It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Dawkins has no answer

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566

Originally posted by melatonin
As astyanax has outlined the idiotic argument against Dawkins, now to show the no genes from mutation claim is complete tripe:


but you didnt really show that it is, in fact, tripe. just saying


Oh, OK, lets get it in a more appropriate language.

'now to show the no genes from mutation claim is almost certainly tripe'

Hide in the 'almost' if you want. Essentially that's where the cranks like to hide - doubt and uncertainty. Worked for the deniers for a while for tobacco & health science, is currently to an extent for 'global warming' deniers, HIV/AIDS deniers, and also intelligent design and creationism advocates, amongst others.

Whilst one group is out there removing the fog of ignorance, the other wallows in it like a little gucci piggy (kicking & squeeling) in mud.

ABE: I missed this, as I didn't bother reading most of the kicking and squeeling, my new approach is to ignore most the tripe...


still no proof is was a mutation that caused the change.


Yes, of course, the genes changed. Mutations happen all the time, mutations are changes in DNA.

But it must have been magic. The disembodied telic entity touched the bacteria in inappropriate ways!!!

[edit on 17-6-2008 by melatonin]




posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


almost?

your papers that you posted did "almost" NOTHING to prove that mutations were the causes for these changes.

they theorized. which isnt proof. maybe that why dawkins was stumped, as of yet there is not proof.

there is however proof that mutations can be detrimental to an animal. remember the fruit fly experiments?

[edit on 17-6-2008 by miriam0566]



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566
there is however proof that mutations can be detrimental to an animal. remember the fruit fly experiments?


Miriam. Please.

Do you know what a mutation is?

So changes in DNA that cause detrimental effects are mutations. But changes in DNA that result in new genes and functions are magic?

That's one big fat confirmation bias with a side dish of wishful-thinking you have there.

I mentioned I had your number a while back, 0566.

[edit on 17-6-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


again. we are talking about proof....

im simply saying the articles you provided offer no proof...



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566
again. we are talking about proof....

im simply saying the articles you provided offer no proof...


They offer the same sort of 'proof' (i.e., evidence) that supports your claim that mutations can result in detrimental outcomes. One you want to suggest you accept, the other you don't want to accept.

Did you ever find that science library in Sevilla?

To the science library bat-girl. If you're too far away from the one in Sevilla, try your hometown.

Adios.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin


They offer the same sort of 'proof' (i.e., evidence) that supports your claim that mutations can result in detrimental outcomes.


Mel you always were good at appearing like you know what you are talking about even when what you are talking about is analagous to the instruction code for software where mutation is no differen't than corruption and corrupt software programs just don't work well and get deleted quick.

We see the same thing with mutations where the information is expressed different and Atheists will use their typically deceptive symantics saying new information is "additional" or "increased" information.

Depending on the context and understanding of the word "mutation", meriam has the same right to question whether YOU know what the hell it means. Do you?? Unlike the others here who may disagree while respecting your post for it's intelligence, I don't see your usual use of condescending sarcasm and your option selected elastic excuses for evolution whenever it suits you as indicative of anything that would garner such generosity.

Good thing you don't TAKE this stuff personal but that NEVER stops you from GETTING personal.

The innuendo and mud slinging is a lot like your idea of Science when evolutionists use the Scientific Method it is like they are throwing mud at something and what ever sticks is what you go with. Then you write a a mountain of just so stories and just like you did with Jphish, YOU guys call that crap evidence.

It isn't Science, it's a crap shoot.

The fact is, Meriam is right and rather than just accept the idea that even those keystone Creationists know that mutations rarley work for the benefit of survivability much less just happen to be the kind of mutation that "fits" well for it's environment or molecules to Melatonian "Macro e-llusion"

Evolutionists MUST downplay the role of DNA as nothing really special. You know,, it's certainly nothing compared to what Man can make, intellectually speaking right? Yet evolutionists downplay the wonder of DNA as merely a molecule that just "Happened" unguided to the neck tie as a tie clip by the hand of any half witted intelligent lawyer.

I just see a wider and wider disparity in our understanding of the vernacular of Science. Example Your quote to jphish below:



So, you essentially want to fall back on the tentative language of a scientific paper? I see this a lot when a creationist claims are challenged. The papers contain evidence to support their inferences. No science is 100%.


