Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

arguments against Evolution.(no religious BS)

jimmyl76
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 12:40:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I don't want religious bs.
I want real reasoning, or essentially awesome exceptions of biology that says,
"f*ck you science, i do what i want"

few things I already know are Fabre's opinion on the mud-wasp.
no evolutionary path could lead them to develop
a) neurotoxin for bugs
b) precision skill similar to brain surgery with their stingers.

i think there was something about scorpions, and their unnecessary development of strong poison. (and in reality, only a small percentage has a lethal dose to kill humans, if i remember right)

think outside the box for once, you could even humor the "anti-evolutionists"
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 12:49:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 12:40:49 PM, jimmyl76 wrote:
I don't want religious bs.
I want real reasoning, or essentially awesome exceptions of biology that says,
"f*ck you science, i do what i want"

few things I already know are Fabre's opinion on the mud-wasp.
no evolutionary path could lead them to develop
a) neurotoxin for bugs
b) precision skill similar to brain surgery with their stingers.

i think there was something about scorpions, and their unnecessary development of strong poison. (and in reality, only a small percentage has a lethal dose to kill humans, if i remember right)

think outside the box for once, you could even humor the "anti-evolutionists"

I don't know. But given the vast support for evolution in every other aspect of biology, the lack of explanation for these is not compelling against evolution.
jimmyl76
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 12:58:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
oh I know, but there are always exceptions, and I wan't to know some of them, if i haven't heard of them already.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 2:01:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 12:40:49 PM, jimmyl76 wrote:
I don't want religious bs.
I want real reasoning, or essentially awesome exceptions of biology that says,
"f*ck you science, i do what i want"

few things I already know are Fabre's opinion on the mud-wasp.
no evolutionary path could lead them to develop
a) neurotoxin for bugs
b) precision skill similar to brain surgery with their stingers.

i think there was something about scorpions, and their unnecessary development of strong poison. (and in reality, only a small percentage has a lethal dose to kill humans, if i remember right)

think outside the box for once, you could even humor the "anti-evolutionists"

ALL those examples can be explained with Science. And with the Darwinian machinations of Evolutionary Biology.

Read some Dawkins. Or some Dan Dennett. They'll explain it to you. I don't have the time. The mud wasp and all the arguments of that ilk are piggy-backing on the worn-slick argument of "Irreducible complexity" which has been debunked by those two guys I just mentioned, among others.

Hey..why doncha toss in the "bacterial flagellum" into this argument? That oughtta be good for a few lively posts! LOL
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 2:06:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 12:40:49 PM, jimmyl76 wrote:
I don't want religious bs.
I want real reasoning, or essentially awesome exceptions of biology that says,
"f*ck you science, i do what i want"

few things I already know are Fabre's opinion on the mud-wasp.
no evolutionary path could lead them to develop
a) neurotoxin for bugs
b) precision skill similar to brain surgery with their stingers.

i think there was something about scorpions, and their unnecessary development of strong poison. (and in reality, only a small percentage has a lethal dose to kill humans, if i remember right)

think outside the box for once, you could even humor the "anti-evolutionists"

Regarding those neuro-toxins...........

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org...
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
janesix
Posts: 3,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 4:32:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 2:01:14 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/25/2015 12:40:49 PM, jimmyl76 wrote:
I don't want religious bs.
I want real reasoning, or essentially awesome exceptions of biology that says,
"f*ck you science, i do what i want"

few things I already know are Fabre's opinion on the mud-wasp.
no evolutionary path could lead them to develop
a) neurotoxin for bugs
b) precision skill similar to brain surgery with their stingers.

i think there was something about scorpions, and their unnecessary development of strong poison. (and in reality, only a small percentage has a lethal dose to kill humans, if i remember right)

think outside the box for once, you could even humor the "anti-evolutionists"


ALL those examples can be explained with Science. And with the Darwinian machinations of Evolutionary Biology.

Read some Dawkins. Or some Dan Dennett. They'll explain it to you. I don't have the time. The mud wasp and all the arguments of that ilk are piggy-backing on the worn-slick argument of "Irreducible complexity" which has been debunked by those two guys I just mentioned, among others.

Hey..why doncha toss in the "bacterial flagellum" into this argument? That oughtta be good for a few lively posts! LOL

When and where has irreducible complexity been "debunked"?
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 5:15:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2015 4:32:37 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/25/2015 2:01:14 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/25/2015 12:40:49 PM, jimmyl76 wrote:
I don't want religious bs.
I want real reasoning, or essentially awesome exceptions of biology that says,
"f*ck you science, i do what i want"

few things I already know are Fabre's opinion on the mud-wasp.
no evolutionary path could lead them to develop
a) neurotoxin for bugs
b) precision skill similar to brain surgery with their stingers.

i think there was something about scorpions, and their unnecessary development of strong poison. (and in reality, only a small percentage has a lethal dose to kill humans, if i remember right)

think outside the box for once, you could even humor the "anti-evolutionists"


ALL those examples can be explained with Science. And with the Darwinian machinations of Evolutionary Biology.

Read some Dawkins. Or some Dan Dennett. They'll explain it to you. I don't have the time. The mud wasp and all the arguments of that ilk are piggy-backing on the worn-slick argument of "Irreducible complexity" which has been debunked by those two guys I just mentioned, among others.

Hey..why doncha toss in the "bacterial flagellum" into this argument? That oughtta be good for a few lively posts! LOL

When and where has irreducible complexity been "debunked"?

I have seen articles attesting to both sides of the equation: that IC is proven, and that has been debunked. I believe Dawkins is a "debunker" while Behe holds to the idea it has not. Behe is where I first read about the argument for IC--if I recall.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
janesix
Posts: 3,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 7:59:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2015 5:15:28 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/30/2015 4:32:37 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/25/2015 2:01:14 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/25/2015 12:40:49 PM, jimmyl76 wrote:
I don't want religious bs.
I want real reasoning, or essentially awesome exceptions of biology that says,
"f*ck you science, i do what i want"

few things I already know are Fabre's opinion on the mud-wasp.
no evolutionary path could lead them to develop
a) neurotoxin for bugs
b) precision skill similar to brain surgery with their stingers.

i think there was something about scorpions, and their unnecessary development of strong poison. (and in reality, only a small percentage has a lethal dose to kill humans, if i remember right)

think outside the box for once, you could even humor the "anti-evolutionists"


ALL those examples can be explained with Science. And with the Darwinian machinations of Evolutionary Biology.

Read some Dawkins. Or some Dan Dennett. They'll explain it to you. I don't have the time. The mud wasp and all the arguments of that ilk are piggy-backing on the worn-slick argument of "Irreducible complexity" which has been debunked by those two guys I just mentioned, among others.

Hey..why doncha toss in the "bacterial flagellum" into this argument? That oughtta be good for a few lively posts! LOL

When and where has irreducible complexity been "debunked"?


I have seen articles attesting to both sides of the equation: that IC is proven, and that has been debunked. I believe Dawkins is a "debunker" while Behe holds to the idea it has not. Behe is where I first read about the argument for IC--if I recall.

Do you have a link where Dawkins debunks IC? I have watched nearly every Dawkins video online,and haven't seen it. Is it in one of his books? I've only read a couple.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 8:04:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2015 7:59:57 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/30/2015 5:15:28 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/30/2015 4:32:37 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/25/2015 2:01:14 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/25/2015 12:40:49 PM, jimmyl76 wrote:
I don't want religious bs.
I want real reasoning, or essentially awesome exceptions of biology that says,
"f*ck you science, i do what i want"

few things I already know are Fabre's opinion on the mud-wasp.
no evolutionary path could lead them to develop
a) neurotoxin for bugs
b) precision skill similar to brain surgery with their stingers.

i think there was something about scorpions, and their unnecessary development of strong poison. (and in reality, only a small percentage has a lethal dose to kill humans, if i remember right)

think outside the box for once, you could even humor the "anti-evolutionists"


ALL those examples can be explained with Science. And with the Darwinian machinations of Evolutionary Biology.

Read some Dawkins. Or some Dan Dennett. They'll explain it to you. I don't have the time. The mud wasp and all the arguments of that ilk are piggy-backing on the worn-slick argument of "Irreducible complexity" which has been debunked by those two guys I just mentioned, among others.

Hey..why doncha toss in the "bacterial flagellum" into this argument? That oughtta be good for a few lively posts! LOL

When and where has irreducible complexity been "debunked"?


I have seen articles attesting to both sides of the equation: that IC is proven, and that has been debunked. I believe Dawkins is a "debunker" while Behe holds to the idea it has not. Behe is where I first read about the argument for IC--if I recall.

Do you have a link where Dawkins debunks IC? I have watched nearly every Dawkins video online,and haven't seen it. Is it in one of his books? I've only read a couple.

I think I can conjure one up. Give me a few minutes!
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 8:07:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2015 8:04:32 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/30/2015 7:59:57 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/30/2015 5:15:28 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/30/2015 4:32:37 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/25/2015 2:01:14 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/25/2015 12:40:49 PM, jimmyl76 wrote:
I don't want religious bs.
I want real reasoning, or essentially awesome exceptions of biology that says,
"f*ck you science, i do what i want"

few things I already know are Fabre's opinion on the mud-wasp.
no evolutionary path could lead them to develop
a) neurotoxin for bugs
b) precision skill similar to brain surgery with their stingers.

i think there was something about scorpions, and their unnecessary development of strong poison. (and in reality, only a small percentage has a lethal dose to kill humans, if i remember right)

think outside the box for once, you could even humor the "anti-evolutionists"


ALL those examples can be explained with Science. And with the Darwinian machinations of Evolutionary Biology.

Read some Dawkins. Or some Dan Dennett. They'll explain it to you. I don't have the time. The mud wasp and all the arguments of that ilk are piggy-backing on the worn-slick argument of "Irreducible complexity" which has been debunked by those two guys I just mentioned, among others.

Hey..why doncha toss in the "bacterial flagellum" into this argument? That oughtta be good for a few lively posts! LOL

When and where has irreducible complexity been "debunked"?


I have seen articles attesting to both sides of the equation: that IC is proven, and that has been debunked. I believe Dawkins is a "debunker" while Behe holds to the idea it has not. Behe is where I first read about the argument for IC--if I recall.

Do you have a link where Dawkins debunks IC? I have watched nearly every Dawkins video online,and haven't seen it. Is it in one of his books? I've only read a couple.

I think I can conjure one up. Give me a few minutes!

Well...I found this but did not watch it all the way.

Let me know if it answers what you want.

Thanks!

https://www.youtube.com...
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
janesix
Posts: 3,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 8:11:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2015 8:04:32 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/30/2015 7:59:57 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/30/2015 5:15:28 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/30/2015 4:32:37 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/25/2015 2:01:14 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/25/2015 12:40:49 PM, jimmyl76 wrote:
I don't want religious bs.
I want real reasoning, or essentially awesome exceptions of biology that says,
"f*ck you science, i do what i want"

few things I already know are Fabre's opinion on the mud-wasp.
no evolutionary path could lead them to develop
a) neurotoxin for bugs
b) precision skill similar to brain surgery with their stingers.

i think there was something about scorpions, and their unnecessary development of strong poison. (and in reality, only a small percentage has a lethal dose to kill humans, if i remember right)

think outside the box for once, you could even humor the "anti-evolutionists"


ALL those examples can be explained with Science. And with the Darwinian machinations of Evolutionary Biology.

Read some Dawkins. Or some Dan Dennett. They'll explain it to you. I don't have the time. The mud wasp and all the arguments of that ilk are piggy-backing on the worn-slick argument of "Irreducible complexity" which has been debunked by those two guys I just mentioned, among others.

Hey..why doncha toss in the "bacterial flagellum" into this argument? That oughtta be good for a few lively posts! LOL

When and where has irreducible complexity been "debunked"?


I have seen articles attesting to both sides of the equation: that IC is proven, and that has been debunked. I believe Dawkins is a "debunker" while Behe holds to the idea it has not. Behe is where I first read about the argument for IC--if I recall.

Do you have a link where Dawkins debunks IC? I have watched nearly every Dawkins video online,and haven't seen it. Is it in one of his books? I've only read a couple.

I think I can conjure one up. Give me a few minutes!

https://www.youtube.com...

I found one. All his says is basically, "natural selection did it". That's not debunking, in my opinion.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 8:13:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2015 8:11:01 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/30/2015 8:04:32 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/30/2015 7:59:57 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/30/2015 5:15:28 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/30/2015 4:32:37 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/25/2015 2:01:14 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/25/2015 12:40:49 PM, jimmyl76 wrote:
I don't want religious bs.
I want real reasoning, or essentially awesome exceptions of biology that says,
"f*ck you science, i do what i want"

few things I already know are Fabre's opinion on the mud-wasp.
no evolutionary path could lead them to develop
a) neurotoxin for bugs
b) precision skill similar to brain surgery with their stingers.

i think there was something about scorpions, and their unnecessary development of strong poison. (and in reality, only a small percentage has a lethal dose to kill humans, if i remember right)

think outside the box for once, you could even humor the "anti-evolutionists"


ALL those examples can be explained with Science. And with the Darwinian machinations of Evolutionary Biology.

Read some Dawkins. Or some Dan Dennett. They'll explain it to you. I don't have the time. The mud wasp and all the arguments of that ilk are piggy-backing on the worn-slick argument of "Irreducible complexity" which has been debunked by those two guys I just mentioned, among others.

Hey..why doncha toss in the "bacterial flagellum" into this argument? That oughtta be good for a few lively posts! LOL

When and where has irreducible complexity been "debunked"?


I have seen articles attesting to both sides of the equation: that IC is proven, and that has been debunked. I believe Dawkins is a "debunker" while Behe holds to the idea it has not. Behe is where I first read about the argument for IC--if I recall.

Do you have a link where Dawkins debunks IC? I have watched nearly every Dawkins video online,and haven't seen it. Is it in one of his books? I've only read a couple.

I think I can conjure one up. Give me a few minutes!

https://www.youtube.com...

I found one. All his says is basically, "natural selection did it". That's not debunking, in my opinion.
Didja see my previous link from about 8 minutes ago?
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
janesix
Posts: 3,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 8:14:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2015 8:13:04 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/30/2015 8:11:01 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/30/2015 8:04:32 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/30/2015 7:59:57 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/30/2015 5:15:28 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/30/2015 4:32:37 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/25/2015 2:01:14 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/25/2015 12:40:49 PM, jimmyl76 wrote:
I don't want religious bs.
I want real reasoning, or essentially awesome exceptions of biology that says,
"f*ck you science, i do what i want"

few things I already know are Fabre's opinion on the mud-wasp.
no evolutionary path could lead them to develop
a) neurotoxin for bugs
b) precision skill similar to brain surgery with their stingers.

i think there was something about scorpions, and their unnecessary development of strong poison. (and in reality, only a small percentage has a lethal dose to kill humans, if i remember right)

think outside the box for once, you could even humor the "anti-evolutionists"


ALL those examples can be explained with Science. And with the Darwinian machinations of Evolutionary Biology.

Read some Dawkins. Or some Dan Dennett. They'll explain it to you. I don't have the time. The mud wasp and all the arguments of that ilk are piggy-backing on the worn-slick argument of "Irreducible complexity" which has been debunked by those two guys I just mentioned, among others.

Hey..why doncha toss in the "bacterial flagellum" into this argument? That oughtta be good for a few lively posts! LOL

When and where has irreducible complexity been "debunked"?


I have seen articles attesting to both sides of the equation: that IC is proven, and that has been debunked. I believe Dawkins is a "debunker" while Behe holds to the idea it has not. Behe is where I first read about the argument for IC--if I recall.

Do you have a link where Dawkins debunks IC? I have watched nearly every Dawkins video online,and haven't seen it. Is it in one of his books? I've only read a couple.

I think I can conjure one up. Give me a few minutes!

https://www.youtube.com...

I found one. All his says is basically, "natural selection did it". That's not debunking, in my opinion.
Didja see my previous link from about 8 minutes ago?

No, thanks, I missed it.
janesix
Posts: 3,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 8:16:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2015 8:13:04 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/30/2015 8:11:01 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/30/2015 8:04:32 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/30/2015 7:59:57 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/30/2015 5:15:28 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/30/2015 4:32:37 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/25/2015 2:01:14 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/25/2015 12:40:49 PM, jimmyl76 wrote:
I don't want religious bs.
I want real reasoning, or essentially awesome exceptions of biology that says,
"f*ck you science, i do what i want"

few things I already know are Fabre's opinion on the mud-wasp.
no evolutionary path could lead them to develop
a) neurotoxin for bugs
b) precision skill similar to brain surgery with their stingers.

i think there was something about scorpions, and their unnecessary development of strong poison. (and in reality, only a small percentage has a lethal dose to kill humans, if i remember right)

think outside the box for once, you could even humor the "anti-evolutionists"


ALL those examples can be explained with Science. And with the Darwinian machinations of Evolutionary Biology.

Read some Dawkins. Or some Dan Dennett. They'll explain it to you. I don't have the time. The mud wasp and all the arguments of that ilk are piggy-backing on the worn-slick argument of "Irreducible complexity" which has been debunked by those two guys I just mentioned, among others.

Hey..why doncha toss in the "bacterial flagellum" into this argument? That oughtta be good for a few lively posts! LOL

When and where has irreducible complexity been "debunked"?


I have seen articles attesting to both sides of the equation: that IC is proven, and that has been debunked. I believe Dawkins is a "debunker" while Behe holds to the idea it has not. Behe is where I first read about the argument for IC--if I recall.

Do you have a link where Dawkins debunks IC? I have watched nearly every Dawkins video online,and haven't seen it. Is it in one of his books? I've only read a couple.

I think I can conjure one up. Give me a few minutes!

https://www.youtube.com...

I found one. All his says is basically, "natural selection did it". That's not debunking, in my opinion.
Didja see my previous link from about 8 minutes ago?

LoL, it was the same video I posted at the same time you did.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 8:21:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2015 8:16:10 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/30/2015 8:13:04 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/30/2015 8:11:01 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/30/2015 8:04:32 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/30/2015 7:59:57 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/30/2015 5:15:28 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/30/2015 4:32:37 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/25/2015 2:01:14 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/25/2015 12:40:49 PM, jimmyl76 wrote:
I don't want religious bs.
I want real reasoning, or essentially awesome exceptions of biology that says,
"f*ck you science, i do what i want"

few things I already know are Fabre's opinion on the mud-wasp.
no evolutionary path could lead them to develop
a) neurotoxin for bugs
b) precision skill similar to brain surgery with their stingers.

i think there was something about scorpions, and their unnecessary development of strong poison. (and in reality, only a small percentage has a lethal dose to kill humans, if i remember right)

think outside the box for once, you could even humor the "anti-evolutionists"


ALL those examples can be explained with Science. And with the Darwinian machinations of Evolutionary Biology.

