Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 82 (8871 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-16-2018 7:23 AM
204 online now:
Porkncheese, Pressie (2 members, 202 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Son of Man
Post Volume:
Total: 842,042 Year: 16,865/29,783 Month: 853/1,956 Week: 356/331 Day: 15/69 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1516
17
18192021Next
Author Topic:   INTELLIGENT DESIGN: An Engineer’s Approach
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5600
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 241 of 302 (372587)
12-28-2006 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Percy
12-27-2006 4:42 PM


Re: Sex organs and ID
Co-evolution precisely explains the compatibility between penis and vagina.

Co-evolution is a speculative way of getting around what would certainly appear, for face value, as an obvious design. For instance, there are orchids (the exact name escapes me) that will wait for the bee to enter. The stamen will physically pin down the bee and place the pollen on the back of its wings so that when it lets go of the bee, it is capable of fertilizing many flowers. You can say, "Oh, they must have evolved together and established a symbiotic relationship," but that would require so many steps so as to make it highly implausible. Aside from which, it makes allusions towards selection as being capable of intent.

You're arguing that the design is so intricate and complex and amazing that evolution could not possibly have produced it. You're forgetting that we agree with you about how intricate and complex and amazing all facets of life are, including the anatomical elements involved in the reproductive act of mammals.

But you still believe that unguided nature is capable of producing all that it has all on its own. That's an obscurantist argument.

designs also reflect considerable experimentation, zillions of trials over thousands and millions of years.

So we hear. The only problem is that creationists and ID'ists are asking where the evidence is of all of these experimentations. If there zillions of trials, then there should be at least millions of preserved evidence of such transmogrifications.

You draw an analog between the appearance of design in nature to human design in our own sphere. The reality is that there is no analog at all. The appearance of design in nature is a superficial one at best.

Is the appearance of design superficial? How would you know in either case when you have nothing else to compare it to?


"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis
This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Percy, posted 12-27-2006 4:42 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by Percy, posted 12-28-2006 4:22 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5600
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 242 of 302 (372589)
12-28-2006 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by nator
12-27-2006 4:45 PM


Re: Sex organs and ID
Clearly, you have very little experience with vaginas.

In what capacity? From a gynecological standpoint or, err, otherwise?

In case you didn't realise, Juggs, there is a rather large range of penis sizes among male humans. There is also a range of vagina sizes among females.

I'm aware of that. I'm not sure how you think this affects the design though.

However, a very large penis might not fit into a very small vagina.

A baby can fit through a birth canal. I'm aware that very large penises can cause discomfort for very petite women, but that's not an argument against design.

And we all know that penises fit into other orifices.

Only one other. If they fit into any other, I'd have to say that that person probably suffers from micropenis syndrome.

I mean, why would your Intelligent Designer have designed the vaginas of female sheep to be so similar to the human vagina?

LOL! I don't know the anatomy of female sheep. I don't take trips to the heavy petting zoo.


"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis
This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by nator, posted 12-27-2006 4:45 PM nator has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by Percy, posted 12-28-2006 4:41 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
jaywill
Member
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 243 of 302 (372596)
12-28-2006 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by platypus
12-28-2006 12:05 PM


Re: lieing
Now let's look at ID. The movement is run by a group with obvious religious persuasion. Their argument was originally framed with religious connotations, which have been afterwards dropped due to legal issues hurting their objectives. These people have a common thread binding them, religion.

I am confused here. Why are you bringing this up again? It started out as if you and I were going to agree that evidence is the most important thing.

The religious or anti religious motivations do not, in and of themselves, make for the accuracy or inaccuracy of the research.

I am willing to accept macro evolution as true if every evolutionists is a card carrying athiest IF the evidence proves it. The evidence as of yet does not lead me to conclude that macro evolution took place.

I did not say there was no evidence. I said it is insufficinet to convince me that macro evolution took place.

Now take Mike Behe for example. You can't say he hasn't studied the evidence favorable to macro evolution. In fact if I recall correctly he believes in common decent from one organism. He does not believe gradual successive modifications rather than intelligent design.

I heard him personally say that he decided to take the path of ID not because of what he doesn't know but because of what he does know. In other words it is not that he has thrown up his hands and said "Well we can't figure it out. Therefore it must have been an intelligent agent's design." His decision to adopt ID was based on what he knows about how the machinery of cell micro biology works.

Though I believe a point by point analysis of Behe's argument has already been performed. Behe himself has admitted he is wrong.