Mel, no one is asking for perfection but for God sake where in that paper is the "evidence" to support anything other than their Atheistic desperate imagination. Jphish is asking what anyone would when shown a documentation so full of "just so" stories that are so much harder to accept than that of Meriam who you suggest is has the same "sort" of proof you have??

Mel do you know what Proof is?


One of the reasons Creationist are accused of not having any proof they look for real evidence. They don't have the kind of connections abroad to be a member of the transitional hoax of the week club.

Evolutionists get busted for that just about every other week I'm seeing yet another retraction about something the week before was shoved down out throats the astyanax like hubris and mimsical hatred.



We can't really talk on the level of absolute truth and non-truth, so we have to get mucky in the realm of reasonable evidence-based positions. And it is clear that mutations forming new genes (and functions) is a very very reasonable position, well-supported by evidence (not just this one article).


Really?? mmmm I guess you haven't heard huh mel?
Life just got a lot more complicated


This entire complement of human genes, it was believed, resided in only around 1.5 per cent of the cell's DNA, prompting some scientists so dismiss vast swaths - the other 98.5 per cent - as "junk".

Now the most exhaustive probing of the genome to date, a £20 million pilot project, suggests the meaning of DNA's message remains elusive. Professor Steve Jones, of University College London, describes the seismic implications of the new findings: "I once wrote a book called The Language of the Genes, but now biologists are beginning to face up to the uncomfortable truth that they have only been looking at the nouns in life's lexicon - the crudest and most basic elements of any tongue.
www.telegraph.co.uk.../earth/2007/06/19/scigenome119.xml&page=1



Contrary to the assertions of some,6 the presumed temporal persistence of supposedly-useless pseudogenes actually constitutes a serious problem for evolution. The manufacture of DNA is energetically costly to the cell, and natural selection should remove DNA were it actually useless.13 A mechanism for removal is now known.14 creationontheweb.com...





It's this kind of research that Dawkins is left groping for answers, and when he finally gave one in that video,, it shows him assuming the consequent, contradicting himself and generally looking pretty damn silly.

Dawkins??

Pfffft One Notch above a used car salesman with twice the BS

- Con
















[edit on 18-6-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 12:55 AM
link   
No guys, I think on this one the creationists are absolutely right. You should never believe anything unless it is 100% provable and verifiable.

The very second God is willing to show up and verify his existence I say we abandon the whole evolution argument altogether.

How soon can this be arranged?



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
No guys, I think on this one the creationists are absolutely right. You should never believe anything unless it is 100% provable and verifiable.

The very second God is willing to show up and verify his existence I say we abandon the whole evolution argument altogether.

How soon can this be arranged?


incorrect sir, i said that without 100% proof, you should not claim to know something is a truth; not that you weren't allowed to believe in it. You can believe whatever you damn well please.

But since atheist scientists tend to make the ridiculous claim that they don't believe in anything; Unless they have 100% proof, they should really be quiet.

[edit on 6/18/2008 by JPhish]



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
No guys, I think on this one the creationists are absolutely right. You should never believe anything unless it is 100% provable and verifiable.

The very second God is willing to show up and verify his existence I say we abandon the whole evolution argument altogether.

How soon can this be arranged?



We ain't the ones calling lies facts like the fact of evolution. We have faith in what we believe and so do they have faith in what they believe.

BTW God just told me " That guys funny" "should I take him up on it?"

I said "what? and miss out on that stupifying look on there face in the end?"

Nope

- Con



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


Whats the penalty in your religion for impersonating or falsely claiming to speak for God?

I guess we will be standing there together with a silly look on our face, wont we?

From a nice article on taking the Lords name in vain found here;

www.mountainretreatorg.net...


False prophets declare, "Thus saith the LORD," when in fact they have not been sent by Him, and when in fact He does not speak through them. The Scriptures expose such men (and I might add women) as diviners. That is, they pretend to speak that which is divine. While prophecy comes with the word of Jehovah, divination comes with its own philosophies or its own predictions. And it does so while pretending to come in the name of God! That too is nothing less than taking God's name in vain.


Besides, most decent scientists would not ever say that something has to be 100% proven. This allowance for new data or information is the reason science articles and papers are written in that tentative tone that is often jumped upon by creationists.

In science, things can be ruled out with certainty, but because of the possibility of hidden variables, proving something "100%" is not generally considered possible.

