The dishonesty of creationists.

[Man of Faith]

What is obvious is that you don’t even know what the theory of evolution is. Prove me wrong, answer these questions.

What is “Saltation” in the context of biology?

Was Darwin a “Saltationist”, or an “Anit-Saltationist” ?

If saltation is proven true would that prove evolution true, or prove evolution false?

I suspect that you won’t even make the effort to try to answer. You need to preserve your ignorance. We will see.

Well just to prove you wrong, I did a Google on it. Saltation is quick evolution as opposed to gradual change. Either one can't be seen.

 

[Man of Faith]

Ah yes, the adaptation game. Let's call the progressive change in genetics over many generations that eventually results in the emergence of new species "adaptation" and then it isn't evolution anymore!

Edit: Is this another good example of their "dishonesty", do ya think?

I'm sorry but calling flies that have different capabilities, but they are still flies, different species isn't going to cut it. Flies reproduce flies, period.

 

[Valjean]

A series of changes, even small ones, must eventually produce something quite unlike the prototype.

 

[McBell]

Thank you for the tech advice.

I'm confused. Are you using the article linked above to dispute my argument?

From what I can tell. It supports my argument better than I do.

On the other hand, If you were using it to point out that Behe refined his earlier 1996 statements then I would have to reply, with all do respect, ...so what?
Surely you don't believe that just because a statment gets revised and clarified it is automatically invalid .... do you? What do you think science is built on if not revised research?

Never mind.
I do not have the patience to deal with it if you are honestly that dense/ignorant/blind to it, nor do I have the patience if you are simply ignoring it.

 

[Man of Faith]

A series of changes, even small ones, must eventually produce something quite unlike the prototype.

Must? Now evolution must be true? We don't see it but it must be true? The only reason evolution must be true is if you discount a creator. That is a presuppositon.

 

[Valjean]

You're rushing off on a tangent, MoF. My post could apply to anything.

We do see it. I havent read through this whole thread, but surely someone's linked to examples.

You think a Creator automatically discounts things changing over time? Why would that be?

Are you saying all plants and animals have always been just as they are now? That poodles cannot be traced back to wolves and Nylon eating bacteria have been waiting thousands of years for a meal?
And I'm not following your presupposition statement.

Apparently you believe in a Creator. What mechanism do you propose S/He used to effect these creations?

 

[averageJOE]

Turtles have turtles, humans have humans, birds have birds, fish have fish. Nothing other than that has ever been seen.

Hmmm...
So a box turtle can give birth to a sea turtle...
A humming bird can give birth to a penquin...
And a gold fish can give birth to a great white shark...
Interesting. I never knew that.

 

[2nd mouse]

It depends on what you mean by “progression” in this context. Evolution simply predicts a gradual shift, but there is no goal or end point.

This is what I mean by progression. It's the primary definaition.
1.the act of progressing; forward or onward movement.
Now the isolated definition doesn not insist on a goal, but Darwins theory clearly does. Everything evolves toward superiority. There cannot be a sustained regressive evolution if you adhere to the concept of natural selection.

You are correct to say that each step in the development of the flagellum must be functional, but the point you are missing is that each step need not be functional as a flagellum. Different parts and different stages may have had served completely different function, and as long as they are functional (any function) they can be acted upon by natural selection.

You guys have to remember something that is critical to this debate. You cannot begin your argument from an allready functioning organism. If you cannot grasp that we are just spinning our wheels here.

The other point that you have to keep in mind is that any suggestion of irreducible complexity can be debunked simply by showing that it could have evolved by gradual steps and natural selection. It is not necessary to show how it actually did evolve.

The concept of irreducible complexity is quite correct, if such a thing could be shown then it would falsify evolution. But that is a big “if”. No such examples have passed scrutiny so far. As you have pointed out this basic concept comes directly from Darwin, but Behe does deserve some credit for refining the idea and proposing specifically how “it could be demonstrated that any complex organ” “could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications”. But this has still not been demonstrated.

 

[Jose Fly]

2nd Mouse,

You seem to have missed my reply to you.

CLICK HERE

 

[Jose Fly]

All you see is what the Bible says, animals and man reproducing after its own kind. You never see a new kind of creature born.

Nice try at avoiding the obvious. All we see is populations evolving, and the only way we've ever seen new species come about is via evolution. Yet you've never seen your god create anything, not even a single grain of sand.

And as long as there is no definition for "kind", any claims using that term are equally meaningless.

 

[camanintx]

Yes I did. But the problem I have with that report and the others like it is that they seem to miss the primary point of the argument, in my opinion, of irreducable complexity. It seems to me that the oposition papers , and this is the problem, start from an allready formed functioning organism. The argument of IC is that you cannot evolve from a simple non-functioning organism in minute incremental steps and end up with a functioning organism like a bacteria flagellum.

Why do you have to start with a non-functioning organism?

 

[2nd mouse]

2nd Mouse,

You seem to have missed my reply to you.

CLICK HERE

No I saw it

 

[camanintx]

All you see is what the Bible says, animals and man reproducing after its own kind. You never see a new kind of creature born.

Are lions and tigers the same "kind"?

Are camels and llamas the same "kind"?

