Like to rate videos and let people know what you think?
Automatically share your ratings, favorites, and more on Facebook, Twitter, and Google Reader with YouTube Autoshare.
Autoshare makes certain YouTube activities public on the services you choose. Select only the services you are comfortable with - like Facebook, Twitter, or Google Reader - to let your friends know what you like on YouTube. You can turn Autoshare off at any time.
Like to share videos with friends?
Automatically share your ratings, favorites, and more on Facebook, Twitter, and Google Reader with YouTube Autoshare.
Autoshare makes certain YouTube activities public on the services you choose. Select only the services you are comfortable with - like Facebook, Twitter, or Google Reader - to let your friends know what you like on YouTube. You can turn Autoshare off at any time.
We are who we are. Hating ourselves is not productive. Plastic surgery has its practical side, especially for people who have gone through windshields.
Yup, it is exactly as you say - he does say that the simpler clotting mechanism doesn't work for humans. But it doesn't have to - it works for an ancestor of humans, from which humans eventually descended, and along the way the additional step was evolved, probably because it made the whole clotting system more comprehensive, or more stable - it did something which made humans better adapted.
But all that is beside the point. Irreducible complexity attempts to show the human clotting mechanism was not useful unless it is whole, thereby making the system impossible to bring together as a working unit except against tremendous coincidental odds. However, Miller shows that it was built up, one stage at a time, by being useful to our ancestors. In them it worked well enough, and today still works in their direct descendents. QED.
- that a multi-part mechanism be so compicated that it cannot be reasonably assembled from its components by chance; AND - that there exist no incremental pathway to create that mechanism which is useful to organism it is in.
So far, no such mechanism has been identified. Behe, originator of the irreducible complexity theory, used blood clotting at the Dover trial, and when faced with the proof that he ignored the published evidence, had no reasonable response.
Humans didn't evolve blood clotting from scratch. Blood clotting was inherited from the "lower animals" that are ancestral to mammals and ultimately to humans. What he is saying is perfectly logical and no evolution is not "I came from nothing", all life came from common ancestors.
"..evolution is not 'I came from nothing', all life came from common ancestors."
Really? Can you, or any other scientists prove this, or is it really just supposition?
Without a higher intelligence who designed even the simplest of organisms, what you call our "common ancestors", you are forced to believe our supposed common ancestors came from nothing. Surely you will concede this point, and so ultimately, you came from nothing.
Science is not about "100% proof" science is about testable explanations. Evolution gives us many things to test, and every piece of data we find supports common ancestry for all life.
From nothing, nothing comes. Even abiogenesis does not have life coming from "nothing". But even if God created the first life, evolution would still function and BTW . . .I am a Christian.
If you want to find out more look for the book, "I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution".
The proof of this is in biological papers that describe the creation of a new species of bacteria that can metabolize citrates, where none before could (See Lenski). The proof is in the 40 or so actual speciation events that have been reported in the biological literature. More proof is in the examination of fossil remains. More proof is in studying the ways in which genetic information is replicated, destroyed, repaired and passed along by every species studied so far.
Autoshare makes certain YouTube activities public on the services you choose. Select only the services you are comfortable with - like Facebook, Twitter, or Google Reader - to let your friends know what you like on YouTube. You can turn Autoshare off at any time.
But all that is beside the point. Irreducible complexity attempts to show the human clotting mechanism was not useful unless it is whole, thereby making the system impossible to bring together as a working unit except against tremendous coincidental odds. However, Miller shows that it was built up, one stage at a time, by being useful to our ancestors. In them it worked well enough, and today still works in their direct descendents. QED.
- that a multi-part mechanism be so compicated that it cannot be reasonably assembled from its components by chance; AND
- that there exist no incremental pathway to create that mechanism which is useful to organism it is in.
So far, no such mechanism has been identified. Behe, originator of the irreducible complexity theory, used blood clotting at the Dover trial, and when faced with the proof that he ignored the published evidence, had no reasonable response.
Really? Can you, or any other scientists prove this, or is it really just supposition?
Without a higher intelligence who designed even the simplest of organisms, what you call our "common ancestors", you are forced to believe our supposed common ancestors came from nothing. Surely you will concede this point, and so ultimately, you came from nothing.
I don't have enough faith to be an evolutionist!
From nothing, nothing comes. Even abiogenesis does not have life coming from "nothing". But even if God created the first life, evolution would still function and BTW . . .I am a Christian.
If you want to find out more look for the book, "I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution".
Shove faith.
Dumbass.