What does the fossil record say?

[Dirty Penguin]

This is false information. He did it in his work and reported extensively on it. See below.

He does not. Do you even understand his papers? Did you actually read it? Not just the Abstract. He does not really go into detail on "Intelligent Design". He points others to Behe, Demski and a few other ID proponents. He did not present any testable evidence for the science community as to how one can falsify ("intelligent design"). This was not in his paper. He basically says...(because there seems to be no answer for X at the moment and (I) don't see the ToE capable of answering it then we can't rule out ID)....This is not science and it's not how science is done.

It is not up to you to decide where a person gets his work published.

I gave you the sources that are the most well known in the scientific community. These aren't some "Publishing House" making books.....If you knew anything about the Peer process you'd understand that skirting around the actual process does not get your work taken seriously by the scientific community. He hasn't submitted his work to (Science) and (Nature). He promotes ID and the majority of the science community is not on board with that. Case in point....

Access : Axeing of website article sparks row at Max Planck : Nature
The Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Cologne has removed the detailed description of 'intelligent design' from its website, following complaints from scientists that it was inconsistent with the laboratory's scientific mission.The article, which was posted by Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, a theorist at the institute, discusses the idea that an intelligent force must be responsible for the origin of the Universe and for the diversity of life forms.

You are unable to show me where or when his paper has been rejected by the "scientific community."
Let me see you prove that.

You're promoting him and referencing his work. How about you show that the scientific community is actually backing his hypothesis on ID? The very article above in (Nature) says information he endorsed concerning ID was removed from the Institute's website, a institute where he works because, and I quote.... "intelligent design.......was inconsistent with the laboratory's scientific mission".

The ToE has you all messed up.
1. You are unable to get past your prejudices.

I only judge on scientific merit or the lack of.

2. You exhibit a marked hatred for a man named Behe, a person you do not even know. How do I know? You NEVER say anything nice about him.

I'm familiar with his position on "irreducible Complexity", something that Lonnig draws heavily on (W.-E. Loennig: Dynamic Genomes) but that hypothesis has been refuted.

3. You summarily dismiss any information that disagrees with the ToE.

Because most of it is outdated, false, has been refuted or not consider science but rather regarded as (pseudoscience).....(i.e. ID and creationism).

4. You demonstrate a religious fervor for the ToE, a fervor that could drive you to violence.

For the record, I'm not a violent person and don't have any desire to be but your opinion is duly noted.

5. You seem to be at war with God and Lonnig.

My view on a "god" has nothing to do with the thread. As far as Lonnig, I'm not at "war" but at odds, especially with his view on (irreducible complexity)....

Never backed up what "assertion?"
No testable data?

uhh, no...That's what I said. What testable evidence does he offer for "design"..?

If this is the paper you're referring to, read carefully:
"(2) In biology the term “law” is often interchangeably used with the label “rule”, as in the case of the Mendelian “rules” or “laws”. Strictly speaking, a law makes testable predictions on the basis of a set of preconditions and does not permit any exceptions from its deductions. Since so far I do not know of any valid exceptions of this principle for induced and spontaneous random mutations as deduced above, I presently prefer to speak of the “law” of recurrent variation sensu stricto (researchers should, perhaps, constantly remind themselves that not only mutation breeding but also any expectations to artificially ‘speed up evolution’ (Muller) by mutations in the wild largely failed because of this law)."
http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

I've read it and "The Law of Recurrent Variation" is his own catch title. It bears no weight on the fossil record.

Consider:
"How is it possible that cases of insufficient or even false evidence for natural selection can be bolstered and presented in such a way that it appears to be so convincing and entirely compelling that even the best minds of the world can be grossly misled - even to the point of modifying a published evaluation on this topic?"
(Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig)

His "OPINION" is duly noted. You won't mind it if I don't agree with him will you?

 

[Krok]

I have a feeling that you lose sleep over the fact that I won't fall for your evolution junk.

Why do all these creationists think that they are so important? I, mean, they do appear so ridiculously unintelligent to other people. Maybe it's a result of an inferiorty comlex because they know that no real scientist takes them seriously but keeps laughing at them? Do they see laughing as "persecution"?

 

[Jose Fly]

Wilson,

Again:

So Wilson, since you clearly have no desire to subject your empty assertion about fossils to any sort of scrutiny, perhaps you can explain something for me. You've claimed that evolutionary transitions are totally lacking in the fossil record. How exactly do you know? Have you studied fossil specimens? Do you regularly peruse the relevant scientific journals? Do you attend conferences and symposiums and discuss the fossil record with professionals? Have you taken relevant undergraduate or graduate level courses?

