Remedial education for colewd

In the thread FMM throws Jesus under the bus, I had the following exchange with colewd:

colewd:

Until you have an eye there is nothing to select for. You have 300k of nucleotides drifting toward a meaningless group of sequences. Until you find a group of sequences that can provide reproductive advantage (sight) it is drift drift drift.

keiths:

This is just a version of the “what good is half an eye” PRATT.

Seriously, Bill, how can you possibly have missed everything that’s been written on this subject, from Darwin onward?

colewd:

No, I have read Dawkin’s ” just so” stories in the blind watchmaker and other books such as half a wing is better then none. I am surprised a man as sophisticated as you would fall for this bullshit. We do lack a hair bit of evidence that a one winged bird would even survive in the wild. If you want to argue that half an eye or a single wing or part of a wing aids in reproductive advantage, knock yourself out.

I am also surprised that a true skeptic as yourself would not have looked into this more carefully.

keiths:

Guffaw. Ever heard of bilateral symmetry, Bill? Do you really think birds needed to evolve one wing first, and then the other?

Man oh man are you clueless about biology.

Having dispensed with the one-winged bird objection, let’s see if we can get Bill beyond the “What good is half a wing?” canard.

To get the discussion started, I’ve linked to a relevant video from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute above.

180 thoughts on “Remedial education for colewd

  1. colewd:
    keiths,

    I agree with you here.Since Glen is devoid of an argument here it cannot be ad hominem.Adult winning is not an argument.Thanks for the education.

    Oh really, because I didn’t repeat the arguments that you ignore over and over again, my judgment that your arguments are shite is an “ad hominem?”

    Here’s an ad hominem:

    The word is not educate it’s indoctrinate in Darwinian dogma.

    Just stupid and false, but what you need in order to protect your ego from the fact that you get destroyed over and over again. Even you must know that you do badly, however dimly you might understand this.

    Where was the argument, colewd? Can you even pretend to have a case without your disparagement of the “other side?” Can you support anything you write here for ID or against evolution at all? What you do is merely spout IDist lies about the evolutionists, as if they were supported rather than crutches for the pathetic and incompetent believer. Like this bullshit:

    I am just surprised at the bullshit stories people believe that fail the sniff test when any detail is examined.

    I should be humble because I once believed all this before the devil in the detail showed its ugly head 🙂

    See, that’s ad hominem, because rather than actually making a case, or defending your stupid claims, you’re just calling it bullshit based on nothing but your blind belief in “design.”

    You haven’t made any arguments in this thread (and its predecessor) that I can remember, let alone any that was supported by evidence. That’s why you get “ad hominem” attacks, because you do nothing but write mindless cant. I’d be happy to discuss arguments and evidence, but you won’t discuss the arguments we raise, save with mindless claims like “design constraint” that you didn’t and can’t back up with any kind of evidence or reason.

    Glen Davidson

  2. Regarding the ID demolishing video:

    I wonder if Dr. Dail used emus or ostriches in the experiment where he makes the birds run up the tree and flap their wings?

    I think I’m going to email him and suggest that…
    I mean no one here wants to falsify evolution… maybe he will give it a shot?

  3. keiths:
    colewd,

    Did you actually learn anything, or will you continue making the same dumb accusation every time someone says something uncomplimentary about you?

    He’ll just continue to make ad hominem attacks himself, and baseless claims not argued unless with pathetic ID cant, then whine about ad hominem attacks when his pathetic attacks are countered in kind.

    Glen Davidson

  4. colewd

    : keiths,

    No, it’s what we’ve argued and that you’ve neither countered properly nor taken in as intelligent thinkers. Look, you are so damned ignorant about evolution that you blather about a bird with one wing.

    Solid use of logical fallacies. Keiths would be proud.

    So go ahead and ignore the actual facts that you’ve been supplied, write more meaningless attacks with no arguments, then whine again about non-arguments (and polarization–quit making false accusations for once about our motives) when we respond to your non-arguments with observations of the mindless stupidity of your entire approach. It’s apparently all that you can do.

    I agree with you here. Since Glen is devoid of an argument here it cannot be ad hominem. Adult winning is not an argument. Thanks for the education.

    The point I made there, dullard, is that you didn’t make any argument, hence there was no real argument to make in response (save the type that you ignore or fob off with baseless nonsense).

    When you learn to write a substantive comment, rather than whining and false attacks on the “other side,” then we might actually discuss things. At present, you just make baseless claims, then whine that people who respond to your vacuous bullshit aren’t making arguments, mindlessly claiming ad hominem attack.

    Glen Davidson

  5. Since keiths isn’t willing to defend the video he posted, why did he post it? If he believes what it says he ought to defend it.

    So far we’ve seen zero evidence that Mivart ever actually made the objection to evolution that is attributed to him in the video.

  6. Another claim made in the video is that these alleged dinosaur-birds had feathers. But are they really feathers, I mean the sorts of feathers that allow birds to actually fly?

    Or are evolutionists word-smithing. Again.

  7. Our imagination is mainly based on things that have actually happened.

    vs.

    Everything that is imagined in science has actually happened!

    So what’s the difference, the word mainly?

  8. colewd:
    It is not as if a mechanism would not be better then no identified mechanism.

    No idea what that means,but to repeat once again you are demanding one theory to provide detailed mechanisms while the request of an alternate is viewed as absurd request.

    Evidence is used to support the design argument. The irreducible complexity of the flagellum motor is evidence of design.

    Ok that is a hypothesis, how did that occur is the question you avoid, if half a flagellum is of no use how did the whole thing come to be?

    So far the only answer is design did it somehow.

    So is the transcription/translation mechanism, and alternative splicing which utilize sequential information. So are characteristics of atoms that make up all these mechanisms.

    None of that list explains how that list came to be.

    When you make the claim that there is no evidence of design in nature, like Rummy, I assume your eyes are closed.

    Not at all, if designs are patterns of matter, then there are many designs in nature, how those patterns came to be is the question. And only one side is trying to answer that questions requiring that side to provide evidence.

    Like I said you have no need of evidence

  9. newton: if designs are patterns of matter

    I think the repeated claim that design equals a pattern is a constantly repeated misnomer. I don’t think design detection is pattern detection, its more than that. Its functionality, organization, interrelated complexity, precision of components, detection of purpose, positioning of parts…

    That’s not pattern recognition.

  10. phoodoo,

    Our imagination is mainly based on things that have actually happened.

    vs.

    Everything that is imagined in science has actually happened!

    I guess mainly its the same thing.

  11. colewd: My position is that the TOE is a theory full of unsupported claims.

    And that makes you a hypocrite, because you believe in design despite having ZERO support for even a single design claim.

    I’m not here to tell you everything is perfectly well understood or that we know beyond all rational doubt how everything evolved. I’m here to point out your hypocricy. The standard of evidence you demand from evolutionists is LIGHTYEARS beyond what you have of support for ANY of your design-beliefs.

    Your side continually makes unsupported claims that lack any detailed explanation. Keith’s thread is a shining example and a target rich environment for mockery. Your counter is that creationists want too much detail.

    No, my counter is that you don’t CONSISTENTLY apply your level of skepticism towards evolutionary biology to your other beliefs.

    Like asking for the origin of the nucleotide sequence that allows an eye to be built during embryo development.

    This is where discussion breaks down, because that question isn’t even logically coherent. What nucleotide sequence are you talking about? One of the problems here, Bill, is that you know so little you don’t even know what kinds of questions to ask.

    And when I point this out, you find it insulting and you believe mistakenly that this is some sort of obfuscation.

    But it isn’t, Bill.

    The origin of genetic information is one of the pillars of the design argument yet Keith’s ignores it.

    The origin of information has been done to death. There is no argument there. Nobody from the design-side can give a coherent definition of information that can’t be IMMEDATELY demonstrated to be evolvable.

    The existence of sequential information inside DNA that builds eyes, brains’ ears, hearts, lungs etc is explained by intelligent cause.

    Where? Where do I find this explanation?

    I understand how limited this explanation is but it beats the shit out of random change to a sequence followed by the serendipity of a reproductive advantage.

    How limited it is? It’s so limited that there is none. Literally your statement explains nothing. It is functionally equivalent to me saying “it evolved”. If none of the terms are defined, if their scope and mechanisms are not pointed out,then it is completely vacuous. It predicts nothing and has zero explanatory power.

    The design-hypothesis amounts to merely uttering the word “design”. It was designed. That IS the design-hypothesis -> “It was designed!(by Jesus)” There, I just stated the most detailed, comprehensive and thorough version of the design-hypothesis ever uttered by a single person. Ever.

    This isn’t an explanation at all. In the same way just saying “it evolved” without explaining what the flying fuck that actually means, also is not an explanation.

