Watch this

Enjoy!

The irreducibility Complex principle has blown Darwin's theory out of the water. In fact quite a few scientists have come to their senses, and can no longer see any sense or logic in what Darwin postulated in a time, in 1831 to be exact, when he knew very little about how complex a cell was. Everything Darwin theorized was based on physical changes he witnessed among certain bird species on an island. He coined the ability for birds, and other creatures for that matter, to adapt to change in their environment for their survival- the process of natural selection

While I have no qualms with such a term, I do have a problem with the idea that these adaptations tend to occur over millions of years, which resulted to where we are today from a single cell. His very species of origin tree as to how life began smacks of gross incompetence, and ignorance.

If Darwin were alive in our time and knew what we now know about the cell he would never have dared to embarrass himself the way he did.

Later I will go into more details.

Bobbyaf:

The irreducibility Complex principle has blown Darwin's theory out of the water. In fact quite a few scientists have come to their senses, and can no longer see any sense or logic in what Darwin postulated in a time, in 1831 to be exact, when he knew very little about how complex a cell was. Everything Darwin theorized was based on physical changes he witnessed among certain bird species on an island. He coined the ability for birds, and other creatures for that matter, to adapt to change in their environment for their survival- the process of natural selection

While I have no qualms with such a term, I do have a problem with the idea that these adaptations tend to occur over millions of years, which resulted to where we are today from a single cell. His very species of origin tree as to how life began smacks of gross incompetence, and ignorance.

If Darwin were alive in our time and knew what we now know about the cell he would never have dared to embarrass himself the way he did.

Later I will go into more details.

You have not described how the alternative theory has greater explanatory power than Darwnian natural selection. Until this "new" theory is shown to have greater explanatory power and accounts for all the evidence, Darwinian natural selection will remain the theory supported by the vast majority of scientists.

C'mon, do us a favour and tell us what this new theory is and who are its proponents, will you?

You have not described how the alternative theory has greater explanatory power than Darwnian natural selection. Until this "new" theory is shown to have greater explanatory power and accounts for all the evidence, Darwinian natural selection will remain the theory supported by the vast majority of scientists.

C'mon, do us a favour and tell us what this new theory is and who are its proponents, will you?

There is nothing to explain really. The term natural selection is not a bad term per se, but my problem with it is simple. It doesn't account for the fact that genes and how they operate don't require millions of years to bring about adaptations.

The design argument makes more sense, because for an animal to adapt to its environment over a period of time, and assuming a short period so as to maintain the same species, there has to be an array of factors present in order to achieve such changes.

As you're very much aware the central dogma of biology wouldn't stand up well based on Darwin's theory of the original species of life. The simplest of cells called bacteria are so complex in their operation. The flagellum in one bacteria species is so complex and ordered, that the likelihood of its machinery gradually being put together over time is ludicrous, based on how we know proteins and genes operate in harmony.

Every living species were made with intact working parts whether from a macro-biological or micro-biological point of view. The basic structures had to have been in place already for any accommodation of adaptations to have occurred.

Darwin's finches simply learned to adapt so as to survive, and the genetic mechanisms had to have been in place so as to afford such changes. The adaptations in themselves do not support the idea that new creatures resulted over millions of years.

Bobbyaf:

There is nothing to explain really. The term natural selection is not a bad term per se, but my problem with it is simple. It doesn't account for the fact that genes and how they operate don't require millions of years to bring about adaptations.

The design argument makes more sense, because for an animal to adapt to its environment over a period of time, and assuming a short period so as to maintain the same species, there has to be an array of factors present in order to achieve such changes.

As you're very much aware the central dogma of biology wouldn't stand up well based on Darwin's theory of the original species of life. The simplest of cells called bacteria are so complex in their operation. The flagellum in one bacteria species is so complex and ordered, that the likelihood of its machinery gradually being put together over time is ludicrous, based on how we know proteins and genes operate in harmony.

Every living species were made with intact working parts whether from a macro-biological or micro-biological point of view. The basic structures had to have been in place already for any accommodation of adaptations to have occurred.

Darwin's finches simply learned to adapt so as to survive, and the genetic mechanisms had to have been in place so as to afford such changes. The adaptations in themselves do not support the idea that new creatures resulted over millions of years.

OK, let's explore the design option for a minute by considering the following questions:

1) If it is design that accounts for the diversity of lifeforms on the planet, what or who is the designer?

2) If there is indeed a designer, then this desiger has to be at least as complex as the things he designed. In the case who designed the complex designer?

3) If design accounts for complexity, why to we find complexity in a hierarchical structure, from the simple about 500 million years ago to the complex over recent epochs?

4) Why would a designer design lifeforms so that 99.99% of all life that has ever lived is now extinct?

5) Why would a designer design whales with legs? Of what use are legs to a whale?

6) How many different types of diseases of the eye exists?

huxley:

OK, let's explore the design option for a minute by considering the following questions:

1)  If it is design that accounts for the diversity of lifeforms on the planet, what or who is the designer?

2)  If there is indeed a designer, then this desiger has to be at least as complex as the things he designed.  In the case who designed the complex designer?