Tell me Wilson, how did you come to be such an expert in paleontology that you feel qualified to speak as an authority about it?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I have a feeling that you lose sleep over the fact that I won't fall for your evolution junk.

All we're doing is debating. I'm not asking or demanding you to believe me. If you state something I think is incorrect I'm going to counter the argument. I accept the fact that you believe "evolution" is "junk"......If you don't want to talk about the fossil record and evolution is junk then why are you here....

First, you targeted me and found that I am not so easily broken. Your latest attack is now focused on the Bible and you lie about it.

I'm not attacking your bible. If I displayed anything here it's been isolated to your creation narrative and maybe your flood narrative. I don't agree with them as they are incorrect as to what we see and what we know about nature.

Yet, it has outlasted all other forms of knowledge or schools of learning and will continue to do so. It also contains the answers to all the situations mentioned above and has been the source of comfort to millions of people the world over.
So - you think the Bible = Christianity?

You are a christian and Buddhism and Hinduism are older than your school of thought. Judaism is a different school of thought. The majority of Jews do not accept your messiah as their messiah. They teach a whole different way of living. This makes it a different school of thought. So I spoke correctly.....Both schools of thought I mentioned above are older than yours.

The oldest known Hindu writings date back to the 4th century B.C.E

Are you sure?

Rigveda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"It is one of the oldest extant texts in any Indo-European language. Philological and linguistic evidence indicate that the Rigveda was composed in the north-western region of the Indian subcontinent, roughly between 1700–1100 BC (the early Vedic period)."

Life only comes from life. Clear enough?

It's clear enough for me but can you understand the question considering your bible says.....

Genesis 2:7
וַיִּיצֶר֩ יְהוָ֨ה אֱלֹהִ֜ים אֶת־הָֽאָדָ֗ם עָפָר֙ מִן־הָ֣אֲדָמָ֔ה וַיִּפַּ֥ח בְּאַפָּ֖יו נִשְׁמַ֣ת חַיִּ֑ים וַֽיְהִ֥י הָֽאָדָ֖ם לְנֶ֥פֶשׁ חַיָּֽה׃בראשית

And the YHWH God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul.

Is it your contention that the (dust) was alive?

What you know of the natural world does not equip you to deal wisely with it. You and your technology are destroying it. It is YOU who must be stopped at all costs or you will manage to stop all life on earth.

Your homework assignment for tonight is to study philosophy, sociology and economics and try your hardest to separate them from biology, anthropology and paleontology. We're discussing the fossil record here....not the woes of the world.

Still - you are unable to tell me the origin of life - the life that gave existence to those holy fossils of yours.

While your bible mentions the (who), you're no closer to confirming that the (who) exist nor if said (who) is the designer. You aren't even able to show evidence of design. You are unable to tell us how.

Evolution falls flat on that vital question.

And it's been explained to you over and over that Evolution does not address "the beginning of life" rather it explains change in life over time and the diversity of life on the planet.

The bible tells me everything I need to know in order to live a quiet life of love for fellow men and in peace with all kinds of people.

That's great for you and I would not take that away from you....but that has nothing the do with what the fossil record says....

Evolution cannot accomplish that.

Nor is it supposed to.

Oh I understand evolution very well.

It doesn't really seem like you do.

I will never accept nor believe it.

You have every right to that decision.

The question was meant to be a joke, m*ke.
Dogs CANNOT give birth to chickens. They are of different kinds.

They are certainly of a different species.....which is probably why I didn't the joke.

Apes CANNOT become humans, no matter how many times you say it. See:

I agree....especially considering I never said that....Nor does Evolution suggest it. The genomic evidence suggest we (man and various primates) share a common ancestor.

Access : Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content : Nature

I totally agree with this article found in (Nature).

The Bible points out that the flesh of the various kinds of living things differs.
“Not all flesh is the same flesh, but there is one of mankind, and there is another flesh of cattle, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish.” (1 Corinthians 15:39)
This has been found to be the case by researchers; they have noted that the chemical composition and cellular structure of the flesh of mankind, beasts, birds, and fish vary greatly. This situation CANNOT be changed.

Is it that the banana and humans share 50% DNA or does the bible have an answer for that too? When it comes to primates and humans what's beneath the skin counts considerably (See: Your source from Nature).