Are dolphins and false killer whales the same "kind"?

These animals appear to be far more different than humans and chimps.

 

[MSizer]

Are lions and tigers the same "kind"?

Are camels and llamas the same "kind"?

Are dolphins and false killer whales the same "kind"?

These animals appear to be far more different than humans and chimps.

Yet all fish are more closely related to humans than to some other fish.

 

[2nd mouse]

Why do you have to start with a non-functioning organism?

Your not just pulling my leg....? Right...?

That is what the entire argument of irreducible complexity is about !

You cannot evolve a simple non-complex organism, which Darwin clearly says everything sprouted from, into a complex one like the Bacterial flagellum by Darwins method of minute incremental change. The BF requires multiple proteins present at the same time to be functional. Darwins theory does not allow for multiple changes occuring at once. At least not without alot of hoop jumping and misdirection.

Once again I must say, this not a difficult equation to understand. I am puzzled as to why so many cannot, or perhaps will not, grasp it.

 

[Autodidact]

You asked for examples of fraud. You got them. Here's another:

A fly suspended in a chunk of amber, or fossilized tree sap, was long revered in scientific circles as a perfectly preserved specimen from 38 million years ago. However, New Scientist magazine reported that this prized specimen has actually turned out to be “an entomological crime on a par with the Piltdown hoax.” It seems that at least 140 years ago, some con artist actually sliced open the piece of amber, made a hollow in one of the halves, and placed a common latrine fly inside. This “fossil” was sold to England’s Natural History Museum back in 1922 and has since been examined by top scientists, even being mentioned in a book on fossils as recently as 1992.

That's so interesting, but what does it have to do with the Theory of Evolution? Did someone here, or anywhere, claim that ToE is true because of this fly?

 

[Jose Fly]

No I saw it

And? If your plan is to ignore questions and not really participate in a discussion, please let me know now.

 

[Autodidact]

Boy there sure are alot of hostile evolutionists. I have a question not yet posted in this thread.

I understand evolution to be, in general, the incremental change or progression of an organism over time.

No, it isn't. Before you try to destroy a theory, your first step (just a first tiny step) would be to learn what it is.

Evolutionists argue that the reason we do not see obvious examples of these changes is because the change takes place in such minute almost imperceptible increments down on the cellular level.

No, they don't. So a good second step for you would be to learn what the other side actually does argue.

My question is, what is the evolutionists explanation of the well documented and discussed concept of irreducable complexity on the sub-cellular level ?

There isn't any.

And please do not ask for proof of the documents or evidence of the discussions. Intellectually honest people know it is a factual proven science. Google it

No, it isn't, it's a big fat lie that has been thoroughly debunked.

Darwin from his 1859 book Origin of Species

- "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"

Yup. And there isn't. That's why the theory is still around.

 

[Autodidact]

The science on this issue that has been debunked depends on which side of the argument you are on. There are no absolute facts proving transitional speices and there never will be.

You don't even know what the term means. In fact there are millions--literally millions--of them.

I will admit to inter-specie mutations but those mutations have been thoroughly proven to be regressive as well as progressive which flies in the face of Darwins theory.

Baloney.

And further more, the amount of time that it would take for evolution to progress to it's present day point is staggeringly out of step with even the most liberal estimates of the earth's age.

Nope. In fact they're quite consistent with the actual age of the earth. And udnerlining your assertion doesn't change that.

Please show your math.

Evolution is is a theory and nothing else.

Ding ding ding! ULTRAFAIL! Poster exhibits ignorance so elementary that no further discussion is possible until poster gains some basic education into the scientific method.

Both sides passionately refute the others conclusions with their own interpretation of the evidence.

And one is wrong and one is right.

The fact is you believe in intellegent design because it supports your preheld belief in a Creator. You believe in evolution because it supports your preheld belief that there is no Creator. Both positions are based on faith.

No, you're completely wrong. In fact, you're one of the wrongest posters we've had in some time. The Theory of Evolution (ToE) has absolutely nothing to say about whether there is a Creator, and is perfectly consistent with the idea that there is one.

He did what many scientists do today. They form a conclusion and set out to prove it.

No, that's the opposite of what scientists do; that's what creationists do. Lying doesn't help your case.

So what you're saying is that science doesn't work? We cannot and should not rely on science to learn about the world?

 

[Jose Fly]

Your not just pulling my leg....? Right...?

That is what the entire argument of irreducible complexity is about !

You cannot evolve a simple non-complex organism, which Darwin clearly says everything sprouted from, into a complex one like the Bacterial flagellum by Darwins method of minute incremental change. The BF requires multiple proteins present at the same time to be functional. Darwins theory does not allow for multiple changes occuring at once. At least not without alot of hoop jumping and misdirection.

Once again I must say, this not a difficult equation to understand. I am puzzled as to why so many cannot, or perhaps will not, grasp it.

If that's the case, then "irreducible complexity" is nothing more than a straw man argument. If you read the paper I linked for you, you understand that the evolutionary scenario for a bacterial flagellum does not involve anything happening "all at once" or sprouting from a non-functional organism (and what exactly is a "non-functional organism" anyway?).

Perhaps that's why the scientific community quickly rejected Behe's argument.