What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
New Food Sprinkle Convinces the Brain to Stop Over-Eating view!
howlifeworks.com - How sophisticated scents are helping people control their appetite and lose weight
29 Comments
- GlobalRoamer, on 10/07/2008, -0/+6Please forgive my paraphrase. I didn't know we were going to have so much fun engaging in deep scientific discussion.
The quotation you are looking for in the Origin of Species is; "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."
Darwin assumed, as my nine year old daughter does, that a cell is a black box. We have all learned some science since Darwin's dreaming, and learned that DNA is exceedingly complex, as is mitochondria and vacuoles. Just these three alone could never have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications.
You guys got me on the "every species is a transitional species." Here you give credit to Darwin for something he never wrote about or theorized about. The word you hate the most; MUTATION. Darwin's theories were left for sci-fi readers until Gregor Mendle discovered mutations.
When Mendle discovered mutations the Darwinists were back in business again. So was Adolf Hitler, Louis Farrakhan (all white people are blue-eyed devils), and Barak Obama.
The FACT is that there are no transitional species. There are no transitional species in the fossil record with DNA to prove it's ancestry. The scientific method still relies upon empirical proof does it not? Give me one example of empirical truth other than some archeologist finding a ape jaw one place and gorilla toe 100 meters away and claims there is the proof.
Without proof yours will remain pure sophistry and junk science.
BTW. I wrote all of the above without calling names. - Dimensio, on 10/07/2008, -1/+7Do you have any rational argument to offer?
- gordonj, on 10/07/2008, -2/+7"Perhaps you can tell me how blood clots without platelets? Perhaps you can also tell me how the tie clip catches mice?"
Perhaps you can tell me why a current lack of understanding regarding the evolution of a system disproves evolution. God of the gaps arguments are not valid evidence against something.
"Did you ever read "On the Origin of Species" or do you just call people liars that disagree with you?"
The quote you gave did not come from the origin of species. I believe the one you were thinking about is:
"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree."
"I never mentioned "intelligent design" since you brought it up what about "punctuated equilibrium" dividing the evolutionist camps? Examples, I am sure you know, are sharks, crocodiles, horseshoe crabs."
So you bring up irreducible complexity but not ID. Gosh I wonder why you would try to undermine evolutionary theory with claims of irreducible complexity if you are not in fact trying to push ID? (you wouldn't happen to be religious now would you?)
What about punctuated equilibrium?
"What happens if you take away the flagellum from the bacteria that have flagellum?"
That depends on the environment.
"You also missed a question. Did a human ever make such a motor?"
They still do. It's attached to sperm.
"What about "gradualism" that states there hasn't been enough time for any evolution to happen?"
That is generally a religious argument based on the Biblical timeline of creation, which isn't supported by any fields of natural science. You need to look up gradualism. It doesn't state that there hasn't been enough time for any evolution to happen, but that evolution occurs at a slow and smooth rate in all organisms and that new species gradually appear.
"You seem well schooled on the subject. Can you give me one example of a "transitional species?""
Every species is a transitional species.
"The field of evolution generates huge sums of money and professional scientists are out to make all they can. Let's not let our intellect get lost in their goals. You can't do a dig, find a ape skull, and 100 meters away find what looks to be a human toe and claim you found the missing link."
I'm not an anthropologist or an archaeologist (i.e. a scientific expert in the field of bone finding). There is far more evidence for evolution than just the hominid fossil record from different scientific fields.
"Why would anyone in their right mind use Taxonomy as the sole basis for belief in evolution, and defense of it to the point of secular humanism?"
I wouldn't use taxonomy as a sole basis for belief in evolution as that would leave out reams of evidence from other fields.
Also, it is VERY misguided and self-centred to think that evolutionary theory is somehow an invention to undermine religion. You are way off the mark. If you wish to legitimately make an attack on evolution, you HAVE to use real science, or you won't be taken seriously. - LordScarab, on 10/07/2008, -2/+7Might I sugest you watch Ken Miller's lectures on the subject these "biological irreducibly complex machines" as you call them all have been debunked and they do break down to simpler components.
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg
And during the dover case on Inteligent design Ken Miler used a mouse trap (without the catch) as a tie clip (albiet a bulky ugly one) so that 2 is a bad example - GlobalRoamer, on 10/07/2008, -0/+5Come on gents, we were having such a lovely exchange of ideas.
