Christians and muslims believe the same thing

[terraricca]

stu

you tell me what is your version of the natural selection in evolution and I tell you if it is true,

Pierre

[Stu]

Quote (terraricca @ July 26 2011,11:10)

stu I have answer this already[/quote] There were three questions there.  Which one are you claiming you answered already? If it was the fact that contradicts Darwin, can you please remind me exactly what that fact was?  I remember nothing like that, and it would have left an impression on me if you really had done that. I would be now composing a letter to the Nobel Committee commending you as the new great force in modern biology, had you come up with a major point against Darwin's theory. Stuart[/quote] stu I have answered all your questions the only ones i may not answer are those you did not answered, as for your DNA question you also have a answer ,it may not be the way you like it but i try to make it as simple as possible you can ask do you know what is a vehicle and my answer to you would be A CAR, but you would expect ,a body,a starter,4 wheels size,pressure  ,seats, motor 230 hp running on gas or diesel colored,dash complete with all instruments,speed,oil pressure,rad pressure,and of cause the key to start the machine. sorry I am not that type of a writer ,I already do my best in English as it is .

Your bluff is called there too then. You don't know what DNA does. If you don't know that then you are in no position to criticise Darwin.

What is a vehicle? Your description fails when we are looking at a horse-drawn carriage.

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (terraricca @ July 26 2011,11:16)

stu you tell me what is your version of the natural selection in evolution and I tell you if it is true, Pierre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_flow

Stuart

[princess]

it is not the dna that gets me, it is the rna.

[terraricca]

Quote (Stu @ July 26 2011,18:17)

Quote (terraricca @ July 26 2011,11:10) stu I have answer this already There were three questions there.  Which one are you claiming you answered already? If it was the fact that contradicts Darwin, can you please remind me exactly what that fact was?  I remember nothing like that, and it would have left an impression on me if you really had done that. I would be now composing a letter to the Nobel Committee commending you as the new great force in modern biology, had you come up with a major point against Darwin's theory. Stuart

stu

I have answered all your questions the only ones i may not answer are those you did not answered,

as for your DNA question you also have a answer ,it may not be the way you like it but i try to make it as simple as possible

you can ask do you know what is a vehicle and my answer to you would be A CAR, but you would expect ,a body,a starter,4 wheels size,pressure  ,seats, motor 230 hp running on gas or diesel
colored,dash complete with all instruments,speed,oil pressure,rad pressure,and of cause the key to start the machine. sorry

I am not that type of a writer ,I already do my best in English as it is .[/quote]
Your bluff is called there too then.  You don't know what DNA does.  If you don't know that then you are in no position to criticise Darwin.

What is a vehicle?  Your description fails when we are looking at a horse-drawn carriage.

Stuart[/quote]
stu

i still would be right ,because it is only if you ask in a specific detail question that you can get the true answer,

Pierre

[terraricca]

Quote (Stu @ July 26 2011,18:21)

Quote (terraricca @ July 26 2011,11:16) stu you tell me what is your version of the natural selection in evolution and I tell you if it is true, Pierre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_flow Stuart

stu

there 5000 pages at the least,I went there and i am not ready to do it again,

so we will have to cut it down to a few subjects,ok

Pierre

[Stu]

Quote (terraricca @ July 26 2011,12:36)

Quote (Stu @ July 26 2011,18:21) Quote (terraricca @ July 26 2011,11:16) stu you tell me what is your version of the natural selection in evolution and I tell you if it is true, Pierre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_flow Stuart stu there 5000 pages at the least,I went there and i am not ready to do it again, so we will have to cut it down to a few subjects,ok Pierre

It won't be OK if you carry on spouting nonsense that does not reflect what evolution by natural selection actually is, according to science. If you find that too much, why did you even comment on evolution in the first place? That is just the basics of it!

If you can find points against science, then that will be OK, of course, I am keen and open to new learning if there is any to be had.

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (princess @ July 26 2011,12:19)

it is not the dna that gets me, it is the rna.

Go princess!

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (terraricca @ July 26 2011,12:32)

stu i still would be right ,because it is only if you ask in a specific detail question that you can get the true answer, Pierre

Indeed.

That was the nature of my questions “What is a god? and What exactly did it do?

Is there a “true” answer to either?

Stuart

[terraricca]

Quote (Stu @ July 26 2011,19:44)

Quote (terraricca @ July 26 2011,12:36) Quote (Stu @ July 26 2011,18:21) Quote (terraricca @ July 26 2011,11:16) stu you tell me what is your version of the natural selection in evolution and I tell you if it is true, Pierre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_flow Stuart stu there 5000 pages at the least,I went there and i am not ready to do it again, so we will have to cut it down to a few subjects,ok Pierre It won't be OK if you carry on spouting nonsense that does not reflect what evolution by natural selection actually is, according to science.  If you find that too much, why did you even comment on evolution in the first place?  That is just the basics of it! If you can find points against science, then that will be OK, of course, I am keen and open to new learning if there is any to be had. Stuart

stu

if you can not explain what it is do not ask me to tell you what is wrong in you explanation,

if you think I will do the work of explain and correction this is doing the work of both student and teacher and you sitting and wait ?

NO SIR

[terraricca]

Quote (Stu @ July 26 2011,19:47)

Quote (terraricca @ July 26 2011,12:32) stu i still would be right ,because it is only if you ask in a specific detail question that you can get the true answer, Pierre Indeed. That was the nature of my questions “What is a god? and What exactly did it do? Is there a “true” answer to either? Stuart

stu

what you think??

[terraricca]

stu

let take evolution theory on the base

and see ok

[Stu]

Quote (terraricca @ July 26 2011,12:51)

Quote (Stu @ July 26 2011,19:44) Quote (terraricca @ July 26 2011,12:36) Quote (Stu @ July 26 2011,18:21) Quote (terraricca @ July 26 2011,11:16) stu you tell me what is your version of the natural selection in evolution and I tell you if it is true, Pierre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_flow Stuart stu there 5000 pages at the least,I went there and i am not ready to do it again, so we will have to cut it down to a few subjects,ok Pierre It won't be OK if you carry on spouting nonsense that does not reflect what evolution by natural selection actually is, according to science.  If you find that too much, why did you even comment on evolution in the first place?  That is just the basics of it! If you can find points against science, then that will be OK, of course, I am keen and open to new learning if there is any to be had. Stuart stu if you can not explain what it is do not ask me to tell you what is wrong in you explanation, if you think I will do the work of explain and correction this is doing the work of both student and teacher and you sitting and wait ? NO SIR

It is not true that I cannot explain this. I gave you references because the explanations have already been written, and there are diagrams and everything, too!

I think you will either say what is wrong with evolution by natural selection, or else say nothing about it at all. I think if you have a better explanation for how we came to be here, which explains the available evidence completely, then you should put it up.

Otherwise admit that you have nothing to say on the matter. That is pretty much what you have done anyway.

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (terraricca @ July 26 2011,12:52)

Quote (Stu @ July 26 2011,19:47) Quote (terraricca @ July 26 2011,12:32) stu i still would be right ,because it is only if you ask in a specific detail question that you can get the true answer, Pierre Indeed. That was the nature of my questions “What is a god? and What exactly did it do? Is there a “true” answer to either? Stuart stu what you think??

I've got no idea. You've been using the word god. What do you mean by that. Do you have a “true” explanation?

Stuart

[princess]

Almost all of the elegant molecular machinery of the cell needs multiple parts to work. Because of the need for many parts, it is extraordinarily difficult to rigorously envision how systems such as the cilium, flagellum, or blood cloting cascade could have ariser, from simpler systems by the ‘numerous, successive, slight modifications’ imagined by Darwin.

I define irreducible complexity on page 39 ‘a single system which is composed of several well matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. Now I am a scientist I’m no philosopher.

Darwins Black Box
Michael J Behe

[terraricca]

Quote (Stu @ July 26 2011,19:58)

Quote (terraricca @ July 26 2011,12:51) Quote (Stu @ July 26 2011,19:44) Quote (terraricca @ July 26 2011,12:36) Quote (Stu @ July 26 2011,18:21) Quote (terraricca @ July 26 2011,11:16) stu you tell me what is your version of the natural selection in evolution and I tell you if it is true, Pierre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_flow Stuart stu there 5000 pages at the least,I went there and i am not ready to do it again, so we will have to cut it down to a few subjects,ok Pierre It won't be OK if you carry on spouting nonsense that does not reflect what evolution by natural selection actually is, according to science.  If you find that too much, why did you even comment on evolution in the first place?  That is just the basics of it! If you can find points against science, then that will be OK, of course, I am keen and open to new learning if there is any to be had. Stuart stu if you can not explain what it is do not ask me to tell you what is wrong in you explanation, if you think I will do the work of explain and correction this is doing the work of both student and teacher and you sitting and wait ? NO SIR It is not true that I cannot explain this.  I gave you references because the explanations have already been written, and there are diagrams and everything, too! I think you will either say what is wrong with evolution by natural selection, or else say nothing about it at all.  I think if you have a better explanation for how we came to be here, which explains the available evidence completely, then you should put it up. Otherwise admit that you have nothing to say on the matter.  That is pretty much what you have done anyway. Stuart

stu

then you explain it to me in the simplest way you can but in the fundamental way, no need to send me to timbuktu

or you can read this ;;

The “black box” in the title refers to the conceptual tool in which, for one reason or another, the internal workings of a device are taken for granted, so that its function may be discussed.

Behe begins by reminding the general reader of paradigm shifts in the history of science, in which the foundations and assumptions of theories are examined, sometimes resulting in the rejection of an entire theory. Behe suggests that such a paradigm shift in biology (and particularly in evolution) is imminent due to recent discoveries (circa 1996) in biochemistry. Behe acknowledges acceptance of the Theory of Evolution by “the great majority” of scientists, and states that “most (though not all) do so based on authority.”

Behe states that elucidations of the evolutionary history of various biological features typically assume the existence of certain abilities as their starting point, such as Charles Darwin's example of a cluster of light-sensitive spots evolving into an eye via a series of intermediate steps. He then points out that Darwin dismissed the need to explain the origin of the 'simple' light-sensitive spot, summarizes the modern understanding of the biochemistry of vision and claims that many other evolutionary explanations face a similar challenge.

Behe next introduces and defines the concept of irreducible complexity as a system with a series of parts in which the removal of any part causes the entire system to cease functioning, offering a springloaded-bar mousetrap as a familiar example. In the following chapters, Behe discusses the apparent irreducible complexity of several biological systems, including the cilium, the bacterial flagellum, blood clotting, the immune system and intracellular gated and vesicular transport. Behe claims the underlying complexity and biochemical mechanisms of the systems are vastly under-appreciated, and identifies other, similar systems.

Behe identifies one of the primary counter-arguments of irreducible complexity, gradual adaptation—that certain systems may have been co-opted from an original, unrelated role to assume a new function as an irreducibly complex system. He counter-argues that though it is impossible to consider all possible roles for any component, it is extremely implausible that components can fortuitously change function within a complex system and that the focus of the theory changes from making to modifying components and recounts unsuccessful attempts to discover evolutionary pathways for complex systems within scientific journals. Behe states that though he did identify assertions that evolution had occurred, he found none that had been supported by experiment or calculation, and concludes the book by offering intelligent design as a solution to irreducible complexity.

as a starter

Pierre

[Stu]

Quote (princess @ July 26 2011,13:26)

Almost all of the elegant molecular machinery of the cell needs multiple parts to work. Because of the need for many parts, it is extraordinarily difficult to rigorously envision how systems such as the cilium, flagellum, or blood cloting cascade could have ariser, from simpler systems by the ‘numerous, successive, slight modifications’ imagined by Darwin. I define irreducible complexity on page 39 ‘a single system which is composed of several well matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. Now I am a scientist I’m no philosopher. Darwins Black Box Michael J Behe

This is the “it is extrordinarily difficult to envision” argument. Just because Behe can't envision it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Behe was discredited and humiliated at the Dover, PA trial, in which it was shown that indeed these interacting parts of the flagellar motor exist in other species, but doing different jobs, exactly as Darwin described.

