apparently you are under the impression that Darwinism has never changed. It has, SIGNIFICANTLY and REPEATEDLY. It is not some dogmatic interpretation, its the best Theory in science.
Irreducible complexity has some valid points. It does not invalidate Darwisnism. Intelligent design is not yet a scientific theory. Trust me. If you had evidence further work will be done. Natural Selection will be further refined, altered and corrected as evidence needs.
I dont let up because I care deeply about science. And people against natural selection and evolution susually dont understand the theory or the evidence (respectively) (heck they often don't even know the difference). Really its a problem.
Originally posted by Alliance
apparently you are under the impression that Darwinism has never changed. It has, SIGNIFICANTLY and REPEATEDLY. It is not some dogmatic interpretation, its the best Theory in science.Irreducible complexity has some valid points. It does not invalidate Darwisnism. Intelligent design is not yet a scientific theory. Trust me. If you had evidence further work will be done. Natural Selection will be further refined, altered and corrected as evidence needs.
I dont let up because I care deeply about science. And people against natural selection and evolution susually dont understand the theory or the evidence (respectively) (heck they often don't even know the difference). Really its a problem.
😆 well you have the right to defend you religion if you want, and your crazy if you think valid points are what get recognition in established science, I wish it were like that but it isn't. There's a big difference between materialism and science, look it up yourself. peace.
You have demonstrated a complete ineptitutde at defending oyur points, and an inability to argue.
Evolution and Natural Selection have nothign to do with my religoin.
You have no idea what science is.
ma·te·ri·al·ism
1. preoccupation with or emphasis on material objects, comforts, and considerations, with a disinterest in or rejection of spiritual, intellectual, or cultural values.
2. the philosophical theory that regards matter and its motions as constituting the universe, and all phenomena, including those of mind, as due to material agencies.
Hmm...nothing in there indicates science. Why don't you quit making things up, thinking you are proving a point.
Originally posted by Alliance
You have demonstrated a complete ineptitutde at defending oyur points, and an inability to argue.Evolution and Natural Selection have nothign to do with my religoin.
You have no idea what science is.
ma·te·ri·al·ism
1. preoccupation with or emphasis on material objects, comforts, and considerations, with a disinterest in or rejection of spiritual, intellectual, or cultural values.
2. the philosophical theory that regards matter and its motions as constituting the universe, and all phenomena, including those of mind, as due to material agencies.Hmm...nothing in there indicates science. Why don't you quit making things up, thinking you are proving a point.
Materialism is belief that all things including thought to can be deduced to matter and there's no point in debating someone who accuses you of making things up. you sound child, you're waste of my time.
Behe and his fancy Irreducible complexity was already discredited during the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial last December.
This page further refutes Irreducible complexity.
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html
"How do we decide when the term IC applies? Organisms don't come with parts, functions and systems labeled, nor are 'part', 'system' and 'function' technical terms in biology. They are terms of convenience. We might say, for instance, that the function of a leg is to walk, and call legs walking systems. But what are the parts? If we divide a leg into three major parts, removal of any part results in loss of the function. Thus legs are IC. On the other hand, if we count each bone as a part then several parts, even a whole toe, may be removed and we still have a walking system. We will see later that Behe's treatment of cilia and flagella follows this pattern."
Originally posted by Alliance
Behe brings up his points, but his hypothesis has two major flaws.1. His hypothesis does not exclude Darwinian mechanisms.
less imortantly 2. Anything he says about irredcuible complexity can also be applied to anatomy.
Adding information in a random sequence is generally harmfull, and natural selection picks traits blindly since it's not sentient.
Originally posted by Templares
Behe and his fancy Irreducible complexity was already discredited during the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial last December.This page further refutes Irreducible complexity.
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html"How do we decide when the term IC applies? Organisms don't come with parts, functions and systems labeled, nor are 'part', 'system' and 'function' technical terms in biology. They are terms of convenience. We might say, for instance, that the function of a leg is to walk, and call legs walking systems. But what are the parts? If we divide a leg into three major parts, removal of any part results in loss of the function. Thus legs are IC. On the other hand, if we count each bone as a part then several parts, even a whole toe, may be removed and we still have a walking system. We will see later that Behe's treatment of cilia and flagella follows this pattern."
take away a bone from your toe see how properly you can walk.
This is a clear cut case of nitpicking, I'm expecting darwinst to claim that "Irreducibile complexity is false because our circulatory system can function without one blood cell."
And what about complex specified information such as finger prints?
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Adding information in a random sequence is generally harmfull, and natural selection picks traits blindly since it's not sentient.
No. It selects certian traits over others based on their ability to help the species survive and reproduce. THere is nothing random at al about what survives.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
take away a bone from your toe see how properly you can walk.This is a clear cut case of nitpicking, I'm expecting darwinst to claim that "Irreducibile complexity is false because our circulatory system can function without one blood cell."
And what about complex specified information such as finger prints?
What is specific and complex about fingerprints. Its unigue skin patterns lile the rest of your skin.
lets take away one of your kidneys and see how well you function. Oh wait. YOu'd be fine. Oh...lets see. Natural selection explains mulitiplicity. Irreducible complexity does not.
Originally posted by Alliance
No. It selects certian traits over others based on their ability to help the species survive and reproduce. THere is nothing random at al about what survives.
And it judges this ability because it's alive right?
Artificial selection alone has never produced a new species yet natural selection can despite being non sentient.
Originally posted by Alliance
What is specific and complex about fingerprints. Its unigue skin patterns lile the rest of your skin.