    Stop saying “it was designed”. Start explaining WHAT THAT ACTUALLY MEANS in detail. What do all the different nucleotides do? How did they come into existence? When? Why is there multiple highly congruent nesting hierarchies? Why the different genetic codes that are all variations on a theme? Why is there chromatin in some archaea? Why different translation and transcription machineries? Why so many different, slightly altered cytochrome-c sequences? Why different membrane lipids in bacteria and archaea? Why is there a particular fossil order of life? What physical and chemical forces were involved? What should we find in the next microorganism who’s genome is sequenced and why? What does design actually predict and explain? Why is there not a single thread here about predictions from design-theory?

    Allan Miller made a thread about a single, simple prediction derived from endosymbiotic theory, which he came up with and tested. In the 25(?) fucking years since the origin of ID-creationism, no such single prediction has been attempted or tested.

    You have NOTHING. Squat. Zero. Zilch. Ingen fucking ting. The box of design-hypotheses is more empty and transparent than the intergalactic Eridanus supervoid is to the travel of neutrinoes.

  12. Mung:
    Another claim made in the video is that these alleged dinosaur-birds had feathers. But are they really feathers, I mean the sorts of feathers that allow birds to actually fly?

    Or are evolutionists word-smithing. Again.

    Who cares! T-rex relative is biggest ever feathered animal
    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-17612354

    The scientists think the long, filament-like feathers would have acted as insulation, but they cannot rule out the possibility that they were also used for display in mating or fighting rituals.
    They were too big to fly…So…what the feathers for? In miracleolution everything and anything fits into the narrative…

    Don’t you just feel sometimes that miraclevolution has gone even beyond fairy-tale?

  13. J-Mac: They were too big to fly…So…what the feathers for? In miracleolution everything and anything fits into the narrative…

    That’s usually how it is when theories are true. The orbits of the planets conform pretty well to Kepler’s law. “Oh gee everything fits into the narrative”.

  14. J-Mac: Don’t you just feel sometimes that miraclevolution has gone even beyond fairy-tale?

    Propose an alternative that better fits all the available data. Or continue to whine. Up to you.

  15. J-Mac:

    They were too big to fly…So…what the feathers for?

    Allan:

    Ask your designer why he stuck ’em on ostriches.

    As I noted in the other thread:

    Jesus said:

    7 “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.

    Matthew 7:7-8, NIV

    Go ahead, J-Mac. Ask him. He promises to give you an answer.

  16. phoodoo:
    I think the repeated claim that design equals a pattern is a constantly repeated misnomer.

    More likely a conflation of the meanings of the word design, design can be the process and it can be the end result of that process. ID claims that design can be detected and evidenced without the knowledge of or even speculating on the process. That leaves the end product’s configuration with its pattern of elements

    I don’t think design detection is pattern detection, its more than that. Its functionality, organization, interrelated complexity, precision of components,

    Unlesss your are proposing some sort of immaterial essence responsible for those thing, those are a result of certain patterns of material.

    detection of purpose,

    Careful,purpose often requires some knowledge of the designer’s intent

    positioning of parts…

    Sounds like a pattern of the elements

    >That’s not pattern recognition.

    Then how do you detect design without a knowledge of the abilities of the designer or the design mechanisms or the configuration pattern of the object?

  17. Rumraket,

    And that makes you a hypocrite, because you believe in design despite having ZERO support for even a single design claim.

    I have been clear that the design argument is limited.

    I’m not here to tell you everything is perfectly well understood or that we know beyond all rational doubt how everything evolved. I’m here to point out your hypocricy. The standard of evidence you demand from evolutionists is LIGHTYEARS beyond what you have of support for ANY of your design-beliefs.

    Again, the problem here is the claims are way ahead of reality. What is the cause of the diversity of life? Your claim of being lightyears ahead is nonsense. You can’t explain origin of life, origin of the eukaryotic cell, or the origin of multicellular organisms or the origin of any new organism through random accidents and environmental adaption.

    No, my counter is that you don’t CONSISTENTLY apply your level of skepticism towards evolutionary biology to your other beliefs.

    I honestly think that evolution is ideology being masqueraded as science. This fraud is what brings out my hyper skepticism. I understand the design argument is also ideology and is used as a social ” push back” against evolution. If the claims of evolution were modified then it has the potential to become a real science.

    The origin of information has been done to death. There is no argument there. Nobody from the design-side can give a coherent definition of information that can’t be IMMEDATELY demonstrated to be evolvable.

    Demonstrated to be evolvable? Its bullshit like this that make me hyper skeptical. Especially from someone that knows better.

