AgentOfAllah:

How do you test complex design?


So reproducibility by human endeavour is your criteria for adjudging something to be complex design? If so, answer me these questions: Do you understand that the laws of nature are immutable to the whims of humans? Why do you think human ingenuity is a legitimate criteria by which to judge the creative prowess of natural processes?


Then what does evolution do?

Niflheim:
@op,

1.I am sure you know that all humans are classified under "APES"!!!

2.Big Bang has absolutely nothing to do with Evolution!!!

3.Big Bang has absolutely nothing to do with breaking of rocks(Big Bang is about the expansion of Space and Time)!!!

4.The person who classified humans under the same category with monkeys was [/b]the christian[b], Carl Linnaeus!!!

Niflheim:
@op,

1.Scientists never "claimed", that there was common ancestry, they simply presented the evidence which went through a peer-review process, before it was published in a "reputable" scientific journal!!! This is why we have Evolutionary Biologists who are christians!!!

2."it will end in infinite regression of explanation"....................................Why do you think so? What do you mean by this?

3."where do they also evolute from?"....................................What is the meaning of "evolute"? As in a particular physical location where all Evolution takes place? There is no such thing as that!!! The right question should be' 'What did they evolve from?"

4."let's agree for the sake of argument that human share common ancestors with ape"......................................For the sake of argument? There is no argument since Evolution is already an established fact,

5."any biography about them?"....................................................Google is your friend!!!

Niflheim:
WHAT?!!!

NONSENSE!!! THIS IS THE SAME MISTAKE YOU KEEP ON REPEATING!!!

You went to a christian website to get information about the Big Bang Theory?!!! When you could have gone to a website on astrophysics?!!!

Niflheim:
WHAT?!!!

NONSENSE!!! THIS IS THE SAME MISTAKE YOU KEEP ON REPEATING!!!

You went to a christian website to get information about the Big Bang Theory?!!! When you could have gone to a website on astrophysics?!!!

Niflheim:
WHAT?!!!

NONSENSE!!! THIS IS THE SAME MISTAKE YOU KEEP ON REPEATING!!!

You went to a christian website to get information about the Big Bang Theory?!!! When you could have gone to a website on astrophysics?!!!

vaxx:
The purpose of this questions is to raised the best explanation to who create God..... best explanation can't be explain.... if scientists deem it fit that the evolution theory is conclusive....
they also need to acknowledged it when religion folks says there is no any further explanation as to who create God..... it is conclusive.....

Niflheim:
So this is where you get your scientific information from?................................................................."Many people refer to us as “Christians,” but we consider ourselves followers of Jesus. Like Jesus, we reject many of the issues found in “organized religion” (man-made attempts to reach God through rules and rituals). Actually, we believe religion has kept more people from the truth than anything in history. Although we reject man-made religion, we consider the personal pursuit of God as paramount in each of our personal life journeys."

vaxx:
this is a problem..... You raised allegations.. I correct your fallacy ...the next things to do is to attack me.... Pls I don't do insult.... I enjoy my debate with agentofallah

butterflyl1on:


Vaxx I admire your patience. When they cannot attack the message they attack the messenger. Getting through to them is as fruitless as trying to swallow an elephant whole.

AgentOfAllah:

I appreciate the premise upon which your scepticism rests. In summary, you assert that our ignorance of the function of an organ is not a reason to declare it vestigial. In other words, the absence of evidence is not an evidence of absence. On this note, I absolutely agree with you, so does the theory of evolution! However, your conclusion is spurious. You hastily declare it impossible to show that vestigial organs exist because by your estimation, evolution qualifies an organ as vestigial from ignorance. Your reasoning is that it is impossible to make a negative claim about the obsolescence of an organ.

That conclusion is demonstrably false, and here's why:
(1) If it can be shown that organs exist which have specific, well defined functions.
(2) If it can further be shown that all or parts of such organs exist in other species, but fail to carry out these well defined functions.
(3) Then this constitutes a negative proof of said function; thus the organ's vestigiality.

The question then must be, does such an organ exist? And the answer is yes! Most def!!

I mentioned the blind mole rat before, so let's examine the eye development of the blind mole rat (spalax), shall we? Thankfully, this subject is thoroughly studied, so there is good material at our disposal.

Sanyal et al.¹ detailed the eye development of an embryo spalax in the abstract of their publication as follows:

"In the early embryos the presumptive eye regions--the epithelium, lens vesicle, and optic cup--appear initially normal. As development progresses, the iris-ciliary body complex originates prematurely from the margin of the optic cup and shows a very rapid and massive growth. This pigment-laden tissue mass remains attached to the corneal stroma, obliterates the anterior chamber, and prevents the formation of the corneal endothelium and Descemet's membrane. In the developing lens the elongation of the lens fibers leads to the formation of a rudimentary lens nucleus that becomes disorganized and vacuolated and eventually also becomes vascularized. The optic fissure fails to close, the eyes remain colobomatous, and the optic disc appears atrophic."

