A question for evolutionist

[andyandy]

That was before I started reading Behe's book.

In the last few days you've gone from being a strong atheist to an evangelical Christian, from believing that the bible is not literally true, to believing giants existed because the bible says it's so and from thinking evolution is true to no longer believing evolution. Can we expect a fully fledged young earth creationist sometime next week?

 

[Zep]

He's a practical joker...of no fixed ability.

 

[Megalodon]

What about legs? Obviously men couldn't just hop around before legs evolved, because it would crush their testicles and prevent reproduction.

Since humanity needs legs, God exists... or something

 

[logical muse]

It's the brains that concern me. I can understand how creationists survived before brains evolved, as they seem to get along fine without them now, but what about the rest of us?

 

[PixyMisa]

In the last few days you've gone from being a strong atheist to an evangelical Christian, from believing that the bible is not literally true, to believing giants existed because the bible says it's so and from thinking evolution is true to no longer believing evolution. Can we expect a fully fledged young earth creationist sometime next week?

Think of it as devolution in action.

 

[brodski]

Think of it as devolution in action.

Don't let the Scots nats hear you say that.

 

[my_wan]

I think it is time to turn the tables here and have some of my questions answered by you.
Notice I will go one at a time instead of bombarding you with about 30 at once and when all are not answered instantly proclaiming a victory.
Q: How did humans survive before we evolved the uvula...you know that little dangly thing in our throats that prevent food from going down our breating passage and causing us to choke to death...

Good refutes... To add my 2 cents;
Even computer evolution programs have exhibited irreducible complexity. You can download this one and try it yourself.
http://dllab.caltech.edu/avida/
This guy loves the fact that so many ID proponents are using his program. Very large part of his testers. That's the difference between science and woo. Science loves skeptics even if those skeptics are rabid ID people. Real scientist know that skeptics and skepticism is just another tool to pursue the truth.

 

[Lothian]

I started reading his book yesterday and I'm already half way through. He makes some very compelling and convincing arguments against the Darwinism hypothesis.

I must apologise but Dustin is temporarily unavailable.

Following his recent Rhinehartesc policy of believing the last thing he read; he is now frozen in time staring at a carton of orange juice with concentrate written on the side.

 

[Mashuna]

I must apologise but Dustin is temporarily unavailable.

Following his recent Rhinehartesc policy of believing the last thing he read; he is now frozen in time staring at a carton of orange juice with concentrate written on the side.

I hope that this doesn't count as cruel and/or hateful behaviour to another forum member, but I posted him a sheet of paper with 'Turn Over' written on both sides.

 

[sackett]

Hey, Freaky Jesus, where are you? Sulked off already?

Wait a minute -- JF goes poof! and Dustin shows up.

JF, what have you done with Dustin?

The Dustin I knew was a rather lumbering young man, but he had his head screwed down tight. Now he's locked in a soundproof sub-basement under Creationist Central, with nothing to read but a Classic Comics version of the Bible. Poor guy, poor guy.

 

[KingMerv00]

What about legs? Obviously men couldn't just hop around before legs evolved, because it would crush their testicles and prevent reproduction.

Since humanity needs legs, God exists... or something

OMG! How did humans reproduce before testicles evolved?

Game. Set. Match.

Pwned.

w00t!

 

[Lothian]

OMG! How did humans reproduce before testicles evolved?

Game. Set. Match.

Pwned.

w00t!

Sorry, that is a bollocks argument.

 

[strathmeyer]

So is this how all jesus_freak threads are going to go? A question is posted and the thread is then ignored when the question is answered? Is this how discussion groups are supposed to work? No wonder I'm so bad a learning new things...

 

[D'rok]

That was before I started reading Behe's book.

Now I know Dustin is a performance artist. He is attempting to sculpt a troll installation piece in the public space of this forum. I almost admire the effort and commitment.

In the last few days you've gone from being a strong atheist to an evangelical Christian, from believing that the bible is not literally true, to believing giants existed because the bible says it's so and from thinking evolution is true to no longer believing evolution. Can we expect a fully fledged young earth creationist sometime next week?

Only the artist knows for sure.


