Science, Creation & EvolutionCreation vs. Evolution, general discussionYeah, it's me using subtle humour. Begging the question of Genesis' authenticity. The fact is, nothing in reality agrees with anything in Genesis 1, but, I would contend, that is not even the point of what Genesis 1 is about, i.e. it's a creation myth just like the greek one, all mythologies have them, and they're spiritual narratives, not an actual description of what actually happened. And they all had an ancestor that was a quadropedal mammal with hooves, what's your point? That's not a fact, in fact, that's an outright lie, since they all are, the gradual changes or "variation" as explained to you repeatedly is evolution in action. What's been lost? We've got new variants of an older model. That's like saying all the current models of ford have reduced the ford catalog. No, it doesn't. These variants are organisms in their own right, an original common ancestor for all life would not be perfect, it would simply be an organism. Prove it. Define what a kind is, then. It can't be reproductive seperateness, since we've observed evolution over that level. Why? And prove it. Seems to be an argument from ignorance. Hahaha, this is so wrong I can't believe you just said it. Natural selection observably does the exact opposite as shown with vancomycin immunity and subsequent reliance, and the ability to devour Nylon and subsequent reliance on it alone as a food source. Genes simply would not accumulate if they had a negative effect, because the organisms would die out. Almost any hospital in the first world will say different. Ever hear of MRSA? VRSA? Vancomycin resistant entereococci? Don't believe me that these things exist? Outright lie, again. We HAVE, as I already said, MRSA -> VRSA, v-r-entereococcus, flavobacterium k172, delta 32, influenza, the common cold, HIV, SIV. Flu and colds do it ANNUALLY, as you can tell because everyon gets them even though they are immune to the last strain! "Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago. (Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration. While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.) " Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348 No, you're inventing a superficial barrier that isn't there in order to preserve your wrong views. Allele frequency changes can and are spotted with beneficial effects and natural selection is about those getting passed on, the idea that they wouldn't be passed on but in fact, the detrimental frequency changes would is based in what exactly? What would cause that? It doesn't even make sense! And remember this is you saying this, not anyone else, not scientists, not evolutionists, you so back it up. Strawman fallacy. Anyone that knows what evolution is can go to a hospital and watch it in action. God couldn't evolve things could he not? So much for omnipotence, even humans can evolve things. It's not about incredulity, it's about the evidence, there's nothing to back up talking snakes, a young earth or global flood, or a man in the sky that uses magic to trick people into believing his stories are wrong. No sorry, people like me need reason in order to accept something. You have none, no more than someone saying Zeus or another imaginary friend exists. Nice idolatry of the bible there, though. How about you show how evolution by natural selection is an argument of incredulity against Genesis? I'm suer that'll be funny to read. Fair comment. They must all be brainwashed or be a nobel lauriete in the making. No, repeating a strawman won't make it true. Darwin's black box
Flavobacterium K172 developed new genes and allowed them to exploit a new environment which does not naturally exist, which only came about thanks to us. They lost the genetic basis to digest normal hydrocarbons but can now exploit a completely untapped source, that's an entirely new irreducibly complex trait thanks to new genes that has appeared in living human memory. That alone refutes Behe's "irreducible complexity cannot arise from evolution". Wrong, it does have to give predictions if it's to be taken as a serious scientific theory. If you want to see intelligent design, or if you want to see dumb design or if you want to see order arising from natural process, you can. However, only one of these abides parsimony and only one relies on preexisting known constants. The others have to invent entities because they wanted to include them, whether they exist or not. This is why it's pseudoscientific. Nice ad hominem fallacy, though. So you admit it's nothing more than disagreeing with evolution for the sake of it, without offering anything of substance on its own. Yeah, like Dr Hovind refuted evolution by quote mining too. :roll: And they have yet to produce one thing to show that anything "irreducibly complex" or otherwise "intelligently designed" by nonhumans is artificial. The argument is fallacious since it associated complexity only with artificial design. You're walking in a wood, you find some trees, they're difficult to understand therefore someone made them? You really think that's good enough to be taken seriously? Another example of the fallacious logic at work: You are walking in a quarry, you see a face sculpted in the rock, and you see some crags resembling a face in the rock, and you see a bare rock. Which one is intelligently designed? All three! Here's my own antiwatch parable: Parable Of The Beach You are walking along a beach, you notice that the sand and the pebbles are clearly seperate, making a cool set of lines down the beach. As far as you know, you've only seen people seperate things out like that, some form of intelligence must be behind it! So, you stake out the beach, to see who's doing this sorting. You work out it's the sea. The sand is less heavy than the pebbles, and it being washed further ashore, whereas the bigger heavier pebbles get deposited closer to the water. Amazing, that these natural processes are bringing about an apparent order and arrangement! So is the sea alive or does it have intelligence? No. Are the pebbles in some specific arrangement that it's more likely they wouldn't be in? Yes. So does this mean the sea could secretly have some intelligence behind it? It's possible. It's even possible that it's the "spirit of the sea" the locals talk about in their old fables. Does this make it a valid explanation of how the sea works? Nope, didn't think so. Because the spirit of the sea is intangible and unfalsifiable, does that mean it's a valid idea without substanciation? No. So do we accept it, even if we don't know everything about the sea? No. That's an application of parsimony. The arguments people use for the existence of gods are often what you see above. It's an argument from ignorance (you/science can't explain where x came from, or the cause of x, and my God says he did it, therefore i believe him and you can't counter it because you don't know) or worse still, an argument from personal incredulity (That's too much for me to understand, the numbers are too big against it, i think God did it, and it says so in the bible). The above parable you will see replaced with the DNA of a living cell, irreducibly complex systems, the Earth's location, lottery winning, prayer testimonies, the universe's origin et al. In addition, they will probably trot out the "fine tuning" argument; where everything seems "just so" life can come about on Earth. He didn't say that anywhere in there. You are in violation of exodus 20:16. You seem to erroneously equate selective pressure and emergent complexity with a "rant against God." You are clearly being unreasonable here, not Dawkins. Dawkins explains how selective pressures can lead to complexity and thisi s a rant against God? What are you thinking? Pitiful, you would know this is false if you had actually read and understood the blind watchmaker. But I suspect that is your problem, your inability to understand, not read. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, and assuming you didn't just lie maliciously. |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame