Simple Examples of Irreducible Complexity - Evolution Impossible

a reply to: cooperton

I did show why. with multiple examples. Which you are not addressing. You just keep calling it fallacious without actually arguing the biology that I am addressing.

I'm not addressing your examples (and i'm not going to argue biology unless you can show some creationist biology?... as I accept evolution... that is until you(or someone) can show evidence for something different... which you've never done), because you are showing complete systems and saying "see, this is a complete system!"... your examples are redundant and do not even begin to prove your point that creation did it. You show complexity in your examples, and give an unsupported opinion that evolution couldn't have done it... sounds kind of like a fallacy I know of...

An appeal to complexity is when you don't understand something and therefore say it's not true.

You don't understand evolution, and say that is not true, denying countless facts. How is that not an appeal to complexity?

In your example you say...

I am saying I understand the depths of biological structures and they could not have been formed by step-by-step mutations because their functions are multi-faceted requiring a multitude of proteins to function properly.

That is the complexity part...

Mutating one protein is not going to be able to suffice to create these structures (your opinion... and an appeal). Not to mention one useful new protein with a new function has never been observed in a lab setting to be created from random mutation. (another appeal... because you are inferring that because we haven't seen it in a lab yet, that we never will... quite clearly an appeal, and dishonest) Let alone a multitude of them working in synchrony (... more complexity there). Muscle fiber is a perfect example:

That is the appeal part (with some complexity thrown in)...

... put it all together, and what have you got?... Appeal to Complexity!

Clearly! Demonstrably! Unarguably!

So no, it is not an appeal to complexity.

So yes, it is quite clearly an Appeal to Complexity.

I know how muscle contractions work. I know how evolution is theorized to work. The sequential modification proposed by evolutionary theory could not have created and organized the symphony of proteins involved with skeletal muscle.

Another Appeal to Complexity there...

If you do know all of this, then you should be able offer corrections or an alternative to the research... write it up in a paper, get it reviewed and published, and claim your international recognition! If you don't do that, this is quite literally an unsupported appeal.

Do you understand? Or are you just going to do an appeal to complexity and say I'm wrong because you can't comprehend the biological concepts I am addressing?

I do understand, that you don't understand, how what are saying, is an Appeal to Complexity.

The biological concepts you are showing in no way show the signature of a creator.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: neoholographic

Oh really? So the guy in the sky did it. As a certified YouTube scientist, you must have overlooked (or disregarded) the research. Let me know if you want me to post more articles about self assembly of myosin filaments.

Cross-bridges on self-assembled smooth muscle myosin filaments☆

Author links open overlay panelApolinarySobieszek Show more doi.org...(72)90573-6Get rights and content

Abstract

A crude myosin fraction may be obtained from vertebrate smooth muscle under low ionic-strength conditions, in which a self-assembly of filaments varying from 0.3 to 1.5 μm in length is seen to take place. These filaments show a constant repeat of about 140 Å, which arises from a regular helical arrangement of projections or cross-bridges. The repeat may be followed along the entire length of the filaments, that is, there is no bare zone. The mode of assembly of these filaments is discussed.

www.sciencedirect.com...

Obviously you're fishing and you don't know what you're talking about. You linked to a paper from 1972 without any context.

How does this relate to the discussion at all? You don't explain anything. You just post to articles and videos without quoting the relevant portion of the article that has any connection to this debate.

I've read the article and it supports what I'm saying and I have no idea why you posted it because you didn't explain how any portion of the article pertains to this debate.

Please quote the portion or portions that refute anything that I have said. If you haven't read the entire article like I have, hears a link to a PDF. I suggest you read entire papers before you link to them without any context.

www.researchgate.net...

Why do you keep posting articles you haven't read from places that you have to pay for access when is easy to find free PDF versions of the paper? Just about every paper is available for free on:

arxiv.org...

or

www.researchgate.net...

The fact that you don't post the free PDF's and the last article you posted refuted everything you said and supported me, shows you're just copying and pasting without any understanding or context. You can find these free PDF's with a simple click instead of linking to papers that you have to pay 30 bucks for that just cite the Abstract. You don't even explain why the Abstract supports or refutes anything.

All you have to do is highlight and copy the title of the paper then search for it on Google. You will then find free PDF's of the paper and my advice to you is, you should try reading these papers before you post them.

Secondly, you posted a bunch of videos without any context or commentary as to why you're posting the videos. What parts of the video are relevant to this conversation and how do they refute anything.