"Here we finished sequencing of the male-specific region of the Y chromosome (MSY) in our closest living relative, the chimpanzee, achieving levels of accuracy and completion previously reached for the human MSY"

 

[Autodidact]

Oh I understand evolution very well. I will never accept nor believe it.
The question was meant to be a joke, m*ke.
Dogs CANNOT give birth to chickens. They are of different kinds.
Apes CANNOT become humans, no matter how many times you say it. See:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/full/nature08700.html

Your post makes false claims about the Theory of Evolution (ToE) and what it says. There are only two choices. Either you don't understand what it says, or you are a liar. Which is it?

My guess is that you falsely believe that you understand it.

Why don't you prove me wrong and tell us exactly what you believe ToE says?

 

[wilsoncole]

He did not present any testable evidence for the science community as to how one can falsify ("intelligent design").

He does now!
I now present - your chief enemy with proof of the ability to falsify ID.
[youtube]N8jXXJN4o_A[/youtube]
YouTube - Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design
See that? He said: Alter the gene that controls the production of the flagellum, grow a series of generations and see if the microbe survives.

This is not science and it's not how science is done.

THAT is now science is done.
Behe does not bother me but his very existence bothers you.
And he works, successfully, as a scientist - a biologist, to be exact. I have a feeling you would axe him - if only you could.
How do you explain that?

Access : Axeing of website article sparks row at Max Planck : Nature
The Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Cologne has removed the detailed description of 'intelligent design' from its website, following complaints from scientists that it was inconsistent with the laboratory's scientific mission.The article, which was posted by Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, a theorist at the institute, discusses the idea that an intelligent force must be responsible for the origin of the Universe and for the diversity of life forms.

The information still got out - on his own website.
All of this just makes it quite plain that your fight is really with God. You will lose.

Originally Posted by wilsoncole View Post
The ToE has you all messed up.
1. You are unable to get past your prejudices.

I only judge on scientific merit or the lack of.

I see no denial of the charge of prejudice.
So you’ve exalted yourself to be a judge and jury of your fellow humans. Clearly, you have no use for Behe, Lonnig, myself, or people like us.

Originally Posted by wilsoncole View Post
2. You exhibit a marked hatred for a man named Behe, a person you do not even know. How do I know? You NEVER say anything nice about him.

I'm familiar with his position on "irreducible Complexity", something that Lonnig draws heavily on (W.-E. Loennig: Dynamic Genomes) but that hypothesis has been refuted.

I see no denial of the charge of hating Behe. In true Christian thought, hating a man is equal to murdering him. Now you're his executioner.
“He who does not love remains in death. 15 Everyone who hates his brother is a manslayer, and YOU know that no manslayer has everlasting life remaining in him. 16 By this we have come to know love, because that one surrendered his soul for us; and we are under obligation to surrender [our] souls for [our] brothers.” (1 John 3:14-16)

Originally Posted by wilsoncole View Post
4. You demonstrate a religious fervor for the ToE, a fervor that could drive you to violence.

For the record, I'm not a violent person and don't have any desire to be but your opinion is duly noted.

I was right! The potential for violence lies in your hatred.

You're promoting him (Lonnig) and referencing his work.

Me? You’re kidding! Do you really believe that I have that much influence?

How about you show that the scientific community is actually backing his hypothesis on ID?

I don’t have to do that. He’s quite a successful scientist just the way he is. You've shown nothing that indicates his work as a geneticist has been rejected by what you call the "scientific community." Its his opinions on origin that has your shorts in a tangle. You would persecute him for that. How is your attitude any different from the religious Pharisees of Jesus' day? They took the side of Rome in their persecution of him and they were all subsequently slaughtered - ironically, by Rome - regardless. The early Christian congregation survived that slaughter by paying attention to a warning given by Christ.
This simply means: WE WILL SURVIVE!

The very article above in (Nature) says information he endorsed concerning ID was removed from the Institute's website, a institute where he works because, and I quote.... "intelligent design.......was inconsistent with the laboratory's scientific mission".

Originally Posted by wilsoncole View Post
5. You seem to be at war with God and Lonnig.

My view on a "god" has nothing to do with the thread.

Sure it does! It is on this very thread that your hatred of God became manifest to me.

As far as Lonnig, I'm not at "war" but at odds, especially with his view on (irreducible complexity).…

Your war with Lonnig is evident, too. I happen to favor irreducible complexity, so you are at war with me, too.
That amounts to prejudice.
DEFINITION:
3. “irrational dislike of somebody: an unfounded hatred, fear, or mistrust of a person or group, especially one of a particular religion, ethnicity, nationality, or social status.”