From the Wikipedia article on Karl Popper, should you care to read further;

en.wikipedia.org...


Logically, no number of positive outcomes at the level of experimental testing can confirm a scientific theory, but a single counterexample is logically decisive: it shows the theory, from which the implication is derived, to be false. Popper's account of the logical asymmetry between verification and falsifiability lies at the heart of his philosophy of science. It also inspired him to take falsifiability as his criterion of demarcation between what is and is not genuinely scientific: a theory should be considered scientific if and only if it is falsifiable.


[edit on 18-6-2008 by Illusionsaregrander]



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Whats the penalty in your religion for impersonating or falsely claiming to speak for God?


The same as any sin why?

Ahhh see you don't think man was created in Gods image and has a sense of humor because God has one too.




False prophets declare, "Thus saith the LORD," when in fact they have not been sent by Him, and when in fact He does not speak through them. The Scriptures expose such men (and I might add women) as diviners. That is, they pretend to speak that which is divine. While prophecy comes with the word of Jehovah, divination comes with its own philosophies or its own predictions. And it does so while pretending to come in the name of God! That too is nothing less than taking God's name in vain.


Nice article but whats that got to do with me?

.

Besides, most decent scientists would not ever say that something has to be 100% proven. This allowance for new data or information is the reason science articles and papers are written in that tentative tone that is often jumped upon by creationists
In science, things can be ruled out with certainty, but because of the possibility of hidden variables, proving something "100%" is not generally considered possible.


You keep suggesting we are asking for 100% proof, so let me clarify what the problem is.

They don't have an IOTA of evidence, NONE, ZIP, ZERO and THAT is what creationists get ticked off about, that evolutionists don't hold themselves to the same standards of critical thinking they do creationists.

From the Wikipedia article on Karl Popper, should you care to read further;
en.wikipedia.org...




Logically, no number of positive outcomes at the level of experimental testing can confirm a scientific theory, but a single counterexample is logically decisive: it shows the theory, from which the implication is derived, to be false. Popper's account of the logical asymmetry between verification and falsifiability lies at the heart of his philosophy of science. It also inspired him to take falsifiability as his criterion of demarcation between what is and is not genuinely scientific: a theory should be considered scientific if and only if it is falsifiable.


[edit on 18-6-2008 by Illusionsaregrander]



yeah I already read a lot about popper in one of the threads Wraoth Asendent owned astyanax in and busted him on attempting to play his semantics tricks with the word "preclude".

It's classic.

- Con




[edit on 18-6-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 04:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Hollywood11
 


Having a virus build up immunity does not mean it deteriorates. We ourselves build up immunity to things such as the common cold. Ever wonder why we get colds all the time? Because we only build up immunity for the strains we come in contact, so what does building immunity have anything to do with gene complexity. Adapting does not degenerate any living organism's genetic information, where'd you hear that???

Do some research on methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA).

or, you could look into the influenza virus which mutates all the time, that's why we have to keep getting new flue shots ever flu season.

[edit on 18-6-2008 by Daedalus24]



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus24
reply to post by Hollywood11
 


Having a virus build up immunity does not mean it deteriorates. We ourselves build up immunity to things such as the common cold. Ever wonder why we get colds all the time? Because we only build up immunity for the strains we come in contact, so what does building immunity have anything to do with gene complexity. Adapting does not degenerate any living organism's genetic information, where'd you hear that???

Do some research on methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA).

or, you could look into the influenza virus which mutates all the time, that's why we have to keep getting new flue shots ever flu season.

[edit on 18-6-2008 by Daedalus24]


Nope sorry,, this too doesn't prove jack squat as you'll see in the link gave. You Atheists really need to quit siting 1970's vintage science.



The science: what did they find?
In a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, Lenski and co-workers describe how one of 12 culture lines of their bacteria has developed the capacity for metabolizing citrate as an energy source under aerobic conditions.3

This happened by the 31,500th generation. Using frozen samples of bacteria from previous generations they showed that something happened at about the 20,000th generation that paved the way for only this culture line to be able to change to citrate metabolism. They surmised, quite reasonably, that this could have been a mutation that paved the way for a further mutation that enabled citrate utilization.

