Freedom of Belief and Religion according to Islam

[Alchemist]

Once again your ignorance is showing. The DNA mutations are random, but the natural selection is not. Saying evolution is merely chance ignores the selection portion. Me rolling 1 through 6 sequentially with a die would be a matter of chance. Me rolling 1 through 6 sequentially, with me rejecting any roll that does not fit is not chance. See the difference?



Done.



Only because you decided to ignore it.



Interesting claim. If my knowledge of biology is only grade 10, what does that make yours considering I am consistently correcting you?



Where are the neurons? Where is this 'knowledge' stored? Aside from your abuse of the language, you now need to show that secb's evolutionary predecessors have no function. It's interesting to note that no reputable modern biologist believes in irreducible complexity. Behe has been completely refuted many times over.

Could you please cite some reputable sources on your claims of secb? A google search resulted in nothing.



False logic. You have not shown anything other than they compliment each other in their current forms.



You are welcome to break out the finger paints if it makes you feel better.

I don't know why you keep deluding your self like this.

I'll try to dumb it down for you this time so you don't argue out of ignorance again.

To say that selection is nonrandom is to say that there is intelligence involved in the "selection for" assumption of evolution.

Who or what does the selection? Complex mechanisms are built with sophistication and are linked in meaningful ways. Not a single protein floats in your system without purpose or function. So these "intermediate" proteins that have yet to find a purpose or be a part of a mechanism - do not exist. Every gene codes a purposeful and functional protein with a specific job.

You are asking me for proof?
You are a hypocrite and an intellectual fraud for not showing any proof your self and always asking for it. (So far I didn't press you for any because I know you are completely ignorant of evolution but only blindly follow it). But from now I am going to squeeze you for every idiotic and unsubstantiated bluff you make.

1) What are secb's evolutionary predecessors?

2) Show the evidence that that historic mutation and selection events were unguided by intelligence.

3) Who are the scienitsts that reject "irreducible complexes". Keep in mind that Michael Behe is himself an accredit scienist!

^ you answer the above and we'll see how you have "corrected" me.

[ozymandias]

I don't know why you keep deluding your self like this.

I'll try to dumb it down for you this time so you don't argue out of ignorance again.

To say that selection is nonrandom is to say that there is intelligence involved in the "selection for" assumption of evolution.

Not at all. If I take a bag of sand, and pour it through a screen, some of the particles will pass through, and some will not -- in a non-random manner. That screen is selecting based on given criteria (the size of the holes in the screen), and I cannot imagine anyone in the world would claim that screen is intelligent.

You are assuming that the only two choices are 'random' and 'intelligent', which is clearly not the case.

Who or what does the selection?

The environment. What survives to breed.

Complex mechanisms are built with sophistication and are linked in meaningful ways. Not a single protein floats in your system without purpose or function. So these "intermediate" proteins that have yet to find a purpose or be a part of a mechanism - do not exist. Every gene codes a purposeful and functional protein with a specific job.

And you need to prove that these intermediate forms have no purpose. Irreducable complexity has been debunked over and over again in scientific papers. You have to show that it exists.

You are asking me for proof?

Yes. You are claiming that modern science, and modern biology is false and wrong, and are claiming that all modern scientists are wrong, and don't even know it. Of course I need more than your opinion on that topic as evidence you are right -- especially considering you don't even understand the discussion topic.

You are a hypocrite and an intellectual fraud for not showing any proof your self and always asking for it.

Unfortunately, this is also untrue. I provided plenty of evidence and cited my sources while refuting your claims in the evolution threads.

(So far I didn't press you for any because I know you are completely ignorant of evolution but only blindly follow it). But from now I am going to squeeze you for every idiotic and unsubstantiated bluff you make.

Good. Since I don't make bluffs, I am fine.

1) What are secb's evolutionary predecessors?

That's up to you to provide. You claimed that they would be non-functional in any way. I am not doing your research for you.

2) Show the evidence that that historic mutation and selection events were unguided by intelligence.

Again, you are abusing the scientific system. You need to prove your claims that it was. It is not my job to disprove your extraordinary claims. It is your job to show that evolution does not fit the evidence, and that your claim does.

3) Who are the scienitsts that reject "irreducible complexes". Keep in mind that Michael Behe is himself an accredit scienist!

