Christy
June 28, 2016, 10:24pm
618
@dcscccc
We aren’t going to go over the flagellum arguments AGAIN. This is what I’m talking about, and why you are going to end up getting blocked if you don’t start taking it seriously. How many times have you brought up the flagellum on this site and how many times have people explained why this is not a compelling argument? Stop bringing it up. It is a waste of everyone’s time.
Here is me talking to you in September 2015:
Bringing hypothetical self-replicating machines and flagella up in every conversation is off-topic.
Maybe you could interact with what people are saying on this thread instead of pursuing the same rabbit trails that countless people have already run down with you before.
To refresh your memory (on just the first ten I found) of your past flagella conversations, here you go:
[quote=“dcscccc, post:27, topic:2406, full:true”]
my hypothesis cant tell us how many genes should be different between whale and human (neither evolution).[/quote]
Don’t downplay the value of testing hypotheses as a way to clarify your thinking!
It can’t give us an exact number, but it puts us in the ballpark. As you pointed out (while mangling most of the numbers), evolution is extremely limited in its ability to produce new proteins and new genes. A Designer, particularly an omnipotent one…
id is science because we actually can test it. for example: the flagellum is a motor. we know from human design that a motor cant be functional in less then several parts. so we actually know that a motor (flagellum) cant evolve step wise from other functional system like the ttss that prof miller suggest.
here is the official response to the dover trial from the discovery institute blog:
hey casper.
no realy. the video start with a pendulum that can move. its need about 3-4 part for starting point. so even the starting point is irreducible complex.
now- what if you will find a self replicating watch in other planet? do you will conclude that this watch was design or evolve?
Sooo… Dennis is being asked to prove that 3D structure and folding is necessary for function? Isn’t that a pretty standard observation that applies to enzymes in general? The key interactions within an active site may involve relatively few amino acids, but the relative positions and distances of these amino acids, the accessibility and dimensions of the active site, etc are all related to overall protein folding and 3D structure, and are important for enzymatic activity. Not sure you’ve put…
But all those things exist. So it’s just a matter of putting them together. Behold!
It doesn’t “evolve by a random combination”. It evolves through natural selection.
Of course. I just need to co-opt more parts. Please let me know when you understand evolution and you know what “repurposed internal organelles” means. Until then you’re not going to make sense of this subject.
Hi.
My personal opinion is that generally ‘proof’ can mean different things to different people at different times. I have often had people suggest that I cannot prove that God exists. Scientifically, this might be true, but the proof I have is enough for me. There are many areas in science (including maths) that can be shown to be true beyond reasonable doubt. But there will always be those that choose to disbelieve it - for instance, those who do not believe in a physical existence at all…
dcscccc,
It does matter whether you are talking about the DNA level or amino acids. There are often multiple possible changes in the DNA codon that can give the same amino acid. It’s the DNA that matters for this argument.
The main point is that your position isn’t determined by the evidence. It’s determined by your pre-committment to special creation of species. If that’s what you think you need to believe, fine, but you should admit to yourself that a literal interpretation of the Biblical a…
hi christy
you said:
" All adaptations are driven by changes in environment, not by sitting in a closed room with earth-like conditions. "-
yes. i actually talk about something else. i talk about a giant room in the size of the galaxy or even the universe. so in this condition its possible (according to the atheist view)that a bacteria that in the room can evolve into a human that will make a car, so its indeed a car that evolve in a close (giant)room .
" I don’t argue that there is no Desig…
Brad,
I have to comment about this quote. Pre-911 I would say that this quote is good and hopeful, but after 911, I find it dangerous and potentially deadly. If belief in an afterlife can cause some to crash airplanes into buildings, don’t we have to be careful not to devalue this life in a quest for an afterlife?
ok. so we have a ca r that need to evolve into f15 for exmaple. somewere we need to add a new engine to the f15. this will need a lots of new parts at once. again- there is no step wise from a car into airplan. part by part.
2 Likes