Okay, it's late and my patience is wearing thin.
Why would it be in court? lol that is absurd. They are supposed to resolve legal matters not science. The justice system is more about the biases of the judges than law these days it seems.
You are basically saying it is bunk because these other scientists say it is and a judge decided it is in a court case.
No, I am encouraging you to read the material and discover for yourself why
the scientists say it's bunk - and how, precisely, Dr. Behe - the poster-boy for the ID movement in respect of Irreducible Complexity - condemned himself through his own words on the fact that he had not bothered to do any research into any of the literature that demolished his own claims.
Doesn't a genetic change have to be a random mutation? How else could a genetic change occur? This seems like semantics trickery.
I'm merely trying to be thorough. Though I appreciate it may be a bit much to take in all at once, there are other mechanisms that can alter genes (endogenous retroviruses, for instance).
The arms race thing doesn't sound all that believable but interesting.
The arms race thing is happening right now. Haven't you heard of "superbugs" in hospitals?
I wouldn't expect most of the Darwin evolution scientists to concede IC is legit so I will have to examine their arguments.
Despite what you may think, scientists generally do not
summarily disregard claims out of hand if there's good reason to take them seriously. If IC were legit, then there'd be good evidence for it, people like Ken Miller wouldn't be stomping on the bits.
Many of the arguments are much more advanced then your average person can understand with no knowledge of DNA and genetics and biochemistry so they could be saying a lot of false things but it could sound good.
The thing about peer-reviewed scientific research is that if people start making stuff up that isn't backed by the available data, they're likely to get caught, because you are going to have a lot of people poring over that data who know their stuff.
Conversely, the thing about sites that claim to "critique" evolutionary Theory, which have declarations of faith on their Websites that amount to "if anything in the scientific body of knowledge conflicts with Scripture, toss out the science", is that they don't do peer-review of their claims, they stand by claims even after they have been mercilessly and repeatedly debunked, they don't publish refutations or retractions, and they don't care
that their claims are false because their target audience is generally not
that scientifically literate, and not even in a position to fact-check such claims, even if they were likely to do so.
Such sites serve one purpose and one purpose alone: to keep the sheep in line. To say they are incredible to anyone outside the bubble of their worldview would be a vast understatement.
So in the end it comes down to who your average non-biochemist trusts more.
Science is not a cult. You have the choice to educate yourself, and not accept things on authority. Exercise that vaunted free will and stop looking to us to hand you answers on a plate. It really is your call.
I think in a general sense the IC observation is a blow to evolution theory
Look, DrTesla, let's get one thing clear so that hopefully you'll stop repeating this phrase "I think... I think...." as if it means anything or anyone here should give a damn.Science is not a democracy. Your opinion, shorn as it is of any scientific literacy whatsoever, is worth precisely jack.
You have it in your power to educate yourself, if you really care about this stuff. You can equip yourself with the tools to sort out what's true from what's false. You can learn biology.
If you don't care about this stuff enough to learn about it, then you risk continuing to be deceived by charlatans who do not have your best interests at heart and want you to remain a sheep forever, and no amount of us talking to you is going to do you the slightest bit of good. You'll just be a pawn in a game over which you have no control.
If that's how you want to live your life, fine. Farewell, peace be with you, may whatever spirits you perceive as guides gude you, have a nice life, and don't let the door hit you on the way out.
It is, entirely, your choice. You can choose to educate yourself, which actually requires some work on your part
, or you can sit here and whine that it's all too hard to understand and you don't trust those pesky evolutionists to tell you the truth. In doing so, you're actually being exceptionally rude to everyone here, because what you're actually
saying, between the lines, is that you don't trust anything we
say, which essentially means that we're all wasting our time bothering to try to explain anything to you at all and there's no point in continuing this discussion further.
and I've seen Darwin people acknowledging it is an obstacle in both direct and indirect ways.
And I've seen a lot of claims such as this one that, when subjected to inquisition, disappear in a puff of smoke. So needless to say, I don't believe you either.
I have not seen you address the bacteria flaggelum example
Oh for crying out loud. Now I am inclined to wonder if you're just lying or being a jerk for shits and giggles. I gave you a YouTube video in which Ken Miller debunked it. There is no way you could possibly have missed the presence of that embedded video.
or the eye example of IC as they propose it.
Do us all a favour and type these two words into Google: "eye evolution".