    The design argument belongs in philosophy and since this blog is open to philosophy I think it should be embraced and discussed openly.

  18. newton,

    No idea what that means,but to repeat once again you are demanding one theory to provide detailed mechanisms while the request of an alternate is viewed as absurd request.

    I am asking any theory to back up its claims. Reasonable?

    Ok that is a hypothesis, how did that occur is the question you avoid, if half a flagellum is of no use how did the whole thing come to be?

    So far the only answer is design did it somehow.

    Back up to evidence of design in nature.

    None of that list explains how that list came to be.

    Exactly.

    Not at all, if designs are patterns of matter, then there are many designs in nature, how those patterns came to be is the question. And only one side is trying to answer that questions requiring that side to provide evidence.

    Like I said you have no need of evidence

    So what is the origin of matter? Is anyone trying to solve this? If not, why not?

  19. Mung,

    An OP featuring a video that is false and misleading. This is how to do remedial education? Can we expect more?

    For remedial indoctrination it fits the bill very nicely 🙂

  20. GlenDavidson,

    When have you asked ID to back up its claims of design in nature?

    I’ve never seen it yet. Not that it’s a theory, actually, just a religious claim.

    ID has backed up its claim through arguments like irreducible complexity and genetic information. Now you are going to say these arguments are bullshit. Save your breath unless you are able to demonstrate that they are.

  21. colewd:
    GlenDavidson,

    ID has backed up its claim through arguments like irreducible complexity and genetic information.Now you are going to say these arguments are bullshit.Save your breath unless you are able to demonstrate that they are.

    No, I will call it bullshit until you demostrate that such lame tripe actually is evidence for design. Also, until you actually explain why the patterns of both the fossil record and of taxonomy fit exceedingly well with evolutionary expectations and not at all with what intelligence produces.

    Why do bird wing bones fuse out of what used to become articulated forearms of dinosaurs, rather than forming in a more intelligent route? Why don’t birds get the ear bones of mammals? And don’t just repeat “design limitations” or shit like that, try some intelligent design in your responses for once.

    IOW, you most certainly have not asked ID to back up its claims, you have swallowed idiotic drivel whole and are pleased to chant it without any good reason for anyone to accept it.

    Glen Davidson

  22. GlenDavidson: Why do bird wing bones fuse out of what used to become articulated forearms of dinosaurs, rather than forming in a more intelligent route?

    More hilarity from Glen. He proposes to have a measure for how intelligent some route to wings is (or is not)? Laughable.

  23. Mung:
    An OP featuring a video that is false and misleading. This is how to do remedial education? Can we expect more?

    In what way is the video false and misleading?

  24. GlenDavidson,

    No, I will call it bullshit until you demostrate that such lame tripe actually is evidence for design. Also, until you actually explain why the patterns of both the fossil record and of taxonomy fit exceedingly well with evolutionary expectations and not at all with what intelligence produces.

    I believe there is evidence of design here because of the similarity of human design. For example the flagellum has similar components to an outboard motor except at the molecular level. If you want to make the assertion that this analogy is inadequate that is fine but lets just agree to disagree at this point.

    Why do bird wing bones fuse out of what used to become articulated forearms of dinosaurs, rather than forming in a more intelligent route? Why don’t birds get the ear bones of mammals? And don’t just repeat “design limitations” or shit like that, try some intelligent design in your responses for once.

    I am not qualified to discuss biological design tradeoffs. If you think you are, knock yourself out.

    IOW, you most certainly have not asked ID to back up its claims, you have swallowed idiotic tripe whole and are pleased to chant it without any good reason for anyone to accept it.

    This is false. They have backed up their claims. Just because Glen declares the explanations inadequate does not mean they are.

  25. GlenDavidson,

    No, I will call it bullshit until you demostrate that such lame tripe actually is evidence for design. Also, until you actually explain why the patterns of both the fossil record and of taxonomy fit exceedingly well with evolutionary expectations and not at all with what intelligence produces.

    Convergent evolution killed this claim. Complex adoptions evolving by random change followed by environmental adaption evolving once is hard enough to swallow with a straight face. Now your claiming it happened multiple times. I call bullshit.

  26. colewd:
    GlenDavidson,

    I believe there is evidence of design here because of the similarity of human design.

    Even if that were true, so what? Life requires functional parts, human-made machines require functional parts, and there are only so many ways of making them. While I certainly do not think that human and evolved parts are very similar, of course there will be similarities because of the required funcions. You’re trying to make function out to be evidence for design, meaning that once again you’ve substituted your bias for actual questioning of ID and its BS.