Originally Posted by wilsoncole View Post
Consider:
"How is it possible that cases of insufficient or even false evidence for natural selection can be bolstered and presented in such a way that it appears to be so convincing and entirely compelling that even the best minds of the world can be grossly misled - even to the point of modifying a published evaluation on this topic?"
(Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig)

His "OPINION" is duly noted. You won't mind it if I don't agree with him will you?

If you are able, (I doubt it) look at the statement, not the man. Tell me what is wrong with it.

I've read it and "The Law of Recurrent Variation" is his own catch title. It bears no weight on the fossil record.

It is the fossil record that carries no weight. Not where it really matters.
Like I warned you, I am going to go looking for quotes by Behe and let you have them.

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

oeGobRxLrN4[/youtube]
YouTube - Ken Miller's Embarrassingly Bad Argument Against ID




(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[Dirty Penguin]

He does now!
I now present - your chief enemy with proof of the ability to falsify ID.
[youtube]N8jXXJN4o_A[/youtube]
YouTube - Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design
See that? He said: Alter the gene that controls the production of the flagellum, grow a series of generations and see if the microbe survives.

Let's examine his claim as well as how he presented it in his book (Darwin's Black Box). Here's his statement. The Biology community sees this as a scientific challenge that can easily be addressed.

"An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly by numerous, successive, slight modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. .... "

Listen to his video and read his own words here. He's basically saying that systems are complex and if a part of the system is missing then the system itself will be non-functional.

Here's why he fails. His contention is that the Bacteria Flagellum is irreducibly complex. He'd had you to believe that you need to go to the lab to falsify this. This was already done naturally. I took time to watch your video of Behe (a biologist) please take a moment for mine.

[youtube]m2alpk8PUd4[/youtube]
YouTube - Irreducible Complexity (bacterial flagellum) debunked.flv


Behe testified that IC was indeed fact and even quoted a notable scientist but that scientist, who spoke with NOVA, refuted Behe's quoting of him as well as refuting Behe's portrayal of IC.
[youtube]a_5FToP_mMY[/youtube]
YouTube - Irreducible Complexity? The Bacterial Flagellum

So...Ireducible Complexity is bunk. The flagellum can and does function with more than one of its part missing and it's also important to note that the individual proteins themselves serve a separate function independent of the flagellum.

Behe does not bother me but his very existence bothers you.
And he works, successfully, as a scientist - a biologist, to be exact. I have a feeling you would axe him - if only you could.

He, as a peer reviewed biologist, doesn't bother me. See, you don't know me or even enough about Behe to make such a statement. Remember, Lonnig referenced Behe quite a bit in his work but the difference between the both of them is Behe accepts the fact of common ancestry between primates and humans. Something you appear to disagree with.

".....I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. I greatly respect the work of my colleagues who study the development and behavior of organisms within an evolutionary framework, and I think that evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world. Although Darwin's mechanism &#8211; natural selection working on variation &#8211; might explain many things, however, I do not believe it explains molecular life. I also do not think it surprising that the new science of the very small might change the way we view the less small." Darwin's Black Box, pp 5-6."

He also had this to say in his book (The Edge of Evolution.)

"For example, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C. ... It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans. ... Despite some remaining puzzles, there&#8217;s no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives.&#8221; The Edge of Evolution, pp 71-2.

Here is an "Intelligent Design" advocate expressing that the case for Common Ancestry, which you and newhope disagree, says is strong and he has no issue with that. See, you pick and choose from amongst your researchers as you see fit. While I disagree with Behe on IC, for good reason, I agree with his understanding of Common Ancestry here. Do you?

The information still got out - on his own website.
All of this just makes it quite plain that your fight is really with God. You will lose.
I see no denial of the charge of prejudice.

What? Did you not understand the crux of it? Scientist at his own institute disagrees with him and had the information removed from their websites because it was inconsistent with their scientific mission. So what if it goes out of his own website now? The goal was to show that he isn't taken as seriously, in regards to his position on intelligent design, as you'd have us to believe. Oh, and we're all "prejudice". To believe otherwise is to be ignorant of the fact.

So you&#8217;ve exalted yourself to be a judge and jury of your fellow humans. Clearly, you have no use for Behe, Lonnig, myself, or people like us.

There are somethings Behe and Lonnig mention I agree with. Anything to do with ID is untestable and falls into the category of (wishful thinking). You on the other hand...I don't even know you.....

I see no denial of the charge of hating Behe.

Don't try and put words in my mouth. Where did I ever say I hated him? I dislike his position on ID and IC.

