The evolution game is up!!!

SUTG

New member
. . .Here you tell me that Darwin addressed the issue yet I don't even have a clue where to start?! :yawn:

I'd suggest page one. :chuckle:

Darwin explained and provided evidence showing how the diversity of life evolved from common ancestry. It was a general explanation and therefore includes the evolution of the knee joint.
 

macguy

New member
I'd suggest page one. :chuckle:

Just what I predicted!

[edit]: let me guess. You will tell me that I should read the whole book...


Darwin explained and provided evidence showing how the diversity of life evolved from common ancestry. It was a general explanation and therefore includes the evolution of the knee joint.

Lawl that's funny. You might as well argue that Darwin explained common ancestry therefore it includes the evolution of the flagellum. He did not address it...therefore Darwin's Wrager has been met with the irreducible knee joint and flagellum. Does he even have the modern technology that we do? He couldn't even begin to explain it.
 

SUTG

New member
Just what I predicted!

[edit]: let me guess. You will tell me that I should read the whole book...

Well, uh, yeah. If you think you are going to refute a scientific theory, you should become familiar with what you are trying to refute, donthca think?



You might as well argue that Darwin explained common ancestry therefore it includes the evolution of the flagellum. He did not address it...therefore Darwin's Wrager has been met with the irreducible knee joint and flagellum. Does he even have the modern technology that we do? He couldn't even begin to explain it.

He proposed a general theory. He didn't list every organ, limb, fin and feather of every organism and cover them in detail. He doesn't need to.
 

macguy

New member
Well, uh, yeah. If you think you are going to refute a scientific theory, you should become familiar with what you are trying to refute, donthca think?

Haha! Apparently you don't even own the book but I only have it for reference purposes... Neo-Darwinism is the new fad now so I get myself acquainted with the new version.




He doesn't need to.


I didn't say that HE needed to. You made that up. Evolution is supposed to be explanatory, and a irreducibly complex system by definition cannot evolve. Therefore, you would have to demonstrate that this knee joint isn't IC but so far, all you've done is refer to me an out-dated book by the progress of science. Heck, I might as well argue for you to read the Bible because it provides a general theory and explains everything.

You have NOT demonstrated anything and neither did Darwin. He actually said:

‘If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.’

This is precisely what the knee joint does.
 

PlastikBuddha

New member
Haha! Apparently you don't even own the book but I only have it for reference purposes... Neo-Darwinism is the new fad now so I get myself acquainted with the new version.







I didn't say that HE needed to. You made that up. Evolution is supposed to be explanatory, and a irreducibly complex system by definition cannot evolve. Therefore, you would have to demonstrate that this knee joint isn't IC but so far, all you've done is refer to me an out-dated book by the progress of science. Heck, I might as well argue for you to read the Bible because it provides a general theory and explains everything.

You have NOT demonstrated anything and neither did Darwin. He actually said:

‘If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.’

This is precisely what the knee joint does.
I'm not sure where this is coming from- the evolution from fish to land animals was dependant on the knee joint. It's not exactly an unknown factor.
http://www.ejbjs.org/cgi/reprint/20/1/77.pdf
 

macguy

New member
I eagerly await your demonstration of this. Behe couldn't do it - maybe you'll have better luck.


What? Why do you evolutionists just assume that one is refuted without even having the book? Under your own logic, you should have Behe's book in order to get acquainted with his claims instead of relying on the critics. I provided links that answer their charges and there has yet to be a possible pathway for the flagellum.



Hold on a second, aren't you all complaining how IC cannot be tested yet there is an article that attempts to explain it? Also may I note here that William Dembski has redefined IC to account for those so-called alternative functions. Here are some refutations:

1. Very thorough investigation of Matzke's claims. (Note that there are 7 parts! refuting the alternative function hypothesis)

2. A reply from William Dembski

3. Sequence similarities in the bacterial flagellum: what do they mean?

4. On the prospect of understanding major evolutionary transformations

5. We must "understand that there is no serious scientific challenge to evolution"

6. DARWINISM GONE WILD

7. The Evolution of the Flagellum
 

PlastikBuddha

New member
Am I wrong or is this as old as 1938? Nice, it's good to see that evolutionists are aware of the issue. Let me read the whole thing and then I'll get back to you. I don't like responding to something that I haven't read. Thanks for being patient.

Just the first thing I stumbled across. The point is that these things are usually not as cut and dried as the IC crowd wants you to believe.
 

SUTG

New member
What? Why do you evolutionists just assume that one is refuted without even having the book? Under your own logic, you should have Behe's book in order to get acquainted with his claims instead of relying on the critics. I provided links that answer their charges and there has yet to be a possible pathway for the flagellum.

I'v read Behe's book more than once, and also saw his downfall at the Dover trial. I am familiar with his claims. He just needs to demonstrate them as Darwin requested in the quote you posted. So far he has been unable to do so. Are you willing to give it a shot?
 

macguy

New member
I'v read Behe's book more than once, and also saw his downfall at the Dover trial. I am familiar with his claims. He just needs to demonstrate them as Darwin requested in the quote you posted. So far he has been unable to do so. Are you willing to give it a shot?


Okay just to check the honesty of this claim, go to page 166 of his book and then type the paragraph below the header entitled "In the Beginning". I have already been giving it a shot...or do you mean something else? I am asking because people have claimed to own a mac, yet they just claim to have one and at the same time criticize it. This has happened very often so I wouldn't doubt that it could apply to other things as well.

My links demonstrate that He was able to do so, many just misconstrue the hypothesis as they do repeatedly with the Biotic message.
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I'm not sure where this is coming from- the evolution from fish to land animals was dependant on the knee joint. It's not exactly an unknown factor.
http://www.ejbjs.org/cgi/reprint/20/1/77.pdf

I'm wondering why you would post something that has nothing to do with evolution of the knee joint, but instead is merely an interesting description of how knee joints work in various kinds of animals.

Did you really think that this demonstrates evolution of one kind of animal into another?
 

PlastikBuddha

New member
I'm wondering why you would post something that has nothing to do with evolution of the knee joint, but instead is merely an interesting description of how knee joints work in various kinds of animals.

Did you really think that this demonstrates evolution of one kind of animal into another?

It certainly seems to point in that direction to me. The relationship between more primitive forms and more sophisticated forms argues for evolution.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Barbarian asks:
Perhaps you don't know what "vestigial" means. What do you think it means?

(Refuses to answer)
Not what "I" think but what others think. I also pointed out the argument from junk DNA as well.

Yep. That's the problem. You don't know what it means. It means a feature that is no longer useful for it's original function. It does not mean "without function", although it can (like the wings of beetles fused under permanently closed elytra).

"living creatures, including man, are virtual museums of structures that have no useful function but which represent the remains of organs that once had some use” (Asimov, 1959, p. 30

There are such features, but not all vestigial organs are functionless.

There are others who claim that science has found a number of useless organs among many animals. They have no apparent function and must therefore be a vestige of a once useful part of the body. A long time back these vestigial organs must have been important; now they are just reminders of our common ancestry. One example is the vermiform appendix which not only is utterly useless in human beings but which often causes great distress (Perkel and Needleman, 1950, p. 129)

Such organs are vestigial, but as Darwin pointed out, they don't have to be functionless.

Again, an organ may become rudimentary for its proper purpose, and be used for a distinct object: in certain fish the swim-bladder seems to be rudimentary for its proper function of giving buoyancy, but has become converted into a nascent breathing organ or lung. Other similar instances could be given.
Charles Darwin, "The Origin of Species"[/b]

So, you see, right from the start it was like that.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB360.html

However, the discovery of a function for a structure does not necessarily mean that it is not vestigial. A vestigial structure may be completely without function, like fetal platypus teeth, or it may be changed and diminished in function.
http://www.bookrags.com/research/vestigial-structures-wap/

Biology still uses the same definition as Darwin did.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
BTW, the knee joint isn't irreducibly complex. There are people without kneecaps, who can still walk and hold jobs and so on.

There are also some people lacking one or more of the ligaments of the knee. They still get around without canes or crutches.
 

macguy

New member
BTW, the knee joint isn't irreducibly complex. There are people without kneecaps, who can still walk and hold jobs and so on.

What do you think? That we would take your word for it? Present evidence...

[edit] Nvm, you mean the patella correct? I forgot the layman term for it :p

Non-Essential Parts in the Knee Joint said:
The anatomy of the knee in Figure 3 is deliberately simplified in order to identify the parts that are absolutely essential to the most basic function of the knee. Having demonstrated that there is an irreducible mechanism within the knee that cannot evolve, it is important to note that the complete knee contains an extremely efficient and elegant design with many complex parts. These include a bone at the front of the knee called the patella (knee-cap) and a fibrous capsule containing several ligaments, which encloses and supports the joint. There is also a soft cartilage to reduce shock loads between the bones and an elaborate arrangement of muscle fibres connected to the front and back of the leg to enable the movement of the joint to be finely controlled. There is even a lubricating fluid, called synovial fluid, inside the knee that makes the joint rotate smoothly and last a long time.

From here it is pointed out that the petella is non-essential yet extremely efficient and elegant in it's design. It doesn't necessarily go in-dephs to explain this but the article merely focuses on the critical parts which are need to work properly. Those irreducibly complex parts add up to 16. It's ironic that he predicted what you would bring up.

Evolutionists such as Richard Dawkins are experts at focusing attention on non-critical parts. If evolutionists attempted to discuss the evolution of the knee, I suspect they would describe in detail how the knee-cap was not actually essential and how it just appeared and was retained because it gave advantages.
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
What do you think? That we would take your word for it? Present evidence...
[edit] Nvm, you mean the patella correct? I forgot the layman term for it :p
From here it is pointed out that the petella is non-essential yet extremely efficient and elegant in it's design. It doesn't necessarily go in-dephs to explain this but the article merely focuses on the critical parts which are need to work properly. Those irreducibly complex parts add up to 16. It's ironic that he predicted what you would bring up.

People used to criticize me for "overkill" in design, too.

But the time that the 90+mph pitcher struck my kneecap so hard that the ball bounced out toward the shortstop I was happy that God had "overdesigned" so well that a bruise was all the damage that was sustained. ;)
 

macguy

New member
People used to criticize me for "overkill" in design, too.

I guess evolutionists have the same arguments, or should I say rather incomplete objections. They bring up something, yet they just assume it as true without providing a justification for it. I am glad that there are people like you trying to push the design explanation :D


But the time that the 90+mph pitcher struck my kneecap so hard that the ball bounced out toward the shortstop I was happy that God had "overdesigned" so well that a bruise was all the damage that was sustained. ;)

:shocked: Wow, so you didn't have to go to the hospital eh? Yes and it is good demonstration of His glory in that God didn't limit himself to a box but rather thought outside of it by making improvements. It's sort of like making a text editor to do all the basic functions but add features such as columns and different fonts. The features aren't needed but it still shows design and is useful!
 
Top