His rebuttals to many of his critics are published on the Internet. So why are you trying to start this urban legend that he has somehow recanted his theories?

I view that with the same suspicion that I would that Darwin had a death bed retraction according to his maid. Sounds a little too dramatic to take without careful verification.

This is a polite way of saying that I think you are probably exaggerating. You may be trying to extrapolate a point he conceded to sound as if he retracted his whole idea.

Anyway he answers some of his critics on some websites I can point you to. But I don't like discussions like this to develope into just referals to links.


Though I believe a point by point analysis of Behe's argument has already been performed. Behe himself has admitted he is wrong.

Have you read his rebuttals?

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by platypus, posted 12-28-2006 12:05 PM platypus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by platypus, posted 12-28-2006 4:26 PM jaywill has responded

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1736
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 244 of 302 (372609)
12-28-2006 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by Hyroglyphx
12-28-2006 1:02 PM


Re: Another example of truly piss poor engineering design touted
The fact that sperm are so heat sensitive and that the scrotum will retract in cold weather, and let it all hang down in hot weather is an amazing feature.

It's a feature that makes up for a design defect; the heat-sensitive sperm.

You criticizing the only design you know of should compel you to make a better design.

How about the internal testes of whales and dolphins? The alleged common designer did away with the scrotum for them, why not for us?


Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor
This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-28-2006 1:02 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 17875
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 245 of 302 (372616)
12-28-2006 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by Hyroglyphx
12-28-2006 1:54 PM


Re: Sex organs and ID
Hi NJ,

Arguments from personal incredulity combined with a lack of familiarity with evolution continue to permeate your posts:

You can say, "Oh, they must have evolved together and established a symbiotic relationship," but that would require so many steps so as to make it highly implausible.

It only seems highly implausible to you because you're unaware that this issue has already been investigated and found consistent with evolutionary theory. Measured mutation rates of living organisms are consistent with a) the genetic separation between living organisms as measured by DNA analysis; and b) the amount of time that has passed since the organisms diverged from each other as recorded in the fossil record.

But you still believe that unguided nature is capable of producing all that it has all on its own. That's an obscurantist argument.

Obscurantist argument? You're going to have to explain that one. We're happy to explain evolutionary theory to any level of detail you're happy with. No one is obscuring anything.

nemesis_juggernaut writes:

Percy writes:

designs also reflect considerable experimentation, zillions of trials over thousands and millions of years.

So we hear. The only problem is that creationists and ID'ists are asking where the evidence is of all of these experimentations.

Unless you're barking up the "Were you there? No, you didn't see it happen, therefore you couldn't know!" tree again, the evidence is massive. The same evolutionary processes that play out in creatures with relatively long reproductive cycles can be observed in real time with shorter lived organisms, like bacteria in petri dishes. DNA analysis shows that the same kind of copying errors observed to take place in bacteria and other organisms with relatively short life cycles also occur in longer lived species.

Is the appearance of design superficial? How would you know in either case when you have nothing else to compare it to?

Your argument is that the perceived design in nature is similar to human design. The reply is that it isn't similar at all because it contains characteristics not seen in human design: a) incredible intricacy and complexity that seems the result of huge amounts of trial and error over long time periods; b) a large element of "making do with what was already there", like the panda's thumb, and an equally large contribution of "just good enough".

Your view on design also fails to take into account what Jar earlier noted about the propagation of design innovations. One of his examples was windshield wipers on cars. After their first appearance they quickly they propagated to all cars of all manufacturers, which is not a pattern we see anywhere in the fossil record. One can draw another example from the computer world. After memory caches first appeared, they quickly propagated to all computers of all manufacturers everywhere.

In other words, the pattern of change seen in the fossil record is consistent with evolutionary change, and completely inconsistent with the what we would see for promulgation of design innovation.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-28-2006 1:54 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
platypus
Member (Idle past 3704 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 11-12-2006


Message 246 of 302 (372618)
12-28-2006 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by jaywill
12-28-2006 2:44 PM


Re: lieing
In fact, I am reading Darwin's Black Box now, so I refrain from further comments about Behe until I finish. I was only speaking from anectdotal evidence I heard on this forum.

One point you still simply refuse to address. I will keep this post short, so that if you decide to respond, you will have to address it. One group looks at the evidence and concludes that evolution (or "macro-evolution" if you will, if that's any different) has occured. The other group looks at the evidence and determines that not enough is known to say that evolution has occured. In other words, there is a disagreement about the evidence. Assuming that both groups are composed of intelligent people who are not overlooking evidence due to stupidity or ignorance, there is one alternative: someone is lieing! To determine this, we must look at motivation. Now I ask you, which group has more motivation to lie?