This is close to what Michael Behe calls ‘The Edge of Evolution’—the limit of what ‘evolution’ (non-intelligent natural processes) can do. For example, an adaptive change needing one mutation might occur every so often just by chance. This is why the malaria parasite can adapt to most antimalarial drugs; but chloroquine resistance took much longer to develop because two specific mutations needed to occur together in the one gene. Even this tiny change is beyond the reach of organisms like humans with much longer generation times.4 With bacteria, there might be a chance for even three coordinated mutations, but it’s doubtful that Lenski’s E. coli have achieved any more than two mutations, so have not even reached Behe’s edge, let alone progressed on the path to elephants or crocodiles.
www.creationontheweb.com...


None of this drivel evolutionists speak about proves molecules to man Science. Nothing evolves, no not a damn thing so wake up and smell the freakin coffee. www.google.com...

Alligators are still alligators sharks are still sharks and virgin births just amaze people when they happen www.google.com...

in fact, it is looking more and more like the Bronze age book

was right all along.

- Con






[edit on 18-6-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 11:42 AM
link   
bwhahahaha! Are people still pushing Behe's book as worth the paper it's written on? The same book which led to a university tenured professor being fisked by a lowly PhD student?


but it’s doubtful that Lenski’s E. coli have achieved any more than two mutations, so have not even reached Behe’s edge, let alone progressed on the path to elephants or crocodiles.

from the above con link

The study suggests at least 3 successive mutations which resulted in an effective new function.

And this is what Behe had to say in response to the article:


I think the results fit a lot more easily into the viewpoint of The Edge of Evolution. One of the major points of the book was that if only one mutation is needed to confer some ability, then Darwinian evolution has little problem finding it. But if more than one is needed, the probability of getting all the right ones grows exponentially worse. "If two mutations have to occur before there is a net beneficial effect — if an intermediate state is harmful, or less fit than the starting state — then there is already a big evolutionary problem." And what if more than two are needed? The task quickly gets out of reach of random mutation.

from link below

It showed at least 3 mutations!

Sheesh, these people are dense. Do they even read the relevant scientific articles?

Behe has made this schoolboy mistake 3 times now. In black box he ignores half a bookshelf of articles on the evolution of the immune system, In the 'edge' he completely ignores much of the research on HIV, and in his response to the Lenski lab experiment he overlooks the findings of the bleedin' experiment.

For one schoolboy mistake, the probability of an academic doing this in his own area is rather high, we all make mistakes. But if more than one schoolboy mistake is made in their area of expertise then things quickly get out of hand. And what if two or more schoolboy mistakes are made?

I think we have a case of an academic whose research skills are pathetic. That's the most positive interpretation.

A discussion of this particular study by an academic capable of reading more than the bible in detail here.


The first was an enabling variation at around generation 20,000; the second was an initial mutation that actually allowed slow citrate uptake at around generation 31,000; and the third was a refinement at generation 33,000 that made the bacteria grow much better on citrate. Note: 3 mutations had to occur to produce the visibly better growing citrate+ population.


[edit on 18-6-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus24

Having a virus build up immunity does not mean it deteriorates. We ourselves build up immunity to things such as the common cold. Ever wonder why we get colds all the time? Because we only build up immunity for the strains we come in contact, so what does building immunity have anything to do with gene complexity. Adapting does not degenerate any living organism's genetic information, where'd you hear that???

Do some research on methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA).

or, you could look into the influenza virus which mutates all the time, that's why we have to keep getting new flue shots ever flu season.

[edit on 18-6-2008 by Daedalus24]


Building up immunity plus a billion years is not an adequate genetic mechanism to allow for evolution or new genes to be added to the genome in the sense of allowing one animal to become a nother animal.

Secondly, although you might think building immunity has short term benefits, in the long run it will cause you to die or to not be able to have immunity to other things because all your immune functions got geared towards one thing and became too limited and too specific in their function.

[edit on 18-6-2008 by Hollywood11]



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin



bwhahahaha! Are people still pushing Behe's book as worth the paper it's written on? The same book which led to a university tenured professor being fisked by a lowly PhD student?


bwhahahaha! NOOO I'm NOT pushing his book, I am more impressed with the pdf files [edit on 18-6-2008 by Conspiriology my bad sorry Mel I left the link out not you ] by Royal Truman.

