God, Darwin, and Design 4 - Ken Miller

Part 4 from Ken Miller's "God, Darwin, and Design- Lessons from the Dover Monkey Trial" lecture at U of Texas- Austin.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• ken
• miller
• evolution
• creationism
• dover
• trial
• intelligent
• design

[MattleSystem]

TO ANY INTERESTED; If you see I am responding to her , she knows she is on tracked. bcz she track miller's vid series to vid series, where she get called names, insulted, rightly accused of lying, hadher posts hidden. We experienced lot of intellectual harrassment. Such behaviors do not make "debate" possible for the true purposes of science. We are happy to tell her , she is OUT of DATE! She needs to read her posts and see that she is evolutionist for few things....and ignorant for the rest...

[MattleSystem]

A geological column is a general combination of all strata from several regions which were dated and also compared by their contents... There is probably no complete column which ranges from the proterozoic to the holocene. But I don't even understand what she want to exprime with those comments...

I don't know what she tries to disprove when she has nothing to prove...

But I think she is under drugs or medication, she is acting as a parasite on Miller's Videos. she is viral.

[LoricaLady]

Cont. Think about it. You've been told over & over that fins turned into feet and scales turned into feathers. There are uncounted billioins of fossils in uncounted tons. Every last 1 is 100% feather, 100% scale, 100% fin or 100% foot. Yes, "Walking fish" can to a certain extent scoot on their fins in a foot like way, but they are no exception. They are 100% fish & their fins are 100% fins, just one of nature's many anomalies. Remember Miller said Tike is "as good as it gets." He's right!

[LoricaLady]

Cont. You can see this better if you Google Melbourne Museum Tiktaalik & find the replica there. The actual fossil has tiny frontal fins which show no musculature & has no back end. The replica has strong, muscular fins about 5X at least bigger than the fossil's. The back end magically appears with legs/fins such as have never been observed in nature. All the "creative" add ons are for Tik's magical" transition" from water to land. Folks, this ain't science, & evo never is. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

Cont. Not only do they tell you that they predicted what kind of descendants it would have, with 0 evidenced to back that up, they even tell you that they know how ITS invisible descendants' invisible descendants' reproduced. (How do you tell a "missing link" from a never existed one?) And then they accuse creationists of "magical thinking." But it gets better, or worse, depending on your persepctive. Examine the replica and compare it closely to the actual fossil. Cont.

[LoricaLady]

2:28 This is one of my "fave" vids. Miller says that Tiktaalik is "as good as it gets" for a transitional form. I absolutely agree with him! Take a good look at the replica and compare it to the fossil. "So you have a fish..." Yes, you have a...FISH. 100% fish, 100% fish fins. They tell you. their humble opinion, that it has "characteristics" of a tetrapod. Do they have a shred of evidence that its descendants were ever significantly different? Of course not. Cont.

[Th0usandMaster]

lol your inner fish, this worth double-d favourites

[Hovercat636]

OMG! where DO breasts come from!?

[MattleSystem]

We don't have the ID card, we just have the DNA, the evidence of mutations, changes in phenotype, compared anatomy, time record, paleogeography, paleostratigraphy, fossil record, etc... and present speciations at short scale!

It is like asking your family tree without reference! How can you say it is your grand parents, you share only 25% of his DNA.... Yep you have a picture, but it does not mean it is your grand parent! if you can"t find the parent in between, it does not count!

[MattleSystem]

@LoricaLady That' is called the truth of naturalistic science! I mean who on Earth is enough stupid to believe that we are able to gie pure evidence that an animal is linked to another one with just fossils?

Paleontology, geology and genetic are combined to give the maximum relationship between time and life form. But of course "we can't say the grand grand father of this amphibian charly is the fish albert for Ohio"?

Your quotes are just the reflect that they are real objective scientists!

[foxlake02]

@LoricaLady Patterson did not say, in short or in any other way, that transitional forms is not science. He was saying it is not possible to say for certain whether a fossil is in the direct ancestral line of a species group. The fact that paleontology will always be inconclusive does not mean it's not science. It just means it's not dogma. The nested hierarchy that molecular biology shows is the best evidence for evolution. Along with evolution being observed. The fossil evidence supports that.