Something was funky there for a while I think. I logged in with a different browser and was given another poster’s “hidden” email address. Not Good!

I’ll just leave you with two thoughts and a link.

One: As for the time scales involved making evolution more likely, you are seriously mistaken. There is a very well established science called Probability Theory which calculates the chances that something could likely occur. For life to have gotten started by chance, even giving all favorable conditions possible, it reduces the asserted 17 billion years of our universe to something like mere nanoseconds (less actually). It is astonishing. It makes all the estimated atoms in the entire universe look like nothing by comparison; nothing!!! Considering the almost complete lack of beneficial, not to mention the total lack of information gaining, mutations for natural selection to act on, the picture isn’t any better even if you start with an initial life form.

Two: I’m sincerely concerned when I see evolution advocates who are unaware of even basic empirical facts that even evolution believing scientists freely admit to. It screams that they have clearly not done the reading and research that they claim to have done, and shows their hypocrisy when they charge creationists/I.D. proponents with not doing the same. It is clear that they’ve only gone to the evolution advocates who predigest the “facts” for them. Unfortunately, these advocates are very reluctant to share anything that may upset their disciples total faith in the theory. Please understand that I’m not throwing stones here. I’m just surprised that you are apparently unaware that mutations are overwhelmingly negative (conferring disadvantages), sometimes neutral (providing neither advantage nor disadvantage), and so rarely are positive in any way that they virtually never occur.

This is where the link comes in: http://www.trueorigin.org/ng_ap01.asp

It is a very long article, and the information about mutations, well documented from evolutionary biologists, comes toward the bottom. This has been well known for a long time.

Again, I’m sorry to have to leave off here. If you’d like you can contact me through my blog.

I’m adding this last line in hopes that the WP duplicate post filter won’t eat this attempt also! Aaaargh!

I’ll just leave you with two thoughts and a link.

One: As for the time scales involved making evolution more likely, you are seriously mistaken. There is a very well established science called Probability Theory which calculates the chances that something could likely occur. For life to have gotten started by chance, even giving all favorable conditions possible, it reduces the asserted 17 billion years of our universe to something like mere nanoseconds (less actually). It is astonishing. It makes all the estimated atoms in the entire universe look like nothing by comparison; nothing!!! Considering the almost complete lack of beneficial, not to mention the total lack of information gaining, mutations for natural selection to act on, the picture isn’t any better even if you start with an initial life form.

Two: I’m sincerely concerned when I see evolution advocates who are unaware of even basic empirical facts that even evolution believing scientists freely admit to. It screams that they have clearly not done the reading and research that they claim to have done, and shows their hypocrisy when they charge creationists/I.D. proponents with not doing the same. It is clear that they’ve only gone to the evolution advocates who predigest the “facts” for them. Unfortunately, these advocates are very reluctant to share anything that may upset their disciples total faith in the theory. Please understand that I’m not throwing stones here. I’m just surprised that you are apparently unaware that mutations are overwhelmingly negative (conferring disadvantages), sometimes neutral (providing neither advantage nor disadvantage), and so rarely are positive in any way that they virtually never occur.

This is where the link comes in: http://www.trueorigin.org/ng_ap01.asp

It is a very long article, and the information about mutations, well documented from evolutionary biologists, comes toward the bottom. This has been well known for a long time.

Again, I’m sorry to have to leave off here. If you’d like you can contact me through my blog.

@Abby

Please provide a reference for your comment about atoms.

@Brent

My quick perusal of the links I included (I admit I did not read in depth) led me to think that they are saying that it is very likely, not that it is 100% the case, that the flagellum evolved from some similar prior forms.

Second, you state that the simpler forms are 99.9% certain to have evolved from the flagellum. Please provide references to the well-controlled, peer-reviewed studies that make provide evidence of this. Without providing this evidence, your argument cannot stand.

I actually read Behe’s testimony from the Dover trial, and he seems, well, a bit confused about what exactly ID is and what it addresses and doesn’t address. To say the least, he performed poorly on cross-examination.

And going back to one of my previous posts:

“If ID is a theory (in the scientific sense), what evidence does it have to support it? What predictions does it make? What research has been done to test those predictions, and what were the results? Please provide links to support your answers to these questions, so that readers may evaluate your evidence for themselves.“

These questions have yet to be answered.

The simple complexity of an object or system, by the way, cannot determine that the object or system was designed, created or constructed by an intelligence. For example, crystalline structures are incredibly complex (e.g., a snowflake). Their complexity is a result of various environmental factors acting on the materials. It may be possible that some intelligent force is acting on it, but we have no way of determining this. So, what contribution does a statement that an “intelligence designed this” make to science? Again, see my questions above.

What evidence, besides supposed irreducible complexity, is there for an intelligent designer? And even if something appears to be irreducibly complex, if one claims that it must have formed as a whole through intelligent guidance because it is so complex and we have not seen anything like it develop in such a gradual process, keep in mind that the time scale we’re talking about for such changes runs well beyond numerous generations of human existence and very likely predates humans by millennia. Given the time scales involved, I do not see any problem in small, seemingly insignificant changes eventually leading to a complex structure that may or may not be related to the function of the initial form.

And finally, the Theory of Evolution, from my understanding, has moved on quite a bit from the way Mr. Darwin understood it.

Todd:

“In ruling out direct Darwinian pathways to irreducibly complex systems, Behe isn’t saying it’s logically impossible for the Darwinian mechanism to attain such systems. It’s logically possible for just about anything to attain any other thing via a vastly improbable or fortuitous event. For instance, it’s logically possible that with my very limited chess ability I might defeat the reigning world champion, Vladimir Kramnik, in ten straight games. But if I do so, it will be despite my limited chess ability and not because of it. Likewise, if the Darwinian mechanism is the conduit by which a direct Darwinian pathway leads to an irreducibly complex biochemical system, then it is despite the intrinsic properties or capacities of that mechanism. Thus, in saying that irreducibly complex biochemical systems are provably inaccessible to direct Darwinian pathways, design proponents are saying that the Darwinian mechanism has no intrinsic capacity for generating such systems except as vastly improbable or fortuitous events. Accordingly, to attribute irreducible complexity to a direct Darwinian pathway is like attributing Mount Rushmore to wind and erosion. There’s a sheer possibility that wind and erosion could sculpt Mount Rushmore but not a realistic one.
It’s not clear whether Orr is willing to concede that direct Darwinian pathways are inherently incapable of generating irreducible complexity. At any rate, Orr looks to save Darwinism not by challenging this point but by putting his eggs in another basket, namely, by looking to indirect Darwinian pathways. How does Behe handle indirect Darwinian pathways? Here Behe’s point is no longer logical but empirical. The fact is that for irreducibly complex biochemical systems, no indirect Darwinian pathways are known. At best biologists have been able to isolate subsystems of such systems that perform other functions. But any reasonably complicated machine always includes subsystems that perform functions distinct from the original machine. So the mere occurrence or identification of subsystems that could perform some function on their own is no evidence for an indirect Darwinian pathway leading to the system. What’s needed is a seamless Darwinian account that’s both detailed and testable of how subsystems undergoing coevolution could gradually transform into an irreducibly complex system. No such accounts are available or forthcoming. Indeed, if such accounts were available, Orr would merely need to cite them and intelligent design would be finished.”

William Dembski
http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_logic_credulity.htm

The problem with what you linked for me above is that, again, the first step to trying to debunk the irreducible complexity problems for the Darwinian mechanism is to mis-characterize it. It amounts to a very sophisticated straw-man, really.

The first link you gave is rather laughable. There is simply an assertion that because they could find some similar and less complex components that they must have then therefore been the precursor to the flagellum.

“ … the relationships among these genes suggest the probable order in which the structural components of the bacterial flagellum arose. These results show that core components of the bacterial flagellum originated through the successive duplication and modification of a few, or perhaps even a single, precursor gene.”

There is nothing remotely close here to showing there is a sufficient mechanism to produce the flagellum. It matters not one whit that they can find something lesser that is possibly a core component. Indeed, the rub here is that according to what is actually emperically known about mutations and selection is that these lesser components are 99.9 percent sure to have evolved from the flagellum!!! That is precisely what one should conclude; that these components exist much, much, much more probably as a gradual breakdown from the flagellum rather than a precursor to it. Thereby, you have conveniently backed up my claim that scientists routinely look at actual observable facts and then go 180 degrees against what that evidence suggests.

To note, the second link does the same thing. The author cites lesser components of the flagellum and then reasons that they were the “building blocks” for it, rather than the evolution (downward) of it, which is what one would reasonably expect from the observed way in which mutations and such actually work.

Please read the link I’ve provided which should at the least ensure you have a grasp of what Behe is really saying. Don’t let others mis-interpret, purposely in my opinion, what his argument really is.

Also, and I don’t know how many people know this, but Behe isn’t trying to argue against evolution altogether at all. He believes in it and common ancestry. He is just being honest about the observable and overwhelming problems that any known Darwinian mechanisms have.

To whom are you addressing your question?

First, regarding your evidence of the Earth being only 6,000 years old. I am assuming that you are talking about the Bible, a collection of works by multiple authors; a document that was compiled from among many more writings by various authors, some of which were excluded because they didn’t fit in with the message the compilers wanted to get across. Many of these writings, in turn, were likely based on oral tradition, humanity having been around a bit longer than writing. One may take it on faith that the Bible was divinely inspired, and that the writings are literally true. However, there is no evidence that the Bible is literal truth, unless one already accepts the existence of God and His infallible Word. If one never even critically questions the historical development of the Bible, or seriously considers the existence or non-existence of God, then it is difficult to accept any other possibility. Second, in regards to people that believe in evolution and God not being true Christians, that may be so according to your particular sect of Christianity IIRC, in order to be a Christian, one must believe that Jesus is the Christ, and that he was the Son of God and died for our sins. That’s it. Belief in evolution does not negate that or make a person not a Christian. Finally, I never stated that natural selection was evolution. I said that natural selection was a mechanism of evolution. I.e., living beings evolve through the process of natural selection (among other mechanisms, as well).

@Brent

I never stated that natural selection can create anything, nor does evolutionary theory make that claim. Natural selection operates on what already exists, whether traits that have been in the organisms for generations or a new mutation. Evolution also does not necessarily lead to increased complexity. In some instances, it can lead to simplified forms (e.g., cave fish with no eyes or non-functioning eyes, evolved from fish living in lit regions). I’m not really certain what you mean by “microevolution.” I seem to recall that that is a term introduced by proponents of ID and is not part of the theory of evolution.

On the bacterial flagellum, see the following for a couple examples of evolutionary explanations:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0700266104v1
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html

On your comment about overlooking facts, you have not cleared up just what facts or evidence evolutionists overlook. Further, I am guessing, and correct me if I am wrong, that you believe these facts/evidence point to ID. How do you reach this conclusion? Designed by who/what?

Again, I am not going to argue the dark matter issue, as I am not knowledgeable in that area. I will leave that to someone else to debate, though I appreciate the links you provided to those articles.

One final note, regarding ID. If ID is a theory (in the scientific sense), what evidence does it have to support it? What predictions does it make? What research has been done to test those predictions, and what were the results? Please provide links to support your answers to these questions, so that readers may evaluate your evidence for themselves.

@Blondie

Thank you for catching my one misspelling. However, I do not feel I was being hypercritical. The sheer number of misspellings and grammatical errors in Bble-is-trueth’s post did make it very difficult to read. Had it been one or two minor misspellings, I probably would not have commented on it. However, I will admit that I made the assumption that they were a native English speaker, which I should not have done. If English is their second language, then my apologies for any offense I may have given. In the end, I am not demanding perfection; rather, I am asking for the posts to be more clearly written, so that I can better understand what exactly is their argument.

By the way, for those responding to me, while I do not currently believe in divine beings, I do not rule out the possibility of their existence. I just have not seen any evidence myself to suggest that there are any (or even one, for that matter). Also, keep in mind that acceptance of the theory of evolution does not negate, threaten or challenge in any way one’s belief in a Creator. Evolution does not touch on the origins of life. It simply explains how life can become diversified into the variety we see around us today.

Okay, I’ve gone on long enough. There is an abundance of information out there on evolution. More than needs be reiterated by myself, a mere lay-person. Abby, Brent and Blondie, I doubt that I will convince you of my position. And, unless you present me with some darn good evidence, I doubt you will convince me of yours. Furthermore, we’ve moved well beyond the scope of this thread and the BA’s post, which was to announce that there is a site examining the Expelled claims.

At least you understand the difference between faith and science.

Natural selection cannot create anything, though, so no, there is no mechanism for increasing complexity which TOE needs. Please don’t confuse “microevolution” with what we’re really discussing here. To throw out immunobiology and the fossil record is to do just that. The problem for TOE is that there is no mechanism that has ever been observed that can add information/complexity.

Well, I’m glad to hear that someone has finally discredited the bacterial flagellum (at least in your mind). Could you point out where that has been done? What you cite is just another example of a variation of what was already there, and from what it sounds like is more like “devolution”. The fact that you are conveniently overlooking is that the flagellum had to be constructed somehow to begin with. Evolution has nothing but wishful thinking in lue of any observable mechanism to address this.

As for examples of scientists overlooking what the facts would indicate, one would simply need to toss a dart at any paper published in any journal that mentions anything tied to evolution and/or the age of the solar system or universe.

So, to kill two birds with one stone; concerning dark energy, these articles should be enlightening. Some scientists are admitting that there is no real direct evidence for it, but simply a need; a need for something to explain other phenomena that threatens preconceived notions. Can someone say, “ad hoc”? Again, evidence that scientists look at data and then disregard what it indicates when it doesn’t lead in the desired direction (albeit the articles linked indicate that some scientists are willing to be honest about real problems &endash; kudos).

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v452/n7184/full/452158a.html
http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn11498-is-dark-energy-an-illusion.html
http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.2291

Despite what these links indicate, scientists are “certain” that dark matter and energy must exist.

Evolution does have a mechanism (natural selection). It is evidenced in the fossil record, and, it has been observed in the lab (immunobiology). Our vaccine technology is based on evolutionary observations and predictions.

Regarding irreducible complexity, could you please give an example? Please do not trot out the bacterial flagellum, as that has already been discredited. Other bacteria have mechanisms made up of a similar structure, but missing one (IIRC) part. In these, the mechanism is used to pierce other cells, rather than for propulsion. Evidence for this was presented in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case.

“scientists do look at facts and evidence, but then disregard what it otherwise obviously indicates because they’ve already predetermined to fit it to the evolution paradigm.”

Can you provide some examples of this?

I won’t address the dark matter issue, as I’m not familiar with it, but I’m sure the BA could inform you more. I seem to recall other posts on dark matter elsewhere on the site.

@Bble-is-trueth

“There is no evidence of evolution, or divine creation. You have to belive both by faith! God creating the world makes so much more sence then the big bang “theory”. If it were true then I could put sweet potatos, surgar, and pie crust, turned my oven onto 425 then blew it all up I would get a sweet potato pie. Does that make sences? Plus even then I would have started the reaction it wouldn’t have happened on its own. The “theory” evolution also says that people evolved from single cell oginisms over billions of years. FYI the earth has only been around about 6,000 years. There is no way every thing around us could exist with out a creator. Truethfuly, there is only one reason people choose evolution over divine creation. They don’t want to admit God exists.”

What is it about getting the Big Bang theory and evolutionary theory combined into a single argument by those opposed to either? Anyway, I really don’t understand your example of sweet potato pie. How does that have any connection at all with the Big Bang?

For your claim that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, please provide some evidence to back up your argument.

Finally, belief in a creator and acceptance of evolution are not mutually exclusive. One can believe that life was creted by God, but that the subsequent diversification was achieved through evolution. Many Christians fit into this category of belief.

Oh, and please proofread your posts before submitting them. The typos make it rather difficult to read.

After well over a hundred years of trying, evolution still has no mechanism, no fossil evidence, nothing.

And by the way, I never said I needed science to tell me whether God is real or not. That is your problem, not mine. Did you forget who’s who here?

Oh, and speaking of “That is not science”, just how then is dark matter and dark energy science? There is no evidence for it’s existence other than the need for something to explain the way the big bang couldn’t possibly account for how the universe is put together. So, you infer this with no evidence at all because you need something to save your model, but then say that isn’t science when the I.D. crowd comes and says that due to irreducible complexity that there must in fact have been a designer. Why, how hypocritical of you.

[Citation Needed]

Brent, to date, there has never been *any* facts or evidence.

I’ll say that again. To date, there has never been *any* facts or evidence.

When all is said and done, it boils down to “god did it, bible says it, I believe it.”

That is not science.

No, I’m not a troll.

I was referring the concerted effort to keep people from seeing the film that is being promoted, at least for now, primarily throughout the web. Perhaps you’ve heard of it SINCE IT’S THE TOPIC OF THIS VERY POST OF WHICH WE ARE NOW DISCUSSING!!!

