Darwin's Illusion

[Polymath257]

That you don't think so is telling. have a good one.

And I would say that your thinking so is telling. It shows you don't understand the claims of the theory of evolution.

 

[Polymath257]

The point that I made is that the small changes that we see, don’t necessarily add up to the big changes that we need to explain the diversity of life.

Perhaps there is a barrier (as in my hypothetical example)

Do you have any actual evidence for such a barrier?

At this point, we know of no barrier to further mutation from any workable gene.

That is all, nothing controversial in my comments,

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is not a straw man………… the problem is that you always jump in to my conversations without understanding the context.

I am responding to that claim


The point that I made is that the small changes that we see, don’t necessarily add up to the big changes that we need to explain the diversity of life.

Perhaps there is a barrier (as in my hypothetical example)

That is all, nothing controversial in my comments,

Don't give me that. All that you have are strawman arguments. If you did not understand your strawman the correct thing to do would be to politely ask how it is a strawman if you did not understand.

 

[leroy]

And again, until that someone demonstrate that there is such a thing as irreducibly complex steps there is no such need. This is merely an attempt to shift the burden of proof again.

Yes I agree, ………. What makes you think that I would claim the opposite………. All the comments that I have made about irreducible complexity ………. Are within the lines of “there are no confirmed examples of IC systems”

But I still don´t understand your desire to avoid the burden proof at all cost.

If you affirm that there is a viable path to go from a blind creature to a creature with eyes, then the burden proof is on you. And you have to show that there is such path.

If you don’t make such an affirmation, then you should join me and simply say “we don’t know”

 

[leroy]

Do you have any actual evidence for such a barrier?

No, that is my point (we dont know if there are barriers or not)

At this point, we know of no barrier to further mutation from any workable gene.

We don’t know of any barriers, because nobody knows the deep genetic details on who complex things evolve like the eye

 

[leroy]

Don't give me that. All that you have are strawman arguments. If you did not understand your strawman the correct thing to do would be to politely ask how it is a strawman if you did not understand.

Ok can you tell me exactly what comment are you talking about and why is it a straw man?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes I agree, ………. What makes you think that I would claim the opposite………. All the comments that I have made about irreducible complexity ………. Are within the lines of “there are no confirmed examples of IC systems”

But I still don´t understand your desire to avoid the burden proof at all cost.

If you affirm that there is a viable path to go from a blind creature to a creature with eyes, then the burden proof is on you. And you have to show that there is such path.

If you don’t make such an affirmation, then you should join me and simply say “we don’t know”

Then why even bring it up? Until someone shows that it is a legitimate concept it is just a nothingburger that can be refuted with a handwave?

Why do you use such obviously flawed techniques? You are your own worst enemy quite often in these debates.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok can you tell me exactly what comment are you talking about and why is it a straw man?

No, that is not the way that it works. You are now demanding that others do your homework for you.

 

[John53]

Your so-called scientific beliefs, even if some adherents say they can be proved, really can't be. But of course some adherents say they can be.

And like usual your reply has nothing to do with what I posted.

 

[Polymath257]

No, that is my point (we dont know if there are barriers or not)


We don’t know of any barriers, because nobody knows the deep genetic details on who complex things evolve like the eye

Which means it is a good starting hypothesis that no such barriers exist. This is especially true since we *know* large scale changes occur.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

the evolutionist has to provide a path explaining how for example a blind creature evolved eyes (explain which mutations had to occur and in what order,)

That's your rule. Others have no need to elucidate any pathway in abiogenesis or evolution. *Why do you think otherwise? [asterisks will identify questions you are expected to ignore]

For example how do you go from a flightless insect, to a fruitflie (that can has wings and can fly)

Why don't you already know what there is to know about this line of research, or studying the science from a legitimate source like a university? Rhetorical question. You're not really interested in the science, just undermining the parts that contradict your religious beliefs. Nobody here owes you an education. Many have generously tried to help you, but to no avail.

All of this fetch-me-answers stuff is passive-aggressive apologetics intended to imply an interest in science, evidence and reason that doesn't exist, and to imply an ignoratium fallacy without saying so explicitly - "Well, if you can't show me, then ...." *Then what?

The point that I made is that the small changes that we see, don’t necessarily add up to the big changes that we need to explain the diversity of life. Perhaps there is a barrier (as in my hypothetical example) That is all, nothing controversial in my comments,

So what?

The hypocrisy of requiring from others what you don't require to support your own beliefs is unbecoming. Show me the steps God used to create the universe. Oh, you can't, huh? Then we should reject the possibility, right? *If not to imply an ignoratium fallacy - "If you don't know, it didn't happen" - then what is the point of this line of inquiry if not that?

we dont know if there are barriers or not

*Again, so what? *Do you have a point? If so, state it explicitly. *Why do you think this matters to your case? *Why should anybody spend time thinking about this or discussing it? We have no reason to imagine barriers that haven't been identified to exist, so we don't, but you do. *Why?

If you affirm that there is a viable path to go from a blind creature to a creature with eyes, then the burden proof is on you. And you have to show that there is such path.

But he doesn't. He says that he believes it likely, and that has been established by the evidence to date that confirms the theory beyond reasonable doubt even before pathways have been elucidated.

I see that you ignored this. *Why? :

"But the claim is that it very probably occurred and did so by the application of natural selection to genetic variation across generations over time. No specific pathway is needed. If John, who lives in California, is seen driving his car in New York with an extra 3000 miles on its odometer, we can surmise that his car "evolved" from the West to the East Coast without specifying the route, just the mechanism - he drove."

Concession accepted.

 

[leroy]

Then why even bring it up?