I did a paraphrase on Darwin, you challenged me, I got the corrected version to you. And now silence.
We know there was a time when Darwin was relegated to science fantasy because there was no proof of intermediate species. Then along comes Gregor Mendle who discovers Mutations. With mutations Darwin followers now jump back on the bandwagon because it must be mutations that Darwin was referring to, but it wasn't. There are over 1500 known human mutations and not a one of them was a less than destructive change.
But it was good new for Hitler, and for scientists who make their living off of junk science.
Darwin said; "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." The human cell in all of it's complexities, with enough DNA coding to fill more than an encyclopedia, didn't evolve. Surely Darwin would have agreed.
I am ready for you to fill this blog with your intelligence and show me how dumb I really am. Please correct me where I go wrong?
Me thinks Darwin laughs at you from his grave. - gordonj, on 10/07/2008, -3/+8"Darwin once said; "if anyone could uncover a biological irreducibly complex machine the theory of evolution would be proven false.""
No, he didn't, you just made that up.
"Without the flagellum you don't just get a stationary one celled creature, you get a dead one that doesn't reproduce."
No, there are plenty of bacteria that don't have flagella that can reproduce just fine. That too is a lie.
Intelligent design is not a valid scientific hypothesis, because conclusions don't come first in science. - ApokalypseNow, on 10/07/2008, -2/+7Addendum to gordonj's response:
"Perhaps you can also tell me how the tie clip catches mice?"
It doesn't catch mice, it holds ties. The structure, sans one component, has an entirely different purpose. Analogously, see the evolution of the bombardier beetle, often held by ignorant ID proponents as having an IC system, but in fact the structures involved could have easily been evolved with differing usages prior to their synergistic combination later. - gordonj, on 10/08/2008, -0/+4"The quotation you are looking for in the Origin of Species is; "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.""
Ok, that's better, and it gets your point across better too. However I believe you aren't addressing the main thrust of the quote which is DEMONSTRATING that a complex organ could not have evolved incrementally.
"Just these three alone could never have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications."
Without any evidence to back it up this is just an argument from incredulity.
"Here you give credit to Darwin for something he never wrote about or theorized about. The word you hate the most; MUTATION. Darwin's theories were left for sci-fi readers until Gregor Mendle discovered mutations."
Look, this isn't just about Darwin, I don't hate the word mutation, and I'm not sure what your point is here. And while we're on the subject, Mendel's work wasn't really recognised until early in the 20th century, decades after it was published. Seminal ideas often take a long time to become accepted.
"When Mendle discovered mutations the Darwinists were back in business again. So was Adolf Hitler, Louis Farrakhan (all white people are blue-eyed devils), and Barak Obama."
I'm sorry, that's a non-sequitur. And shame on you for trying to imply that evolutionary theory is equivalent to eugenics. That is intellectually dishonest, and even if it were absolutely true (I'm playing devil's advocate here), it would have no bearing on the Theory of Evolution as a valid scientific theory. You are trying to make an appeal to emotion here, and that is not a logical argument. There's no need to get into politics either. That is neither a logical, nor correct way to try to undermine evolutionary theory.
"The FACT is that there are no transitional species. There are no transitional species in the fossil record with DNA to prove it's ancestry."
Now you're just being silly. Do you know why they can't test the DNA of fossils? Do you need me to explain why that's impossible? You can't seriously be claiming that because we can't obtain DNA from a fossil that it is impossible that that fossil is a transitional species. Your "FACT" isn't really that at all.
"The scientific method still relies upon empirical proof does it not?"
Nope, it relies on empirical evidence. Proof only exists in mathematics.
"Give me one example of empirical truth other than some archeologist finding a ape jaw one place and gorilla toe 100 meters away"
The pattern of ERV insertions in humans and chimps, also the fusion event of chromosome 2 in humans relative to other apes.
"Without proof yours will remain pure sophistry and junk science."
No, your assertion is wrong. What's more, it's hypocritical seeing as you haven't provided one shred of evidence for your own statements. I do not believe you have enough knowledge of biology or evolutionary theory to construct a logical scientific argument against evolution. You see, a scientific theory can only be disproven by science, not by religious dogma.
"BTW. I wrote all of the above without calling names."
Congratulations, would you like a medal? - KDX200rider, on 10/07/2008, -6/+10It is not over, it is working its way backward. For proof just look at the number of people supporting BHussienO, intelligence is on the decline.