You can make this about behe being a school boy all you want mel and you can add all the exclamation marks and bhroo ha ha as if you got something but ya got Johnson as usual when it comes to molecules to man evolution. It is clearly under controlled conditions where the mutations encouraged under artifical pressures surviving at all come about in the first place but that's ok. Where behe's opinions make more of a point are the limits they can go but more than that is what royal trumans PDF file's findings suggest.


At face value, this appears to be tautologically true, but misleads since “evolution” is a word with many connotations including change, and development to better, more complex replicators. Let us rephrase. Assume three conditions hold:

(i) A population can replicate for many generations

(ii) the copies are not all identical with the original

(iii) a criterion establishes preferential selection of one lineage

What results? Change, yes. More sophisticated replicators? Not inevitably. Suppose the original state was optimal at some point in time and all subsequent variation degrading.

Differential fitness would select the less damaged on average, but the long-term outcome will still be an inferior population. Dennett’s criteria do not ensure neo-Darwinian processes result
in the complex biological structures we

observe.www.iscid.org...


Now I read the Bible but Mel surely that is not all I read or I wouldn't have made the post with the referances to these other external posts. the fossil record shows species appearing suddenly and fully intact like the Creationist model and completely refuting Darwin.

Darwin wrote two whole chapters in his book apologising for a complete lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.

In all these sorts of changes, dragonflys are still dragon flys, finches are still finches and dogs are dogs. Sly commented to me about a great dane breeding with a chihuaua which only fortifies behe stance theirt are limits to change in addition to those that are set by the amount of information originally present in the DNA from which to select. The Bottom line is this

The Dogs are still Dogs

Bacteria are Bacteria

They all seem to die off or stop well before anything reasonably close to ever becoming anything other than they kind of life form it is.

As the cockroach fossil found where it was in pristine condition 55 million years BEFORE the dinosaurs, they are virtually the same.

This garbage I keep hearing from sly about Dinosaurs becoming Birds is just prepostererous. He keeps asking me what I have to provide in contrast to his opinions and I never oblige he can google it himself for all I care but to say Dinos to Birds is just asinine It didn't happen

Never will happen, hell I can believe Birds to Dinos easier the way it's looking whenever another one of the Darwinists many hoaxes are found or busted. (they really need to get their act together on this crap it really has hurt their credibility as Scientists who can't play by the rules)


Archaeopteryx - a classic transitional form between dinosaurs and birds - was discovered, and in the 1870s the iconic sequence of fossil horses was documented.


CORVALLIS, Ore. - Scientists today announced the discovery of the oldest animal ever known to have feathers, which may have been the ancestor of birds but clearly was not a dinosaur - a discovery that calls into serious question many theories about an evolutionary link between dinosaurs and birds. osu.orst.edu...
oregonstate.edu...


Dinos to Birds?

Forget a bout it.

Dawkins? Just another pitiful Godless Atheist with an axe to grind

The molecules to manpanzee to Mel just didn't happen

Not unless you believe in *MaGiC* to explain all

the lies of the ever lieing illusion called

evolution

- Con







[edit on 18-6-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiriology
bwhahahaha! NOOO I'm NOT pushing his book, I am more impressed with the pdf files you "conveniently" left out by Royal Truman.

.... [goalposts move to rat to bat]

- Con

[my addition]

So you're ignoring the fact that the article you posted and Behe himself are completely wrong in their interpretation of the study?

We need some heavier goalposts round here.

[edit on 18-6-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by Conspiriology
bwhahahaha! NOOO I'm NOT pushing his book, I am more impressed with the pdf files you "conveniently" left out by Royal Truman.

.... [goalposts move to rat to bat]

- Con

[my addition]

So you're ignoring the fact that the article you posted and Behe himself are completely wrong in their interpretation of the study?

We need some heavier goalposts round here.

[edit on 18-6-2008 by melatonin]


Yeah I saw that too (goal post apology made in the post)

No I'm not ignoring it but you seem to think we do. This to me is no different than an equivocation where switching back and and fourth on what we accept about mutations or like using micro evolution to substantiate molecules to man.

If you read the first post regarding the so called Junk DNA in addition to the limits of change, I think we are a long way from suggesting a molecules to man theory is even theoretically possible.

I'd have to be an Atheist to have a leap of faith that far out.

- Con



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiriology
I'd have to be an Atheist to have a leap of faith that far out.

- Con


Con, you've just posted an excerpt from some creationist tripe which was completely wrong. It was based on Behe's tripe, which was also wrong.