I watched the video on microtubules and explain exactly why you posted it. What part is relevant to the discussion. For instance it talks about the length of GTP caps when microtubles form.

THIS IS A CLEAR EXAMPLE OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN!

First let me say, this talk is about cancer drugs. I don't think you knew that but I'm not sure what you know or don't know because you just post a video and you don't give any context as to why the video is relevant to the debate.

Here's what the description of the video says:

In the current textbook view of microtubule assembly, ab-tubulin subunits add efficiently to growing microtubules with minimal subunit loss during growth. This view has also led to the view that the GTP cap that stabilizes is small, perhaps as little as a single layer of GTP tubulin subunits at the growing microtubule tip. In this lecture, I will review how new ultra-high resolution measurements in the laboratory of the late Prof. Alan Hunt, combined with computational modeling in my own laboratory, led to a major revision of this picture. In particular, our studies revealed that microtubule assembly is inefficient, with extensive subunit loss during overall growth, and subunit on-off dynamics are far more rapid than previously appreciated (by about a factor of 10). These findings (Schek and Gardner et al., Current Biology, 2007; Gardner et al., Cell, 2011) led us to re-examine the basic mechanisms of how microtubule-directed anticancer drugs, such as paclitaxel and vinblastine, influence microtubule assembly. In the coming years, I hope that, through ongoing collaboration with Prof. David Sept, we will come to understand how these widely prescribed drugs exert their influence on microtubules, and from this understanding eventually design next generation anticancer therapeutics.



This is the video YOU POSTED!

At about 3:25, he begins to explain the purpose of the video. It's to talk about how dynamic microtubules and he shows there even more dynamic than previously thought. He talks about dynamic instability and how what he found when it comes to growing and shrinking could relate to cancer drugs.

Again, the video doesn't refute anything and it actually supports what I'm saying.

These parts are designed to work together in complex ways to carry out specific tasks. There's no reason for random mutations to create any parts that work together. Here's more info:

Microtubules are highly dynamic and will frequently grow and shrink at a rapid yet constant rate. During this phenomenon, known as ‘dynamic instability’, tubulin subunits will both associate and dissociate from the plus end of the protofilament [3]. A number of factors regulate the dynamics of microtubule formation however the primary determinant of whether microtubules grow or shrink is the rate of GTP hydrolysis, a factor that is both intrinsic and essential to filament assembly [3]. In their stable state microtubles are hollow, cylindrical structures predominately composed of GDP-bound β-tubulin protofilaments. As GTP-bound protofilaments are straight, with multiple lateral contacts, assembly into the final cylindrical conformation is therefore dependent upon GTP hydrolysis. Without this, assembly would result in a flat sheet-like lattice of tubulin protofilaments.

Whilst GTP hyodrolysis of β-tubulin is therefore essential in filament production, it must be noted that the rate of assembly will often outpace the rate of hydrolysis. When this occurs a blunt end or GTP-cap is produced, which effectively constrains the curvature of the protofilaments [4].When hydrolysis does occur, the constraint is removed and the protofilaments become highly unstable as the stored energy in the lattice is released. This results in rapid shrinking of the microtubule. A typical microtubule will fluctuate every few minutes between growing and shrinking.

www.mechanobio.info...

How did this assembly evolve? How did these parts come together to have the right balance of growing and shrinking? How did random mutations create the proteins that bind to microtubles? How did these proteins evolve by random mutations with the right size and shape to just come together with microtubles and work?

(CONT'D)

a reply to: Phantom423

Microtubules are polymers of tubulin that form part of the cytoskeleton and provide structure and shape to the cytoplasm of eukaryotic cells, some bacteria and some archaea (like Asgard). A microtubule can grow as long as 50 micrometres and are highly dynamic.

There are many proteins that bind to microtubules, including the motor proteins kinesin and dynein, severing proteins like katanin, and other proteins important for regulating microtubule dynamics.[4] Recently an actin-like protein has been found in a gram-positive bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, which forms a microtubule-like structure and is involved in plasmid segregation.[5]

en.wikipedia.org...

Man, it's just not looking good for you.

These proteins were designed to work with these microtubles even though components of microtubules evolved at different times. How did random mutations create parts that evolved at different times to come together and work to carry out a specific task? What you're supporting is MAGIC!

Here's pics of motor Proteins that bind to microtubles to carry out a specific task. Why would random mutations create motor proteins that just work with these other parts that evolved separately. If I designed 6 or 7 parts to a modular home design that I created at different times, I know why they come together to build a house, it's because THEY WERE DESIGNED THAT WAY!