All modern and respected biologists. Accredited does not mean respected, or correct. Rather than provide a list of scientists that disprove him, here is a link to a fairly recent ruling, where a judge sumarized the topic, and stated that irreducable complexity is not science, and has been throughly refuted in peer reviewed journals:
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science - Wikisource

^ you answer the above and we'll see how you have "corrected" me.

You want cases of me correcting you? feel free to look up that evolution thread again. It was chock full of them.

[Alchemist]

Not at all. If I take a bag of sand, and pour it through a screen, some of the particles will pass through, and some will not -- in a non-random manner. That screen is selecting based on given criteria (the size of the holes in the screen), and I cannot imagine anyone in the world would claim that screen is intelligent.

You are making a circular argument.

If the screen is built intelligently than the sand won't fall through it in a non-random manner. Meaning that screen is built to screen out only sand grains of upto a certain size ONLY.

If the screen is a mesh of random straws, like that the roof of a hut made out of straws, then all types of different sizes of grains of sand will pour through, in a random manner.

The screen itself is an inanimate object, but it is built and used by an intelligent being to screen for "something" specifically.



You are making some ridiculous arguments.

You are assuming that the only two choices are 'random' and 'intelligent', which is clearly not the case.

What is a third case?
Just humour me ...

The environment. What survives to breed.

Now you are making a tautological argument.
What is the environment? An intelligent being?

John's being a bachelor is his being an unmarried man, John's being a bachelor doesn't explain his being an unmarried man.

There aren't any laws of selection!

It's obvious that no trait could be adaptive for creatures across the board. Traits in isolation don;t' get selected for at all - Creatures don't have traits in isolation but what they have is whole phenotypes.
Ecological property just is whatever some phenotypic trait is an adaptation to; and adaptations just are phenotypic traits that solve ecological problems.
So 'adaptations are always solutions to ecological' isn't after all a bona fida empirical claim; it's just a truism, like 'bachelors always turn out to be unmarried.'

And you need to prove that these intermediate forms have no purpose. Irreducable complexity has been debunked over and over again in scientific papers. You have to show that it exists.

You are being deceptive here.
I clearly said that purposeless intermediate forms DO NOT EXIST.
And you are asking me to prove they have a purpose?
(Are you dyslexic?)

Here is where it exists:


Now you show me how it is REDUCIBLE. Meaning that you can make it work in a much more simpler form...even if with a reduced function.

Yes. You are claiming that modern science, and modern biology is false and wrong, and are claiming that all modern scientists are wrong, and don't even know it. Of course I need more than your opinion on that topic as evidence you are right -- especially considering you don't even understand the discussion topic.

No...just your delusions.
I know science better than you do. Especially biological sciences so I know where the gaps are and why biology, unlike the other sciences, hasn't progressed far in the last century. You take it as a matter of faith and believe it in like I believe in the Qur'an. I don't understand the Qur'an 100%. But I believe in it 100%. I understand biology, and I know evolution, and it is only a secular narrative on creation. It is not a scientific theory.

Unfortunately, this is also untrue. I provided plenty of evidence and cited my sources while refuting your claims in the evolution threads.

I asked you for proof and instead you shrug your shoulders and make excuses ...telling me that I have to find proof for your claims?

Good. Since I don't make bluffs, I am fine.



That's up to you to provide. You claimed that they would be non-functional in any way. I am not doing your research for you.

You are the genius who said something about "evolutionary predecessors" of SecB genes.

I never made the claims that SecB has had an evolutionary predecessor. You did.

So what is it?

You are caught bluffing ...so you are lying to your self by believe that "they" even exists or existed! (Blind faith)

Again, you are abusing the scientific system. You need to prove your claims that it was. It is not my job to disprove your extraordinary claims. It is your job to show that evolution does not fit the evidence, and that your claim does.

You are obviously an idiot because you don't know what a null hypothesis is.

You are probably so stupid you don't even know what the hypothesis for evolution is ...I just stated to you the null hypothesis and I can assure you that it doesn't exist. And you are so stupid..that you are asking me to present you the evidence that I AM TELLING YOU DOESN'T EXIST!

Seems like I have psychologically traumatized you because you have gone into a defensive shell. You are more concerned with countering me than answering me or debating me. Stop this charade ...

All modern and respected biologists. Accredited does not mean respected, or correct. Rather than provide a list of scientists that disprove him, here is a link to a fairly recent ruling, where a judge sumarized the topic, and stated that irreducable complexity is not science, and has been throughly refuted in peer reviewed journals:
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science - Wikisource



You want cases of me correcting you? feel free to look up that evolution thread again. It was chock full of them.