You hear evolutionist says we are descedant from apes and monkees. Sure, but that's not the point. All of life is related, not just human's with monkees. If you hug a tree, you're hugging a relative, a very distant relative, but a relative nonetheless." Dr. Joan Roughgarden in Evolution and Christian Faith
This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by jaywill, posted 12-28-2006 2:44 PM jaywill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by jaywill, posted 12-28-2006 10:27 PM platypus has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17875
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 247 of 302 (372620)
12-28-2006 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by Hyroglyphx
12-28-2006 2:16 PM


Re: Sex organs and ID
Hi NJ,

You've ignored Schraf's rebuttal. You said, "The penis and the vagina are perfectly suited for one another." Schraf pointed out that the sheep vagina is perfectly suited for the human male penis. How does that affect your conclusions about design?

Your argument still boils down to declaring that the integration of form and function throughout the natural world could never have come about through natural processes, and could only have come about through design. Citing specific examples like penis and vagina does nothing to change the form of your argument, which is merely: Look how amazing this is, it must have been designed!

As has been pointed out, most of how amazing it appears to you is due to your lack of understanding of just how amazing natural processes can be. Thunder and lightning, as amazing as they are, are not the designer at work, though they were once thought so. The changing seasons, as amazing as they are, are not the designer at work, though they were once thought so. The planetary orbits, as amazing as they are, are not the designer at work, though they were once thought so.

And so the diversity of life, as amazing as it is and if history is any guide, is not the designer at work.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-28-2006 2:16 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16052
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 248 of 302 (372636)
12-28-2006 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by jaywill
12-28-2006 9:29 AM


What is important is the evidence. The motivation is secondary. If Macro Evolution is right the atheistic or humanistic motivation of some scientists does not make it wrong. They could have a hidden motive and the theory still be correct.

Same goes with ID. Intelligent Design is not wrong simply because an exponent of it is a theist. The evidence is the primary thing in the science classroom.

Do you agree with me up to this point?

That is exactly what I said, yes. The problem with Behe is not his motivation, but that he's talking rubbish.

I say it is a shame on the teacher if his or her motivations are pushed before the evidence. But many teachers of ID are not doing this. To keep Darwinism as the prevailing dogma opposers to competing ideas have to whip up the public to believe that religious motivations are all that these teachers have to speak in the classroom.

Don't be silly. Darwinism is the "prevailing dogma" (or, in English, "accepted scientific theory") 'cos it has evidence to support it.

But I am encouraged because I think slowly the public is catching on to this propoganda.

The ultimate creationist fantasy ... one day, everyone will see that you're right.

Now back to Behe. It is interesting to me that the idea of Irreducible Complexity comes really right out of Darwin's own admission to a weakness in his theory. In 1859 Darwin wrote:

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications,my theory would absolutely break down."
[ Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, NY - Penguin, 1958, pg. 171]

(1) Predictive power is a strength in a theory.

(2) Darwin's statement has nothing to do with Behe's notion of "irreducible complexity".

Michael Behe has just taken up Darwin's own "challenge". He took molecular machinary on the cell level to show the unlikelihood of gradual successive modifcations to arrive at such operations.

No, alas.

According to the Phd. Dawkins Behe is ignorant for even questioning Darwinism.

Behe certainly seems rather foolish, not so much for "questioning Darwinism", as for believing he has when he hasn't.

And your dismissal of "rubbish" of his thesis rings with the same prejudice.

Ah yes, "prejudice". The only reason why anyone would disagree with you.

Are you going to write a book refuting this "rubbish" point by point? Or do we just take it on your wink and smile that its rubbish?

A book is not necessary. Compare what Darwin said with the definition of "irreducible complexity"; consider that Behe has testified under oath that they are not the same.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by jaywill, posted 12-28-2006 9:29 AM jaywill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by jaywill, posted 12-28-2006 10:02 PM Dr Adequate has responded
 Message 251 by jaywill, posted 12-28-2006 10:36 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded
 Message 252 by jaywill, posted 12-28-2006 10:43 PM Dr Adequate has responded

jaywill
Member
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 249 of 302 (372659)
12-28-2006 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by Dr Adequate
12-28-2006 6:12 PM


Lawyers are very clever at getting you to say or appear to say things. But in debating scientists Behe is in his element.