ETA: Ooooo...this is rich. Look what I stumbled upon:

I could easily list cases of well known 'professionals' who hold absurd notions in their specific field that most laymen might not know but that proves having a degree isn't proof of knowledge of the field in which it is held.

Case in point..Michael Behe

He [Behe] makes claims that relate to biochemistry that anyone who knows the basics of biochemistry knows is absurd.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1882237#post1882237
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1882274#post1882274

 

[Beleth]

People will say anything when being pressured by an attorney on the stand and they are nervous and anxious.

People are compelled by law to be truthful when on the stand. People writing a book, not so much. Given a discrepancy between what one has writen while not under oath vs. what someone says under oath, especially when what is said under oath goes against their interests, it is reasonable to conclude that what is said under oath is more factual than what was said not under oath.

In other words, it's folly to think that Behe would both lie AND destroy his reputation at the same time on the stand.

 

[Hellbound]

I think it is time to turn the tables here and have some of my questions answered by you.
Notice I will go one at a time instead of bombarding you with about 30 at once and when all are not answered instantly proclaiming a victory.
Q: How did humans survive before we evolved the uvula...you know that little dangly thing in our throats that prevent food from going down our breating passage and causing us to choke to death...

The uvula does not perform that function.

You are wrong.

Thanks for playing.

 

[Wowbagger]

Dustin and JF,

I agree that Behe's statements would be very compelling, indeed. If only scientists viewed evolution the way he thinks they do.

Behe's working definition of "evolution" basically involves an accumulation of parts, over time. Under that type of definition, a lot of his arguments seem to make sense, right?

The only problem is that there is much more types of evolution that have been observed by scientists. Behe's limited definition does not take into account co-option, symbiosis, recombination, etc. etc. (The list is actually quite longer.)

Scientists understand Darwinian evolution as the nonrandom selection from variations that initially arose indifferently to the life form's survival.

And, with that more general understanding, it becomes clearer how evolution of complex things could come about.

For the uvula, for example, evolved slowly, over time, along with the rest of the parts of the animal. Each step of the way, each new life form with the genes to form that flap of muscle get selected over those that do not, because it aids in survival.

Of course, its purpose could change over time. It might be possible (though I don't know for myself, yet) that the uvula served as a method to block food from going down the wind pipe, but then its purpose got co-opted into helping with sound formation.

Remember: Evolution is a gradual process. Anyone whose arguments against evolution define it as anything other than that is not doing something right. And, that includes "irreducible complexity".

-Mitch

 

[Hellbound]

From Merriam Webster's Medical Dictionary:

Main Entry: uvu·la
Pronunciation: 'yü-vy&-l&
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural uvu·las /-l&z/ or uvu·lae /-"lE/
1 : the pendent fleshy lobe in the middle of the posterior border of the soft palate
2 : a lobe of the inferior vermis of the cerebellum located in front of the pyramid —uvu·lar /-l&r/ adjective
Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

From the same source:

Main Entry: epi·glot·tis
Pronunciation: "ep-&-'glät-&s
Function: noun
: a thin lamella of yellow elastic cartilage that ordinarily projects upward behind the tongue and just in front of the glottis and that with the arytenoid cartilages serves to cover the glottis during the act of swallowing
Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

And for those unfamiliar with anatomy:

Main Entry: glot·tis
Pronunciation: 'glät-&s
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural glot·tis·es or glot·ti·des /-&-"dEz/
: the space between one of the true vocal cords and the arytenoid cartilage on one side of the larynx and those of the other side; also : the structures that surround this space —compare [SIZE=-1]EPIGLOTTIS[/SIZE]
Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

The vocal cords are at the top of the air passage.

The epiglottus covers the tracheal opening while swallowing. The uvula has no known function (except to act as a punching bag in cartoons).

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

Of course, it could be worse: Kleinman could be in here claiming that math shows that evolution doesn't work without showing any actual math, regurgitating out of context and debunked arguments about "selection pressures," and calling everyone insulting names based on their avatar.

 

[ktesibios]

The uvula has no known function (except to act as a punching bag in cartoons).

So it's a lot like creationists.