Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Society & CultureReligion & Spirituality · 6 years ago

Does Modern Science Stifle Darwinism?

Facts about molecular machines inside of cells:

The concept of molecular machines in biology has transformed the medical field in a profound way. Many essential processes that occur in the cell, including transcription, translation, protein folding, and protein degradation, are all carried out by molecular machines. This volume focuses on important molecular machines whose architecture is known and whose functional principles have been established by tools of biophysical imaging (X-ray crystallography and cryo-electron microscopy) and fluorescence probing (single-molecule FRET).

The DNA Code - Solid Scientific Proof Of Intelligent Design - Perry Marshall - video

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4060532

A Scientific Reference Darwinians are too stupid to understand

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6087260/the_cell_a_g...

The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds - Douglas Axe, Jay Richards - audio

http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/...

The Cell - A World Of Complexity Darwin Never Dreamed Of - Donald E. Johnson - video

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4139390

Evolution Vs ATP Synthase - Molecular Machine - video

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4012706/

10 Ways Darwin Got It Wrong

Excerpt: As molecular biologist Jonathan Wells and mathematician William Dembski point out: “It’s true that eukaryotic cells are the most complicated cells we know. But the simplest life forms we know, the prokaryotic cells (such as bacteria, which lack a nucleus), are themselves immensely complex.,,, There is no evidence whatsoever of earlier, more primitive life forms from which prokaryotes might have evolved” (How to Be an Intellectually Fulfilled Atheist (or Not), 2008, p. 4). These authors then mention what these two types of cells share in terms of complexity: Information processing, storage and retrieval.

• Artificial languages and their decoding systems.

• Error detection, correction and proofreading devices for quality control.

• Digital data-embedding technology.

• Transportation and distribution systems.

• Automated parcel addressing (similar to zip codes and UPS labels).

• Assembly processes employing pre-fabrication and modular construction.

• Self-reproducing robotic manufacturing plants.

So it turns out that cells are far more complex and sophisticated than Darwin could have conceived of. How did mere chance produce this, when even human planning and engineering cannot?

http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn85/10-ways-darw...

Michael Behe - Life Reeks Of Design - 2010 - video

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5066181

Bacterial Flagellum - A Sheer Wonder Of Intelligent Design

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3994630/bacterial_fl...

Update:

To those who argue against Michael Behe and some judge who knows and knew nothing whatsoever about science, let alone the theories of ID the man still does public speaking engagements and still works as a Biologist. If the Dover B.S. is the best you have about behe then why is he still traveling and speaking to large groups of people? Fear of one man means very little when there are so many more ( a few named above ) that know ID isn't dismissed just because a few Darwinians think it should be. Behe is still a Biologist any way you cut it.

12 Answers

Relevance
  • Bob
    Lv 6
    6 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Paul B. just making assumptions doesnt further your case in the theory you love dogmatically. It would be nice if you can show us a little macroevolution, but we both know you will ignore my assertion that it has never been shown. It turns out that you are the one who has a religion motivation behind your belief in darwinian evolution, and that is your dogmatic cultist belief in atheism, which in and of itself is a religion.

    Now if we were to have an email debate on lets say the shroud of turin, we both know that you would abandon science, reason and logic in trying to show me that teh shroud is a forgery ;)

    Enough pandering to the unintellectually brainwashed darwinist.

    William those are some very nice videos that explain the huge problems with darwinian evolution, and I like the fact that you used some good links from Perry Marshall who is also one of my favorites.

    Here is a video that deals with a part of evolution that atheists and materialists find very uncomfortable and thats Stephen Meyer in this video showing that the sequential arrangment of the nucleotides bases within DNA cannot be attributed to blind chance or chemical interaction for their arrangment into specified complex information.

    This alone blows away the the blind chance and chemical interaction explanation that darwinian evolutionists give and none of them can answer this.

    Pay very close attention to minutes 4 through 8 as Meyer intellectually blows away darwinian evolution in this video.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLeWh8Df3k8

    Youtube thumbnail

    Then here we see one of the main talking heads of darwininian evolution Eugenia Scott deliberately lying in front of national TV about a peer reviewed intelligent design paper that Doctor Meyer himself authored.

    Eveolution is surviving now by supressing honest debate and bullying people from teaching the easily seen weaknesses that darwinian evolution has.

    I used to be a believer in evolution only because I accepted the assertions blindly because as with most college studenst in biology classes we are brainwashed into not even asking questions of whether it is a legitimate scientific theory to begin with.Eveolutionists have to lie to keep theory propped up and we all know that science is supposed to be neutral and not dogmatically favoring a view without the evidence to back it up.

    This is not science, this is in fact dogmatic philosophy masquerading as science.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-3xTc80wyA

    Youtube thumbnail

    • Lv 7
      6 years agoReport

      The blurb for that youtube clip says "it is known that chemistry cannot produce information". On this lie alone can I dismiss this clip.

      The clip talks about chemical forces, not biological ones so proves nothing. FAIL.

  • 6 years ago

    Ugh, you people are still pushing irreduceable complexity? That subject was put to bed years ago.

    And Behe may be a biologist, but he's on court record saying that if what he touts is science, so is Astrology. Not Astronomy, Astrology. The man has little credibility remaining.

    • Lv 7
      6 years agoReport

      Yes, William, the ID community will still continue to lie, and to sell books to the ignorant and desperate. How many do you have on your shelf?

  • Paul B
    Lv 7
    6 years ago

    I'm guessing somebody hasn't heard of the NeoDarwinian Synthesis.

    Then again though, anybody who cites Behe on purpose is beyond help...

    You know what? I would have a lot more respect for you if you stopped pretending that you have a scientific argument against evolution, and admitted that your viewpoint is based on religious belief. Come on, be honest.

    EDIT: Okay, let's forget for a moment that Behe is quite happy to disseminate misinformation. Let's look at your citations... Do you have links to scientific papers rather than Metacafe videos? Call me pedantic, but I'm not entirely convinced by links to a website where any idiot can upload content.

  • 6 years ago

    No, and if you actually knew anything about modern science you'd be able to see why. However, all you have is creationist misinformation, not science at all.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 6 years ago

    The problem you mention is not a problem of biology. It is a problem of your limited understanding of biology. You basically say that you do not know how the earliest life forms looked. Which is ok, because nobody really knows, and after 3500000000 years I don't expect much of the originals left.

    Then you conclude that this means that your god is responsible for life. This conclusion is based only on your wishful thinking. When you don't know something, then this is only evidence that you don't know it, it is not evidence that god did it.

  • 6 years ago

    Michael Behe and his flagellum were used to wipe the court room floor in Dover, PA in 2005. Did you imagine I didn't know that?

  • Anonymous
    6 years ago

    DNA itself is subject to evolution. I think most creationist YEC's forget that or refuse to accept it?

    Even Dawkins talks about primitive RNA being the foreruner to DNA.

  • 6 years ago

    It kills it! No living cell has ever been artificially created from scratch, modified yes like Craig Ventor but from scratch hm!

  • Lance
    Lv 7
    6 years ago

    Exactly. The fact that we aren't sure about some things, like how my cell phone works = God Did It.

    It's common sense.

  • Anonymous
    6 years ago

    You are quoting Michael Behe, the person who lied in court, about science?

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.