An astute man from another NG writes :

' Complexity
>
> The normal person looks out at nature and sees design, function and
> purpose.  The overall view is a wonder, however, the close up view is
> even more astounding.  A close examination of appendages, skin,
> organs, glandular systems and the nervous system of creatures,
> including man, cause most people to see the irreducible complexity of
> each of these.
>
> Not only do we see this complexity present in todays world but also in
> the fossil record where organs are fully developed and functional from
> the start.  Behe is correct in his assessment of the eye in that it
> could not have been evolved little by little.  It has to have all of
> its parts or it is useless.  Trilobite eyes have been seen as just as
> complicated as the higher animals and yet according to the fraud of
> religious evolution they are very ancient.  Even a single celled
> creature has to have all of its parts with their complicated functions
> in place as seen by the flagella for locomotion, mitochondria, cell
> wall and nucleus with its incredible DNA. Nothing could stand alone or
> develop without the other components.
>
> Kissing frogs and religious evolution are both unbelievable fairy
> tales.
>
> What do you think?
>
> 6/24/6000

REPLY:  I agree one hundred and two percent !     To be an atheist,
one must continually take for granted hundred of things each and every
day. Everything from a Sun located 93 millions miles away yet feels
just right on their face,   thier own human body with 60 major systems
all working in unison so they can live,  DNA in one of thier cells
equalling 1,000 volumes of an encyclopedia  (specified complex
information),  thier eyes that instanteously convert light energy into
chemical energy sent to their Brain billions of times per day with
incredible precision,  et al, ad infinitum.   In order to hold onto
thier personal philosophical bias of mankind being utterly unpurposed,
without meaning, and without infinite worth....one must actually
choose to live a pessimistic/nihlisitic/fatalistic  daily life in
order to maintain the status quo. What a complete waste of someones
life all for the sake of pride to accomodate maximum hedonism. Been
there, done that...and glad im out of it

(0)

1.       I think that you are intentionally ignorant and a liar. I
think that you
are mocking God by calling Him a trickster. I think you are a fool
and
an enemy of knowledge and an enemy of the religion you claim to
adhere
to. I think you need to sit down, shut up, and start to learn
something
before you make your next post. You should be able to understand with
a
couple of years of study

2       Some South American natives lick the skins of poisonous tree
frogs and
have never read about kissing frogs in the hope of the frog turning
into a prince, they lick their frogs to get high on the toxins the
frog uses for defense. Which begs the question, since frogs are
amphibians why did your "god" create a frog that lives in trees?

3.     And how would a complete idiot, like you, know what NORMAL
people do?

4.     Go peddle your dumbassed crap elsewhere
BTW---------how's your group doing, ya fuckwadd?

5.    First, "irreducible complexity" is evolvable.  To conclude that
it is
not, one would have to assume that [a] every structure served the
same
purpose throughout its evolutionary history (but just by examing,
e.g.
the evolution of bird wings from theropod grasping limbs from
reptilian walking limbs from fish fins, would show that this is not
necessarily the case), [b] that individual components of systems
cannot change their functions over time, whether the complete system
changed function or not, and [c] that new components can be added but
that redundant ones cannot.

Of course, it occurs to me that you probably don't know what
"irreducible complexity" is supposed to mean, except that,
supposedly,
it makes evolution impossible.

Second, of course, a great many organs are demonstrably NOT
irreducibly complex, since simpler forms of these organs exist and
function in other species (e.g. eyes without lenses, hearts with only
two or three chambers, etc.)
To the best of my recollection, Behe did not discuss the possible
evolution of the eye; he did discuss the biochemical sequences
involved in nerves that sense light and send data to the brain about
this perception.  He demonstrated that what goes on when a nerve
senses light is pretty complex, but he does not demonstrate that it
is
"irreducibly complex" or unevolvable, and he does not at all consider
whether once one has such nerves, mutation and natural selection can
build a complete complex eye.

Some trilobites have complex compound eyes.  Some do not; some have
no
obvious eyes at all.  Note that trilobites first appear around half a
billion years ago, some three billion years after the beginnings of
life, some billion and a half years after the first appearance of
eukaryotic cells, and several dozen million years after the first
appearance of wormlike animals.  They are not the most ancient
creatures on Earth; they did not appear without predecessors (and, as
noted, did not appear with complex eyes already in place).

