Kenneth Miller Dover and Design 1of13

Kenneth Miller discusses the Dover trial and debunks Irreducible Complexity
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Kenneth
• Miller
• Dover
• Intelligent
• design
• irreducible
• complex

[LoricaLady]

@MillionthUsername OOps. I thought your post sounded like you were an evo-ite until I read more of them, so removed my commment.

However,you made one point I hadn't thought of in a few years debating them. Give me an ex. of what you mean when you say evo is claiming both similarity & dissimilarity as evidence. Sounds interesting.

[MillionthUsername]

You want to "educate" me? How kind.

"Boats don't have wings." LOL.

So because boats don't have wings, all tetrapods have a common ancestor, huh? Wow. Now that's science.

You can write me if you want, but only if you are very brief and stick to what you can demonstrate via the scientific method. I'm not interested in your beliefs. Can you do that?

Don't write me a book. I won't read it. I'll familiar with all this stuff. Just make your testable claim and show me the test. All else is BS.

[Timbul53525253]

No, I'm using comsiderations of both analogous and homologous evolution. In any case, you haven't answered Q1 (evidence of anaologous evolution in tetrapod limb bones) yet. The "same structures" argument won't wash - we're talking flippers, wings, legs and human hands being mad from *the same bones*. Cars don't have sails. Boats don't have wings. BECAUSE THEY'RE DESIGNED. See the difference now? I can't carry on trying to educate you in short comments posts. Can we take this elsewhere?

[MillionthUsername]

It's a tautology to say that similar things are similar. And, what's worse, the argument for common descent uses BOTH similarity AND dissimilarity to support it! You see? There is no way to TEST this claim. It is a BELIEF about origins and that's all.

Asking why similar things are similar and not dissimilar is useless when the theory "explains" BOTH at the same time!

The scientific method does not apply to this claim since it is not falsifiable, therefore the claim is not science.

End of.

[Timbul53525253]

Because your comment was that bones were needed for structure (which doesn't answer the anatomicalsimilarities among structures which have different functions, but let that pass), and inscts show that this is not in fact the case.

How you test common descent is by building up an enormous mass of evidence from the fossil record, comparative anatomy, embryology and DNA. The hallmarks of common descent are in all these areas. Not one shred of evidence for creation has been found though. End of!

[MillionthUsername]

You asked me about bones for TETRAPODS.

Why are you talking about insects now?

What's "not convincing" about bones providing structure? Do they not provide structure?

Answer the question of how you test your dogma of common descent.

[Timbul53525253]

You don't know. That's your answer?

Not that convincing. As for needing bones to give structure, explain how insects fly perfectly well with wings which do NOT contain bones.

[MillionthUsername]

This is you interpreting everything according to your religion. This is NOT science. You cannot test this dogma. It's like reading tea leaves. There's no wrong answer.

Why would a designer use the same set of steps to make a ladder or a stoop? I dunno. Maybe because the design serve a function?

Bones gives structure. Without them you're a jellyfish.

[Timbul53525253]

Re tetrapod arm bones - explain why a designer would use the same set of bones to create flippers, wings, legs and organs of manipulation, *and* to appear in vestigial organs.

The floor is yours.

[MillionthUsername]

"Comparative anatomy (eg tetrapod arm bones)"

That's observing common descent? You're joking.

That's reading your theory into everything you see. You always assume your conclusion. It's moronic, and has nothing to do with science.

How do you go about falsifying that claim?

Don't tell me to "stfu," you religious dogmatist of nonsense. Learn what real science is. Learn the scientific method. Don't tell me of your dogma.