- gordonj, on 10/08/2008, -0/+4@Salesti
"And I wish that people would consider the fact that living systems CANNOT operate without ALL their parts intact from step one."
That is not a fact. That is a naive assertion with no evidence to back it up. Have you tested that assumption at all? - Dimensio, on 10/07/2008, -1/+5"I personally think the author is daffy."
What is the basis for your claim, however? - Salesti, on 10/08/2008, -0/+3If anyone is interested, there is a series (16 parts so far) on creation, taught and edited by the not-rich, not-contentious and (in fact) thoroughly humble Ian Juby on YouTube, starting with:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atXl6XTwNPA
Fantastic! - ozydingo, on 10/07/2008, -2/+5Addendum to the addendum, apoligies if this has been covered but i have 1 minute left.
If you take away parts of the flagellum, you get a type III secretion system. Pretty damn useful in many bacteria. Irreducibly complex my ass. - Dimensio, on 10/07/2008, -1/+4"Just plain old common sense."
Declaring that your position is "common sense" is not logically equivalent to substantiating your position with actual evidence.
". Dude, did you actually read what the author said about some guy having sex everyday for 60 straight years..."
The assertion was based upon an averaging of data. Do you have information that contradicts the assertion?
" this is evolution at work?"
No, no one claimed that such sexual activity itself is "evolution at work". It is evident that you do not understand the subject on which you are commenting. - inactive, on 10/08/2008, -0/+2Well, I do think evolution makes a lot more sense than the creationist myths, but I am an atheist and you folks are welcome to your beliefs as long as you don't try to make me accept them. Besides, as I'm fond of saying: "Liberalism demonstrates conclusively evolution both plays jokes and branches into dead ends."
- GlobalRoamer, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1Please don't bring any more of this in the classrooms! It is not scientific method. It is the religion of secular humanism.
Every time I've published a scientific paper the publisher was keenly aware of scientific method, and on occasion, would send my work back for revision. Evolutionists just spew this stuff out with no evidence [thanks Gordon] and it is published as if it is law.
Darwin said what he meant; "numerous, successive, slight modifications" The subject was dead for years, until Mendle uncovered mutations, and then scientists, as well as well as dictators, put the two together. One branch science gave up the scientific method and gave up all evidence. The other branch politicians turned it into eugenics to justify killing Jews to make a super race. Both sophistry.
Evolution "scientists" make a fortune off of my tax dollars pursuing these fantasies. When one is found it is almost immediately debunked, like the Piltdown Man and Australopithecus. Evolution no. Scientific embarrassment.
And then Gordon asks me to prove something that doesn't exist. I did point out what you are missing. DNA evidence, transitional species, and any evidence of numerous, successive, slight modifications. I will concede my point if you can show one example of a successive modification.
You guys are great fun. Thanks for the spar, but your arguments need work.
Let me say again I cannot prove something that doesn't exist. - GlobalRoamer, on 10/08/2008, -0/+1Dear SAR,
Thanks for your opinion. The point I make is that if Darwin were alive today he way admit the idea is WRONG!
He said "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."
You can go a number of ways with this. For example, conservation of energy. Where did all of that information in DNA come from? Certainly not by numerous, successive, slight modifications?.
There are the laws of thermodynamics. If evolutionism is true, how do you explain the contradiction in the laws of thermodynamics? For example (my paraphrase) all things tend toward a lower level of organization. Then why would something, like a pool of organic soup defy this law and try to become something bigger and more organized?
How is it the Earth has the precise temperature, gravity, sunlight, water, composition of the atmosphere to support life. Didn't all of the planets come from the big bang? If they did then all planets should have the same atmosphere, water, gravity, soil, orbits, revolution axis etc. But they don't. Why?
Imagine wandering in the desert for three weeks and seeing nothing but sand. You then come across an aquarium with perfect plant life, water, gravity, and atmosphere, teeming with life. How would theorize that it got there? By evolution?
Keep up the good questions and always seek the truth. - GlobalRoamer, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1Please don't bring any more of this in the classrooms!
