I am reading up on this guy and find him quite knowledgeable,
So knowledgeable he wouldnt defend his ides in court.
dont believe is that modern humans are evolved apes,
See the above picture and tell where is the point where non-humans stop and humans begin.
Commenting on the documentary Evolution he said: Evolution makes a very selective presentation of the scientific evidence.
BS. Lets be frank about this, the best data against evolution that the Disco Tute offered in textbook forms was Pandas and People. This got shredded in court as being full of inaccurate and misleading gosa. Read the Dover trial transcripts for yourself and you might learn something.
Yet Darwin proposed that natural selection could produce not only minor changes like those now observed in bacteria, but also the major structural innovations in the history of life.
Firstly, the idea of large changes existed long before Darwin. What Darwin did was offer the mechanism of small changes that explained how the big changes arose. But the contention is moot given genetics and fossils (like those skulls which you are ignoring).
But many now doubt that the Darwinian mechanism explains the large-scale "macro-evolutionary" innovations necessary to build new organisms (such as birds) in the first place.
Project Steve showed this to be untrue. I understand the constant need for you folks to try and pretend that there is a scientific controversy over this but, and if you ever looked at the peer-reviewed literature you would know this, there is no research whatsoever being done on ID. None.
Thus, developmental biologist Scott Gilbert of Swarthmore University argues that "natural selection explains the survival, but not the arrival of the fittest."
The above is true and Im willing to bet that there isnt a biologist on the planet who would disagree with the idea of the statement. The problem is that you are so utterly clueless that you think this statement supports your idea.
Natural selection can only select you also need the variation which comes from genetic mutations. Evolution is
both natural selection and genetic mutation. The above quote is the typical attempt at rhetoric from someone who really should learn the subject before making the type of mistake that a high-schooler should be able to spot.
Yet, Evolution gives no voice to such doubts.
By evolution I think you mean the scientific community. You want to challenge the dominant paradigm in science? Then you gotta do the research and provide the evidence. Empty rhetoric gets destroyed in scientific academia and with good reason.
Worse, it makes numerous factual errors that exaggerate the evidential support for Darwinism.
You have consistently and systematically ignored any and all such evidences that have been provided on this forum. Ignoring those evidences and pretending they do not exist is your choice. But claiming they dont exist doesnt make them go away it just makes you ignorant and denialist.
But biologists have known for well over a decade that the genetic code is not universal.
Maybe you should tell that to the biologists because the universality of the genetic code is the strongest argument they use for a universal common ancestor.
To arrange the retina as Miller thinks best, however, would render it inoperative.
Tell that to the members of the octopus family who have such a retina arrangement as Miller recommends, because they really need to know that their eyes are inoperative.
The series leaves the distinct impression that a computer program has successfully simulated the evolution of the eye.
And it has. The mutations required such that there exists a constant positive selection pressure laying out the gradualistic steps for the eye has been done. The results of the simulations can be used to make predictions regarding the genetics of the eye and what by-products we can expect of the process. And guess what? The simulations match the genetic evidence.
I am sticking to the God did and He did it in an awesome way
Actually you are going for the hear no evidence see no evidence approach.
Do you think that Dover would want to take me to court for this?
If you use public money to teach your crap to kids while pretending it is science then I am sure there would be no shortage of people lining up to sue you.
But in honesty I dont know what went on with this court case, so I dont have an opinion on it.
Maybe you should ******* find out? You might realise why real scientists are getting royally ticked off everytime one of you clowns tries to play scientist by peddling scientific gosa to the public. What you folks are trying to do when it comes to science education is redefine the nature of science from an evidence-based methodology to an appeaser of your religious sensibilities. The result being the scientific retardation of the next generation of otherwise good scientists.
Also I dont understand how his refusal makes ID bunk?
Because when real scientists met ID proponents the ideas of ID were demonstrated, by using actual evidence, to be both unscientific and founded on deliberate distortions of well established scientific propositions. Read the Dover transcript and you might learn what it is you are truly supporting.
What do you think of Michael Behe?
Did you know that Behes Dover testimony crippled ID in Dover? He admitted that, in order to permit ID as science, you would have to redefine science so loosely that astrology also becomes science. In his latest book he practically admits common descent, albeit with the whole goddidit approach.
Michael Behe claims to have shown exactly what Darwin claimed would destroy the theory of evolution, through a concept he calls "irreducible complexity."
Funny that he got owned on that very topic during the Dover trial. And, for the record, Darwin said that by demonstrating the existence of a system that could not have arose by gradualistic changes under selection you would have falsified evolution. This is not the same as irreducible complexity as Ill discuss below.
In simple terms, this idea applies to any system of interacting parts in which the removal of any one part destroys the function of the entire system. An irreducibly complex system, then, requires each and every component to be in place before it will function.
But irreducible complexity does not mean unevolvable. Irreducibly complex chemical pathways evolve all the time in laboratory experiments subjecting bacteria to environmental attritions.
The three irreducibly complex systems Behe brought to court, the flagella, the endocrine system and the blood clotting system got routed by real scientists. The flagella in particular got routed, and when Behe turned his nose at the stack of peer-reviewed papers sat in front of him detailing the evolution of the blood clotting system I think the judge might have realised what was going down.
To disprove irreducible complexity consider this analogy. You are a bricklayer and you can add or subtract one brick at a time (this is somewhat analogous to mutations). Adding or subtracting only one brick at a time it is possible to build a Roman arch (an irreducibly complex structure).
Evolution works in a similar way because the function of the final form of a structure doesnt have to be the same as its ancestral function. Feathers werent evolved because creatures wanted to fly, they evolved because they provided insulation. That they were co-opted for flight doesnt change this. The ancestral forms of the flagella, for example, are still present in some extant bacteria. The same goes for the blood clotting system.
)