I was right! The potential for violence lies in your hatred.

You deliberately seek to misunderstand or twist what I say don't you?

I said ("For the record, I'm not a violent person and don't have any desire to be but your opinion is duly noted."). What potential for violence and what hatred....considering I said I harbor none of these traits for either of these men?

Sure it does! It is on this very thread that your hatred of God became manifest to me.

Oh, so now I hate your god...?....

Your war with Lonnig is evident, too. I happen to favor irreducible complexity, so you are at war with me, too.

I'm not at "war"....I just recognize that both of your stances on IC are incorrect.

It is the fossil record that carries no weight. Not where it really matters.

In biology, anthropology, paleontology...etc...etc.. It sure does.

Like I warned you, I am going to go looking for quotes by Behe and let you have them.

See above. He accepts the fact of Common Ancestry, he endorses evolution but good luck with your hunt.

 

[wilsoncole]

Let's examine his claim as well as how he presented it in his book (Darwin's Black Box). Here's his statement. The Biology community sees this as a scientific challenge that can easily be addressed.

"An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly by numerous, successive, slight modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. .... "

Listen to his video and read his own words here. He's basically saying that systems are complex and if a part of the system is missing then the system itself will be non-functional.

Here's why he fails. His contention is that the Bacteria Flagellum is irreducibly complex. He'd had you to believe that you need to go to the lab to falsify this. This was already done naturally. I took time to watch your video of Behe (a biologist) please take a moment for mine.

[youtube]m2alpk8PUd4[/youtube]
YouTube - Irreducible Complexity (bacterial flagellum) debunked.flv

Behe testified that IC was indeed fact and even quoted a notable scientist but that scientist, who spoke with NOVA, refuted Behe's quoting of him as well as refuting Behe's portrayal of IC.
[youtube]a_5FToP_mMY[/youtube]
YouTube - Irreducible Complexity? The Bacterial Flagellum

So...Ireducible Complexity is bunk. The flagellum can and does function with more than one of its part missing and it's also important to note that the individual proteins themselves serve a separate function independent of the flagellum.

He, as a peer reviewed biologist, doesn't bother me.

Of course, he bothers you. Why, else, do you keep crowing about every seeming "victory" over him you think you've observed?

See, you don't know me or even enough about Behe to make such a statement. Remember, Lonnig referenced Behe quite a bit in his work but the difference between the both of them is Behe accepts the fact of common ancestry between primates and humans. Something you appear to disagree with.

".....I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. I greatly respect the work of my colleagues who study the development and behavior of organisms within an evolutionary framework, and I think that evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world. Although Darwin's mechanism &#8211; natural selection working on variation &#8211; might explain many things, however, I do not believe it explains molecular life. I also do not think it surprising that the new science of the very small might change the way we view the less small." Darwin's Black Box, pp 5-6."

He also had this to say in his book (The Edge of Evolution.)

"For example, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C. ... It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans. ... Despite some remaining puzzles, there&#8217;s no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives.&#8221; The Edge of Evolution, pp 71-2.

Here is an "Intelligent Design" advocate expressing that the case for Common Ancestry, which you and newhope disagree, says is strong and he has no issue with that. See, you pick and choose from amongst your researchers as you see fit. While I disagree with Behe on IC, for good reason, I agree with his understanding of Common Ancestry here. Do you?

NO! I am not Behe's champion. NONE of that concerns me! I do not agree with him on everything, MANY things, to be more precise - especially on the common ancestry thingy, but you just won't let up. You just keep right on throwing him up in my face. You will regret you keep doing that. I asked you not to, so I will be quoting him repeatedly, whether or not I agree with him.
On Lonnig:

What? Did you not understand the crux of it? Scientist at his own institute disagrees with him and had the information removed from their websites because it was inconsistent with their scientific mission. So what if it goes out of his own website now? The goal was to show that he isn't taken as seriously, in regards to his position on intelligent design, as you'd have us to believe. Oh, and we're all "prejudice". To believe otherwise is to be ignorant of the fact.

And I should be worried about that? I am not guided by humans and their philosophies.

There are somethings Behe and Lonnig mention I agree with. Anything to do with ID is untestable and falls into the category of (wishful thinking). You on the other hand...I don't even know you.....