The blood clotting cascade is supremely complicated, but is entirely explained in terms of gradual incremental evolutionary changes, based not least in the evidence of species alive today. I can find the link if you are interested in the details.

Behe's concept of irreducible complexity is a name waiting to describe something real. So far there are no demonstrated cases of it. Behe is also dishonest to say that he speaks as a scientist in this way. There are no peer-reviewed papers published in proper scientific journals that claim any of this, and even his own faculty disown his creationism.

If you are interested in why Intelligent Design, based on “irreducible complexity” was invented as a new form of creationism, then read the Wedge Document.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf

What these bozos want is to try and get creationism taken seriously in schools by dressing it up as science. They have failed to have it taken seriously in places of higher learning, so cynically they are trying to foist it on school children, whose faculties for critical thinking are not as well established.

I think that amounts to attempted, and foiled, child abuse.

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (terraricca @ July 26 2011,13:26)

The “black box” in the title refers to the conceptual tool in which, for one reason or another, the internal workings of a device are taken for granted, so that its function may be discussed. Behe begins by reminding the general reader of paradigm shifts in the history of science, in which the foundations and assumptions of theories are examined, sometimes resulting in the rejection of an entire theory. Behe suggests that such a paradigm shift in biology (and particularly in evolution) is imminent due to recent discoveries (circa 1996) in biochemistry. Behe acknowledges acceptance of the Theory of Evolution by “the great majority” of scientists, and states that “most (though not all) do so based on authority.” Behe states that elucidations of the evolutionary history of various biological features typically assume the existence of certain abilities as their starting point, such as Charles Darwin's example of a cluster of light-sensitive spots evolving into an eye via a series of intermediate steps. He then points out that Darwin dismissed the need to explain the origin of the 'simple' light-sensitive spot, summarizes the modern understanding of the biochemistry of vision and claims that many other evolutionary explanations face a similar challenge. Behe next introduces and defines the concept of irreducible complexity as a system with a series of parts in which the removal of any part causes the entire system to cease functioning, offering a springloaded-bar mousetrap as a familiar example. In the following chapters, Behe discusses the apparent irreducible complexity of several biological systems, including the cilium, the bacterial flagellum, blood clotting, the immune system and intracellular gated and vesicular transport. Behe claims the underlying complexity and biochemical mechanisms of the systems are vastly under-appreciated, and identifies other, similar systems. Behe identifies one of the primary counter-arguments of irreducible complexity, gradual adaptation—that certain systems may have been co-opted from an original, unrelated role to assume a new function as an irreducibly complex system. He counter-argues that though it is impossible to consider all possible roles for any component, it is extremely implausible that components can fortuitously change function within a complex system and that the focus of the theory changes from making to modifying components and recounts unsuccessful attempts to discover evolutionary pathways for complex systems within scientific journals. Behe states that though he did identify assertions that evolution had occurred, he found none that had been supported by experiment or calculation, and concludes the book by offering intelligent design as a solution to irreducible complexity. as a starter Pierre

Please see my reply to princess. Behe has been proved wrong on all the examples he has tried.

For example, here is the biochemist Kenneth Miller (a Catholic, if it is any help to you). The trial he is talking about is the Dover, PA trial in which school parents brought a case against their school board over the question of teaching “Intelligent Design”:

Here he is again:

Stuart

[Ed J]

Quote (Stu @ July 25 2011,09:54)

Those creationists are liars by omission because they only select the data points that appear to fit their fantasy story.

Quote

liars by omission?

Hi Stuart,

THERE'S NO SUCH THING as 'lying by omission' !   …only bearing false witness   …which requires disclosure.

No wonder you swallow so heavily on the actual lies of evilutions' circulated propaganda false truth's; aye?

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[Ed J]

Quote (Stu @ July 25 2011,09:54)

You have a human brain that voraciously seeks patterns, and finds them even where there are no patterns.

Hi Stuart,

These are Good words to use on evolutionists; mind if I quote you?

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[Author]

Posts