Study proposes alternative way to exp...

Study proposes alternative way to explain life's complexity

There are 28 comments on the Science, Industry and Business story from Apr 15, 2013, titled Study proposes alternative way to explain life's complexity. In it, Science, Industry and Business reports that:

Evolution skeptics argue that some biological structures, like the brain or the eye, are simply too complex for natural selection to explain.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Science, Industry and Business.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
imagine2011

Southaven, MS

#21 May 28, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Please learn how to quote properly. Quoting out of context is a technique that creationists use to lie.
Without a proper source we cannot show how you are misquoting.
By the way, random steps in a process does not necessarily mean that the result is "by luck".
I quoted to words 'directly' from the video YOU posted for me to watch! lol!
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#22 May 28, 2013
imagine2011 wrote:
Nelson admitted his model was made with deliberate small steps, and he "ASSUMES" that mutations caused changes.
Well uh, that's pretty much a good assumption to make. Ya know, since we OBSERVE mutations causing changes. A bit like assuming water is wet, sun is bright, concrete is hard...

How is your head by the way? Still sore?
imagine2011 wrote:
Dawkins admits that each step of the evolution of the eye, is "RANDOM LUCK" and that it must be that or it would have to be proven to be a miracle.
BONG! Natural selection ain't random.

But seriously Muggins. Nothing you say has any consequence here. At all. For even if we pretend evolution was incorrect just for the sake of argument we could simply invoke magic same as you do and it would be EQUALLY as valid.

You can't win here. Your only hope is to pray for the burning of all your enemies in the afterlife while you laugh at them from the other side of paradise.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#23 May 28, 2013
imagine2011 wrote:
<quoted text>
I quoted to words 'directly' from the video YOU posted for me to watch! lol!
Actually you didn't. That is the problem and why I did not recognize them at first. You should have said at what time in the video the supposed comments were made.

I have already dealt with your misunderstanding of Nelson, along with a time reference. Now I am trying to see how you misunderstood Dawkins.
imagine2011

Southaven, MS

#24 May 28, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Times when you got these quotes would have been appropriate in this case.
I am trying to see how Nelson made the claim you said that he does.
As to random changes, there will always be random changes in a genome. That is an observed fact. Natural selection is not random and since each improvement, no matter how slight, increased survivability they would naturally be selected for.
Nelson: 8:34-8:44

Dawkins: 13:50-14:03

12:30-13:45 are eyes of different creatures, made exclusively for that creatures dwelling and survival. I don't understand how you can look at these creatures and believe that they weren't created by a designer. How could you think that their eyes 'evolved' by random chance, is beyond me.
imagine2011

Southaven, MS

#25 May 28, 2013
llDayo wrote:
<quoted text>

Crazy is believing in talking snakes.
Maybe the snake evolved from talking to hissing, right???? lol!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#26 May 28, 2013
imagine2011 wrote:
<quoted text>
Nelson: 8:34-8:44
Dawkins: 13:50-14:03
12:30-13:45 are eyes of different creatures, made exclusively for that creatures dwelling and survival. I don't understand how you can look at these creatures and believe that they weren't created by a designer. How could you think that their eyes 'evolved' by random chance, is beyond me.
That is because you keep forgetting half of the driving force of evolution. They did not evolve by random chance.

They evolved from random chance AND natural selection. If you ever don't pair those two together you are lying, whether you know it or not, about what drives evolution. You do not get a random result when you combine natural selection with variation.

And I am working on correcting what you said about Dawkins' claim at the end right now. Yes, he did say small random step, he did not mention natural selection at this point in the video, but it was named more than once earlier on.

Perhaps for the slow to learn he should have mentioned it, again. I will do it for you, evolution is NEVER based upon random luck alone. It is random luck with natural selection. That is the driving force that Darwin discovered. That is why he is appreciated. It explains how evolution works. That is why there have been no significant changes in over 150 years to his theory.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#27 May 28, 2013
imagine2011 wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe the snake evolved from talking to hissing, right???? lol!
Maybe. But do you have evidence?

Note that this is where we differ - we can provide evidence which you then dismiss as part of the massive world conspiracy against Jewmagic. While you provide lots and lots of preaching which WE dismiss because it's all bullshite.(shrug)

“I am the great an powerful Ny!”

Since: Dec 06

Lebanon, PA

#28 May 29, 2013
imagine2011 wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe the snake evolved from talking to hissing, right???? lol!
lol

Don't misunderstand the "lol" I just posted. I'm laughing at you, not with you.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 8 min It aint necessari... 16,364
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 17 min IB DaMann 40,817
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 37 min One way or another 201,728
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 1 hr Reno Hoock 277
Scientists create vast 3-D map of universe, val... 1 hr MIDutch 24
Where does instinct fall within random mutations? 2 hr Reno Hoock 8
The conscious God or the inanimate nature 2 hr Fear-God 62
More from around the web