Irreducible complexity and Evolution

a reply to: Noinden

If I remember correctly, one of the Mods said exactly that - if you're posting something related to science, you need to provide credible evidence. That was some time ago. Perhaps the Mods should mention it again.

a reply to: Phantom423

I agree. I'm not going to hold my breath however, oxygen deprivation is not my bag.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Funny you should talk about honest scientists. Every time I post (hi I'm a scientist) I mention that we don't have belief, we have data. In that, what we study is dependent on the evidence. IF the evidence changes, in a verifiable manner, we change the theory (when we have one).

So evolution fits the data.

That you prefer to trust the data does not mean that evolution is proven. Far from, if we are all honest. It's a theory, and it's no more supported than many others. A theory isn't something set in stone; it's something that still needs to be tested and proven.

Here is the telling thing. Anyone who has worked with scientists (specifically academic ones), knows that that they almost never agree on anything. Thus if something earns the title of "theory" then it is something they can't argue about.

Not even close to accurate,a s scientists do argue about theories, all the time. Even some of Einstein's stuff has been debated, and some fascinating data has come about as a result. To not argue would be to assume it's right, when it's more likely that other data will come along to call everything into question.

Quite simply YOU are building up a strawman argument.

Your God has no proof either nor do my many Gods.

I never claimed to be able to prove God. I know what I believe, and have no doubts in that regard, but I can't prove it to you, or to anyone.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Out of curiosity. What qualifications do you hold to judge the validity of that data?

Because your comments on "set in stone" show you do not understand science. The theories in science can change, if the data indicates that it needs to do so. It is a honest approach. When you (I am using an amorphous YOU not you in particular) talk about the theory of evolution, this theory has changed over time. When Darwin postulated his ideas, we did not know the method of hereditary information transfer, in the 1950s we understood it was DNA. In the early 2000s we'd begun to decode it. Now we can reliably (if not as quickly as people want) read the genome.

My statement about Academic scientists is on the nose. I left academia at the end of my PhD to enter the Pharmaceutical industry, to avoid the ego stroking, and mental masturbation many engage in. Thus if scientists agree on something, then chances are the data shows it to be so. Until new data shows otherwise (which may never happen).

You as I said, don't understand the science, based on your comments. There is much evidence regarding evolution. Much of it has been posted here. Yet you and your cronies ignore it.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

That you prefer to trust the data does not mean that evolution is proven. Far from, if we are all honest. It's a theory, and it's no more supported than many others. A theory isn't something set in stone; it's something that still needs to be tested and proven.

You obviously don't understand what a theory is in science. Please take note of the text in the box:

"GENERAL THEORIES MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH MOST OR ALL AVAILABLE DATA AND WITH OTHER CURRENT THEORIES"

It's the DATA, not hot air.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton
Why perpetrate fraudulent information?
Perpetrating fraud should be against the rules of behavior.

I am posting empirical evidence. Accelerator Mass Spectrometry labs can still get accurate results even with contamination due to their thorough cleaning techniques. I know this because I was looking into getting dinosaur remains C-14 tested for my self. You as a self-proclaimed mutant ape scientist should be thrilled to look into new empirical evidence, but you claim it is fraudulent because you don't like its results. Miller was only one of many scientists to find such results.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: cooperton
The flaw is that it's not a car!! It's not even close to the same thing. Your examples are laughable.

Oxygen + biomolecules -----car engine------> carbon dioxide + water + energy
Oxygen + biomolecules ---mitochondrion---> carbon dioxide + water + energy

They are both combustion reactions used to create energy. It's funny how serious you take theoretical science, yet you laugh at empirical science.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Not at all. I know what the terms mean, and I also know how often someone who is very pro-evolution will claim it's all proven, beyond doubt, no questioning allowed. Look at any of dozens of threads on this site alone for proof of that!

Dozens of threads with people being idiots and denying science is not proof that there are doubts to evolution. That is called religious fundamentalism where you take a literal translation of the bible and deny everything that conflicts without reason. The evidence itself is enough to show that it's valid and since none of you creationist folk have ever once attempted to debunk the hard evidence, it goes without saying that evolution is verified by science. You guys don't have an argument against it at all besides blind denial of scientific research.

Dozens of threads wherein people who support evolution behave as though it's a religion to them. Way to totally miss (or dodge) the point.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Of course you know what you believe. We all know what we believe or we wouldn't believe it. That is a totally pointless statement.

But you're right. You can't prove God to anyone. Not even yourself. If you could you wouldn't have to believe. You could also then prove it to others as well.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Yes but modern evolutionary theory in all it's different types actually work to produce reliable predictions and combined all correlate to the same answers which also help verify each other as being correct.