Yet - you've made me your target.
Mr. Dirty,
Whether Lonnig or Behe is taken seriously or not does not concern me. I do not care about Behe's view on common ancestry. It is YOU that keep chucking him in my face. Now I'm chucking him back in yours.
ALL of the above has been argued before and remains unconvincing to me.
Point is this:
YOU said that ID is unfalsifiable - did you not?
Behe said it is, and he has gone on to suggest how it can be done.
Instead of continuing to argue the pros and cons of ID, why don't you just put his offered solution to the test? If it fails, you were right. If it succeeds, HE is right. That would end the argument - would it not? The simplicity of his suggestion indicates that it can be done.
Now I expect you to give me some elaborate excuse as to why you cannot test his theory. Would that be HIS fault? Would it be mine?

Don't try and put words in my mouth.

NO! That's the speciality of you and your friends.

Where did I ever say I hated him? I dislike his position on ID and IC.

I wrote:

Originally Posted by wilsoncole View Post
2. You exhibit a marked hatred for a man named Behe, a person you do not even know. How do I know? You NEVER say anything nice about him.

You responded thus:

I'm familiar with his position on "irreducible Complexity", something that Lonnig draws heavily on (W.-E. Loennig: Dynamic Genomes) but that hypothesis has been refuted.

I still see no denial of the charge of hating Behe. And you still are not saying anything nice about him.

You deliberately seek to misunderstand or twist what I say don't you?
I said ("For the record, I'm not a violent person and don't have any desire to be but your opinion is duly noted."). What potential for violence and what hatred....considering I said I harbor none of these traits for either of these men?

Would you mind showing me where you wrote that?

Oh, so now I hate your god...?....

Yep! Do you have any love for him? You adamantly deny ALL of his creative works and you elevate science over anything he says in his Holy word.

I'm not at "war"....I just recognize that both of your stances on IC are incorrect.

Let's see if you are at war:
If you just thought about it, your war is potential. You have taken action that shows your opposition to their positions. People have been threatened with arrest for the actions they take on certain issues. Research the actions taken against the great singer, Paul Robson, for actions and words in favor of Socialism.

In biology, anthropology, paleontology...etc...etc.. It sure does.

I repeat:

What good has it done the world? What good has it done you? It is worthless as far as solving the world's mushrooming problems are concerned. How can the fossil record stop the global economic free-fall? How can it stem the rising tide of violence? How can it get men to share the world's resources fairly? How can it protect your children from predators and online degradation? How can it stop the waste of warfare?
The Bible has the answers to all of that, the kind of stuff that is killing you and all of your generation.
I'll give you a Bible answer that you can test:
"You must love your fellow as yourself." (Leviticus 18:19)
You can test that and see how well it works.

You have avoided addressing these issues so far.

See above. He accepts the fact of Common Ancestry, he endorses evolution but good luck with your hunt.

I told you: I don't care about that.
BTW:
What is "Dollo's Law?"
And Vavilov&#8217;s "Law of Homologous Series in Variation?"
How have these "laws" been dealt with in the "scientific community?"
BTW:
I see you have avoided addressing Ken Miller's tieclip demonstration of the mousetrap.

(\__/)
( &#8216; .&#8216; )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[Jose Fly]

Wilson,

Again:

So Wilson, since you clearly have no desire to subject your empty assertion about fossils to any sort of scrutiny, perhaps you can explain something for me. You've claimed that evolutionary transitions are totally lacking in the fossil record. How exactly do you know? Have you studied fossil specimens? Do you regularly peruse the relevant scientific journals? Do you attend conferences and symposiums and discuss the fossil record with professionals? Have you taken relevant undergraduate or graduate level courses?

Tell me Wilson, how did you come to be such an expert in paleontology that you feel qualified to speak as an authority about it?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Of course, he bothers you. Why, else, do you keep crowing about every seeming "victory" over him you think you've observed?

You misunderstand. I'm not looking at this as a "victory". I see it as misinformation that needed to be corrected. The scientific community did just that.

NO! I am not Behe's champion. NONE of that concerns me!

I never said you do. What is patently obvious is that Lonnig draws from Behe. Behe's argument on irreducible complexity, which Lonnig as well as you support, has been shown to be incorrect. That's all I'm saying. It's very difficult to take their positions seriously considering the facts.

I do not agree with him on everything, MANY things, to be more precise - especially on the common ancestry thingy, but you just won't let up.

Can you now understand the confusion? Lonnig as well as you pick and choose the information you will and won't accept. Lonnig does not accept Common Ancestry yet he quotes from Behe, a fellow scientist, who does. It is a most interesting thing to see. ID proponents and creationist take issue with current scientist and throw up a list of their scientist for support of their position and yet they can't seem to agree as to what information they will or won't accept.