How would random mutations produce specified information, that no one shares. I.E. fingerprints?
Originally posted by Alliance
lets take away one of your kidneys and see how well you function. Oh wait. YOu'd be fine. Oh...lets see. Natural selection explains mulitiplicity. Irreducible complexity does not.
If you remove both your kidney's you die. 😕
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
And it judges this ability because it's alive right?
Artificial selection alone has never produced a new species yet natural selection can despite being non sentient.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
How would random mutations produce specified information, that no one shares. I.E. fingerprints?
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
If you remove both your kidney's you die. 😕
Originally posted by Alliance
To my knolwedge no artificail selection has been done with the intention of creating a new species.
..........Actually it has the testing of mutant fruit flies which has been going on for close to 100 years.
Originally posted by Alliance
I dont thing fingerprints are entirely genetic based. It may be very random.
Originally posted by Alliance
Thats not irreducible complexity. Why do we have two?
What does having 2 change, I don't understand rephrase your question.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
..........Actually it has the testing of mutant fruit flies which has been going on for close to 100 years.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
..........Than it's up to you to back that up.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
What does having 2 change, I don't understand rephrase your question.
Originally posted by Alliance
Back it up. One mutation is very unlikey to cause speciation.
A mutation can only delete or move exsisting information, it has never created new information.
Originally posted by Alliance
Fingerprints have genetic basis, but are subject to random developmental forces. You can find more info here.
I already know that, but the protien that creates finger prints is just as specified so it doesn't change my point.
Originally posted by Alliance
If every part is totally indespensible. Then why have two kidneys? Teeth can be removed and you can easily survive. As can your eyes, ears, etc. Natural selection explains these things. Irreducible complexity does not. Even if you feel that its does, it still does not rule out Darwinsm.
What does natural selection explain, I'm sorry but natural selection has no conscious. darwinst say the most fit survives. the only thing that tells me is that traits will be favorable. it doesn't tell me what traits at all.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtartake away a bone from your toe see how properly you can walk.
This is a clear cut case of nitpicking, I'm expecting darwinst to claim that "Irreducibile complexity is false because our circulatory system can function without one blood cell."
And what about complex specified information such as finger prints?
You could still walk even if you take away a bone from your toe , thats the important point. Its not perfect only because we compare it to our SUBJECTIVE standards of what a human "walking system" should be.
Here lies the rub; classifying the parts and setting the boundaries of an Irreducibly Complex system is done ARBITRARILY. Organisms don't come with parts, functions and systems labeled, nor are 'part', 'system' and 'function' technical terms in biology. They are terms of convenience used by biologists to facilitate teaching in schools but nature doesnt recognize this.
The link i posted list several ways on how an IC system might evolve:
1. Previously using more parts than necessary for the function.
2. The parts themselves evolve regardless of the "system" theyre in.
3. Deployment of parts (gene regulation) evolves.
4. New parts are created (gene duplication) and may then evolve.
Whats so "complex specified information" about fingerprints given that there are only like 3 basic designs (or so) for it. The slight deviations from these designs are due to the flexibility of the friction ridge skin. It ensures that no two finger or palm prints are ever exactly alike (never identical in every detail), even from two impressions (from the same finger) recorded immediately after each other.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
A mutation can only delete or move exsisting information, it has never created new information.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
I already know that, but the protien that creates finger prints is just as specified so it doesn't change my point.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
What does natural selection explain, I'm sorry but natural selection has no conscious. darwinst say the most fit survives. the only thing that tells me is that traits will be favorable. it doesn't tell me what traits at all.
Originally posted by Alliance
No that is incorrect. I already showed how mutation can originate new phenotypes. New mutants are created allt he time. And a mutation can also be relpication of an existing gene. This is also new information.
No it's not, no function was added whatsoever, you just showed me an example of a mutated phenotype.
Originally posted by Alliance
No. Identical twins do not have the smae fingerprints. They have similar fingerprints. Sure the way you make collegen and other baisg processes are regulated genetically, but random formation is a major player in the final detail of the fingerprint ridges. Every skin cell is not geneticalyl predetermined..
Did you read what I said, I know that already. but a single protien which creates specification in the finger print as just as specified it's called "Peptide Mass Fingerprint."
Originally posted by Alliance
Thats because traits depend on the environment. There are many different environments on theis planet. Its likely that no two are alike. If you have a nice oily coat, the smell may be disadvantageous in the desert (due to predators attracted to the smell) but exceedingy advantageous in an aquatic environment (increased speed through water). Its why you see white colored hares living in the arctic and not in the desert. Its why you see sharp long beaks on birds that feed from trees and not ones that pick up worms from the ground.
No traits depend on natural selection, natural selection is envioronment,predators,prey, any thing natural fits under the natrural selection definition. natural selection favors traits blindly.
Not sure if the comment "You do not seem to understnad science" was directed at me but I see no reason to beleive in Evo so far.
It was never observed and is therefore a theory not a fact. Just becasue tons of books talk about it does not make it true
Some books talk about friut flies but that is no good becasue in every case the fly turn into mutants. Evo is a gain of info not a loss.
Fosil: All they tell you is that it died. It tells you nothing about its kids or parent.
Yes micro evo is a fat. IE Wolf-> Chiwawa (you know what I mean)
What you are talking about is that there was big bang (a crock) then there was some bio-soup from which we came. Yeah right.
I need more than "Because the books say so"
I could go on with tons of false evo claims