SUTG
New member
I'd suggest page one. :chuckle:
Darwin explained and provided evidence showing how the diversity of life evolved from common ancestry. It was a general explanation and therefore includes the evolution of the knee joint.
The evolution game is up!!!
- Thread starter bob b
- Start date
I'd suggest page one. :chuckle:
Darwin explained and provided evidence showing how the diversity of life evolved from common ancestry. It was a general explanation and therefore includes the evolution of the knee joint.
macguy
New member
Just what I predicted!
[edit]: let me guess. You will tell me that I should read the whole book...
Lawl that's funny. You might as well argue that Darwin explained common ancestry therefore it includes the evolution of the flagellum. He did not address it...therefore Darwin's Wrager has been met with the irreducible knee joint and flagellum. Does he even have the modern technology that we do? He couldn't even begin to explain it.
SUTG
New member
Well, uh, yeah. If you think you are going to refute a scientific theory, you should become familiar with what you are trying to refute, donthca think?
He proposed a general theory. He didn't list every organ, limb, fin and feather of every organism and cover them in detail. He doesn't need to.
macguy
New member
Haha! Apparently you don't even own the book but I only have it for reference purposes... Neo-Darwinism is the new fad now so I get myself acquainted with the new version.
I didn't say that HE needed to. You made that up. Evolution is supposed to be explanatory, and a irreducibly complex system by definition cannot evolve. Therefore, you would have to demonstrate that this knee joint isn't IC but so far, all you've done is refer to me an out-dated book by the progress of science. Heck, I might as well argue for you to read the Bible because it provides a general theory and explains everything.
You have NOT demonstrated anything and neither did Darwin. He actually said:
‘If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.’
This is precisely what the knee joint does.
SUTG
New member
I eagerly await your demonstration of this. Behe couldn't do it - maybe you'll have better luck.
PlastikBuddha
New member
I'm not sure where this is coming from- the evolution from fish to land animals was dependant on the knee joint. It's not exactly an unknown factor.
http://www.ejbjs.org/cgi/reprint/20/1/77.pdf
macguy
New member
What? Why do you evolutionists just assume that one is refuted without even having the book? Under your own logic, you should have Behe's book in order to get acquainted with his claims instead of relying on the critics. I provided links that answer their charges and there has yet to be a possible pathway for the flagellum.
macguy
New member
PlastikBuddha
New member
macguy
New member
I know it didn't exist before, because I searched for the answer. Did you even read it by the way?
SUTG
New member
I'v read Behe's book more than once, and also saw his downfall at the Dover trial. I am familiar with his claims. He just needs to demonstrate them as Darwin requested in the quote you posted. So far he has been unable to do so. Are you willing to give it a shot?
PlastikBuddha
New member
I skimmed it. Seemed reasonable. Any glaring errors I missed?
macguy
New member
Okay just to check the honesty of this claim, go to page 166 of his book and then type the paragraph below the header entitled "In the Beginning". I have already been giving it a shot...or do you mean something else? I am asking because people have claimed to own a mac, yet they just claim to have one and at the same time criticize it. This has happened very often so I wouldn't doubt that it could apply to other things as well.
My links demonstrate that He was able to do so, many just misconstrue the hypothesis as they do repeatedly with the Biotic message.
I'm wondering why you would post something that has nothing to do with evolution of the knee joint, but instead is merely an interesting description of how knee joints work in various kinds of animals.
Did you really think that this demonstrates evolution of one kind of animal into another?
PlastikBuddha
New member
It certainly seems to point in that direction to me. The relationship between more primitive forms and more sophisticated forms argues for evolution.
Barbarian asks:
Perhaps you don't know what "vestigial" means. What do you think it means?
(Refuses to answer)
Yep. That's the problem. You don't know what it means. It means a feature that is no longer useful for it's original function. It does not mean "without function", although it can (like the wings of beetles fused under permanently closed elytra).
"living creatures, including man, are virtual museums of structures that have no useful function but which represent the remains of organs that once had some use” (Asimov, 1959, p. 30
There are such features, but not all vestigial organs are functionless.