Yet - you've made me your target.

I'm simply dialoguing with you considering you're the only creationist left in the thread. Everyone else has abandoned you and moved on to other threads.

Mr. Dirty,
Whether Lonnig or Behe is taken seriously or not does not concern me.

You should because what's the point in linking us to Lonnig if you don't care whether he is taken seriously or not?

ALL of the above has been argued before and remains unconvincing to me.

Which part....the two videos I presented by multiple scientist who refute irreducible complexity?

Point is this:
YOU said that ID is unfalsifiable - did you not?
Behe said it is, and he has gone on to suggest how it can be done.
Instead of continuing to argue the pros and cons of ID, why don't you just put his offered solution to the test? If it fails, you were right. If it succeeds, HE is right. That would end the argument - would it not? The simplicity of his suggestion indicates that it can be done.

This is why I presented the two videos. Did you watch them? I watched the one you posted even though I have seen that one before. Each of the proteins in the Bacteria Flagellum have separate functions in other cells separate from the flagellum. The Type3 Secretory system is like the flagellum but with 40 of those proteins not there. It functions perfectly delivery such known nasties like Bubonic Plague

Now I expect you to give me some elaborate excuse as to why you cannot test his theory. Would that be HIS fault? Would it be mine?

We already know it's incorrect. See above as well as the videos I posted. For the record..Behe does not have a ("theory")...what he has is an hypothesis.

I still see no denial of the charge of hating Behe. And you still are not saying anything nice about him.

I don't "hate" the man. Nor do I "hate" Lonnig. "Hate" is your word. I "dislike" their view on specific topics that's all.

Yep! Do you have any love for him?

No. I don't have a belief in gods...etc...etc...

You adamantly deny ALL of his creative works

Because there is no evidence your god created anything.

you elevate science over anything he says in his Holy word.

Because what I've read in your bible is wrong and inconsistent with what we know of the natural world.

You have avoided addressing these issues so far.

Because they have absolutely nothing to do with this thread.

Law of Homologous Series in Variation
BTW:
What is "Dollo's Law?"
And Vavilov&#8217;s "Law of Homologous Series in Variation?"
How have these "laws" been dealt with in the "scientific community?"

I'm not sure. I don't know much botany. But PW recently answered this question.

BTW:
I see you have avoided addressing Ken Miller's tieclip demonstration of the mousetrap.

I didn't know I needed to. Yes it's a tie clip. The mouse trap was no loger considered "irreducibly complex". If the hypothesis is that the system will cease to function if just one part is removed then the test is to remove a part or even more to see if the system can function. In Miller's case... it function perfectly as a tie clip.

Did you ever answer the question I raised concerning Genesis 2:7...?

 

[painted wolf]

Dollo's law = evolution is not reversible. A trait once lost can not be regained, though a similar trait can be evolved independently. An example would be the pandas thumb. Extremely well supported by genetics.

Vavilov&#8217;s law of homologous series in variation = The closer two species are related, the more traits they will share in common.
This is fully supported by genetics.

wa:do

 

[tumbleweed41]

Hmmmm....


Does the fossil record provide empirical evidence that humanity, life and the Earth are the creation of a supernatural being?

 

[Autodidact]

Of course, he bothers you. Why, else, do you keep crowing about every seeming "victory" over him you think you've observed?
NO! I am not Behe's champion. NONE of that concerns me! I do not agree with him on everything, MANY things, to be more precise - especially on the common ancestry thingy, but you just won't let up. You just keep right on throwing him up in my face. You will regret you keep doing that. I asked you not to, so I will be quoting him repeatedly, whether or not I agree with him.
On Lonnig:
And I should be worried about that? I am not guided by humans and their philosophies.
Yet - you've made me your target.
Mr. Dirty,
Whether Lonnig or Behe is taken seriously or not does not concern me. I do not care about Behe's view on common ancestry. It is YOU that keep chucking him in my face. Now I'm chucking him back in yours.
ALL of the above has been argued before and remains unconvincing to me.
Point is this:
YOU said that ID is unfalsifiable - did you not?
Behe said it is, and he has gone on to suggest how it can be done.
Instead of continuing to argue the pros and cons of ID, why don't you just put his offered solution to the test? If it fails, you were right. If it succeeds, HE is right. That would end the argument - would it not? The simplicity of his suggestion indicates that it can be done.
Now I expect you to give me some elaborate excuse as to why you cannot test his theory. Would that be HIS fault? Would it be mine?
NO! That's the speciality of you and your friends.
I wrote:
You responded thus:
I still see no denial of the charge of hating Behe. And you still are not saying anything nice about him.
Would you mind showing me where you wrote that?
Yep! Do you have any love for him? You adamantly deny ALL of his creative works and you elevate science over anything he says in his Holy word.
Let's see if you are at war:
If you just thought about it, your war is potential. You have taken action that shows your opposition to their positions. People have been threatened with arrest for the actions they take on certain issues. Research the actions taken against the great singer, Paul Robson, for actions and words in favor of Socialism.
I repeat:
You have avoided addressing these issues so far.
I told you: I don't care about that.
BTW:
What is "Dollo's Law?"
And Vavilov’s "Law of Homologous Series in Variation?"
How have these "laws" been dealt with in the "scientific community?"
BTW:
I see you have avoided addressing Ken Miller's tieclip demonstration of the mousetrap.