It still gets tweaked here and there and other parts are yet to be found and filled in but with so many areas proving to be correct and correlating with each other helps prove it's validity.

How would that be possible unless of course it's actually true?? Just a coincidence???

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Out of curiosity. What qualifications do you hold to judge the validity of that data?

I am not playing the qualifications game. You aren't stating anything I didn't state, either. My point was that some do not accept that the theories can change, and treat evolution more as a religion than as a scientific theory. That you seem to not do this is fine, but it doesn't change the fact that others do.

You as I said, don't understand the science, based on your comments. There is much evidence regarding evolution. Much of it has been posted here. Yet you and your cronies ignore it.

There is evidence that some interpret as supporting it, and much that does not. That which is used is often ambiguous, too. But, hey, feel free to list the best you think is around.

a reply to: Phantom423

Ho interesting that your little model for the scientific process removed actual testing, and only offering "testable predictions", and do tell, where is evolution actually tested? As in, one species to a totally different sort, which is never, ever shown to have happened?

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

You are not playing the qualifications game yet you are questioning something that requires a modicum of training to talk about with any level of authority.

Evolution is no religion. I speak as a religious person. It is based on pure scientific data. Debate the data, that is what it is there for neighbor.

Pull the data apart. Or admit you can not.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Of course you know what you believe. We all know what we believe or we wouldn't believe it. That is a totally pointless statement.

But you're right. You can't prove God to anyone. Not even yourself. If you could you wouldn't have to believe. You could also then prove it to others as well.

Hey, you were the one talking about proving God, not I!

Even so, same can be said for a lot of scientific theories, as well. Many are far from proven.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

The answer to that has been posted many times. You just don't read it. Like Coop, you ignore the scientific evidence in favor of your own view. This is a mind-set - you can't read and interpret the data, so you default to a view that satisfies your ego and pride. If you had any curiosity about evolution, you would find that the data supports the current view. If you can come up with hard evidence that the data is incorrect, then it's your responsibility to do so. That's how science works. I don't expect that you'll understand that, but that's okay. We have enough brains in science that you don't matter. And that's the truth.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Yes but modern evolutionary theory in all it's different types actually work to produce reliable predictions and combined all correlate to the same answers which also help verify each other as being correct.

It still gets tweaked here and there and other parts are yet to be found and filled in but with so many areas proving to be correct and correlating with each other helps prove it's validity.

How would that be possible unless of course it's actually true?? Just a coincidence???

More like, assumptions are made, and people's own bias leads them to see what they want to see, I'd say! Debatable, of course, but no one, scientist or otherwise, is without bias.

How much that was assumed turned out to not be true? Moths pinned to trees, embryo drawings utterly faked? Museum exhibits made to look like an upright creature, when it's clear it's a knuckle walker? A true theory needs no fakery.

a reply to: cooperton

You don't know a damn thing about mass spectrometry - that's my field and I know it inside out and upside down. You're a sound bite "scientist". You pick and choose what supports your view without ever asking a question. You can't analyze, you can't interpret data, you've never even been in a lab. You're ignorant as to how science works.
You can insist all you want with your pick-and-choose methodology - just like Ken Ham (who by the way is going broke) - but you can't perpetrate fraud.

You're done. You know it and everyone else knows it.

a reply to: cooperton

And P.S., as I have stated previously, any time you want to debate the science in the debate forum, let me know. Why not ask LadyGreenEyes to debate with you?

Bring your evidence. Bring your data. Be ready. Any time you say - just let me know.

It will be moderated and organized like any formal debate. I've offered this before - but no takers.

You will be the first?

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

You don't know a damn thing about mass spectrometry - that's my field and I know it inside out and upside down. You're a sound bite "scientist". You pick and choose what supports your view without ever asking a question. You can't analyze, you can't interpret data, you've never even been in a lab. You're ignorant as to how science works.
You can insist all you want with your pick-and-choose methodology - just like Ken Ham (who by the way is going broke) - but you can't perpetrate fraud.

You're done. You know it and everyone else knows it.

Yet you thought that people touching a bone contaminates it so it cannot be tested?

The "chemists", who were frauds, knew that the samples had seen a lot of hands and were contaminated.

I was told this from a lab member at Accium:

"All samples are treated assuming some degree of incidental modern carbon contamination. Standard preparation measures will remove it."

Are you under the impression that touching a sample contaminates it beyond the point of cleaning it? Such is not true.

a reply to: cooperton

Anecdotal stories are not evidence. Show evidence, that can be discussed.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

No way it would go for this long with so many various branches and people working and expanding on it if it was all just assumptions. That would have been noticed by now.