Darwin said what he meant; "numerous, successive, slight modifications" The subject was dead for years, unit Mendle uncovered mutations, and then scientists, as well as well as dictators, put the two together. One branch science gave up the scientific method and gave up all evidence. The other branch politicians turned it into eugenics to justify killing Jews to make a super race. Both sophistry. - inactive, on 10/07/2008, -2/+3We are headed for a future where the human race has little or no genetic diversity. Making life too easy, removing the challenge from it, has probably doomed us. Now thats perfect irony, a species extincting itself by perfecting laziness... lol, we deserve it.
- RobotBuddha, on 10/09/2008, -0/+1"common sense."
Ah common sense, the thing that had us burning witches and assuming there was a big glass shell around the earth. If common sense worked, we wouldn't need scientific methodology. - RobotBuddha, on 10/09/2008, -0/+1I's amazing how bad science reporting in the mainstream media is. "Human evolution has moved from really slow, to really really slow" translates to "OMG! Everyone panic and have an orgy because we don't evolve anymore!"
- GlobalRoamer, on 10/13/2008, -0/+1Dear Gordon,
"The quotation you are looking for in the Origin of Species is; "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.""
Ok, that's better, and it gets your point across better too. However I believe you aren't addressing the main thrust of the quote which is DEMONSTRATING that a complex organ could not have evolved incrementally.
[the issue is numerous, successive, slight modifications, and there is no proof]
"Just these three alone could never have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications."
Without any evidence to back it up this is just an argument from incredulity.
"Here you give credit to Darwin for something he never wrote about or theorized about. The word you hate the most; MUTATION. Darwin's theories were left for sci-fi readers until Gregor Mendle discovered mutations."
Look, this isn't just about Darwin, I don't hate the word mutation, and I'm not sure what your point is here. And while we're on the subject, Mendel's work wasn't really recognised until early in the 20th century, decades after it was published. Seminal ideas often take a long time to become accepted.
[of the over 1500 genetic mutations record by human beings name one that was a successive, slight modification, that didn't disable the human]
"When Mendle discovered mutations the Darwinists were back in business again. So was Adolf Hitler, Louis Farrakhan (all white people are blue-eyed devils), and Barak Obama."
I'm sorry, that's a non-sequitur. And shame on you for trying to imply that evolutionary theory is equivalent to eugenics. That is intellectually dishonest, and even if it were absolutely true (I'm playing devil's advocate here), it would have no bearing on the Theory of Evolution as a valid scientific theory. You are trying to make an appeal to emotion here, and that is not a logical argument. There's no need to get into politics either. That is neither a logical, nor correct way to try to undermine evolutionary theory.
[this is the eugenics argument that Hitler used, not me, and so does Farrakhan]
"The FACT is that there are no transitional species. There are no transitional species in the fossil record with DNA to prove it's ancestry."
Now you're just being silly. Do you know why they can't test the DNA of fossils? Do you need me to explain why that's impossible? You can't seriously be claiming that because we can't obtain DNA from a fossil that it is impossible that that fossil is a transitional species. Your "FACT" isn't really that at all.
[Let's not be silly, Fossils have all material leached out of them are a images in stone. No DNA. No DNA no proof]
"The scientific method still relies upon empirical proof does it not?"
Nope, it relies on empirical evidence. Proof only exists in mathematics.
[Semantics]
"Give me one example of empirical truth other than some archeologist finding a ape jaw one place and gorilla toe 100 meters away"
The pattern of ERV insertions in humans and chimps, also the fusion event of chromosome 2 in humans relative to other apes.
[aka MUTATIONs which are not numerous, successive, slight modifications]
"Without proof yours will remain pure sophistry and junk science."
No, your assertion is wrong. What's more, it's hypocritical seeing as you haven't provided one shred of evidence for your own statements. I do not believe you have enough knowledge of biology or evolutionary theory to construct a logical scientific argument against evolution. You see, a scientific theory can only be disproven by science, not by religious dogma.
[You are asking me to prove something that doesn't exist? Well done, but very wrong.]
[No religious comments in anything I've written.
"BTW. I wrote all of the above without calling names."
Congratulations, would you like a medal?ear rr Goor - GlobalRoamer, on 10/07/2008, -4/+4Please forgive my paraphrase. I didn't know we were going to have so much fun engaging in deep scientific discussion.
The quotation you are looking for in the Origin of Species is; "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."
Darwin assumed, as my nine year old daughter does, that a cell is a black box. We have all learned some science since Darwin's dreaming, and learned that DNA is exceedingly complex, as is mitochondria and vacuoles. Just these three alone could never have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications.
