If you comment on here, are you Silent? The question answers itself.
The fact of the matter is that he didn't comment here before he registered, so he was part of the "silent majority" you claim to speak for. In fact, he registered because the thought of you speaking for him was too insulting to bear. In fact, I'll bet the majority of the 'guests' here are either members who don't have their username and password information saved (thus the forum software sees them as guests initially) or spend their time in other sections of the messageboard.
The only reason for this "silent majority" nonsense is so you can try to get a rise out of people.
A Freshman wants to challenge a Graduate. You have much to learn.
His forum title is based on his post count. As is yours. And mine. So maybe you could stop making foolish assumptions based on things which you're ignorant of. Maybe then you might actually say things that have some meaning, rather than repeating the same tiresome old circular arguments over and over again.
I think it is a logical assumption that given you are the only former member of the Silent Majority that you are the exception to the rule because surely others would have started commenting if they were not comfortable with me speaking for them. I give these timid souls a voice and I don't apologize to you or anybody for that.
No, the only assumption you can safely make is that he's the only non-user who, upon reading this topic, was so offended by you presuming to speak for him that he registered to make sure he could speak for himself. Neither you, nor anyone, knows what topics the guests look at, or even if they end up looking at any. So claiming that you speak for them is silly, given that you don't even know if any of them are looking at this topic. Just another assumption, from someone who's made dozens. If Occam's razor were effective against humans, you'd be sliced into very thin ribbons by now.
You guys are close minded.
For an example of close-mindedness, continue reading.
Random mutations cannot result in complexity in lifeforms. It is basic logic. Random mutations can only result in randomness as there is no goal beforehand. Do not fight the truth because you recognize the truth when you see it. You are letting your ego get in the way of accepting a self evident truth.
See? Very close-minded. Unwilling to admit that he might not actually know, claiming that "basic logic" supports his arguments, making declarations of what can and cannot be without actually having spent any real time studying biology, declaring that his opinion is 'Truth', and declaring that other people's egos are getting in the way of them recognizing just how self-evident his 'Truth' is.
I won't mock you if you admit that I am right...much.
Not unless you come up with some real evidence to support these otherwise baseless assertions you keep making. You see, science works by gathering evidence to support contentions. So by refusing to gather evidence, you are undercutting the foundation of your entire argument.
lol, you just cutting and pasting from a list of debate tricks on the internet and accusing me of every one and hoping something sticks but unfortunately for you, nothing ever does.
Median and jaime and jdawg are horrible that too.
This might come as a shock to you, but those aren't "debate tricks", except maybe on the part of the people actually using them. They're real rhetological fallacies that people use every day in support of their arguments, despite the fact that they're superficial at best and tend to weaken an argument much more than they could possibly strengthen it. Such arguments are the equivalent of pounding the table in the hopes that people won't notice that you don't actually have any basis for your position.
lol, Darwins always move the goalposts on what the theory proposes.
Trying to correct your misunderstandings (usually bad misunderstandings) about evolutionary theory is not moving the goalposts.
This is the theory as I see it: random mutations + natural selection = cross species evolution + IC systems in lifeforms
That isn't it at all. You're so far off-base that it isn't even funny. Look, you really need to spend some time reviewing what evolutionary theory actually says, instead of trying to puzzle it out for yourself, because clearly you don't understand it well enough to even get in the same ballpark.
Evolution is, simply, descent with modification
[1]. The modifications come from mutations, from DNA replication/replacement errors, and from meiosis (the shuffling of chromosomes in gametes), and probably others that I'm not aware of. Descent in the case of evolution is basically speciation events, where a the population of a parent species gets split up and then diverges to the point where it's a different species. This happens over, and over, and over again. We don't have cats 'evolving' into dogs, for example; we have an ancient parent species that diverged into different species (say, one that resembled felines, and one that resembled canines), and then continued evolving from there. So there is no "cross-species evolution".
There is also no "irreducible complexity". Organs and systems don't evolve by magically adding or subtracting anatomical parts where they don't function unless all the parts happen to be in place, they evolve through the same process that animals evolve, a gene at a time, and sometimes (really, more like rarely, at least on human terms) those genes combine in such a way that they make a beneficial change in an organ. Then the change tends to spread, especially if it enhances survivability or reproductive capability. To put it another way, the precursor to the heart and cardiovascular system was fully functional and did the job of oxygenating body tissues, but the current one works better and ultimately replaced the precursor, at least in species that have a four-chambered heart and other signatures of our cardiovascular system.
That is what Dr. Behe says, he is the Godfather of ID.
Aside from the fact that intelligent design has been around for centuries, even millennia, the fact that Behe is a strong proponent of ID does not relieve him of the responsibility of presenting real evidence to support his position. Indeed, it makes it all the more important. If even one of the staunchest proponents of ID can't produce any solid evidence which shows it, why should it be taken seriously?
He talks about the fact that random mutations are essentiall broke or blown up genes, even if they lead to some positive traits from a survival standpoint although most don't.
No, random mutations are changes in genes, not "broke or blown up" ones. Most mutations are not detrimental to the organism; of the ones that are, most prevent it from being viable to begin with (which means that the mutations are gone from the gene pool). In other words, most of the detrimental mutations wipe themselves out, leaving only the disadvantageous ones. And, of course, the neutral ones, and any beneficial ones.
So Darwins are proposing that complexity comes from a random combination of defective genes across the generations.
No, proponents of evolutionary theory have shown that complexity comes from descent with modification over a lengthy span of generations. Modification meaning mutations, errors in DNA transcription, replication, and repair, and meiosis.
lol this is harder to understand than the Trinity thing in Christianity.
We are all well aware of your inability to understand evolutionary theory by now. Why do you think you've been so soundly criticized for your continued attempts to 'disprove' something that you don't understand in the first place? Simply repeating Behe's arguments isn't enough, because you don't understand the subject well enough to deal with objections and rebuttals to those arguments.
Watch Behe's presentiaton at university of Toronto on Youtube.
You will become a believer.
Just because Behe understands the intelligent design argument better than you (which, to be blunt, isn't hard to see at this point) doesn't mean his argument is actually convincing. So no, I'll wager that if I watched it, I would be at least as skeptical of intelligent design and irreducible complexity as I am right now. Behe's argument is not about presenting evidence for intelligent design or anything like that, it's about trying to refute evolutionary theory by raising questions and concerns about it.
Though in all honesty, I don't mind that. Even though I think his arguments are dead wrong, it isn't a bad thing for him to present them. As they're refuted, they strengthen evolutionary science even more than it already is. If nothing else, Behe's efforts should help us get things straight for when we start designing organisms of our own - if only by helping us eliminate bad ideas like irreducible complexity in biology.
Ok, I need to get my beauty sleep. I am going to ask that you guys review my posts, absorb the information like a sponge, and then be prepared to ask followup questions tomorrow.
Overconfident much? You've admitted repeatedly that you don't really understand evolutionary theory, and your arguments are basically copied from Behe and repeated mostly verbatim. Not the kind of thing that's going to convince anyone who isn't already halfway there.