A cytoplasmic dynein motor bound to a microtubule.



A kinesin molecule bound to a microtubule.

Microtubules can act as substrates for motor proteins that are involved in important cellular functions such as vesicle trafficking and cell division. Unlike other microtubule-associated proteins, motor proteins utilize the energy from ATP hydrolysis to generate mechanical work that moves the protein along the substrate. The major motor proteins that interact with microtubules are kinesin, which usually moves toward the (+) end of the microtubule, and dynein, which moves toward the (−) end.

en.wikipedia.org...

A NATURAL INTERPRETATION OF EVOLUTION IS A FANTASY!

Here's more evidence that supports what I'm saying.

Self-Assembly of Protein Machines: Evidence for Evolution or Creation?

The Self-Assembly Lab at MIT has developed a pilot process to manufacture cell phones by self-assembly.

To do this, they designed their cell phone to consist of six parts that fit together in a lock-in-key manner. By placing the cell phone pieces into a tumbler that turns at the just-right speed, the pieces automatically combine with one another, bit by bit, until the cell phone is assembled.

Few errors occur during the assembly process. Only pieces designed to fit together combine with one another because of the lock-in-key fabrication.

Engineers continue to make significant progress toward developing self-assembly processes for manufacturing purposes. It very well could be that in the future a number of machines and devices will be designed to self-assemble. Based on the researchers’ work, it becomes evident that part of the strategy for designing machines that self-assemble centers on creating components that not only contribute to the machine’s function, but also precisely interact with the other components so that the machine assembles on its own.

The operative word here is designed. For machines to self-assemble they must be designed to self-assemble.

This requirement holds true for biochemical machines, too. The protein subunits that interact to form the biomolecular machines appear to be designed for self-assembly. Protein-protein binding sites on the surface of the subunits mediate this self-assembly process. These binding sites require high-precision interactions to ensure that the binding between subunits takes place with a high degree of accuracy—in the same way that the MIT engineers designed the cell phone pieces to precisely combine through lock-in-key interactions.

www.twr360.org...

LET ME REPEAT:

The operative word here is designed. For machines to self-assemble they must be designed to self-assemble.

This is clear evidence of intelligent design. THESE PARTS COME TOGETHER TO CARRY OUT A SPECIFIC TASK BECAUSE THEY WERE DESIGNED TO! NO EVOLUTION NEEDED, JUST DESIGN!



Again, the key here is, there were 6 parts that were DESIGNED to work together. It's easy to see how self assembly occurs when you have parts that are designed to work together.

There's NO EVIDENCE that random mutations can produce parts that come together in complex ways to carry out specific tasks. This quote comes to mind from Scientist Pierre Paul Grasse:

‘Have you ever seen a mutation simultaneously affecting two separate components of the body and producing structures that fit one another precisely? … have you ever beheld three, four or five simultaneous mutations with matching structures producing coordinating effects? … These are vital questions that demand an answer. There is no way of getting around them, or evading the issue. Every biologist who wants to know the truth must answer them, or be considered a sectarian and not a scientist. In science there is no “cause” to be defended, only truth to be discovered. How many chance occurrences would it take to build this extraordinary creature [Myrmelion formicarius]’?

a reply to: neoholographic

The YouTube scientist has spoken. It's the same crap you always post with zero evidence. Get lost.

a reply to: neoholographic

You can stretch all you want. You're a fake and a fraud. You produce zero evidence, zero research, zero experiments, zero anything. Go back to YouTube - no doubt you'll find more crap to post with your own disjointed interpretations.

a reply to: Phantom423

However, Creationists are not Christian. It is a cult. They use Christianity as cover to entice people into a world of lies.

Cult is defined as:

a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister.

Christians that have believed in creation as told by the bible were not in any cult before Darwin put out his theory in 1859, and that didn't change after that year either.

People like you choose to use that word as a pejorative, and that is your choice, but you are still wrong.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Phantom423

However, Creationists are not Christian. It is a cult. They use Christianity as cover to entice people into a world of lies.

Cult is defined as:

a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister.

Christians that have believed in creation as told by the bible were not in any cult before Darwin put out his theory in 1859, and that didn't change after that year either.

People like you choose to use that word as a pejorative, and that is your choice, but you are still wrong.

