shown life can come from inorganic matter! There are many lies in evo. No, I don't just want you to agree with me, but THINK! Cont.
LoricaLady 3 months ago
@raviept Cont. Another use of the scientific method was thru fruit fly experiments. They've bombarded countless thousands of generations of the bugs with radiation to show that mutations can lead to evo. As usual the experiment went in the exact opposite direction. They got deformed, often dead, never more viable than the original...fruit flies every time. Oh,ou're a computer expert. Let's see, if you take a program and start to "mutate" thru accidents as in evo, what do you get? Cont.
LoricaLady 3 months ago
@LoricaLady "You haven't learned to really use it yet or learned what science & logic really are" Sure. That's because i'm a computer scientist, and i provably have much more background in logic than you do. In fact, i just started my career and I possibly have more articles published in peer-reviewed conferences than most of those "experts" in ID. I certainly have at least as much serious publications as Behe.
raviept 3 months ago
@raviept Cont. You can mutate a program from now til doomsday and every now and then you will maybe get an accidental, small, improvement. But you will never be able to build new programs that way. The laws for physics and for statistical probabilities are the same for inorganic as for organic matter. Oh...I see you've insulted me by saying I have a closed mind. I put those on ignore who use personal insults. Learn to use YOUR mind & come out of the matrix. Bye!
LoricaLady 3 months ago
@LoricaLady I insulted you by saying you have a closed mind? You have been saying that since your first comment about me. Nevertheless, lets rewind. I came to this video to discuss about Irreducible complexity, not about Evolution in general. So, before continuing, i ask you what is your view of IC and why does it prove that Evolution is not a fact? PS: Don't spam youtube. Go straight to the point. I'm not willing to read 9 comments.
raviept 3 months ago
@raviept "It is useless to argue with someone that has such a closed mind." So why are you arguing? Also you do not get to dictate to me your terms, for your convenience, for how people use YT. If you don't want a full answer that is complete and concise, that's your problem not mine. And btw I am never just posting to the person to whom the reply is addressed but also hoping to help any lurkers. So I go by my rules fella. You use yours. I'l use mine. Mine say you're on ignore. Finis
LoricaLady 3 months ago
@raviept P.S. I'm feeling a little guilty as your accusation was not truly horrible - not like plenty of other things I've heard from YT evo fans. The thing is if I kept posting to all who insulted me I would need several lifetimes. I screen my posting and limit my time by having the rule that those with personal insults, name calling etc. go on ignore. (This is most all of them.) Also I have noticed that once the insults start, they will continue & usually get worse. So unpleasant. Cont.
LoricaLady 3 months ago
@raviept Cont. Also you don't like long comments and I think they are needful to make the points I want to make. Further, I feel that by this point you have seen enough (if you really want to) to realize that maybe all isn't quite right in evo theory land. The rest is up to you! There are plenty of resources on the net , plenty of articles by real life scientists (which I am not) showing the pros & cons of virtually any evo "proof." Seek and you will find.
I wish you well, but that's it.
LoricaLady 3 months ago
@LoricaLady The way i feel about Evolution is simple. It is the accepted scientific theory that explains why there are so many different species, among other questions. I learned it in science classes, just like i learned special relativity of einstein, electromagnetism, etc. My recent interest on Evolution is due to the conflict between science and religion, not because i ever heard of any disagreement among scientists. Cont.
raviept 3 months ago
@LoricaLady Cont. I'm not a Biologist, so i don't know all the data available. Still, a lot of evidence has been presented to my supporting Evolution, I thought about it and never found any inconsistent. There are gaps, but that's it. I wouldn't expect science to have all the answers. On the other hand, from the proponents of ID I just heard arguments (not evidence) agains Evolution, and always the same arguments, that only point out gaps, never real inconsistencies.
raviept 3 months ago
@LoricaLady Never found any theory regarding what is the Intelligent Designer, what it means to be intelligent, and by what mechanism it created life. Any reasonable answers to these three questions that don't require faith or implicitly say that we don't have to know will make me think of ID as a serious hypothesis to explaining how life has emerged. Otherwise, even if you are right, the only thing you are capble of doing is to disprove Evolution, not prove any alternative.
raviept 3 months ago
@raviept My goal is not to "prove an alternative" but indeed is only to show that evo is unscientific & illogical. I do not have time to show that irreducible complexity & intelligent design go together. Besides, it usually leads to the Bible Bash dance strawman & red herrings & I have 0 time for those either. Sorry. Different folk have different missions. Mine is baby steps - 1st see that evo is not, & cannot be true, then hopefully inspire the person to look for more answers. The End - OK?
LoricaLady 3 months ago
@LoricaLady
How can evo be "unscientific & illogical" when it's the ONLY explanation to the OBSERVED phenomena where a species originates a new distinct species by random mutation and natural selection?
You provide no reason to believe in your retarded crap when your retarded ideology can't explain how a population of individuals have a change in allele frequency due to environmental pressure.
you lose.
transtlantic 3 months ago
@transtlantic Speciation is not evidence for evo. It was well known long before Darwin & btw he never showed any origin of species whatsoever. There are over 200 species of bees & all are still bees. Leo & Sylvester are still cats. Evolution tells you that speciation turns into a new genus and finches etc. keep climibing up the "Tree of Life" turning into non finches but there is 0 evidence for any of that. I would say more but I only debate with the civil & objective. You're not. BYE!
LoricaLady 3 months ago