rationalskepticism.org

Rumraket wrote:Steve, you have yet to come up with anything even remotely close to falsifying evolution. All you have done is to assert into thin air, with no evidential support, that you are unable to understand how feature X could originate and evolve.
But Steve, the fact that you fail to muster the nessecery mental effort required to understand the evolutionary concepts is not sufficient reason to reject evolutionary theory.
You simply have nothing to offer, nothing of value. You can not refer to any facts that falsify evolution, no research, no laboratory experients, no real-word data. All you have are personal doubts and your ridiculous strawmen of evolutionary mechanics.

Additionally, I'd like to ask you if you understand the concept of an argument from ignorance? Because you constantly commit the fallacy. Constantly. Both here and on your blog, all you do is ask strawmen questions where you first paint a caricature picture of the theory of evolution whereafter you attack your strawman with gaps of knowledge, as if gaps in themselves were sufficient reason to reject the theory of evolution.
Furthermore, many of the supposed gaps you proclaim really aren't gaps at all, like the exampe of the origin and evolution of teeth quesion, answered in detail by Cali, so perfectly demonstrates.

I also notice you have failed to answer the question I asked in my previous post so I will take the liberty of quoting it here again for you :
creationism/remember-stevebee-t9281-100.html

Rumraket wrote:

OOPS. AS IS USUALLY THE CASE, YOU HAVE SUBSTITUTED MY CHALLENGE WITH SOMETHING ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SO YOU CAN ANSWER AND SATISFY YOURSELF. DOESN'T SATISFY ME, THE POSER OF THE CHALLENGE. NOT REMOTELY CLOSE. THEN YOU THROW IN EPITHETS AND RAG ON ME AS A WAY OF SUPPORTING EMPHAITCALLY YOUR NON-ANSWER. TRY READING THIS AGAIN. IT'S NOT TOO TOUGH.

Steve... please calm down with your entire-post capslock. It doesn't get your message across anymore efficiently at all and in fact it's tiresome reading something in all-caps.

Anyway, regarding your question:

"Non-occurring because mutations forming just the right healthy useful tissues in just the right amount, just the correct shape, just the correct location, and shutting off at just the correct time, have never been demonstrated." IF THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF EXAMPLES, YOU SHOULD AT LEAST CITE A COUPLE? HOW ABOUT NYLON EATING BACTERIA?

First of all, what's this thing about Nylon eating bacteria? You have a problem with that case somehow?

Second, it's a bit saddening to me when you ask the questions you do because it shows you're either completely oblivious to evolution or willfully dishonest.

Your question is a strawman claim. Evolution does not postulate that mutations suddenly spring into existence with all the bells and whistles for forming new and highly specialised complex tissues. Therefore claiming it has never been demonstrated is, while factually correct, completely irrelevant and unrelated to actual evolutionary postulates.
What you have just done is make a caricature of evolution and then attacked it with claims of it never having been demonstrated. This means you haven't actually attacked evolution at all, only your own useless strawman of it.

The problem with you erecting a claim like this and then coming here demanding answers is that we effectively have to re-educate you on basic evolutionary principles. And this is being mindful of the very real possiblity that you aren't interested in learning how evolution actually works, but only here to propagandise for a doctrine.

I can't be bothered giving you a full course in basic molecular evolutionary mechanisms, but I think I'll say this much : Evoluion works by modifying what is already there. Tissues don't magically spring into existence by some random, insanely potentiating miraculous accumulation of mutations. No, already existing tissues get modified over time, usually after geneduplication events or geneshufflings.
You know what this means, Stevebee?.. gene-duplications and geneshufflings, and how they are different from random point mutations? Do you understand the concept of genetic interactions making complex tissues, and gene duplications and shufflings providing a basis for the evolution of novel features on already existing tissue genes? Are you aware that geneshufflings and geneduplications and to a lesser extend frameshiftmutations are the most potentiating mechanisms in the evolution of novel features? If you don't understand how, please go read up on the subjects. I have given you several keywords to google. And no, the Templeton Foundation, Discovery Institute, Michael Behe, William Dembski or Ass-ertions-in-genesis are not authorities on evolutionary mechanics... actual evolutionary biologists are. Read real scientific litterature, not religios propaganda. The wikipedia articles are a good starting point.