Thursday, April 11, 2019

SciManDan on some ID Arguments

In context:

3 Academic Professors Debunk Evolution With Ease
Off The Kirb Ministries | 5.XII.2018

As "debunked" by SciManDan:

Three Academic Professors Get Evolution Completely Wrong!
SciManDan | 9.IV.2019

Whom I now procede to debunk:

4:26 Congratulations for shooting yourself in the foot.

While a baby bird won't have a ready feather, he already has the DNA to produce them.

Since it is anyway adults who procreate (each animal is adult when able to produce offspring), and DNA which gives most aspects if not all of adult morphology (via, to be sure, foetal and youth morphology), we do really have a question on why something developed which could give the advantages we see in feathers.

Minor adjustments?

Gimme a break.

The problem is how minor adjustments produce such a thing as a feather.

5:21 - 5:31 "see, it's now not a massive stretch to go from hollow tube to feathers with barbs on them : barbs were needed so that birds could withstand the high air pressure on their wings during flight"

Without "developing" barbs, birds would not have "developed" flight, problem solved.

No, a need for a desireable outcome is not going to produce the needed input by random mutations.

That is the point, and that is what he didn't and you did miss.

As you mentioned feathers without barbs, ostriches and kiwis can't fly.

7:38 Homology points to a common ...


In the case of knee joints, you have not effectively refuted a designer.

Changes in evolution don't have to occur simultaneously?

Well, some don't - insofar as evolution is anything like the word for it.

Mutation for blue eyes (as opposed to brown ones) and mutation for white skin (as opposed to brown skin) certainly did not have to occur simultaneously.

However, they leave eyes as eyes, with same functions, and skin as skin, with mainly same functions, a bit less good at protecting against skin cancer and a bit better at synthesising vitamin D than otherwise.

You don't really observe any functions building up over time, and the point of Stuart Burgess is, for knee joints, you can't.

And while knee joints could possibly evolve to human ones from quadrupedal ancestors, you chose not to comment on the arched foot, which obviously couldn't evolve either from four handed or four footed ancestry.

That God gave us powers that some misuse is not an argument against God being the Creator.

Nice showing off, again, your real beef with creationism is actually your anti-theology.

Oh, while I was researching your own academic credentials (you were harping on neither of the three being an evolutionary biologist, I thought perhaps you were, perhaps you thought only those who went through evolutionist brainwashing in the process of becoming evolutionary biologists have a right to speak on the subject), I actually found this:

"If you want to see an atheist using Science, reason and logical thinking to promote the proven natural history of Life, the Earth and Universe then the subscribe button is up and to the right."

"Pseudoscience, religion, flat Earthers....they are all fair game!"

Academic field - rabid atheism?

10:38 Oh, you "discovered" that irreducible complexity has less weight as an argument than a flat earth one.

How clever ... and just a bit self serving on part of an atheist evolution believer.

11:12 "If everything is intelligently designed, why do I need these for driving" (eye-glasses shown).

Well, the discovery of eye-glasses by one Fr Roger Bacon OFM came before the discovery of the combustion engine ... I think somehow the history of discoveries was intelligently designed as well.

You have still not adressed the point that ATP motors in cells show more intelligence of design than combustion motors and more precision than you gain by adding eye-glasses to your eyes.

The point was your anti-theology, not a good evolutionary explanation for ATP motors.

And the point in your anti-theology can be adressed by stating, both your need to drive and your need to have glasses while doing so have something to do with the sin of Adam.

I note that one of your fans has the Swedish surname Alm (even if his first name is more an English version of the Christian name than a Swedish version of it), and another has clearly Danish names, bith given name and surname. Mads Nexø.

I feel I sense why I had to leave Sweden.

12:07 "that the fossil record is fantastic evidence for evolution"

...... supposing an Eocene and a Miocene layer can independently of fossils be proven to have been laid down at times some millions of years separate from each other.

In fact, the things that fossil record can even so reveal (!) are inadequate as responses to the intelligent design argument.

No comments: