Bacteria evolve...
-
Ilíon wrote:
Eiiie!
Uh, no. Irreducible complexity is bunk - you know it and I know it. Your ID buddies have to keep it alive by constantly changing it. It's rather pathetic to see the Captains of the HMS ID refuse to abandon a sinking ship. You'd think they would want to retain at least some pride...
73Zeppelin wrote:
Uh, no. Irreducible complexity is bunk - you know it and I know it. Your ID buddies have to keep it alive by constantly changing it. It's rather pathetic to see the Captains of the HMS ID refuse to abandon a sinking ship. You'd think they would want to retain at least some pride...
Are you *really* as ignorant as you come across? Do you really *never* think before you post? "Uh, no. Irreducible complexity is bunk - you know it and I know it." Come now, we *all* know you're talking about "Darwinism" here. "Your ID buddies have to keep it alive by constantly changing it." Come now, we *all* know you're talking about "Darwinism" here. We all know that tomorrow (as yesterday) you'll be praising 'modern evolutionary theory' to the High Heavens for its amazing ability to be constantly changed. "You'd think they would want to retain at least some pride..." I'd have thought that you sad people would at least care about retaining some self-respect. But no, at most you care about "self-esteem."
-
Ilíon wrote:
By the way, *that* is indeed an ad hominem.
No it's not, it's fact. Behe is a mouthpiece and irreducible complexity is b.s.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
Uh, no. Irreducible complexity is bunk - you know it and I know it. Your ID buddies have to keep it alive by constantly changing it. It's rather pathetic to see the Captains of the HMS ID refuse to abandon a sinking ship. You'd think they would want to retain at least some pride...
Are you *really* as ignorant as you come across? Do you really *never* think before you post? "Uh, no. Irreducible complexity is bunk - you know it and I know it." Come now, we *all* know you're talking about "Darwinism" here. "Your ID buddies have to keep it alive by constantly changing it." Come now, we *all* know you're talking about "Darwinism" here. We all know that tomorrow (as yesterday) you'll be praising 'modern evolutionary theory' to the High Heavens for its amazing ability to be constantly changed. "You'd think they would want to retain at least some pride..." I'd have thought that you sad people would at least care about retaining some self-respect. But no, at most you care about "self-esteem."
By his own admission, Behe admits it (irreducible complexity) is flawed; just like his "intelligence".
-
Baha, just another leftist, science-worshipping tribute to anti-religion.
Brady Kelly wrote:
Baha, just another leftist, science-worshipping tribute to anti-religion.
Huh?
-
Like I said: Irreducible complexity is worthless pseudo-intellectual trash. Even Behe admits it: In the final ruling of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Judge Jones specifically singled out Behe and irreducible complexity:[2] "Professor Behe admitted in "Reply to My Critics" that there was a defect in his view of irreducible complexity because, while it purports to be a challenge to natural selection, it does not actually address "the task facing natural selection." and that "Professor Behe wrote that he hoped to "repair this defect in future work..." (Page 73) "As expert testimony revealed, the qualification on what is meant by "irreducible complexity" renders it meaningless as a criticism of evolution. (3:40 (Miller)). In fact, the theory of evolution proffers exaptation as a well-recognized, well-documented explanation for how systems with multiple parts could have evolved through natural means." (Page 74) "By defining irreducible complexity in the way that he has, Professor Behe attempts to exclude the phenomenon of exaptation by definitional fiat, ignoring as he does so abundant evidence which refutes his argument. Notably, the NAS has rejected Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity..." (Page 75) "As irreducible complexity is only a negative argument against evolution, it is refutable and accordingly testable, unlike ID [Intelligent Design], by showing that there are intermediate structures with selectable functions that could have evolved into the allegedly irreducibly complex systems. (2:15-16 (Miller)). Importantly, however, the fact that the negative argument of irreducible complexity is testable does not make testable the argument for ID. (2:15 (Miller); 5:39 (Pennock)). Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe’s assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not in fact irreducibly complex." (Page 76) "...on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not su
Baha, just another leftist, science-worshipping tribute to anti-religion.