Read some Dawkins. Or some Dan Dennett. They'll explain it to you. I don't have the time. The mud wasp and all the arguments of that ilk are piggy-backing on the worn-slick argument of "Irreducible complexity" which has been debunked by those two guys I just mentioned, among others.

Hey..why doncha toss in the "bacterial flagellum" into this argument? That oughtta be good for a few lively posts! LOL

When and where has irreducible complexity been "debunked"?


I have seen articles attesting to both sides of the equation: that IC is proven, and that has been debunked. I believe Dawkins is a "debunker" while Behe holds to the idea it has not. Behe is where I first read about the argument for IC--if I recall.

Do you have a link where Dawkins debunks IC? I have watched nearly every Dawkins video online,and haven't seen it. Is it in one of his books? I've only read a couple.

I think I can conjure one up. Give me a few minutes!

https://www.youtube.com...

I found one. All his says is basically, "natural selection did it". That's not debunking, in my opinion.
Didja see my previous link from about 8 minutes ago?

LoL, it was the same video I posted at the same time you did.

Bugger.

OK..I will keep trying. I take it you only want a vid of Dawkins refuting the Creationist IC argument? Because I found some vids from other guys.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
janesix
Posts: 3,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 8:26:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2015 8:21:27 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/30/2015 8:16:10 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/30/2015 8:13:04 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/30/2015 8:11:01 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/30/2015 8:04:32 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/30/2015 7:59:57 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/30/2015 5:15:28 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/30/2015 4:32:37 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/25/2015 2:01:14 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/25/2015 12:40:49 PM, jimmyl76 wrote:
I don't want religious bs.
I want real reasoning, or essentially awesome exceptions of biology that says,
"f*ck you science, i do what i want"

few things I already know are Fabre's opinion on the mud-wasp.
no evolutionary path could lead them to develop
a) neurotoxin for bugs
b) precision skill similar to brain surgery with their stingers.

i think there was something about scorpions, and their unnecessary development of strong poison. (and in reality, only a small percentage has a lethal dose to kill humans, if i remember right)

think outside the box for once, you could even humor the "anti-evolutionists"


ALL those examples can be explained with Science. And with the Darwinian machinations of Evolutionary Biology.

Read some Dawkins. Or some Dan Dennett. They'll explain it to you. I don't have the time. The mud wasp and all the arguments of that ilk are piggy-backing on the worn-slick argument of "Irreducible complexity" which has been debunked by those two guys I just mentioned, among others.

Hey..why doncha toss in the "bacterial flagellum" into this argument? That oughtta be good for a few lively posts! LOL

When and where has irreducible complexity been "debunked"?


I have seen articles attesting to both sides of the equation: that IC is proven, and that has been debunked. I believe Dawkins is a "debunker" while Behe holds to the idea it has not. Behe is where I first read about the argument for IC--if I recall.

Do you have a link where Dawkins debunks IC? I have watched nearly every Dawkins video online,and haven't seen it. Is it in one of his books? I've only read a couple.

I think I can conjure one up. Give me a few minutes!

https://www.youtube.com...

I found one. All his says is basically, "natural selection did it". That's not debunking, in my opinion.
Didja see my previous link from about 8 minutes ago?

LoL, it was the same video I posted at the same time you did.

Bugger.

OK..I will keep trying. I take it you only want a vid of Dawkins refuting the Creationist IC argument? Because I found some vids from other guys.

I was curious about what Dawkins had to say, because I'm a fan. However, I'd prefer to have a back-and forth discussion about it instead of watching videos. I want to see people's arguments in their own words. For instance, how do you build a flagellar motor in a step-by-step process that will be useful(or at least work for some purpose) at each step. I know it's the old ID stand-by, but it's the one I'm the most familiar with at the moment.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 8:31:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2015 8:26:26 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/30/2015 8:21:27 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/30/2015 8:16:10 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/30/2015 8:13:04 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/30/2015 8:11:01 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/30/2015 8:04:32 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/30/2015 7:59:57 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/30/2015 5:15:28 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/30/2015 4:32:37 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/25/2015 2:01:14 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/25/2015 12:40:49 PM, jimmyl76 wrote:
I don't want religious bs.
I want real reasoning, or essentially awesome exceptions of biology that says,
"f*ck you science, i do what i want"

few things I already know are Fabre's opinion on the mud-wasp.
no evolutionary path could lead them to develop
a) neurotoxin for bugs
b) precision skill similar to brain surgery with their stingers.

i think there was something about scorpions, and their unnecessary development of strong poison. (and in reality, only a small percentage has a lethal dose to kill humans, if i remember right)

think outside the box for once, you could even humor the "anti-evolutionists"


ALL those examples can be explained with Science. And with the Darwinian machinations of Evolutionary Biology.