    For example the flagellum has similar components to an outboard motor except at the molecular level.

    Oh it does not. What an absurdity. There is no piston, no metal, no carburetor. At most there’s a rotor and a shaft, which again get to function, and so what?

    If you want to make the assertion that this analogy is inadequate that is fine but lets just agree to disagree at this point.

    It isn’t even what you claim it to be. And not only is it inadequate, there’s nothing about similarity of functional parts that indicates design. It only indicates that you’re unwilling to question your prejudice that function indicates design.

    I am not qualified to discuss biological design tradeoffs.If you think you are, knock yourself out.

    Well, in the first place it’s not due to design trade-offs, or at least you haven’t in the slightest demonstrated that it is. That’s just bullshit that you threw out there because you know jack-shit about design or evolution.

    This is false.They have backed up their claims.

    Of course they haven’t, they just assumed their conclusions.

    Just because Glen declares the explanations inadequate does not mean they are.

    Just because you fail utterly to demonstrate any meaningful evidence for design doesn’t mean that there isn’t any. On the other hand, the mere fact that no one ever produces meaningful evidence for design would seem to point to that conclusion.

    I mention arguments, rather than just declaring your idiotic claims as inadequate, you fob them off with your typical ignorance instead of dealing properly with the issues, and you whine stupidly that they have backed up their claims. The mere fact that you agree means nothing at all, as you don’t even begin to realize what the right questions are.

    Glen Davidson

  27. colewd:
    GlenDavidson,

    Convergent evolution killed this claim.Complex adoptions evolving by random change followed by environmental adaption evolving once is hard enough to swallow with a straight face.Now your claiming it happened multiple times.I call bullshit.

    Oh shut up with that crap. You don’t even mention a single problematic instance of “convergent evolution,” you just blandly prattle your mindless cant again.

    Why does the “convergent evolution” of the cephalopod eye end up with an eye that is really very different from vertebrate eyes, and without actual structural homologies? Why aren’t you discussing homologies? Why don’t you explain the patterns, instead of repeating the same idiotic nonsense again and again?

    Of course you really just don’t care about the evidence, you only throw objections against evolution trying to immunize yourself against what is completely unwelcome to you. Hence you’re not dealing in the least with the copious evidence of life evolving according to expected evolutionary limitations, you’re just trying to say that none of that evidence matters because of something that you’ve attached yourself to without any explanation for that either.

    Glen Davidson

  28. colewd: I am not qualified to discuss biological design tradeoffs.

    It’s intelligent design versus less intelligent design. Either way it’s intelligent design. This seems to be lost on Glen though.

  29. GlenDavidson: Why don’t you explain the patterns, instead of repeating the same idiotic nonsense again and again?

    Because the patterns don’t tell us how the eyes evolved. This is the shell game that evolutionists play. It’s been pointed out repeatedly to them but it makes no impression on them. You’d think they didn’t want to learn.

    Better for them to beg the question.

  30. colewd: ID has backed up its claim through arguments like irreducible complexity and genetic information. Now you are going to say these arguments are bullshit.

    *jumps in*
    I might or I might not. First I’d like to know what these arguments are. Is there a source I can refer to?

  31. Mung: Because the patterns don’t tell us how the eyes evolved.

    Do they tell us how they were designed?

    This is the shell game that evolutionists play. It’s been pointed out repeatedly to them but it makes no impression on them. You’d think they didn’t want to learn.

    Back at you, at least evolutionists provide you with possible mechanisms for you to mock. Reciprocate.

  32. Mung: It’s intelligent design versus less intelligent design. Either way it’s intelligent design. This seems to be lost on Glen though.

    How less intelligent?

  33. newton: Mung: It’s intelligent design versus less intelligent design. Either way it’s intelligent design.

    Yes, aping evolutionary processes just has to be “less intelligent design.” Well, or Mung is less intelligent than required for the issue.

    This seems to be lost on Glen though.

    Yes, it’s lost on me that any intelligent designer would be limited in the same way that unthinking evolution is. Probably because that’s an unintelligent claim.

    Glen Davidson

  34. colewd: And that makes you a hypocrite, because you believe in design despite having ZERO support for even a single design claim.

    I have been clear that the design argument is limited.

    It isn’t just limited, it’s nonexistant. Which makes you a hypocrite. You don’t get off the hook by just trying to ape a weaker form of the point I make.