The study pulls apart his claims. Three mutations, new function, no magic need apply.

I just saw the post you made earlier, but there's no real point replying. Why bother? When I show your claims to be wrong you'll just go all Nadia Comaneci on me.

Have fun, con.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by Conspiriology
I'd have to be an Atheist to have a leap of faith that far out.

- Con


Con, you've just posted an excerpt from some creationist tripe which was completely wrong. It was based on Behe's tripe, which was also wrong.

The study pulls apart his claims. Three mutations, new function, no magic need apply.

I just saw the post you made earlier, but there's no real point replying. Why bother? When I show your claims to be wrong you'll just go all Nadia Comaneci on me.

Have fun, con.



Look Melatoxin it may be convenient for you atheists to say that everything on a creationist website is "tripe" but I just couldn't find anything on an Atheist evolutionist website that wasn't MISLEADING!

If you want to find novelty in mutations like seedless grapes FINE but good luck growing more when they got no seeds in them.

I guess you could call a male human being born with no testicles a NEW SPECIES even when that mutant won't have any offspring.

I guess this is why you Atheists site Ancon sheep as some new species when all they are were (as they are all dead now) are deformed sheep.

This was what meriam was saying.

You keep claiming the article is by Behe when it is NOT it mentions a quote from him THAT'S ALL and you go off Nadia Comaneci NOT ME.

If all you are trying to prove is that Bacteria mutating on a petri dish happens proving molecules to man evolution than why did lenski quit and start using computer models to arrive at anything?


Giving up on reality
According to biology professor Dr Scott Minnich,1 the evolutionist researcher Dr Richard Lenski bred bacteria for more than 20,000 generations with all sorts of selective environments in the hope of getting a spontaneous increase in complexity—i.e. real evolution in the lab. He showed that they adapted to their environment, but the experiment failed to demonstrate the emergence of true novelty or spontaneous complexity. The bacteria were not only still bacteria, they were the same types of bacteria. So, says Minnich, he decided to work on digital organisms instead—computer simulations, which gave him the result he wanted in 15,000 generations.

The lesson is clear: the real world of biology is very different from the carefully set up and manipulated world of electronic on-screen simulations.

Reference
Minnich, S., Paradigm of Design: the Bacterial Flagellum DVD, Focus on Origins series, 2003. Return to text
creationontheweb.com...


The lesson is clear all right and it is the same one we have seen for hundreds of years from the evolutionists camp. If you can't beat em cheat em. They can't seem to prove a thing without resorting to harrasment, ridicule, using manufactured evidence and fabricated data to fit their broken theory. They are NOT to bhe trusted and THAT HAS been proven MANY times! These guys only look out for themselves and their Atheist objectives but NOT the TRUTH.

They are liars and charlatans

I have seen Scientists do this before and it is usually to bend data to fit the theory. This is no different than when NIST resorted to using a computer model to prove a fuel fire would be hot enough to melt steel and make the towers come down in 911 debates but in real life they couldnt even come close to accomplishing that.

The facty is, you Atheists use intelligence to bring fourth evidence for the unguided hand without so called intelligent design EVERY TIME!

I remember you scoffing at whammy using a random generator saying it was tripe then pointing to Dawkins weasel generator, a computer model that could illustrate random mutation and just how easy it was.

I downloaded the delphi which isn't used anymore other than to prove creationists point and the one I am making that it too WAS MISLEADING!

You throwing your hands in the air spouting off female gymnasts names and calling this or that tripe doesn't make me wrong mel, sorry to burst your darwhining bubble of jack squat soap and water but it just doesn't.


When they begin to talk about mutations, evolutionists tacitly acknowledge that natural selection, by itself, cannot explain the rise of new genetic information. Somehow they have to explain the introduction of completely new genetic instructions for feathers and other wonders that never existed in ‘simpler’ life forms. So they place their faith in mutations.

In the process of defending mutations as a mechanism for creating new genetic code, they attack a straw-man version of the creationist model, and they have no answer for the creationists’ real scientific objections. Scientific American states this common straw-man position and their answer to it. creationontheweb.com...


Gee didn't we just witness YOU doing the same damn thing.

If thats all you got Mel than I agree with you

Why do you even bother when you got

NOTHING to say that proves

a damn thing,

Nothing

- con









[edit on 18-6-2008 by Conspiriology]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join