Read some Dawkins. Or some Dan Dennett. They'll explain it to you. I don't have the time. The mud wasp and all the arguments of that ilk are piggy-backing on the worn-slick argument of "Irreducible complexity" which has been debunked by those two guys I just mentioned, among others.

Hey..why doncha toss in the "bacterial flagellum" into this argument? That oughtta be good for a few lively posts! LOL

When and where has irreducible complexity been "debunked"?


I have seen articles attesting to both sides of the equation: that IC is proven, and that has been debunked. I believe Dawkins is a "debunker" while Behe holds to the idea it has not. Behe is where I first read about the argument for IC--if I recall.

Do you have a link where Dawkins debunks IC? I have watched nearly every Dawkins video online,and haven't seen it. Is it in one of his books? I've only read a couple.

I think I can conjure one up. Give me a few minutes!

https://www.youtube.com...

I found one. All his says is basically, "natural selection did it". That's not debunking, in my opinion.
Didja see my previous link from about 8 minutes ago?

LoL, it was the same video I posted at the same time you did.

Bugger.

OK..I will keep trying. I take it you only want a vid of Dawkins refuting the Creationist IC argument? Because I found some vids from other guys.

I was curious about what Dawkins had to say, because I'm a fan. However, I'd prefer to have a back-and forth discussion about it instead of watching videos. I want to see people's arguments in their own words. For instance, how do you build a flagellar motor in a step-by-step process that will be useful(or at least work for some purpose) at each step. I know it's the old ID stand-by, but it's the one I'm the most familiar with at the moment.

I understand. I too am a huge Dawkins fan. I just finished "The Greatest Show on Earth."

If you are interested in the current best debunking argument, this link maps it out nicely. And very thoroughly. It gets pretty technical, so read it when you have about ten minutes or so.

http://www.millerandlevine.com...
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 3:39:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 12:40:49 PM, jimmyl76 wrote:
I don't want religious bs.
I want real reasoning, or essentially awesome exceptions of biology that says,
"f*ck you science, i do what i want"

Nature always does what it wants, Jimmy. The job of science is to observe, understand and learn from nature, not dictate it.

And from that, we know species evolve, that reproductive competition (e.g. arising from survival, growth and competition for mates) induces change, that this is a statistical game we can simulate, that it models well and (despite theologically-motivated objection) that it creates new species. This is all demonstrable, the mechanisms are identified and confirmed, so it's scientifically non-controversial. So if you're looking to refute that, you're fifty-two years too late -- because that's how old the publication of the DNA mechanism is. By 1973, no alternative proposition was advanced, or advanceable. So evolution is no longer just a theory, but also a fact, like gravity: universally observed, using a recognised mechanism. New mechanisms might be added, but the existing mechanisms already connect everything naturalists observe in nature.

So I think the remaining question is how many heritable non-competitive change mechanisms there are, and how they interact with reproductive selection, and how they too might influence species. Epigenetics, for instance, is an example of heritable, non-competitive change. But how does it work, and what additional twists can it throw into species development?

I hope that may be useful.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 3:49:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 12:40:49 PM, jimmyl76 wrote:
no evolutionary path could lead them to develop
a) neurotoxin for bugs
b) precision skill similar to brain surgery with their stingers.

How did he conclude that no evolutionary path could lead to the development of these? What is the mechanism that blocks/prevents/inhibits an evolutionary path to such?
jimmyl76
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 1:16:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
hmm, this wasn't the direction i thought the conversation would go...

I wanted exceptions from the evolutionary theory, or model if you may.

Virus's defy cell theory.
Prions just don't make sense.
Human genome project is still being argued and re-evaluated. (as in what is a gene, are there junk genes or not, etc.)

ps.
bacterial flagella thing. that seems more human bias. everything works physically, and thus it makes sense that a "motor" would be as useful in the micro level as in the macro.
we don't say, "look at all these biota using hexagons like we do!" and imply anything more.

the mud wasp, still does not make sense in the sense that it costs too much for the small benefit.
humans, modern humans especially, don't realize how limited biological energy is,
heck the fig and wasp mutual-ism even seems weird, since the wasps really get the short end. immigration would have been a lot easier.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 1:28:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 1:16:50 AM, jimmyl76 wrote:
I wanted exceptions from the evolutionary theory, or model if you may.

Exceptions are not arguments against evolutoin, Jimmy. They're evidence that there may be more to the story than we presently know.

An argument against would be something much bigger -- like a hippopotamus in rock that should only contain algae-fossils, or the Jurassic remains of an alien civilisation.

We don't have evidence like that presently, and I'm not aware of any serious naturalist who expects to see it.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 9:37:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 1:16:50 AM, jimmyl76 wrote:
hmm, this wasn't the direction i thought the conversation would go...

I wanted exceptions from the evolutionary theory, or model if you may.