Note that not all bacteria have flagella; the flagellum appears to be
an elaboration of a system used for secreting enzymes where they are
needed.  Not all functional flagella demonstrate the full complexity
of the examples used by Behe.  For that matter, bacteria, some of
which have flagella, do not have mitochondria; mitochondria, which
appear to be descendants of endosymbiotic bacteria, occur only in
eukaryotic cells, and bacteria get along fine without them.
Bacteria,
of course, also lack nuclei; those are also found only in eukaryotic
cells.
Astonishingly, every single point of your argument above appears to
be
wrong.

I think you should try kissing frogs before you simply dismiss
amphibians as dating partners; you could be overlooking potential
intellectual equals just because they're cold-blooded and slimy.  I
think that religions evolve, and religions that leave a long written
record can illustrate some of the ways in which religions evolve.
However, biological evolution is not a religion, and it is a "fairy
tale" that it depends on faith, or lacks evidence.

Ken wrote:
> 1.       I think that you are intentionally ignorant and a liar. I
> think that you
> are mocking God by calling Him a trickster. I think you are a fool
> and
> an enemy of knowledge and an enemy of the religion you claim to
> adhere
> to. I think you need to sit down, shut up, and start to learn
> something
> before you make your next post. You should be able to understand with
> a
> couple of years of study

Morelike a couple of centuries; you appear to forget the intelligence, or 
lack of it, that we're dealing with here.

>
> 2       Some South American natives lick the skins of poisonous tree
> frogs and
> have never read about kissing frogs in the hope of the frog turning
> into a prince, they lick their frogs to get high on the toxins the
> frog uses for defense. Which begs the question, since frogs are
> amphibians why did your "god" create a frog that lives in trees?

The same reason he created a moron that lives in Illinois: He fucked up.

>
> 3.     And how would a complete idiot, like you, know what NORMAL
> people do?

In his sub-cranial reality he *IS* god.
>

<snipchronicity> - Do you really think he even bothered to read past the 
second line? (I did; but I snipped it anyway LOL )

http://www.kustomkomputa.co.uk
Personalised Desktop Computers

IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote:

> REPLY:  I agree one hundred and two percent !     To be an atheist,
> one must continually take for granted hundred of things each and every
> day.

Nope. Just have no belief in a deity.

A-theism = without a belief in a deity

Simple really.

> Everything from a Sun located 93 millions miles away yet feels
> just right on their face,   thier own human body with 60 major systems
> all working in unison so they can live,  DNA in one of thier cells
> equalling 1,000 volumes of an encyclopedia  (specified complex
> information),  thier eyes that instanteously convert light energy into
> chemical energy sent to their Brain billions of times per day with
> incredible precision,  et al, ad infinitum.

Dave - thanks for posting this. This is all evidence for the 
exquisite process of evolution, constantly refining our make-up to 
be a better 'fit' for our environment (i.e. usage as in the oft 
misunderstood 'survival of the fittest')

> ...and glad im out of it

So are we. I'm not sure that I'd be able to cope if you were on my 
team, with you posting such dishonest material!

regards, Ian

Ken wrote:

> To the best of my recollection, Behe did not discuss the possible
> evolution of the eye;

This a good example of why we are talking about an argument from 
ignorance. The impossibility of the evolution of the eye was a major 
subject for creationists.

You don't hear it mentioned much now, as the evolution of the eye 
has been adequately explained and a number of different eye 
compositions have been shown to have evolved separately.

In any case, Behe has been totally discredited as a scientist 
following his admission in court that his 'science' underpinning 
intelligent design was on the same level of astrology.

regards, Ian

On May 19, 3:26 am, Ian Smith 
wrote:
> Ken wrote:
> > To the best of my recollection, Behe did not discuss the possible
> > evolution of the eye;
>
> This a good example of why we are talking about an argument from
> ignorance. The impossibility of the evolution of the eye was a major
> subject for creationists.
>
> You don't hear it mentioned much now, as the evolution of the eye
> has been adequately explained and a number of different eye
> compositions have been shown to have evolved separately.
>
> In any case, Behe has been totally discredited as a scientist
> following his admission in court that his 'science' underpinning
> intelligent design was on the same level of astrology.
>
> regards, Ian