You guys got me on the "every species is a transitional species." Here you give credit to Darwin for something he never wrote about or theorized about. The word you hate the most; MUTATION. Darwin's theories were left for sci-fi readers until Gregor Mendle discovered mutations.
When Mendle discovered mutations the Darwinists were back in business again. So was Adolf Hitler, Louis Farrakhan (all white people are blue-eyed devils), and Barak Obama.
The FACT is that there are no transitional species. There are no transitional species in the fossil record with DNA to prove it's ancestry. The scientific method still relies upon empirical proof does it not? Give me one example of empirical truth other than some archeologist finding a ape jaw one place and gorilla toe 100 meters away and claims there is the proof.
Without proof yours will remain pure sophistry and junk science.
BTW. I wrote all of the above without calling names. - Salesti, on 10/08/2008, -1/+1Gentlemen are in short supply, so I am thankful for your civility!
And I wish that people would consider the fact that living systems CANNOT operate without ALL their parts intact from step one. I would be delighted to find proof of evolution, and I'm willing to go from my current creationist viewpoint to an evolutionist one, if only someone could present one that makes a lick of sense. Whatever the truth is, that's what I want. - PhoneWhore, on 10/06/2008, -7/+5Oh my gosh!
This is the most inane dribble I have ever heard an evolutionist utter.
Evolution = One guy banging 1.2 chicks a day for 60 years straight?!!!
This is just sheer insanity... sad that people actually believe this. - GlobalRoamer, on 10/07/2008, -9/+7One more time for the record.
Darwin once said; "if anyone could uncover a biological irreducibly complex machine the theory of evolution would be proven false."
An irreducibly complex machine is like a mouse trap. It is a piece of wood, a spring, a wire, and thing to hold the bait. Take away one part and you don't get a mouse trap that doesn't catch as many mice, you get a mouse trap that doesn't work. That is what Darwin meant.
Since his comments there have been numerous biological irreducibly complex machines uncovered.
The first one is blood clotting. Blood clotting is a very complex chemical chain of events that must happen in the right sequence at the right time. Without blood clotting there would be no animals. No blood clotting, all animals die.
The second best example is a one celled organism called a flagellum. A flagellum moves with a whip like device that can go from zero to 10,000 rpms in less than 1/4 turn. The same flagellum can also stop instantly. This is a feat that no human invention has come close to building. Without the flagellum you don't just get a stationary one celled creature, you get a dead one that doesn't reproduce.
My friends, Darwin was right, the ones who get the funding for their silly projects are the ones trying to rewrite history.
Darwin was right. There are biological irreducibly complex machines. Evolution was dead before it started. - PhoneWhore, on 10/07/2008, -3/+1Just plain old common sense. Dude, did you actually read what the author said about some guy having sex everyday for 60 straight years... this is evolution at work?
ahh pleez, ya gotta be kiddin' me. - GlobalRoamer, on 10/07/2008, -4/+2Dear Lord,
Perhaps you can tell me how blood clots without platelets? Perhaps you can also tell me how the tie clip catches mice?
Dear Gord,
Did you ever read "On the Origin of Species" or do you just call people liars that disagree with you?
Your are correct only certain bacteria have flagella. Others move by cilia others are amoeba. What happens if you take away the flagellum from the bacteria that have flagellum? You also missed a question. Did a human ever make such a motor?
I never mentioned "intelligent design" since you brought it up what about "punctuated equilibrium" dividing the evolutionist camps? Examples, I am sure you know, are sharks, crocodiles, horseshoe crabs.
What about "gradualism" that states there hasn't been enough time for any evolution to happen?
You seem well schooled on the subject. Can you give me one example of a "transitional species?"
The field of evolution generates huge sums of money and professional scientists are out to make all they can. Let's not let our intellect get lost in their goals. You can't do a dig, find a ape skull, and 100 meters away find what looks to be a human toe and claim you found the missing link. That's junk science.
Why would anyone in their right mind use Taxonomy as the sole basis for belief in evolution, and defense of it to the point of secular humanism?
The next thing you guys are going to do is tell me Australopithecus was the missing link. You crack me up. Thanks for the fun. - PhoneWhore, on 10/07/2008, -5/+1You think this article is rational!?
To answer your question, no. I have nothing to offer. None is needed other than to shine the light of attention upon it. People can make up their own minds. I personally think the author is daffy.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is