Darwinist
- Started
- Last post
- 592 Responses
- TheTick0
Hahaha....
- flagellum0
Read what i just wrote kuz and then read what Dr. William Dembski says about co-option from other systems. It's an old attempt at rebuttal, kuzz an it fails:
http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/wd…
You see, wikipedia (not a good source for current or accurate scientific data) must have been consulting with Ken Miller. ;)
- TheTick0
JazX - I totally concur - and frankly I think that questiong methodologies and paradigms in science IS and should be part of the scientific process itself. Heck I'm reading "Investigations" by Stuart Kaufmann at the moment and a man of his stature in the scientific community is calling for a re-evaluation of certain underlying methodologies and paradigms. Heck, that's what is so refreshing - and in terms of human history - revolutionary about scientific thought.
The ID guys are playing old Socratic Sophist tricks with ;language it seems to me by sayig that "See science is inaccurate here! So therefore it casts ALL of it into doubt!"
I mean it seems to me they don't even grasp the fundamental principles that underly all of scientific enquiry to begin with. Science is all about finding better and better questions. Anything in science that doesn't lead you to another question is bad science.
ID seems all answers (and I agree that science needs to be critiqued - but then again MOST scientists would and ALL shgould agree with that). To just end up at aplace and say it is "Unreducably complex" just ain't science or reflective of the scientific method.
- balboa0
No need to sling mud at anything. We're just going to wander off to a more interesting corner of the intarweb. This one's imploded in a black hole of under hot air, ego whoring and bloated puffery.
:P
- flagellum0
Kuz, more on the co-option canard:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/200…
It's common knowledge that there has never been a tested biochemical pathway from some other system to the flagellum. Only hand-waving stories. And even if they did, they would then have to show how the system that co-opted components was created via Darwinian gradualism. ;)
- discipler0
hah, kuz. Nice try. Wrong on all counts.
- mrdobolina0
I am 33, by the way.
- mrdobolina0
dobs, if you remove any one component from an irreducibly complex molecular machine, it fails completely. It requires all parts at once, to function, or not at all. Something Natural Selection cannot acheive. So, yes they are irreducible.
---
But, what if these molecules arent the farthest down that it goes?
- flagellum0
I'd like to read his exact words, mimio. And there is a difference between saying the designer can be falsified and intelligent design and specificity can be falsified.
- flagellum0
"Darwin's theory, without which nothing in biology is supposed to make sense, in fact offers no insight into how the flagellum arose. If the biological community had even an inkling of how such systems arose by naturalistic mechanisms, Miller would not -- a full six years after the publication of Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe -- be lamely gesturing at the type three secretory system as a possible evolutionary precursor to the flagellum."
- flagellum0
35.
So respect your elder.
- Mimio0
Facts? you mean opinions based on non-peer reviewed research, conglomerated within fringe non-scientific politcally motivated organizations?
cuz you might be right.
- discipler0
Makes for a good bedtime tale, but lacks empirical evidence. This is what they've been telling us for some time now. They begin by presupposing Darwinism and then are forced to explain timeframes and social/technological advancement within that framework. The problem is, if homo sapien possessed the full cognitive potential that he does today, it is rediculous to posit that he existed for over 100,000 years with essentially no progression except for primitive tool construction. Learning to harvest crops simply does not account for the degree of advancement in such a short period of time nor the degree of stasis prior to the boom.
It's a narritive. Calling me "stupid" won't change this. ;)
- balboa0
"black hole of hot air"
while a paradox, it's worth correcting the grammar there...
:)
- Mimio0
"Irreducible Complexity" is the opinion of one living biochemist. Most scientists thinks he's flat out wrong, and not very punk rock.
- petrol0
gonna (eventually) set up a font site with a few free-uns tho
- flagellum0
Nice try, mimio. Here are your peer reviewed treatments:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts…
But, you just keep a' wishin'. ;)
- balboa0
"a key to the survival of christianity has been it's ability to co-opt popular things and make them seem like they were all part of the plan to begin with."
...kind of like Advertising?
Oh, and ID and Punk Rock are totally kindred... because ideologically Anarchy and Benevolent Infallible Overlords are identical, right?
double bleh.
- JazX0
you guys are too polarized. more understanding and less hating.
- JazX0
33 here!
Larry Bird