I didn’t, I simply responded to post that already mentioned IC

Until someone shows that it is a legitimate concept it is just a nothingburger that can be refuted with a handwave?

The concept is legit

Why do you use such obviously flawed techniques? You are your own worst enemy quite often in these debates.

What techniques do you think I am using?

 

[leroy]

No, that is not the way that it works. You are now demanding that others do your homework for you.

well you said this

" If you did not understand your strawman the correct thing to do would be to politely ask how it is a strawman if you did not understand."

All I did was to ask politely according to your demands

 

[leroy]

Which means it is a good starting hypothesis that no such barriers exist. This is especially true since we *know* large scale changes occur.

agree, it´s a good hypothesis

 

[gnostic]

Yes I agree, ………. What makes you think that I would claim the opposite………. All the comments that I have made about irreducible complexity ………. Are within the lines of “there are no confirmed examples of IC systems”

But I still don´t understand your desire to avoid the burden proof at all cost.

leroy, any scientific theories have already been tested, through observations, and observations that include evidence, experiments & the all-important DATA, which together support and verify those respective theories, whether it be Newtonian mechanics, the 2 Relativity theories, Maxwell’s electromagnetism, Quantum mechanics, genetics, evolutionary biology, etc.

if there are new or old alternative concepts, then the burden of proof falls upon anyone proposing or supporting those alternatives, including Irreducible Complexity (IC), Specified Complexity (SC) or the Intelligent Design (ID).

To date, Michael Behe have been able to support with any experiments or evidence or with data. His excuses in his book like Darwin’s Blackbox or at the Kitzmiller vs Dover trial, were always to present irrelevant analogies or to make excuses that he had offered some logical explanations.

Neither logical explanation, nor an analogy, are evidence. They are merely apologetic excuses to avoid his responsibility of burden of proof.

And it is the same every other creationists, to avoid presenting demonstrable evidence or data to support whatever crap alternatives.

And that’s including you and other members of RF, who are creationists with very little or zero background in science.

But even qualified and experienced scientists, such as Behe being biochemist, as well as supporter of Discovery Institute and its Intelligent Design, avoid showing they have no evidence to present to the science community.

You are the one trying to offer alternative to Evolution, then as a “claimant” of the alternative, whether it be for Genesis Creationism, Intelligent Design or Behe’s Irreducible Complexity, the burden falls upon you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I didn’t, I simply responded to post that already mentioned IC

Are you sure? If someone was responding to one of our earlier claims you are the one that still brought it up.

The concept is legit

No one has ever demonstrated that it is. And until someone does so it not legitimate. The burden of proof is upon you.

What techniques do you think I am using?

Just about every single dishonest tool that you can find. Don't you know how to debate properly at all?

 

[Subduction Zone]

well you said this

" If you did not understand your strawman the correct thing to do would be to politely ask how it is a strawman if you did not understand."

All I did was to ask politely according to your demands

No, you have to know that you did that improperly. You keep acting as if you have no brain at all at times. Do your homework. You keep asking others to do yours for you.

 

[leroy]

That's your rule. Others have no need to elucidate any pathway in abiogenesis or evolution. *Why do you think otherwise? [asterisks will identify questions you are expected to ignore]

You are not following the conversation, my point is that in order to claim (or deny) that a system is IC you need to know the steps.

So nothing controversial there, I am just establishing an obvious truth


creationists shount say that a system is IC because there is not enough evidnece to make that assertion.


Borrowing form the car analogy we don’t know if there is a river between California and New York that makes the trip in car impossible.

So to assert (or to deny) that there is a river is premature.

Why don't you already know what there is to know about this line of research, or studying the science from a legitimate source like a university? Rhetorical question. You're not really interested in the science, just undermining the parts that contradict your religious beliefs. Nobody here owes you an education. Many have generously tried to help you, but to no avail.

I just pointed out the fact that @YoursTrue made a good point.

*Again, so what? *Do you have a point? If so, state it explicitly. *Why do you think this matters to your case? *Why should anybody spend time thinking about this or discussing it? We have no reason to imagine barriers that haven't been identified to exist, so we don't, but you do. *Why?

But he doesn't. He says that he believes it likely, and that has been established by the evidence to date that confirms the theory beyond reasonable doubt even before pathways have been elucidated.

yes My point is that we don’t know if random variation + natural selection is good enough to explain the diversity and complexity of life

I see that you ignored this. *Why? :

"But the claim is that it very probably occurred and did so by the application of natural selection to genetic variation across generations over time. No specific pathway is needed. If John, who lives in California, is seen driving his car in New York with an extra 3000 miles on its odometer, we can surmise that his car "evolved" from the West to the East Coast without specifying the route, just the mechanism - he drove."

Concession accepted.

Yes I completely agree,

What makes you think that I would disagree?


These are my claims

1 I accept evolution (common ancestry)

2 I accept that organisms evolve through slight modifications (variation + natural selection)

3 I am skeptic on weather if random variation + natural selection can explain all (or most) of the diversity and complexity of life

4 I accept that modern systems (like the eye) evolved from simpler ancestors

5 I don’t think we are in a position to know if there are IC systems or not.

Do you disagree with anything? It seems to me that you don’t´

 

[leroy]

Are you sure? If someone was responding to one of our earlier claims you are the one that still brought it up.


No one has ever demonstrated that it is. And until someone does so it not legitimate. The burden of proof is upon you.

Just about every single dishonest tool that you can find. Don't you know how to debate properly at all?

I´ll rather ask

What exactly do you mean by legit?

 

[leroy]

No, you have to know that you did that improperly. You keep acting as if you have no brain at all at times. Do your homework. You keep asking others to do yours for you.

Ok

Added to the list of unsupported accusations