Brian Miller: Co-option and Irreducible Complexity

That’s the opposite question to the one I am asking.

I am asking what would lead a person to believe that chimps and humans were created separately if they knew nothing about the Bible or Christian theology?

How could a mere mortal keep God at bay? Also, how does following the evidence keep God at bay?

They misuse methods to get a lower number. It is this type of behavior that gives ID/creationists a bad name. You seem to be from the Dr. Wise school of thought and don’t want to promulgate bad arguments. Well, this is one of them. If you want to discuss the specific problems with those articles feel free to start a new thread and the Geek Squad at PS can break it down for you.

They don’t.

For the same reason that two Frenchmen will sound more alike than two Italians, even though both languages descended from Vulgar Latin, their common ancestral language.

Nope, they make no such claim.

You haven’t given me a good reason as to why it is unreasonable.

Wind the clock back 500 years, and it is easy to see an answer. Humans are just so different than apes. It is hard to imagine a relationship without an immense amount of additional information that we now take for granted.

@scd

Firstly, how does this help you at all? 100,000 years is quite a bit before Eden’s supposed time, right?

Secondly, this article has been read, digested and trashed… it was a sloppily run study that was looking at how many species survived the last ice age… there were 8 of them in the last 800,000 years.

They rushed to reach a dramatic conclusion, and they paid a heavy price in credibility.

I don’t know about that . . .

That’s not 500 years ago, but it is pre-Darwin.

You are misreading him. We are “rational animals”. There is a big discontinuity in “rational”.

That is a debate of a different sort, one probably left alone for now.

1 Like

You prob believe in naturalistic universal common decent evolution. As a scientist, you will take evidence and conform it to that worldview. When you see the pieces of the puzzle of life in our dna/genetic code that seem to fit your belief, then of course you will gladly grab hold of those and run w them and even take those pieces and form computer analysis to bolster what you believe. Garbage in garbags out.The input into the computer program will tend to bolster the pre conceived thinking. That is exactly what kurt was explaining in the discourse called mt everest-design or creation.

Hang w me a minute more- im getting to your point.

If i as a creationist help to provide the overlooked evidence that universal common decent is not quite as factual as some want to believe with the evidence that behe provides, jeanson w AIG suggests, Wise on the fossil record etc etc etc, those number of monkey wrenches thrown into the naturalistic evolution machine could be enough to convince one that universal common decent is still in the hypothesis stage and that just perhaps an Intelligent being created kinds w adaptation qualities.

It is then and only then that one can be possibly be swayed to at least consider that monkeys and men are not related in an evolutionary tree. Until then, there is no convincing an evolutionist that they are not related. In fact, if a theistic evolutionist put one foot in universal common decent evolution then told me that but God created man unique outside the tree, if i were an agnostic, id run away fr that so fast…just the average seeker church philosophy garbage that guys like me see right through and the naive just accept but never become really maturing in life.

I have read so much of the science and put as much unbiased rational thought possible into considering any validity of nature taking average mutations like we see in the real world to make bio machines and for the life of me, just dont believe the mechanisms shrouded by lofty language are enough to explain this natural universal common decent. I have chosen not just to read you guys, but yecs, oecs, id camp, mainstream texts etc.

You want me to focus,on man monkey evol. I believe that the neo darwinian version is a big load that when convinced as i am, will give cause for reconsidering relationship betw man and monkey.

Sorry, that is,what i got for ya. Not the point you were prob trying to make im sure

Then how in the world are we supposed to determine if anything is true?

The way I usually test an idea is figure out what I should see if that idea is true, and then see if the observations match the idea. Isn’t that how you do it?

But you just said that we can’t have a hypothesis. We aren’t even allowed to consider if evolution is true because as soon as we consider evolution our mind is poisoned, or something crazy like that. You have actually described hypothesis testing as garbage in, garbage out.

Also, Behe claims that IC systems can’t evolve. It is a claim. Claims aren’t evidence. The first step you need to take is understand the difference between claims and evidence.

Start with a comparison of a human and chimp gene, and then show me how the known processes of mutation and selection could not produce the differences we see between those genes. If you have an unbiased conclusion, then I am more than open to seeing it applied to some real data.

What do you mean by “neo-Darwinism”?

Not what i meant. The garbage statement is not to judge the morality of evolutionism- it is to suggest that when one makes accessments about our very reality that, for example, disallow intelligence, then the essence of the data or the cherry picked data that assumes naturalism inputted into the program will inevitably spit out a proportionate outcome that matches the essence. Garbage in garbage out.

First show me the processes of mutation and selection that evolved monkeys fr aeomebas. I have seen all of the various thoughts on this and for the life of me, the universal naturalistic model is bewilderingly anti intellectual gobity gook. If im right and it is absolutely true that naturalistic universal is a farce, this means that all of a sudden One enters the room. I believe that One to be the very God and Creator in scripture. If He is in the room, then i will warn you of mentioning to Him that you think that we are evolved monkeys. Read Job 38 sometime. Jobs friends gave a lot of banter about what they thought was right and used really intelligent sounding and sometimes theologically correct language to bolster their claim. Then God steps into the scene and read for yourself His response.

The God i worship is not the joel osteen version. He is the version in Job 38

@T_aquaticus

[Per another thread: See what I mean… some atheists just don’t want to listen.]

Let me suggest that you employ the search engine provided by Google.

I am not asking what I think it is. I am asking what you think neo-Darwinism is.

2 Likes

Sorry. I took your question to indicate that you didn’t know what Neo-Darwinism is.

So… are you going to answer the question?

The answer to the question is that “Neo-Darwinism and Darwinism is whatever a person wants it to be.”

I found out about this thru the Fox News website.

This bird has been designated Eofringillirostrum boudreauxi, and it isn’t around anymore. Your point?

3 posts were split to a new topic: Miller: Axe Decisively Confirmed?

A post was merged into an existing topic: Miller: Axe Decisively Confirmed?