Before Darwin, there wasn't much science to refute anything, much less the Bible. In the 1800's there was no technology to even explore questions like the age of the Earth, evolution, isotopic ratios, etc. So what are you talking about? Do you even know what Darwin said and wrote about? I doubt it.

I''m not wrong about Creationism. It is a cult and an evil one. In fact, Creationists fit the definition of cult to a "T":

a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister.

And sinister they are. First, they have absolutely zero proof of their "scientific" opinions. Their "science" is false, misleading and developed to be intentionally so outrageous that it appeals only to those who are inclined to seek out the outlandish to compensate for their own failings and miserable lives.

They're also after your pocketbook. Every catch they make is sure to cough up some money to be on the "right side". after all, the guy in the sky needs sustenance!

They go after money any way they can - there's a guy who's even crowdfunding for his "science" garbage to be distributed to the public, particularly schools (could he be on this board - naahhhh!). They've defrauded state and local governments and don't pay their taxes.

These are bad people. They are not Christians. They are not religious. I'd make a bet in Las Vegas that not one of them on this board has ever read the Bible, much less owned one.

So why are they so intent on corrupting science? Because it makes a big splash. They think it makes them look "smart", that they know more than the thousands of scientists who have brought forward everything from cars, vacuum cleaners, running water, flushing toilets and rocketships to Mars. They hawk the idea that radioactive isotopes don't "work" - but you can be sure they're the first one in line to get an assay if they needed one - Coop and Neo would probably kick an old lady down the stairs to get ahead in line.

This is an evil organization preying on ignorance.

End of rant for the day (maybe, unless someone else pisses me off).

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: neoholographic

You can stretch all you want. You're a fake and a fraud. You produce zero evidence, zero research, zero experiments, zero anything. Go back to YouTube - no doubt you'll find more crap to post with your own disjointed interpretations.

CHECKMATE!

You didn't refute anything that was said. You were reduced to babble.

This is because a natural interpretation of evolution is pure fantasy.

There's no evidence and no way that random mutations will create parts that work together in complex ways to carry out specific tasks. Why would random mutations create any parts that work together?

This is why a Modular Interpretation of evolution which is an Intelligent Design interpretation is the only thing that makes sense.

The genetic code is encoded with information to build parts (proteins) that work together in complex ways to carry out specific tasks.

Let's look at a Cilium:

A cilium consists of a membrane-coated bundle of fibers called an axoneme. An axoneme contains a ring of 9 double microtubules surrounding two central single microtubules. Each outer doublet consists of a ring of 13 filaments (subfiber A) fused to an assembly of 10 filaments (subfiber B). The filaments of the microtubules are composed of two proteins called alpha and beta tubulin. The 11 microtubules forming an axoneme are held together by three types of connectors: subfibers A are joined to the central microtubules by radial spokes; adjacent outer doublets are joined by linkers that consist of a highly elastic protein called nexin; and the central microtubules are joined by a connecting bridge. Finally, every subfiber A bears two arms, an inner arm and an outer arm, both containing the protein dynein.

But how does a cilium work? Experiments have indicated that ciliary motion results from the chemically-powered “walking” of the dynein arms on one microtubule up the neighboring subfiber B of a second microtubule so that the two microtubules slide past each other (Figure 2). However, the protein cross-links between microtubules in an intact cilium prevent neighboring microtubules from sliding past each other by more than a short distance. These cross-links, therefore, convert the dynein-induced sliding motion to a bending motion of the entire axoneme.

Now, let us sit back, review the workings of the cilium, and consider what it implies. Cilia are composed of at least a half dozen proteins: alpha-tubulin, beta-tubulin, dynein, nexin, spoke protein, and a central bridge protein. These combine to perform one task, ciliary motion, and all of these proteins must be present for the cilium to function. If the tubulins are absent, then there are no filaments to slide; if the dynein is missing, then the cilium remains rigid and motionless; if nexin or the other connecting proteins are missing, then the axoneme falls apart when the filaments slide.

intelligentdesign.org...

Evolution occurring naturally is impossible!

All of these parts coming together to carry out a specific task, ciliary motion.

If You walk into a factory, you see a DESIGNED machine that's carrying out a specific tasks. If you break that machine down to it's parts, you can never generate those parts to come together in the exact way to carry out the task with any random process.

If you had a random parts generator, why would it produce any parts that work together? The only way this can occur if the parts were designed like the cell phone parts that self assembled.



So a Modular Interpretation of evolution which is an Intelligent Design Interpretation is the only thing that makes sense and matches the data.Here's a time lapse of a modular home being built.