I remember you made some asinine remark like...How can I be related to my father 50% if I am related to Chimpanzees 95%?or...Bacteria evolved resistance to antibiotic drugs because humans developed antibiotics recently...

You are just a delusional and distraught fool who is too high off himself. Go educated your self in biology. I just caught you making a series of bluffs all over again ...

You are free to believe what you want...but don't bs me and tell me it is all "Scientific".

The court trial that you are quoting is in regards to ID being a scientific theory...which it is not. And whether ID should be taught in schools. It shouldn't be. I don't hold any pretence on how He creates or created. ID holds as much water as Evolution...they are both just narratives. Neither are scientific.

But read this:
Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

^ Let's discuss the above, and you tell me...
"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." (Origin of Species)

does such an explanation exist in the above wiki paper?

[ozymandias]

You are making a circular argument.

If the screen is built intelligently than the sand won't fall through it in a non-random manner. Meaning that screen is built to screen out only sand grains of upto a certain size ONLY.

If the screen is a mesh of random straws, like that the roof of a hut made out of straws, then all types of different sizes of grains of sand will pour through, in a random manner.

The screen itself is an inanimate object, but it is built and used by an intelligent being to screen for "something" specifically.

You are kidding right? That was an example of a non-intelligent item making selections, and you grasped at the straw of 'it took intelligence to make the object'?

What about gold setting out into the riffles of a stream? What about the grains of sand on the beach? There are tons of other examples that avoid your silly argument.

You are making some ridiculous arguments.

Says the man that thinks a screen is intelligent.

What is a third case?
Just humour me ...

Reality -- non random, non intelligent. There is no need for intelligence to 'decide' what is the most fit organism, since the definition of 'most fit' is 'that which has the most surviving offspring capable of breeding'. Nothing actually needs to count the offspring to decide what is most fit, you just let it breed.

Now you are making a tautological argument.
What is the environment? An intelligent being?

Now you are being a moron. Why are you bringing intelligence into this? There is absolutely no need for intelligence to determine what is most fit. It is a direct result of the definition of 'fit'. You keep acting like events fail to happen without an intelligence nearby to observe, when reality does not work that way.

John's being a bachelor is his being an unmarried man, John's being a bachelor doesn't explain his being an unmarried man.

What does that have to do with anything?

There aren't any laws of selection!

Correct. There are no laws of selection, there is only a measure of fitness, which changes from case to case. What is most fit in one case, is not necesarily the most fit in another. Why are you assuming there are laws controlling this?

It's obvious that no trait could be adaptive for creatures across the board.

You are the only one that has ever argued that it did, while I kept trying to explain to you that this is the case. Glad you finally realize that.

Traits in isolation don;t' get selected for at all

Right. You need an environment for the selection.

- Creatures don't have traits in isolation but what they have is whole phenotypes.
Ecological property just is whatever some phenotypic trait is an adaptation to; and adaptations just are phenotypic traits that solve ecological problems.
So 'adaptations are always solutions to ecological' isn't after all a bona fida empirical claim; it's just a truism, like 'bachelors always turn out to be unmarried.'

Now you lost me. This is not even discussing natural selection. You are talking about the traits of a single organism. Natural selection requires more than one organism (with more than one phenotype) so that the two can compete, and the most fit can more successfully propagate it's genes.

You are being deceptive here.
I clearly said that purposeless intermediate forms DO NOT EXIST.
And you are asking me to prove they have a purpose?
(Are you dyslexic?)

No, I am stating that you need to prove your claims that the intermediate forms of secb have no purpose -- but now you have expanded it to an all encompassing statement that they do not exist anywhere. You need to prove your claim. We won't just take you at your word.

And no, I am not dyslexic -- but I am concerned about the evident learning disability you are showing.

Here is where it exists:


Now you show me how it is REDUCIBLE. Meaning that you can make it work in a much more simpler form...even if with a reduced function.

Not my job. You make the claim, you prove it. That's how science works. It is not up to me to disprove your baseless claims, it is up to you to show they have a base, and have merit to even investigate. You claim that there is no reducible form that has a function of any sort. Now you need to enumerate the possible reductions, and show that there is no function for any of those.

No...just your delusions.
I know science better than you do.