    You have NOTHING on the other side, Bill. So your demand, as an ID-creationist, for a lot of detail from the evolution side, is a demand from a person who has a huge double-standard. You are being intellectually inconsistent in application of your skepticism. Which betrays a deep bias in your mind. You’re simply not prepared to deal with contradictory information.

    Again, the problem here is the claims are way ahead of reality. What is the cause of the diversity of life?

    Isolation, migration, mutations, and genetic drift+natural selection. Yes, that is the cause of diversification. A subpopulation of a species gets isolated and/or migrates to a new environment so geneflow between two populations stops, so the new population independently accumulates a different set of genetic changes which are randomly sampled by drift and biased by natural selection. Eventually what was one species becomes two. Repeat millions of times and you have the diversity of life.

    How do we know this? It follows logically from our understanding of the mechanism of reproduction and genetic inheritance, and we can see it in the evidence for common descent. This really is a pretty well-established fact in science. And you’re in denial about it and are demanding a level of detail you demand for NOTHING ELSE in your entire life. Which, once again, makes you a hypocrite. A man with a double standard that he maintains because he’s deeply biased against facts that contradict beliefs he already hold.

    You can’t explain origin of life

    Nor do I claim to, nor is that necessary for me to be able to explain the diversity of life. The reality of biological evolution, common descent or what have you isn’t contingent on us knowing how life ultimately originated. Complete irrelevancy you brought up. A red herring.

    You can be a skeptical as you want to towards any hypothesis for abiogenesis, just remember to be equally skeptical towards any ID claim about the origin of life. Remember to demand experiments and evidence from both sides.

    origin of the eukaryotic cell, or the origin of multicellular organisms

    These are areas of active research, we don’t claim to know or understand them in all details. That’s different from saying they can’t be explained even in princple, or that ID-bullshit is on a superior footing here. It isn’t, as it has nothing. Again, ID amounts to simply moving your lips and pushing air out of your mouth so the sound “design” emerges. That is the totality of the output of design-theory. Say the word design out loud and pretend you’ve explained something.

    or the origin of any new organism through random accidents and environmental adaption.

    Actually I’ve already explained this one above. It’s honestly pretty easy.

    I honestly think that evolution is ideology being masqueraded as science.

    I believe you really feel that way. And that just reveals how deep your bias goes.

    Colewd: The origin of genetic information is one of the pillars of the design argument yet Keith’s ignores it. The existence of sequential information inside DNA that builds eyes, brains’ ears, hearts, lungs etc is explained by intelligent cause.

    Rumraket: “The origin of information has been done to death. There is no argument there. Nobody from the design-side can give a coherent definition of information that can’t be IMMEDATELY demonstrated to be evolvable.”

    Colewd:Demonstrated to be evolvable? Its bullshit like this that make me hyper skeptical. Especially from someone that knows better.

    If you believe what I stated there is bullshit, then please supply me with a coherent definition of genetic sequence information in DNA and we can try to find out whether it is evolvable, shall we?

    The design argument belongs in philosophy and since this blog is open to philosophy I think it should be embraced and discussed openly.

    That’s what we’re doing right now. We can discuss design arguments as much as you want. I suggest you start by making one.

  35. Organisms share a common ancestor. Some organisms have eyes. Therefore eyes evolved by random mutation and natural selection. Poof!

  36. Mung:
    Organisms share a common ancestor. Some organisms have eyes. Therefore eyes evolved by random mutation and natural selection. Poof!

    Oh look, the champion of the society for vacuous commentary is back.

  37. Rumraket: Oh look, the champion of the society for vacuous commentary is back.

    It’s not my fault that you haven’t been paying attention. I recently created an OP in which the author claimed that eyes evolved by random mutation and natural selection. Then, in order to prove that this claim was true, he appealed to the evidence for common ancestry. It’s a shell game.

    Or perhaps you can explain why the evidence for common ancestry is evidence that eyes evolved by random mutation and natural selection.

    Rumraket: In what way is the video false and misleading?

    In the way that you would notice if you were paying attention.

  38. Rumraket: So your demand, as an ID-creationist, for a lot of detail from the evolution side, is a demand from a person who has a huge double-standard. You are being intellectually inconsistent in application of your skepticism. Which betrays a deep bias in your mind. You’re simply not prepared to deal with contradictory information.

    So?

  39. Mung,

    And some things are quite similar, therefore they did evolve.

    The things whose similarity implies evolution are different from those whose differencesimilarity does not …

    I love this logic stuff!

    But not enough to find a use for it?

Leave a Reply