I just finished reading a very interesting response to one of his chief critics, Ken Miller. The response was too technical concerning the details of microbiology for a layman like me in that field. But it does show Behe had an answer to Miller's criticism. This talk was on trueorigins. And I only quote here the final paragraph:

Miller’s prose is often exaggerated and sometimes borders on the bombastic. Perhaps he uses such a relentlessly emphatic style in the hope of overwhelming readers through the sheer force of his words. Perhaps he just has a much-larger-than-average share of self-confidence. Fortunately, in this section on the “acid test,” experiments exist to show that his prose is bluster. Let me be blunt—Miller always writes (or speaks) with the utmost confidence, even when experiments show him to be quite wrong. I would caution readers of his work not to be swayed by his tone, whose confidence never wavers even when the evidence does.

M. Behe

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-28-2006 6:12 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-29-2006 7:23 AM jaywill has responded
 Message 263 by Percy, posted 12-29-2006 9:24 AM jaywill has not yet responded

jaywill
Member
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 250 of 302 (372663)
12-28-2006 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by platypus
12-28-2006 4:26 PM


Re: lieing
One group looks at the evidence and concludes that evolution (or "macro-evolution" if you will, if that's any different) has occured. The other group looks at the evidence and determines that not enough is known to say that evolution has occured.

The phenomenon of bacteria which survive a bout with an antibiotic by adapting, while weaker ones died out, may be used to support micro evolution.

Macro evolution extrapolates on that concept to theorize the bacteria evolved into another type of organism.

Some evolutionists want to blur the distinction so that weak evidence for macro evolution can be made to appear stronger than it really is, i.e. that is for one type of organism evolving over long periods of time into another type of organism.

These are mostly games with words to gain a advantage in the prose and in the rhetoric when evidence is lacking. Proof for micro evolution is extrapolated to appear to prove macro evolution.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by platypus, posted 12-28-2006 4:26 PM platypus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-29-2006 7:18 AM jaywill has not yet responded
 Message 266 by Percy, posted 12-29-2006 9:58 AM jaywill has not yet responded

jaywill
Member
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 251 of 302 (372664)
12-28-2006 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by Dr Adequate
12-28-2006 6:12 PM



Comment erased.

I am interested in less heat and more light on this subject.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-28-2006 6:12 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

jaywill
Member
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 252 of 302 (372665)
12-28-2006 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by Dr Adequate
12-28-2006 6:12 PM


Don't be silly. Darwinism is the "prevailing dogma" (or, in English, "accepted scientific theory") 'cos it has evidence to support it.

With many people it is dogma even of a religious kind. It requires I think a huge amount of "faith". For lack of a better word I use the word "faith".

Some people do not have enough of this faith to believe the claims of a Dawkins or a Ken Miller.

And in this technological age many people view scientists as a new class of priests with the authority to provide all knowledge to improve our lives.

I hope that you take note that I keep using words like "many" and "some".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-28-2006 6:12 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by DrJones*, posted 12-28-2006 10:58 PM jaywill has not yet responded
 Message 257 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-29-2006 7:33 AM jaywill has responded
 Message 267 by Percy, posted 12-29-2006 10:08 AM jaywill has not yet responded

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1736
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 253 of 302 (372666)
12-28-2006 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by jaywill
12-28-2006 10:43 PM


I hope that you take note that I keep using words like "many" and "some".

Yes, they allow you to make claims without any support, pretty sneaky.


Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor
This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by jaywill, posted 12-28-2006 10:43 PM jaywill has not yet responded

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3542 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 254 of 302 (372670)
12-28-2006 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by limbosis
12-28-2006 1:19 PM


Re: common sense?
Why would the "God" of the bible allow the god of this world to drive that corruption? Do you know something I don't?

Perhaps so the truth be known and the untruth expose the god of this world. The bible does not say why exactly, the Lord says not to tempt his Father but to pray to be delivered from evil, etc...

All Gods creatures are designed to age, thus even our time on this earth is but by design. The DNA teleromes get smaller, all our cells age except I believe the male sperm does not age, but that too is evidence of ID in that the genetic information is not compromised by the aging of the rest of the body, so we age and a new generation comes to life.

God of the bible designed the child birth to be natural to leave the umbilical cord alone. However doctors are taught the proper method is to clamp the cord if they wish to practice medicine.