Clearly not. You have stated speciation has never been observed. I corrected that. You claimed that donkeys and horses are the same species. I corrected that. You claimed that every single living bacteria is it's own species, I corrected that. You claimed that it is the role of science to disprove all crazy claims, when it is the role of the claimant to prove it. Where is this mythical knowledge of science you claim to have?

Especially biological sciences so I know where the gaps are and why biology, unlike the other sciences, hasn't progressed far in the last century.

Seriously? You claim *that*?

You take it as a matter of faith

False. I am a scientist, and take nothing on faith.

and believe it in like I believe in the Qur'an.

False. Science is not a matter of faith. It is a matter of reproducible and 'best fit' of theories and laws to the evidence known. They are nothing alike.

I don't understand the Qur'an 100%. But I believe in it 100%. I understand biology, and I know evolution, and it is only a secular narrative on creation. It is not a scientific theory.

And clearly you understand science, particularly biology and evolution far less than you understand the koran. Blind faith is not a virtue.

[quote]




I asked you for proof and instead you shrug your shoulders and make excuses ...telling me that I have to find proof for your claims?

[quote]

No, I tell you that you have to find proof for *your* claims. It is not up to me to disprove your baseless claims. It is up to you to prove them.

You are the genius who said something about "evolutionary predecessors" of SecB genes.

I never made the claims that SecB has had an evolutionary predecessor. You did.

No, you claimed that there is no possible evolutionary predecessor -- that any possible predecessor would have no function. You now need to prove that claim.

So what is it?

*shrug*

I'm not putting any effort into disproving your claim until you provide some sort of evidence to validate your claim -- at which point, I will correct your mistakes, and once again, you will learn more about biology.

You are caught bluffing ...so you are lying to your self by believe that "they" even exists or existed! (Blind faith)

Not at all. I am simply waiting for you to attempt to substantiate your claim.

You are obviously an idiot because you don't know what a null hypothesis is.

Actually, I am quite aware of what a null hypothesis is -- in fact, that is why I don't believe in the supernatural. The null hypothesis is that all known events can be explained with natural laws, and no one has yet proven otherwise.

You are probably so stupid you don't even know what the hypothesis for evolution is ...I just stated to you the null hypothesis and I can assure you that it doesn't exist.

Don't 'assure me'. Given your failings at science and logic, I will not take your word for anything -- and no one should take *anyones* word as scientific proof. I am simply asking you to stop acting like a religious person, and act like a scientist -- and prove your claims.

You claim that their is no possible evolutionary predecessor of secb that has a benefit to the organism. Don't assure me that it does not exist -- prove it.

And you are so stupid..that you are asking me to present you the evidence that I AM TELLING YOU DOESN'T EXIST!

No. I am asking you to prove the claim you made.

Seems like I have psychologically traumatized you because you have gone into a defensive shell. You are more concerned with countering me than answering me or debating me. Stop this charade ...

I have no idea what you are talking about. I am simply sticking to science, and the scientific method. I am not interested in 'debating' you -- I lost that interest a long time ago, and am simply working to educate you so that one day we can have a debate.

I remember you made some asinine remark like...How can I be related to my father 50% if I am related to Chimpanzees 95%?

Your memory is slipping again.

or...Bacteria evolved resistance to antibiotic drugs because humans developed antibiotics recently...

Further evidence of your slipping. That was the straw man you created and pretended to refute. No one other than you made that claim.

You are just a delusional and distraught fool who is too high off himself. Go educated your self in biology. I just caught you making a series of bluffs all over again ...

I can't decide if you are just a troll, or if you actually believe that.

You are free to believe what you want...but don't bs me and tell me it is all "Scientific".

You are also free to believe what you want. I assure you, I have never, and will never 'bs' you, though. Feel free to accept my claim, or reject it -- it doesn't matter to me in this case.

The court trial that you are quoting is in regards to ID being a scientific theory...which it is not.

Right.

And whether ID should be taught in schools. It shouldn't be. I don't hold any pretence on how He creates or created. ID holds as much water as Evolution...they are both just narratives. Neither are scientific.

Wrong.

But read this:
Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

^ Let's discuss the above, and you tell me...
"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." (Origin of Species)

does such an explanation exist in the above wiki paper?

No -- and if it does, it is because of vandalism of wikipedia. The eye is a constant claim from creationists of 'irreducible complexity' and it has been constantly debunked. There is absolutely no merit to the claim it is irreducibly complex.