Here, we can understand that at the initial stage of development, the everything seems to be forming normally, then the iris-ciliary, responsible for growing the iris (a heavily pigmented muscle that specifically controls light intake for vision, overgrows, thereby destroying the anterior chamber and inhibiting the growth of corneal endothelium (cells responsible for maintaining optical transparency of the eye). Furthermore, a rudimentary lens nucleous forms, but is unable to fully develop because it becomes disorganised.

Now, we know that
(a) A rudimentary form of lens exists, but does not collect light
(b) The iris muscle exists, but fails to regulate light intake
(c) The optic cup exists, but lacks corneal endothelium for visual transparency.

This tells us that organs which are specifically adapted for vision exist in the spalax, but fail to perform the functions for which they are specifically adapted. Such organs are thus, said to be vestigial.

[1] Sanyal, S.; Jansen, H. G.; de Grip, W. J.; Nevo, E.; de Jong, W. W., The eye of the blind mole rat, Spalax ehrenbergi. Rudiment with hidden function? Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1990, 31 (7), 1398-404.

butterflyl1on:
^^^^
||||||

Vaxx do you see who you are discussing with?

vaxx:
I have to stop responding to him, if I like myself...you see him using charity donation as a sign or measurement to invalidate the claim of the website when...the Clinton Richard Dawkins his mentor demand more than a million just to register as an atheist evangelist....

I believe anyone who want to learn should learn both from creationist and evolutionist website...



I have point out his fallacy...and I am OK by that...

butterflyl1on:


Very pathetic underhanded act. Yet the message from the same Christian website is very accurate and the same with what he terms as scientific websites. He however forgot that the website is also called allaboutscience.org.

They simply presented the big bang theory as it had always been. He now sees that all he can do is to criticise the website but not the message.

What has that even got to do with the authenticity of the message when the message has not been altered or falsified in any way?

JMAN05:


Ever wondered what happened during the Cambrian period?

vaxx:
that was the period of evolution of animal with skeleton... It does not answer the original question.... Where those proto- primate life begins....how does it start....what is the Cause of their appearance.

butterflyl1on:


Everything about evolution seems to be randomly accurate. How can we have random accuracy?

The Cambrian period was said to have been caused by The Cambrian explosion or Cambrian radiation and it was a relatively short span event said to have occurred approximately 541 million years ago in the Cambrian period, during which most major animal phyla appeared.

Somehow by some stroke of fluke luck all evolutions events were random yet occurred so perfectly and went against the laws of probability and occurred in such a way that supported life and made life thrive.

vaxx:
the real issue here is science evidence is not enough...... If we begin to question every claim of evolution theory despite its robust claim..... It will lead to infinite regression of explanation..and this will render the whole purpose of science useless....science is all about empirical evidence.... They will get to a stage where there will be no answer?

I do suggest creationist and evolutionist should work together... If they do I belive the gap in their claims can be cover quickly...

butterflyl1on:


True but the major problem has been the atheists who are among the theists in the scientific community. They are the ones who claim religion hinders science. Which is a false claim

vaxx:
this is what most of them think..every evidence of Cretionist is to render science useless.while being a creationist do not mean you are agsinst science... Creationist belief may be non-scientific but Non-scientific is not actually the same as anti-scientific and being a creationist is not necessarily the same as being anti-evolutionist....creationist evidence isn't testable but it can't be disproven either...

vaxx:
normal scientific method of carrying out research...get a test sample and work on it...

You suggest the best hypothesis (intelligence guess) and you work on it....in a case of complexity ....you have to make a guess on what is really complex. ....for example a part of human body like brain is complex enough....let me suggest an hypothesis on the complexity of human brain that science can work on...consciousness and unconscious of the brain....what is the cause...

Yes inability of human capacity to produce or have authority on the complexity of the design is the logic behind complex design raised by creationist ..if you belive the laws of nature can't be change to the desire of human.. Why don't you also accept this law was pre- design to be so by a being more intelligent than human .....if human has capacity over the complexity, then it is no more complex anymore...it can be reproduce, replicate and human can have authority over them... so far this natural phenomenon is still beyond human capacity... Then it is complex indeed...

Evolution theory only provide evidence on how mammals evolute from the initial stage to the current stage....which can still be debated scientifically...

Evolution theory do not address if human will still evolute again

it does not address the topic I posted......and more....

vaxx:
let's agree for the sake of argument that human share common ancestors with ape

if we agree with this statement, it will mean we are closely related with the apes and that include lesser ape Gibbons and great ape like chimpanzees and gorillas and likewise orangutans... it is reported that they they emerge and diversified during the Miocene epoch ... Miocene epoch was a time of warm global climate than those in the proceeding like Oligocene or the following Pliocene...and science also claim that is the time two major ecosystem appear which is the kip forest and grasslands..

where I need clarification...

who are this common ancestors that is both share by human and apes? any biography about them?

if there is common ancestors as claim by scientist... where do they also evolute from? who is their ancestors?


is science claiming there is no mammals on planet earth before the arrivals of the ecosystem?



I am aware the problem the questions pose.. it will end in infinite regression of explanation...


but can anybody make attempt ... everyone is invited.....