Re: Challenge for Darwinists - Protein Synthesis


Wall Of Sleep wrote:
Richard Forrest wrote:
Wall Of Sleep wrote:

<snip>

Have you read his manifesto? If not, then read first and make
derogatory comments afterward please.


--
"Are we to believe that mere chance can accomplish that which has proven
quite impossible for the enlightened scientist to achieve? I regard
that notion as absurd!" John A. Davison, Ph.D. - AN EVOLUTIONARY
MANIFESTO: A NEW HYPOTHESIS FOR ORGANIC CHANGE
http://www.uvm.edu/~jdavison/davison-manifesto.html



Mind you, I'm quite happy to read (parts at least) of his manifesto and
make derogatory comments on it.

<snip>

"With all our advanced technology, we still have not been able to
produce even the simplest organic system which could even remotely
be described as being alive."


Not true. There have been plenty of experiments which have produced
systems which can be "remotely" described as "alive", from chemical
methods such as recombitant DNA to algorythms running on computers.


So, by your own words, it is possible for intelligent agency to produce
life. Why then are you so opposed to the idea of intelligent design?

If you think that an "intelligent designer" was involved, present an
hypothesis which can be tested against the evidence to support that
assertion.

If you can do so,. we can investigate the possibility that a specific
"intelligent desgner", using specific methods, and operating under
specific limitation was involved.

I am strongly opposed to the ID movement :

1) Because the ID movement offers no evidence in support of it's
assertion that an "intelligent designer" is involved in the normal
processes of evolution.
2) Because the argument put forward by the ID movement is that if we
cannot account for the origin of a biological system by evolution in
small incremental steps, the only possible alternative is that an
"intelligent designer" is responsible.
3) That ID has been tested in the objective forum of a court of law and
has been shown to be no more than creationism under an new label.
4) Because the ID movement claims that it is a scientific movement, yet
offers no testable hypothesis, no research programme, and can only
publish papers in academic journals by bypassing the normal processes
of peer-review.

and most importantly

5) The ID movement relies on misrepresentation, distortion and outright
falsehoods to propogate its methods.

The main reason why I am oposed to creationism in its various
manifestations is because it is essentially dishonest.

I don't like dishonesty



<snip>


"Theories, sensu strictu, are hypotheses which,
having been tested, have been found valid."

No, they are not. Theories are usually the result of testing many
hypotheses, and provide a sound and coherent model of the behaviour of
the systems to which they apply.

" For example, Einstein's
Special Theory of Relativity remained a hypothesis until it had been
verified. Only then did it become a theory."

The theory of evolution by natural selection has also been extensively
verified by observation and experiment.


Lets ignore all the hype and examine the "extensively verified by
observation and experiment" main mechanism of the "T"oE - RM+NS:

What have random mutations been *observed* to produce more of - disease
or beneficial functions?
The answer is - disease - by a long shot.


Those mutation are beneficial for the disease-carrying organism. They
allow it to spread more widely and more quickly.

What on earth do you mean by "benefit" if this is not beneficial? Or do
you think benefit as a concept is measureable only in terms of its
effects on human beings?

If that is the case, what about the random mutations exploited by plant
breeders which led to the development of better food crops?

What has natural selection been *observed* to produce more of - extinct
species or new species?
The answer is - extinct species - by a long shot.

Natural selection has never been observed to produce an extinct
species.
I have no idea what you are arguing here.

Species become extinct. The earth has been around for a very, very long
time. Continents have moved about in the surface through different
climatic zones, crashed into each other and raised mountains, subsided
and been flooded to form inland seas, split appart to form oceans; the
earth has been subject to massive volcanic erouptions, been hit by
asteroids, partly covered by ice sheets miles thick; it is a planet in
turmoil, in which environments and ecological systems are destroyed and
rebuilt all the time.

Of course there have been more extinct species that modern species.
Each of those extinct species was a "new" species as some time, and I'm
glad that you accept that natuaral selection is responsible for the
creation of new species.

Quite what argument you are making escapes me.


So there you have it - the *cornerstone* of the "theory" of evolution is
*directly observed* to overwhelmingly produce disease and extinction.
The ratio is not even close.


I have no idea that you are arguing here.

So how is this "theory" supposed to work again?

You can pontificate all you want about all the "evidence" that supports
your views, but I'll stick to what's been observed.

You mean things like speciation events observed in nature, the shared
DNA of all living organisms, the fossil record, the diversity and
nested hierarchy of living organisms, and so on?

Everything which has been observed leads to the inescapable conclusion
that the diversity of living organisms is the outcome of billions of
years of evolution.


I'll stick to
science.

You'll need to learn some science first.

You go ahead and believe in fairy tales. Go ahead and trust
in a propped up "theory" that is both unfalsifiable and unworkable at
the same time.

Nice rheotic.
This does not alter the fact the evolutionary theory is falsifiable and
workable.
Your ignorance of the subject does not alter that fact.

Go ahead and trust in the mechanism of disease, death
and extinction. Tell me again the story of how this disease inducing
mechanism makes new species. Wait... I forgot, the term "species" is so
fuzzy, anything, even the mechanism of death can produce one! Hey, I
just took a big dump... before I flush, do you want to rush over with
all your "science" buddies and examine it to see if it qualifies as a
new "species"? I'm pretty sure it's "sexually isolated". Hey you can
even name it after yourself if you want!

All right, that's a bit over the top, but sheesh...

Why not go away and learn something about the subject rather than
exposing yourself as a scatlogically minded ignoramus?

I have no problem with your evident desire to make yourself look silly,
but I doubt that such an exhibition of inanity adds support to your
cause.

RF


--
"Are we to believe that mere chance can accomplish that which has proven
quite impossible for the enlightened scientist to achieve? I regard
that notion as absurd!" John A. Davison, Ph.D. - AN EVOLUTIONARY
MANIFESTO: A NEW HYPOTHESIS FOR ORGANIC CHANGE
http://www.uvm.edu/~jdavison/davison-manifesto.html

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Answering Howards questions
    ... intermediacy between that species and ancestral great ape species. ... given that only a very very very few such organisms ... I am currently not engaging in any human evolution discussion. ... Not "only possible explanation," but the best explanation. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Chez Watt: Re: New falsifiable proposal/prediction of design
    ... > organisms from one population of a species to another does not result ... >> Is evolution something that has been proved on a case to case basis? ... >> divergent explanation to the ToE: ... > even though they are not useful in the living organisms. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: More Vatican Support for Evolution
    ... ROME -- Charles Darwin's theory that all living organisms have ... and evolution at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. ... For example, using mice, monkeys and other nonhuman species to ... Futuyma was one of dozens of scientists, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: More Vatican Support for Evolution
    ... ROME -- Charles Darwin's theory that all living organisms have ... and evolution at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. ... For example, using mice, monkeys and other nonhuman species to ... Futuyma was one of dozens of scientists, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Answering Howards questions
    ... intermediacy between that species and ancestral great ape species. ... given that only a very very very few such organisms ... I am currently not engaging in any human evolution discussion. ... Not "only possible explanation," but the best explanation. ...
    (talk.origins)