3) If design accounts for complexity, why to we find complexity in a hierarchical structure, from the simple about 500 million years ago to the complex over recent epochs?

4)  Why would a designer design lifeforms so that 99.99% of all life that has ever lived is now extinct?

5)  Why would a designer design whales with legs?  Of what use are legs to a whale?

6)  How many different types of diseases of the eye exists?   

I knew u were either going to resort to ur usual "I dont know" or put bobbyaf on the defence. This is not unamusing any more.

ur evolution beliefs and postulations has never withstood any rigorous critical analysis and debate either in the outside world or on nairaland.
tens of thread have been opened, which u eventually ran away from. It beats me how u proclaim intelligence but yet cannot defend ur beliefs (evolution).

Darwin guessed and he guessed wrongly. his guess was based on the simple assumption that there cannot be a GOD who holds the universe.
thats the only explanation for all your rantings.

noetic:

I knew u were either going to resort to ur usual "I dont know" or put bobbyaf on the defence. This is not unamusing any more.

ur evolution beliefs and postulations has never withstood any rigorous critical analysis and debate either in the outside world or on nairaland.
tens of thread have been opened, which u eventually ran away from. It beats me how u proclaim intelligence but yet cannot defend ur beliefs (evolution).

Darwin guessed and he guessed wrongly. his guess was based on the simple assumption that there cannot be a GOD who holds the universe.
thats the only explanation for all your rantings.

i don't believe in darwin, but you have also FAILED to show that there is a god that holds the universe all you have are the unproven and ridiculous words and ideas of ancient jews who thought that the sun revolves around the earth to rely on. . . .

mazaje:

i don't believe in darwin, but you have also FAILED to show that there is a god that holds the universe all you have are the unproven and ridiculous words and ideas of ancient jews who thought that the sun revolves around the earth to rely on. . . .

I dont understand what u mean by unproven and ridiculous, maybe u can shed more light on that.

The bible has forever stated its case. God made the heavens, earth and all that is in it.
its up to u not to believe or take that as a fact, but ur disbelief which is a function of ignorance cannot change, dispute or repudiate biblical truths.

noetic:

I dont understand what u mean by unproven and ridiculous, maybe u can shed more light on that.

The bible has forever stated its case. God made the heavens, earth and all that is in it.
its up to u not to believe or take that as a fact, but ur disbelief which is a function of ignorance cannot change, dispute or repudiate biblical truths.

what are the biblical "truths" if i may ask? the bible only made its case(ideas of the writers). the koran too has made its case, so did the hindu text etc. . . you do not believe in their own case but you are unable to disprove it. . .by the way are the creation accounts in genesis 1 and 2 what you call "truths"? .

@ mazaje

what are the biblical "truths" if i may ask?

For one it spoke about people like you who'd be mocking and jeering. How did it know about persons like you?

Why do historians depend on the bible to shed light on ancient historical figures? Before they started doing that they used to refute its names of personages. When it became obvious that the science of archeology favoured what the bible said, those scientists in turn began using the information from the bible to confirm what archeology happened upon.

the bible only made its case(ideas of the writers). the koran too has made its case, so did the hindu text etc. . . you do not believe in their own case but you are unable to disprove it. . .by the way are the creation accounts in genesis 1 and 2 what you call "truths"?

Yet while the bible's predictions came true, theirs' haven't. History highlights an historical man named Jesus who the Romans killed in AD31, and who was predicted to have come to live among His people by the ancient prophets. What is your answer to that?

What about the four world kingdoms that came in the same as predicted by the ancient prophet Daniel? Can you refute that Babylon came before Media-Persia, which came before Greece, which came before Rome?

How about the prediction by several prophets that the then kingdom of Babylon after its demise would never have risen up again, and that the place in which it stood would have been occupied by wild animals? God had said in His words that it would never rise again, yet Saddam Hussein attempted to rebuild Babylon and failed.

@ Huxley

OK, let's explore the design option for a minute by considering the following questions:

1) If it is design that accounts for the diversity of lifeforms on the planet, what or who is the designer?

The person the bible refers to as God, since its one of the major sources of His revelation to us as humans. The ultimate source of proof of God's existence is the first advent of His Son to live among men.

2) If there is indeed a designer, then this desiger has to be at least as complex as the things he designed. In the case who designed the complex designer?

Not necessarily. The bible makes it clear that God isn't mortal or finite. As humans we are not in a position to say that He is as complex as His design because that would distract from His attribute as being omniscient. We dare not use what He has designed to conclude that He is either as well designed or more designed, since He has no beginning nor end. That would defeat the whole purpose of He being called God.

3) If design accounts for complexity, why to we find complexity in a hierarchical structure, from the simple about 500 million years ago to the complex over recent epochs?

That is an assumptive question by you, but unfortunately for you we do not believe that the earth is that old. There is evidence to prove that the earth was made instantaneously by God as recorded in the bible.

4) Why would a designer design lifeforms so that 99.99% of all life that has ever lived is now extinct?

And what are these life forms of which you speak?

5) Why would a designer design whales with legs? Of what use are legs to a whale?

Have you ever seen a whale with legs before?

6) How many different types of diseases of the eye exists?

Quite a few.