This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Again, Dr Kurt Wise disagrees with you.
Nope, because there's quite a lot of evidence that it does happen. And I asked first. Do you have an explanation for what biological mechanism prevents macroevolution from occurring, what evidence there is for the existence of this mechanism and how it can be identified or do you just want to engage in denialism?
In short, in order to sustain the argument that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex, proponents of this claim have to demonstrate that fully-functional precursors (i.e. biological structures that perform a particular role different from the later structure, but that can be co-opted into that later structure) do not and cannot exist. Put simply, the hypothesis being proposed is that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex; as discussed elsewhere, hypotheses can rarely be shown to be absolutely true, but they can be falsified. The existence of fully-functional co-optable precursors to the bacterial flagellum provide prima facie evidence that the hypothesis is not correct.
Maybe you should go and read about co-optable precursors, then, before asking such a question. You may also want to consider whether asking which part of the human eye evolved first is as equally meaningful a question. Parenthetically, an inability to answer either question is not ipso facto evidence that irreducible complexity is immediately validated.
Of course you don't care. You don't seem to care for anyone who disagrees with you, not even fellow creationists. Other than the fact that you don't care for it, perhaps you can show why the evidence that Dr Wise regards as supporting 'macroevolution' does not, in fact, do so?
Where did you get the idea I'm a doctor, or is this just heavy-handed sarcasm? And what am supposed to disagree with?
Eh, yes - the Martian atmosphere is relatively thin (a mean of around 600 pascals compared with about 100 kilopascals for Earth), and consists of 95% carbon dioxide, 3% nitrogen. 1.6% argon and traces of water, oxygen and methane. Polar bears are evolutionary maladapted for such an environment and would rapidly die if exposed to it: the 'biological mechanism' that prevents their existence on Mars is the inability of their lungs to either find or process enough oxygen from the thin Martian atmosphere to oxygenate their haemoglobin. Also very low pressure causes the lung tissue to dry out and serious dehydration to ensue. We could also consider the extreme temperatures (up to -143 Celsius) and the lack of prey animals to feed on. Over to you.
You may entertain yourself with these pieces of verbal legerdemain, but unless you can explain what prevents microevolution (which you appear to accept) from becoming macroevolution (which you obviously don't), then all you are doing is avoiding the question and demonstrating that you have no reasoned answer to offer.
You do enjoy hiding behind the smokescreen of ridicule, don't you? So much for civility.
As you have already admitted that you don't know what they are, how would you know whether or not I had any idea of what I was talking about?
Again the sneer. Wise is no 'hero' of mine, I simply advance him as an actual, real, creationist-believing scientist who agrees that the evidence supporting evolutionary theory is wide and extensive. I elsewhere quoted some of those evidences that he recognizes and referenced the paper in which the entirety of his argument can be read. All you have done is dodge the questions arising from this with regard to your various assertions about evidence for evolutionary theory being non-existent and now compound the speciousness of these assertions by denying that you have been shown and directed towards the full extent of Dr Wise's understanding on this.
Still looks like sarcasm to me. And I'm having trouble with the syntax of your second sentence. What is it that I am being asked whether I disagree with?
Spectroscopic analysis. Mars mission spacecraft (starting with Mariner IV). Where do you get your non-existent figures that allow you to suppose that it is quite possible for polar bears to exist on Mars?
I answered your question. Can't you even attempt a reasoned answer to mine other than by denying its validity?
You are the one who insists there is a qualitative difference between micro- and macro-evolution; all I am asking you to do is to justify and support this assertion. Evolutionary theory proposes no such imaginary barrier and can identify no biological mechanism that would preclude it. All you seem to have is handwaving, denial and declaiming the magic mantra 'false science' as if that is all you have to do to refute an argument.
So the 'even for you' was what? Complimentary? It looked like a gratuitous insult to me.
And so you avoid another question. So despite claiming that you don't know anything about them, your earlier request implies that either you already know what co-optable precursors are and so can judge whether or not I have any idea that I know what I'm talking about if I post the demanded explanation for you to decide one way or the other, or else you don't know what they are and are honestly seeking enlightenment. So which is it?Ok well, I'll just reject precurser thingees as non-evidence until you bring documentation to the thread. So Irreducable Complexity stands!
YAY!
A co-optable precursor is any biological structure that developed to meet one function, but was figuratively hijacked by evolutionary processes to perform another (which may or may not leave it able to perform in part its original function).
:
Erm, yes, that was my impression.
What do you mean 'by total accident'? Natural selection is part of an algorithm which can be reduced to its essentials as: if successful repeat, otherwise discard.
Maybe my clumsy phraseology is at fault. What I am trying to explain is that something that evolved to do one thing (the gas-bladder to help fish regulate their buoyancy) may be adapted to serve an additional (and eventually completely separate) function (the rudimentary air-breathing lung of the lungfish, for example). I hope this helps clarify the point.
:
I am puzzled that you continue to deny that I have neither posted a quite lengthy extract from Dr Wise's observations on this subject nor a citation to the paper in which he made them. I am not sure what your purpose is in this continuing denialism.
As you are aware, I seem to have problems with working links. I have already given you both the citation to the article and this web address, so there's no need to shout:
Maybe you could just rephrase your question in a more comprehensible form.
You mean like we put our trust in machines every other day that don't have 'actual humans' doing whatever it is you think they need to do to take 'the samples'? Tell me, what do you think humans use to take 'the samples' with and how do you think those 'samples' are subsequently analysed? Presumably you doubt any remote sensing technology or automated machinery at all? Those met and telecommunications satellites must just be a waste of money, the, not to mention production lines using nothing but robots.
Wow, so that 'handful of NASA PR men' ,manufacture and release all that data all by themselves. You seem to be focussed on the idea that NASA and NASA alone engages in space-related research and missions and that it has access to and control of each and every piece of data which it manipulates and falsifies to - to what end, exactly? To demonstrate that certain ideas and data concerning some extraterrestrial objects were more or less accurate and others were more or less inaccurate? What motives do you imagine drive their choices amongst these multiple decisions? How do you imagine they successfully infiltrate and control non-NASA facilities that can uplink to and download the data from these various satellites and probes? How does NASA exert its malign influence over other countries space research agencies and facilities?
The extent of the conspiracy you fantasize about (and that you have wholly failed to provide any evidence to support, beyond exclamations of personal incredulity) would require the active participation of more than 'a few men' (not to mention a great many women as well).
And yet at least some of those figures are readily accessible to you from spectroscopic analysis performed by astronomers around the world. If you are prepared to invest the money in the appropriate kit (controlled and directed exclusively by yourself), you can even verify that data yourself, without having to rely on the fantasy of a globe-spanning conspiracy that seems to consume you, and so determine whether polar bears could or could not exist on Mars. Nobody is 'insisting' on teaching any such thing as you claim, but if you ask a question and are given a serious answer based on available evidence, trying to pretend that your question hasn't been answered simply makes you look ridiculous. So, I addressed your point seriously and with some consideration; are you incapable of responding in kind to mine - you remember, the one you evaded by raising this nonsense in the first place?
You can say what you like, but if you say something you should at least be able to support it (or make a reasonable attempt). The onus is on you (it is your claim, after all), to show that there is a qualitative difference between micro- and macro-evolution and that Irreducible Complexity in some way precludes the latter but not the former. Evolutionary theory says that there is simply evolution and makes no effective distinction between the two.
Okay, fair enough.