Notice the parts that were DESIGNED separately but when they come together they fit.

There's no evolution needed just Design. Evolution comes into play after these parts come together and form these complex systems and reach the environment. Then these systems can change via mutations or gene transfers. There's not a shred of evidence and it defies common sense to say that anything random can produce parts that come together in complex ways to carry out specific tasks.

a reply to: neoholographic

Not necessary to refute anything. It's self evident. Your post garbage. No one is going to waste their time.

P.S. Here's a clue: Using inanimate objects like smart phones and houses says you have zip understanding of biological processes.
This is as stupid as it gets.

a reply to: Phantom423

Using inanimate objects like smart phones and houses says you have zip understanding of biological processes.

No, it shows you to be unable to process or perceive a logical intellectual illustration because you have a very strong prejudice against a concept.

Intellectual dishonesty that defies logic.

a reply to: neoholographic

Great! You've cracked creation then!... and can provide verifiable repeatable creationist research (the first ever!). Right?

Since evolution is impossible, then you can obviously write up your robust refutation of evolution, and get published your scientific home run for creation!

Oh... wait... saying "Evolution occurring naturally is impossible!", is an opinion... an appeal even... in fact, you made a massive unsubstantiated leap to get from "... parts that work together in complex ways to carry out specific tasks..." to "god did it"...

In fact, what you have presented is a direct Appeal to Complexity... a known fallacy, demonstrably false using nothing but logic (don't even need evidence).

A condensed version of your post is essentially, "The universe looks too complex, I don't understand how it could have happened, therefore must have been designed". Rearranged slightly... " I don't understand, therefor coudn't have happened".

Unless you can actually show the mechanism (or a mechanism, is there more than one?, or even a hint of a possibility?!) for intelligent design? No?... didn't think so.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

And what's the concept???? Have you ever heard of scientist investigating a biological system and using a smart phone as a model???????????????????????????????????

If you have, let's have the link and citation. Dumb and dumber. What do you guys think you're accomplishing? It's irrational to use
an INANIMATE OBJECT as a model for a living organism.

You're done.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Here's an idea: Why don't you write a letter to each one of the lecturers I posted above in the YouTube links and tell them they're full of it - that they should use a two-car garage, a smart phone, the CME in Chicago, your vacuum cleaner or electric blanket to demonstrate their research. Tell them that using live organisms is WRONG. Let them know that YOU and the rest of the crowd know so much more than they do. Maybe they'll invite you to give a lecture! Maybe you'll be nominated for the Nobel Prize in Biochemistry as the FIRST and ONLY person on Planet Earth to prove that an inanimate object is proof positive of intelligent design!

I think you should do it. You're so smart. I know you graduated from a top-notch university just like Neo, Cooperton and the rest of the crowd. I can't compete. It's impossible. Stanford is withdrawing my Ph.D. OMG, what have I done??????????????????????????????????????????????

P.S. I'd include a coffee pot if I were you - at least it makes something - coffee!

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: neoholographic

Not necessary to refute anything. It's self evident. Your post garbage. No one is going to waste their time.

P.S. Here's a clue: Using inanimate objects like smart phones and houses says you have zip understanding of biological processes.
This is as stupid as it gets.

Of course you can't refute it LOL! You say it's a waste of time yet you have been responded to these posts for 6 pages now with long winded nonsense that backfired on you. Now, it's not necessary to refute anything because you have no response. I have dismantled every article you have posted because you obviously don't read anything before you post it.

This is another asinine statement by Darwinist. You say, well it's a biological process so it's devoid of any common sense or logic and behaves like magic. No, it behaves just like intelligent design.

The genetic code is designed to build parts that come together in complex ways to carry out specific tasks. This can't happen naturally with random mutations.

Talking about DNA, molecular machines and eyes or dinosaur vertebrae's is like talking about computer engineering or learning how to write code and building information channels. Yockey said:

The book Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life is written by Hubert Yockey, the foremost living specialist in bioinformatics. The publisher is Cambridge University press. Yockey rigorously demonstrates that the coding process in DNA is identical to the coding process and mathematical definitions used in Electrical Engineering. This is not subjective, it is not debatable or even controversial. It is a brute fact:

“Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.” (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)

My publications on information theory show that the origin of life is unknowable through scientific methods. All that can be taught in the science classroom about the origin of life is why it is unknowable and why past theories, such as chance and self-organization, had to be discarded.