REPLY:  There will PLENTY of time to consider  complexity thru very
intelligent Design of the Universe , the eye, and the Brain....when
eternity begins for you. , even though you dont want to at this
present time.  Youll give great

On May 19, 3:26 am, Ian Smith 
wrote:
> Ken wrote:
> > To the best of my recollection, Behe did not discuss the possible
> > evolution of the eye;
>
> This a good example of why we are talking about an argument from
> ignorance. The impossibility of the evolution of the eye was a major
> subject for creationists.
>
> You don't hear it mentioned much now, as the evolution of the eye
> has been adequately explained and a number of different eye
> compositions have been shown to have evolved separately.
>
> In any case, Behe has been totally discredited as a scientist
> following his admission in court that his 'science' underpinning
> intelligent design was on the same level of astrology.
>
> regards, Ian

P.S.   Youll give great consideration to mans madeup philosophies  ,
especially blind random chances of macro evolution producing
incredibly complex things one remarkable centimeter at a
time....eventually making up a 6' tall human being without a shred of
purpose, meaning or worth so he can 'justify' living as he likes.

IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote:

>> You don't hear it mentioned much now, as the evolution of the eye
>> has been adequately explained and a number of different eye
>> compositions have been shown to have evolved separately.
>>
>> In any case, Behe has been totally discredited as a scientist
>> following his admission in court that his 'science' underpinning
>> intelligent design was on the same level of astrology.
>>
>> regards, Ian
> 
> P.S.   Youll give great consideration to mans madeup philosophies  ,
> especially blind random chances of macro evolution producing
> incredibly complex things one remarkable centimeter at a
> time....eventually making up a 6' tall human being

Notwithstanding your impoverished view of how evolution functions, 
our understanding of the evolutionary process is supported by such 
overwhelming evidence that has been considered as fact for a good 
while now.

I'll quote Michael Le Page again:

Note the words "... confirmed beyond any doubt ..."

"It will soon be 200 years since the birth of Charles Darwin and 150 
years since the publication of 'On the Origin of Species', perhaps 
the most important book ever written. In it Darwin outlined an idea 
that many still find shocking: that all life on Earth, including us 
humans, evolved through natural selection. Darwin presented 
compelling evidence for evolution in 'On the Origin' and since his 
time the case has become utterly overwhelming. Countless fossil 
discoveries have allowed us to trace the evolution of today's 
organisms from earlier forms. DNA sequencing has confirmed beyond 
any doubt that all living creatures share a common origin. 
Innumerable examples of evolution in action can be seen all around 
us, from the famous pollution-matching pepper moth to the emergence 
of diseases such as AIDS and H5N1 bird flu. Evolution is as firmly 
established a scientific fact as the roundness of the Earth."

from New Scientist 125, 19 April 2008

I'm sad for you that it doesn't fit in with your superstition, but 
that is your problem, not mine or the rest of the worlds for that 
matter.

regards, Ian

wrote in message 
news:ab3f4e58-089f-44db-b19d-9852f71fdaa9@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
> An astute man from another NG writes :
.  Behe is correct in his assessment of the eye in that it
>> could not have been evolved little by little.  It has to have all of
>> its parts or it is useless.  >

I wonder if I proved to your satisfaction beyond any doubt at all that the 
statement you quote is incorrect you would admit it and realise that you had 
learned something.   Since I wonder that, let's have a try.

It might be that you have a wife.  If so, ask her if she would kindly 
provide you with a kitchen match.  Keep that match with you at all times, 
until you see a domestic cat.

Then gently so that the cat is not surprised, stroke it and murmur kind 
words, and slowly strike the match and move it side to side, so that the cat 
watches the flame.

You will notice something quite undeniable.  The cat can not move its eyes. 
Its eyes are less complex than are yours, so that proves quite conclusively 
that the complexity of your eyes eyes is reducible.

So the astute man was not so astute and Mike Behe of course, if he said 
that, would have been quite wrong.  Please note here, I am not being 
argumentative or rude, I really do mean to explain something.  (There is a 
lot more about the complexity of eyes which is very certainly reducible I 
assure you.).