Such organs are vestigial, but as Darwin pointed out, they don't have to be functionless.
Again, an organ may become rudimentary for its proper purpose, and be used for a distinct object: in certain fish the swim-bladder seems to be rudimentary for its proper function of giving buoyancy, but has become converted into a nascent breathing organ or lung. Other similar instances could be given.
Charles Darwin, "The Origin of Species"[/b]
So, you see, right from the start it was like that.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB360.html
However, the discovery of a function for a structure does not necessarily mean that it is not vestigial. A vestigial structure may be completely without function, like fetal platypus teeth, or it may be changed and diminished in function.
http://www.bookrags.com/research/vestigial-structures-wap/
Biology still uses the same definition as Darwin did.
Perhaps you don't know what "vestigial" means. What do you think it means?
(Refuses to answer)
Yep. That's the problem. You don't know what it means. It means a feature that is no longer useful for it's original function. It does not mean "without function", although it can (like the wings of beetles fused under permanently closed elytra).
"living creatures, including man, are virtual museums of structures that have no useful function but which represent the remains of organs that once had some use” (Asimov, 1959, p. 30
There are such features, but not all vestigial organs are functionless.
Such organs are vestigial, but as Darwin pointed out, they don't have to be functionless.
Again, an organ may become rudimentary for its proper purpose, and be used for a distinct object: in certain fish the swim-bladder seems to be rudimentary for its proper function of giving buoyancy, but has become converted into a nascent breathing organ or lung. Other similar instances could be given.
Charles Darwin, "The Origin of Species"[/b]
So, you see, right from the start it was like that.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB360.html
However, the discovery of a function for a structure does not necessarily mean that it is not vestigial. A vestigial structure may be completely without function, like fetal platypus teeth, or it may be changed and diminished in function.
http://www.bookrags.com/research/vestigial-structures-wap/
Biology still uses the same definition as Darwin did.
BTW, the knee joint isn't irreducibly complex. There are people without kneecaps, who can still walk and hold jobs and so on.
There are also some people lacking one or more of the ligaments of the knee. They still get around without canes or crutches.
There are also some people lacking one or more of the ligaments of the knee. They still get around without canes or crutches.
macguy
New member
What do you think? That we would take your word for it? Present evidence...
[edit] Nvm, you mean the patella correct? I forgot the layman term for it
Non-Essential Parts in the Knee Joint said:
From here it is pointed out that the petella is non-essential yet extremely efficient and elegant in it's design. It doesn't necessarily go in-dephs to explain this but the article merely focuses on the critical parts which are need to work properly. Those irreducibly complex parts add up to 16. It's ironic that he predicted what you would bring up.
What do you think? That we would take your word for it? Present evidence...
[edit] Nvm, you mean the patella correct? I forgot the layman term for it
From here it is pointed out that the petella is non-essential yet extremely efficient and elegant in it's design. It doesn't necessarily go in-dephs to explain this but the article merely focuses on the critical parts which are need to work properly. Those irreducibly complex parts add up to 16. It's ironic that he predicted what you would bring up.
People used to criticize me for "overkill" in design, too.
But the time that the 90+mph pitcher struck my kneecap so hard that the ball bounced out toward the shortstop I was happy that God had "overdesigned" so well that a bruise was all the damage that was sustained.
macguy
New member
I guess evolutionists have the same arguments, or should I say rather incomplete objections. They bring up something, yet they just assume it as true without providing a justification for it. I am glad that there are people like you trying to push the design explanation
But the time that the 90+mph pitcher struck my kneecap so hard that the ball bounced out toward the shortstop I was happy that God had "overdesigned" so well that a bruise was all the damage that was sustained.
:shocked: Wow, so you didn't have to go to the hospital eh? Yes and it is good demonstration of His glory in that God didn't limit himself to a box but rather thought outside of it by making improvements. It's sort of like making a text editor to do all the basic functions but add features such as columns and different fonts. The features aren't needed but it still shows design and is useful!