The truth is there is no reason to clamp the cord unless the mothers or childs life is threatened. Why is the doctor clamping the cord? Is not all this all a part of the god of this world defying the God of the bible. The bible says the god of this world is a liar, thief, murderer, etc...

The natural birth is an example of an intelligent designed birth that has few complications to the mother, child, and little risk of infections.

Doctors are now killing third world countries children by bringing this abomidable practice of cutting the umbilical cord. All over the world children were being born naturally without infections and now they are dying of infections due to the abomiable practice of cutting of the umbilical cord.

The baby naturally after breathing closes down the valves on his side of the umbilical cord and only then does the mothers massive arteries supporting the umbilical cord get shut down.

The mother should bleed to death due to the size of the arteries but the intelligent designer has a special way of closing these arteries so the mother does not bleed to death.

Instead of letting the child and the mother naturally clamp down on each side of the umbilical cord man has to do the abominable thing to clamp down prematurely causing caviation of the heart heart due to this needed volume of blood missing to jumpstart its life and then naturally close down the valves. The mothers life is threatened because her arteries are not naturally closing in response to the childs but suddenly, etc...

The creator in his wisdom knew the heart needed to be primed with the blood of the umbilical cord, but the god of the world has doctors denying the child this prime blood source.

The entire birthing naturally is all an example an intelligent design in respect to the umbilical cord.

------------------------------------------

Anther example of Intelligent Design is the Creator designed the vitamen B17 in the food seeds that are designed to kill the cancer cell naturally. Its like a smart bomb from our creator to his creation in respect to cancer prevention.

The god of this world has had this vitamen banned because its intelligently designed by the creator.

Fortunately one can supplement ones diet with almonds, whole grains and alpha sprouts, etc... and get this vitamen naturally. It has for the most part been taken out of our food chain, its not in the multi-vitamens,etc...

--------------------------------------------------

According to research from years ago, provided by nutritionists and medical scientists, vitamin B17 is a natural cyanide-containing compound that gives up its cyanide content only in the presence of a particular enzyme group called beta glucosidase or glucuronidase. Miraculously, this enzyme group is found almost exclusively in cancer cells. When it is found elsewhere in the body, it is accompanied by greater quantities of another enzyme, rhodanese, which has the ability to disable the cyanide and convert it into completely harmless substances. Cancer tissues do not have this protecting enzyme.

So, according to past scientific knowledge, cancer cells are faced with a double threat: the presence of one enzyme exposing them to cyanide, while the absence of another enzyme found in all other normal cells results in the cancer's failure to detoxify itself. Leave it to nature to provide a form of cyanide that can naturally destroy a cancer cell. The cancer cells that are unable to withstand the cyanide are destroyed, while the non-cancerous cells are not threatened by the cyanide, and, therefore, remain unharmed. Never underestimate the body's potential!

Vitamin B17 is found naturally in many foods. If you eat foods containing vitamin B17, your body will know what to do next. All other animals in nature instinctively do this. Consider it nature's cancer prevention. If only modern medicine would allow it.

http://www.detoxprogram.net/articles/archives/2006/08/index.php

P.S. Doctors are a worthy profession the problem is not the doctors but how the god of this world is compromising the health of the peoples.

Edited by Charley, : No reason given.

Edited by Charley, :

Edited by Charley, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by limbosis, posted 12-28-2006 1:19 PM limbosis has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Percy, posted 12-29-2006 10:16 AM johnfolton has responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16052
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 255 of 302 (372709)
12-29-2006 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by jaywill
12-28-2006 10:27 PM


Re: lieing
The phenomenon of bacteria which survive a bout with an antibiotic by adapting, while weaker ones died out, may be used to support micro evolution.

Macro evolution extrapolates on that concept to theorize the bacteria evolved into another type of organism.

No.

Some evolutionists want to blur the distinction so that weak evidence for macro evolution can be made to appear stronger than it really is, i.e. that is for one type of organism evolving over long periods of time into another type of organism.

No.

These are mostly games with words to gain a advantage in the prose and in the rhetoric when evidence is lacking. Proof for micro evolution is extrapolated to appear to prove macro evolution.

No.

---

I have explained this to you before. No-one claims that micro-evolution is proof of macro-evolution. This non-claim, which no-one has ever actually made, has been invented by creationists so they can duck the actual proof and fight a stupid straw man of their own devising.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by jaywill, posted 12-28-2006 10:27 PM jaywill has not yet responded

RewPrev1
...
1516
17
18192021Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018