If youre looking for exceptions that are actually valid and are against evolution, it would disprove evolution.

Virus's defy cell theory.
a virus isn't a cell. of course it defies cell theory.
Prions just don't make sense.
How so?
Human genome project is still being argued and re-evaluated. (as in what is a gene, are there junk genes or not, etc.)

Sure. Just cause we mapped out the genome, doesn't mean we know what each place does.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 10:00:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2015 4:32:37 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/25/2015 2:01:14 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/25/2015 12:40:49 PM, jimmyl76 wrote:
I don't want religious bs.
I want real reasoning, or essentially awesome exceptions of biology that says,
"f*ck you science, i do what i want"

few things I already know are Fabre's opinion on the mud-wasp.
no evolutionary path could lead them to develop
a) neurotoxin for bugs
b) precision skill similar to brain surgery with their stingers.

i think there was something about scorpions, and their unnecessary development of strong poison. (and in reality, only a small percentage has a lethal dose to kill humans, if i remember right)

think outside the box for once, you could even humor the "anti-evolutionists"


ALL those examples can be explained with Science. And with the Darwinian machinations of Evolutionary Biology.

Read some Dawkins. Or some Dan Dennett. They'll explain it to you. I don't have the time. The mud wasp and all the arguments of that ilk are piggy-backing on the worn-slick argument of "Irreducible complexity" which has been debunked by those two guys I just mentioned, among others.

Hey..why doncha toss in the "bacterial flagellum" into this argument? That oughtta be good for a few lively posts! LOL

When and where has irreducible complexity been "debunked"?

In his book, Behe wrote: " . . . natural selection can only choose among systems that are already working", and an irreducibly complex system does not work unless all of its parts are in place. The flagellum is irreducibly complex, and therefore, it must have been designed.

The "Type -III Secretory Apparatus" transfers proteins directly into host cells that can cause dangerous pathogens to break down the cells sometimes causing death in the host, depending on the molecules of the bacteria.

This apparatus is a precursor to the flagellum and is made up of only some of the parts of the flagellum, specifically the "Basal" region. This means that over a dozen parts of the flagellum are not required for the apparatus to function, yet according to Behe, the "system does not work unless all of its parts are in place".

Irreducible Complexity debunked.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
janesix
Posts: 3,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 12:15:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 10:00:09 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/30/2015 4:32:37 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/25/2015 2:01:14 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/25/2015 12:40:49 PM, jimmyl76 wrote:
I don't want religious bs.
I want real reasoning, or essentially awesome exceptions of biology that says,
"f*ck you science, i do what i want"

few things I already know are Fabre's opinion on the mud-wasp.
no evolutionary path could lead them to develop
a) neurotoxin for bugs
b) precision skill similar to brain surgery with their stingers.

i think there was something about scorpions, and their unnecessary development of strong poison. (and in reality, only a small percentage has a lethal dose to kill humans, if i remember right)

think outside the box for once, you could even humor the "anti-evolutionists"


ALL those examples can be explained with Science. And with the Darwinian machinations of Evolutionary Biology.

Read some Dawkins. Or some Dan Dennett. They'll explain it to you. I don't have the time. The mud wasp and all the arguments of that ilk are piggy-backing on the worn-slick argument of "Irreducible complexity" which has been debunked by those two guys I just mentioned, among others.

Hey..why doncha toss in the "bacterial flagellum" into this argument? That oughtta be good for a few lively posts! LOL

When and where has irreducible complexity been "debunked"?

In his book, Behe wrote: " . . . natural selection can only choose among systems that are already working", and an irreducibly complex system does not work unless all of its parts are in place. The flagellum is irreducibly complex, and therefore, it must have been designed.

The "Type -III Secretory Apparatus" transfers proteins directly into host cells that can cause dangerous pathogens to break down the cells sometimes causing death in the host, depending on the molecules of the bacteria.

This apparatus is a precursor to the flagellum and is made up of only some of the parts of the flagellum, specifically the "Basal" region. This means that over a dozen parts of the flagellum are not required for the apparatus to function, yet according to Behe, the "system does not work unless all of its parts are in place".

Irreducible Complexity debunked.