First, the purpose of my paper was to give evidence why no origin of life theory based on “self-organization” was credible. “Self-organization” scenarios of the origin of life are not founded on science.

evo2.org...

This isn't magic or voodoo, it's simple and self-evident as you say. A natural interpretation of evolution is a fantasy. It's a pipe dream.

The only reason it's accepted at all is because of belief. People use and say evolution = no God or intelligence which is just nonsense. It's clearly designed by Intelligence and a Modular Interpretation which is an Intelligent Design Interpretation is the only Interpretation that matches the evidence.

a reply to: puzzlesphere

The problem with your post is, I never said evolution is impossible. I have said throughout this thread and others that a natural interpretation of evolution is a fantasy.

The fact is, Darwinist want to set up an evolution vs. creationist or evolution vs. intelligent design debate so they can present evidence of evolution as if it supports their illogical natural interpretation of evolution.

Intelligent Design doesn't replace evolution, it's a more robust interpretation of the evidence. A Modular Interpretation is the only interpretation that matches the evidence.

You have molecular machines made up of 50 or 100 proteins that work together in these complex ways to carry out specific tasks. How can random mutations create any parts that work together?

This isn't an appeal to Complexity, it's an appeal to facts over the FANTASY of a natural interpretation of evolution.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Phantom423

Using inanimate objects like smart phones and houses says you have zip understanding of biological processes.

No, it shows you to be unable to process or perceive a logical intellectual illustration because you have a very strong prejudice against a concept.

Intellectual dishonesty that defies logic.

Ditto!

It shows the blind belief in a natural interpretation of evolution which is a fantasy!

a reply to: neoholographic

Ummm... being dishonest... again? how surprising...

I never said that you said "Evolution is impossible" (that would be you making things up)... rather I directly quoted you, and you said. "quote":

originally posted by: neoholographic
Evolution occurring naturally is impossible!

So, yeah... pretty minor difference there... but still semantic dishonesty... adding the world natural... but ok.

So if a "natural" interpretation is impossible... then god isn't natural?... and what? A "magical" interpretation is possible?... lol...

So are you suggesting the mechanism for new species development is unknowable... "because god did it"?

So what is really the difference between "Evolution is impossible!" and "Evolution occurring naturally is impossible!", anyway? Wthout repeatable, verifiable facts, how are they both not a direct Appeal to Complexity?

Even if god did do it, shouldn't we be able to show how god did it through experimentation?

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Phantom423

Using inanimate objects like smart phones and houses says you have zip understanding of biological processes.

No, it shows you to be unable to process or perceive a logical intellectual illustration because you have a very strong prejudice against a concept.

Intellectual dishonesty that defies logic.

Ditto!

It shows the blind belief in a natural interpretation of evolution which is a fantasy!

Maybe you, BlueBeard and Coop should start a new group. You won't do as well as these guys though:



I think I'll rewrite the lyrics for y'all too (aren't I nice??). Be back later with the new lyrics (I know you can't wait).

a reply to: Phantom423

Here is some ancient wisdom for you to ponder over that last post

How horrible it will be for those who think they are wise and consider themselves to be clever.

The Prophet Isaiah

Don't deceive yourselves. If any of you think you are wise in the ways of this world, you should give up that wisdom in order to become really wise.

The Apostle Paul

This is a good one too, in a letter to the Corinthians.

Don’t fool yourself. Don’t think that you can be wise merely by being up-to-date with the times. Be God’s fool—that’s the path to true wisdom. What the world calls smart, God calls stupid. It’s written in Scripture, He exposes the chicanery of the chic. The Master sees through the smoke screens of the know-it-alls.

And this Scripture from Romans almost seems to have predicted evolution by it's wording

And when they thought in themselves that they were wise, they became insane, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for.....birds and animals and creeping things. And they exchanged the truth of God for lies, and they revered and served created things more than their Creator

Didn't evolution start out with "creeping things" coming out of the water onto land for the first time ?

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Didn't evolution start out with "creeping things" coming out of the water onto land for the first time ?

Can you show me a biology textbook, a research paper or an article in a peer-reviewed journal that ever said that evolution was about "creeping things" coming out of the water? Take your time. No rush. Infinity is, well, infinite, you know?

This is why you don't like the concept of evolution. It's because you don't understand it. You never read a biology book, engaged in a real science curriculum at school, or had the curiosity to seek the answers yourself.

So we'll all wait patiently while you try to find a textbook that says that evolution is about creatures coming out of the water. I'll reload my inhaler in the meantime.