Posted on 11/16/2009 6:19:30 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
Molecular biologist Michael Behe described a system made of several interacting parts, whereby the removal of one part would disrupt the functioning of the whole, as irreducibly complex. Both creation scientists and intelligent design proponents highlight examples of irreducible complexity in their studies. The very structure of these systems--with their interdependent parts working all together or not at all--demands design, not chance.
Nevertheless, a team of evolutionary molecular biologists think they may have refuted irreducible complexity. They recently studied the parts of a particular cellular machine involved in protein transport, claiming that it was actually reducible to its component parts...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
I find it more than amusing that evos use math to support the ToE when it suits them and dismiss math when it indicates that the ToE is improbable simply from a statistical perspective.
Isn’t “intra species evolution” simply natural selection by another name?
> extrapolation is not science.<
Really?
“Spatial extrapolation: the science of predicting ecological patterns and processes.”
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-246263/Spatial-extrapolation-the-science-of.html
Fine. It's math. It still isn't science.
Haven't you heard that math and science aren't the same thing?
>Fine. It’s math. It still isn’t science.<
Really?
“Drug development can be a science of extrapolation...”
http://www.aapsj.org/view.asp?art=aapsj070247
Only in K-12.
>Fine. It’s math. It still isn’t science.<
Really?
“Science for the Extrapolation of Pharmacokinetic Properties to Human in the New Millennium Entering the Paradigm Shift of Drug Discovery and Development.”
http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/article/200103/000020010300A0997691.php
mouflon sheep, Ira, mouflon sheep.
2362
“Another example is the hypothesis proposed by zoologist Jonathan Kingdon that before early humans became bipedal, they began engaging in squat feeding, i.e. turning over rocks and leaves to find insects, worms, snails and other food. Consequently, they adapted flatter feet than were necessary in their previous tree-dwelling ancestors, since that makes squatting much easier. Flatter feet are also extremely useful for bipedal animals, so they can be described as a preadaptation to bipedalism, even though (or rather because) the adaptation had nothing to do with bipedalism originally.”
I wonder how they walked around to find all this stuff to squat down to and why they would have such long legs to need to squat down?
I'm curious. Since these aren't your words, was it your intention to give readers the impression the reasoning contained therein is yours?
It is as I was taught in college. In mathematics exact definitions are important, but I don't suppose you would appreciate that. Since I never claimed to invent the field of mathematics your snarky comments aren't appreciated.
What I appreciate is character, integrity, and honesty. If you possessed any of those qualities you wouldn't have interpreted my initial post to you as snarky.
Believe me, if I decide to get snarky with you, you'll know it.
Interesting tagline, it begs two questions:
1) If ToE has naught to do with what you are trying to do, then why participate in the discussion, especially on the pro-ToE side in pro-creation threads?
2) What is it that you are really trying to do here on FR?
What you are calling micro-evolution is adaptation. And adaptation is NOT evolution, nor does adaptation become evolution over time. There are not ‘intermediary forms’ of animals found in any fossil remains. None.
Man has bred and re-bred dogs to get characteristics that are useful, ALL are still dogs, none are yet a dolphin. A type of animal can adapt to its environment, BUT, in the end, it is still that kind of animal.
It appears from your tagline that you are perhaps a Christian. If so, why do you seek to not only disbelieve Gods Word, but also to publicly attempt to discredit it?
BUT, as has been pointed in various threads, mathematics is NOT science. Science can prove Nothing, while math can. Science is testing of hypotheses, discarding those that do not line up with the data that are observed.
Pointed out by EVOS I may add.
What? PALGARISM?!?!
An evo passing off other’s material as their own without citing it?!?!?
Aren’t they the ones who blow a gasket about it when creationists do it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.