There is no proof of that. It is just as likely(or more) that the secretory system evolved from the flagellum through gene deletions:

Evolution. As mentioned, the T3SS is closely related to the bacterial flagellum.[21] There are three competing hypotheses:[22] first, that the flagellum evolved first and the T3SS is derived from that structure, second, that the T3SS evolved first and the flagellum is derived from it, and third, that the two structures are derived from a common ancestor. Those who support the hypothesis that the T3SS evolved from flagella cite evidence that Eukaryotes evolved after Prokaryotes. Thus, the need for motility would have caused selection for the development of flagella before an injectisome.[22] However this suggestion can be seen as "reductive evolution," and receives no topological support from the phylogenetic trees.[2] Thus, the hypothesis that the two structures derived from a common ancestor accounts for the protein homology between the two structures, as well as their functional diversity.[23]
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 2:22:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 12:15:06 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/3/2015 10:00:09 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/30/2015 4:32:37 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/25/2015 2:01:14 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/25/2015 12:40:49 PM, jimmyl76 wrote:
I don't want religious bs.
I want real reasoning, or essentially awesome exceptions of biology that says,
"f*ck you science, i do what i want"

few things I already know are Fabre's opinion on the mud-wasp.
no evolutionary path could lead them to develop
a) neurotoxin for bugs
b) precision skill similar to brain surgery with their stingers.

i think there was something about scorpions, and their unnecessary development of strong poison. (and in reality, only a small percentage has a lethal dose to kill humans, if i remember right)

think outside the box for once, you could even humor the "anti-evolutionists"


ALL those examples can be explained with Science. And with the Darwinian machinations of Evolutionary Biology.

Read some Dawkins. Or some Dan Dennett. They'll explain it to you. I don't have the time. The mud wasp and all the arguments of that ilk are piggy-backing on the worn-slick argument of "Irreducible complexity" which has been debunked by those two guys I just mentioned, among others.

Hey..why doncha toss in the "bacterial flagellum" into this argument? That oughtta be good for a few lively posts! LOL

When and where has irreducible complexity been "debunked"?

In his book, Behe wrote: " . . . natural selection can only choose among systems that are already working", and an irreducibly complex system does not work unless all of its parts are in place. The flagellum is irreducibly complex, and therefore, it must have been designed.

The "Type -III Secretory Apparatus" transfers proteins directly into host cells that can cause dangerous pathogens to break down the cells sometimes causing death in the host, depending on the molecules of the bacteria.

This apparatus is a precursor to the flagellum and is made up of only some of the parts of the flagellum, specifically the "Basal" region. This means that over a dozen parts of the flagellum are not required for the apparatus to function, yet according to Behe, the "system does not work unless all of its parts are in place".

Irreducible Complexity debunked.

There is no proof of that. It is just as likely(or more) that the secretory system evolved from the flagellum through gene deletions:

That's not the point, we're not talking about debunking evolution, we are talking about irreducible complexity, which the "Type -III Secretory Apparatus" shows that by removing over a dozen parts of the flagellum, the system still works. That indeed debunks Behe and IC. Evolution is another subject matter in regards to which came first and from what common ancestor.

Evolution. As mentioned, the T3SS is closely related to the bacterial flagellum.[21] There are three competing hypotheses:[22] first, that the flagellum evolved first and the T3SS is derived from that structure, second, that the T3SS evolved first and the flagellum is derived from it, and third, that the two structures are derived from a common ancestor. Those who support the hypothesis that the T3SS evolved from flagella cite evidence that Eukaryotes evolved after Prokaryotes. Thus, the need for motility would have caused selection for the development of flagella before an injectisome.[22] However this suggestion can be seen as "reductive evolution," and receives no topological support from the phylogenetic trees.[2] Thus, the hypothesis that the two structures derived from a common ancestor accounts for the protein homology between the two structures, as well as their functional diversity.[23]
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
jimmyl76
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 8:08:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
If youre looking for exceptions that are actually valid and are against evolution, it would disprove evolution. :

nah, it wont. thats like saying anything prior to vector calc is disproved, or unecessary because thats not how the world works.
anything has exceptions and limits, don't think evolution will be the same definition today, when it will be 1000 years later.

Virus's defy cell theory.
a virus isn't a cell. of course it defies cell theory.

cell theory defines that all life must consist of a cell, (abridged)
hence viruses aren't "alive" but only in the definition of cell theory, thats what i meant.

Prions just don't make sense.
How so?

its supposedly a protein, that doesn't go away even after incineration.
that kinda breaks physics chem.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2015 8:17:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 8:08:52 PM, jimmyl76 wrote:
If youre looking for exceptions that are actually valid and are against evolution, it would disprove evolution. :

nah, it wont. thats like saying anything prior to vector calc is disproved, or unecessary because thats not how the world works.
anything has exceptions and limits, don't think evolution will be the same definition today, when it will be 1000 years later.

Mathematics and Science are different. Scientific theories are specifically set up so that they can be disproved.

And yes, that is exactly how science works.

Virus's defy cell theory.
a virus isn't a cell. of course it defies cell theory.

cell theory defines that all life must consist of a cell, (abridged)
hence viruses aren't "alive" but only in the definition of cell theory, thats what i meant.

Sure. The debate/discussion about whether a virus is alive or not has been going on for a while, and most people consider it as not alive.


Prions just don't make sense.
How so?

its supposedly a protein, that doesn't go away even after incineration.
that kinda breaks physics chem.

Prions can be destroyed through incineration.

http://www.bseinfo.org...