-
Like I said: Irreducible complexity is worthless pseudo-intellectual trash. Even Behe admits it: In the final ruling of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Judge Jones specifically singled out Behe and irreducible complexity:[2] "Professor Behe admitted in "Reply to My Critics" that there was a defect in his view of irreducible complexity because, while it purports to be a challenge to natural selection, it does not actually address "the task facing natural selection." and that "Professor Behe wrote that he hoped to "repair this defect in future work..." (Page 73) "As expert testimony revealed, the qualification on what is meant by "irreducible complexity" renders it meaningless as a criticism of evolution. (3:40 (Miller)). In fact, the theory of evolution proffers exaptation as a well-recognized, well-documented explanation for how systems with multiple parts could have evolved through natural means." (Page 74) "By defining irreducible complexity in the way that he has, Professor Behe attempts to exclude the phenomenon of exaptation by definitional fiat, ignoring as he does so abundant evidence which refutes his argument. Notably, the NAS has rejected Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity..." (Page 75) "As irreducible complexity is only a negative argument against evolution, it is refutable and accordingly testable, unlike ID [Intelligent Design], by showing that there are intermediate structures with selectable functions that could have evolved into the allegedly irreducibly complex systems. (2:15-16 (Miller)). Importantly, however, the fact that the negative argument of irreducible complexity is testable does not make testable the argument for ID. (2:15 (Miller); 5:39 (Pennock)). Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe’s assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not in fact irreducibly complex." (Page 76) "...on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not su
-
You really *are* incapable of sustained rational thought -- and logical consistency -- aren't you?
Ilíon wrote:
You really *are* incapable of sustained rational thought -- and logical consistency -- aren't you?
Thank you for admitting defeat. We can move on now.
-
I know what it means and you should too - you do it all the time. Anyways, I'm not arguing against the man, I'm stating facts about him. There's no argumentation involved.
-
Baha, just another leftist, science-worshipping tribute to anti-religion.
Brady Kelly wrote:
Baha, just another leftist, science-worshipping tribute to anti-religion.
Well, no. The Dip's post is a tribute to his apparent inability to think. But, look on the bright side: perhaps I'm wrong? Perhaps he simply *chooses* to not think.
-
Ilíon wrote:
You really *are* incapable of sustained rational thought -- and logical consistency -- aren't you?
Thank you for admitting defeat. We can move on now.
-
I know what it means and you should too - you do it all the time. Anyways, I'm not arguing against the man, I'm stating facts about him. There's no argumentation involved.
-
Ilíon wrote:
Oh, poor thing! Can't even tell when his behavior is being mocked.
Not going to refute anything in my post, huh? Like I said, victory is mine and all too easy. :^)
-
Just as you are smugly pleased with yours.
-
Well, it's a good thing then that science has so consistently proven itself to be completely false.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Well, it's a good thing then that science has so consistently proven itself to be completely false.
Waiting for a "science" worshipper to remind Ravel that "science never proves anything" . . . Oh! Silly me! I'm glad I wasn't also holding my breath!
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Well, it's a good thing then that science has so consistently proven itself to be completely false.
Waiting for a "science" worshipper to remind Ravel that "science never proves anything" . . . Oh! Silly me! I'm glad I wasn't also holding my breath!
But I assume that you wouldn't be using scientific method to prove itself wrong. Otherwise it would give the wrong answer. You would use YOUR methods, of course, which I guess involve assuming that you're always right about everything. Actually, that's probably all there is to it. :doh:
-
Well, it's a good thing then that science has so consistently proven itself to be completely false.
Don't you understand that one of the great strengths of science is that it is prepared to admit its mistakes and update itself in the light of new evidence?
-
Brady Kelly wrote:
Baha, just another leftist, science-worshipping tribute to anti-religion.
Huh?
We need a sarcasm icon.
-
Don't you understand that one of the great strengths of science is that it is prepared to admit its mistakes and update itself in the light of new evidence?
Of course I know that! ;) It was a joke geared towards those people who know how vehemently I've been arguing in favour of science lately. In reality I'm a huge science nerd (as dubbed by many a snotty peer).
-
We need a sarcasm icon.
Ah, it was the "Baha" that was confusing me...
-
Don't you understand that one of the great strengths of science is that it is prepared to admit its mistakes and update itself in the light of new evidence?