How telling of your intelligence to suggest that there is no concerted effort of which I speak! There has also been talk of trying to find instances of copyright and other possible infringements to stop the film legally.

So, as I said, yet another example of how evolutionists cannot and will not look at actual facts and evidence.

So BPL you can’t even get my name right I see : b

Actually its

Salaam = Arabic for peace
Shalom = Hebrew for peace

& Peace = English for peace!

Then you resort to exactly the name calling w/o reason that I
predicted would be the response.

Thanks for proving me right!

As for The Crucifiction StevoR pointed out the XN notion & stressed that no group deserves to be be perscuted, nbotinbg not alljew ior every Jew just the Jewish leaders & mob of the time. Was Caiapbhas & the
Sanhedrin Jewish – of course.

Were they – setting aside the supernatural – responsible for executing the rebel Jew named Jesus (or perhaps more accurately Yoshua) because he threatened their power? Yes.

If you believe the Christian view then maybe we are all indirectly to blame -but the man who directly caused the crucifixion was, like Jesus himself, jewish. It is simply undeniable. Going the next step & blaming all the Jews for Caiphas’ actions is stupid and wrong but then that’s not what StevoR or myself would or have ever advocated.

Which of course would be crystal clear to you if you actually listened to
what we are saying instaed of shreiking abusive names at those who
disagreed with you.

[[Yep. It always strikes me as odd that Jewish groups always cry racism at the slightest hint of rational scrutiny yet their very religion is based on racism. ]]

No, Judaism is based on the revelation of God to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and the almighty hand of the Lord in leading the Hebrew people out of slavery in Egypt. By way of contrast, an example of racism would be posts like yours, in which you repeatedly diss Jews in general and then whine about how you get called anti-semitic. Yes, anti-semites like you are anti-semitic. Deal with it.

[[Sorry for those who think its always anti-semtic* to say “Jews killed Christ” but I’m afraid that’s the plain truth. ]]

Anyone who says “The Jews killed Christ” understands nothing about Christianity.

The Christian position is that all human beings killed Christ. Every time we sin we’re driving the nails in harder. Christ died for me, for you, for everyone on Earth past, present and future. We all killed Christ. Singling out one ethnic group as especially blameworthy is stupid. We don’t go around saying “The Italians killed Christ” because Pilate and his soldiers were Roman.

[quote] The intolerance of the Jewish religion (which among other things has, as essentially its whole basis, that their god God – Yahweh – is a racist and chooses only one group of all the people he supposedly created for special favours & attention) may have been a background factor but Judaism and the Jewish people cannot be blamed for supposed deicide as XN bigots have done throughout history. (Post A.D. history obv. anyway! ) [unquote]

Yep. It always strikes me as odd that Jewish groups always cry racism at the slightest hint of rational scrutiny yet their very religion is based on racism.

NOTHING – Nothing but nothing but nothing ever justifies persecuting & killing people because they hold different beleifs or have a different skin colour or customs to yours but ..

..well rather than blame everybody else for their long history of NOT getting on with anyone else perhaps Jews should examine their own beliefs and behavors first.

Saying “We’re special! God chose us & only us!” isn’t going to endear you to anyone you meet who thinks differently. Dividing the planet into us & them; Jew & goyim is a racist and divisive concept in itself.

If anti-semitism – in the anti-Jews rather than anti-*Semites* sense of the word is ever to end then Jews are going to need to wake up to this truism and alter their perspective acordingly :

Yes they’ve suffered as the result of racism,
Yes the Shoah (Nazi holocaust) took place,
but …
No, they’re not alone in having bad things happen to them and
No they ain’t saints either &
Yes a lot of what they done directly creates the very problem of anti-semtism that they’re so quick to blame others and irrationality for.

Reality is the greatest cause and reason for anti-semitism inthe world today is the behaviour of the state of Israel.

Whats’ more, the victims of the Shoah would surely spin in their graves in shame if they knew what the Jewish state has done & is doing in their name.

No doubt, I too will now be called either an anti-semite or self-hating Jew as with any fair critic of that most unfair and racially discriminatory of all religions / ethnicities & its fascist military-theocratic bully state.

(BTW I’m neither & nor do I beat my wife which is that level of question too.)