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

You seem fascinated by how people feel about other people. May I suggest that it might be more productive to focus on the facts and evidence? Just a suggestion.

 

[Biblestudent_007]

What does the fossil record say?

That different kinds of creatures (possibly the Dinosaurs) used to to exist.

 

[tumbleweed41]

[/url]

That different kinds of creatures (possibly the Dinosaurs) used to to exist.

Possibly...

 

[bob gill]

in other words what your trying to say is that there is no evidence of transitional change in the fossil record

 

[newhope101]

Hmmmm....


Does the fossil record provide empirical evidence that humanity, life and the Earth are the creation of a supernatural being?

Yes, researchers are too blind and drunk on TOE to see it.

Examples Cats. God made a cat kind. He may have made one breeding pair or hundreds. They may have been identical, they may have been varied.

The fossil record shows miacis, that looks more like a cat than a weasel. The cat similarity is obvious. You use it as some mid species when it is not. Miacis is a cat, and you have found fossils of other cats. Miacis is not a mid species it is one of the older fossils you have found of the kind 'cat'.


Miacis


***** Cat

The same goes for Indohyus. Researchers use this as evidence of hippo/dear (flavour of the month) transition to a whale. Indohyus resembles a mouse deer.


Mouse deer

The deer like Indohyus

..and we all know how great your researchers representations are eg Neanderthal the ape man.

Then of course there is the DNA evidence. Did you know that HGT happens at all levels of life. Seriously..there is no evidence her for TOE either, only amazement at what you do not understand.

"Sequence comparisons suggest recent horizontal transfer of many genes among diverse species including across the boundaries of phylogenetic "domains". Thus determining the phylogenetic history of a species can not be done conclusively by determining evolutionary trees for single genes."[15]
Horizontal gene transfer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is plenty of evidence for creation. However in the hands of the unstable it is mongrelised into whatever suits. eg teletubbies are bipedal therefore in the human line..
.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Newhope, how do you still not understand how evolution works?

There is no such thing as a "between species". Also, on what criteria do you define the "cat" kind? You can't just say "it looks like a cat", because most of those species you referenced look just as much like dogs, mice or other mammals than they do cats. So, how do you establish that these fossils are of the "cat kind"?

Also, how is any of this evidence of creation?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Yes, researchers are too blind and drunk on TOE to see it.

Examples Cats. God made a cat kind. He may have made one breeding pair or hundreds. They may have been identical, they may have been varied.

The fossil record shows miacis, that looks more like a cat than a weasel. The cat similarity is obvious. You use it as some mid species when it is not. Miacis is a cat, and you have found fossils of other cats. Miacis is not a mid species it is one of the older fossils you have found of the kind 'cat'.


Miacis


***** Cat

The same goes for Indohyus. Researchers use this as evidence of hippo/dear (flavour of the month) transition to a whale. Indohyus resembles a mouse deer.


Mouse deer

The deer like Indohyus

..and we all know how great your researchers representations are eg Neanderthal the ape man.

Then of course there is the DNA evidence. Did you know that HGT happens at all levels of life. Seriously..there is no evidence her for TOE either, only amazement at what you do not understand.

"Sequence comparisons suggest recent horizontal transfer of many genes among diverse species including across the boundaries of phylogenetic "domains". Thus determining the phylogenetic history of a species can not be done conclusively by determining evolutionary trees for single genes."[15]
Horizontal gene transfer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is plenty of evidence for creation. However in the hands of the unstable it is mongrelised into whatever suits. eg teletubbies are bipedal therefore in the human line..
.

So, in your mind...Cats provide empirical evidence that humanity, life and the Earth are the creation of a supernatural being?


That explains a lot...