Origins Thread

[Tiger]

That's quit interesting Tiger, you know for what its worth I wrote a little about this in my latest book. I was making the point about the vaccines, that instead of it being 'only genetic modification of RNA not DNA, and hence not making you genetically modified' I pointed out that in fact it isn't as clean a separation as some suggest. RNA and DNA are very closely linked and there is in fact pathyways for RNA to come back and influence DNA, which makes the mRNA vaccines even more of a disaster.

That's an interesting point, and you’re right that the link between RNA and DNA isn’t as clear-cut as some people think. There’s definitely evidence that RNA can influence DNA, like through reverse transcription, where RNA can actually end up being written back into the genome. This makes the whole ‘it’s just RNA, not DNA’ argument way more complicated.

 

[AN2]

What is Intelligent Design?

For anyone who wants to know what @Tiger's ID thread (which he calls Origins) is all about.. Please watch this summary -

 

[Tiger]

@AN2

For anyone who is interested........the video called "Intelligent Design Is Complete Nonsense" (which Jimbob posted today on his shambles of a thread) is an exercise in intellectual complacency, substituting caricature and conformity for serious critique.

The hosts, cloistered in their echo chamber of shared biases, fail to mount anything resembling a substantive challenge to Intelligent Design (ID). Their arguments, rife with misrepresentation and fallacious reasoning, betray not only a misunderstanding of ID but also a reluctance to engage its core tenets. In other words, something right up James' street.

Foremost among their errors is the straw man fallacy, a classic tactic of the ideologue. Rather than addressing ID as it is—a disciplined inference based on observable patterns of complexity—they reduce it to “creationism in disguise,” a rhetorical slight designed to dismiss rather than debate. Consider, for instance, Michael Behe’s work on the bacterial flagellum, which he describes as irreducibly complex—a structure whose interdependent parts defy piecemeal evolution. Instead of grappling with this argument, the video opts for hand-waving and ridicule, which may amuse the uninformed but does nothing to address the implications of specified complexity.

The presenters then stumble into the trap of a false dichotomy, insisting that discrediting ID ipso facto vindicates evolutionary theory. This is the hallmark of a defensive intellectual position—shielding Darwinian dogma from scrutiny by defining its challengers as unworthy of consideration. Yet Intelligent Design does not rest on exposing flaws in evolutionary theory alone; it stands on its own merits, drawing on evidence such as the digital code embedded in DNA or the fine-tuning of the physical constants of the universe. That such evidence is ignored in favor of cheap binary oppositions speaks volumes about the intellectual poverty of the video’s approach.

Perhaps most egregiously, the video engages in equivocation, wielding the word “science” like a cudgel while redefining it to suit their preordained conclusions. By insisting that science must exclude any consideration of intelligent causation, they transform it from a method of inquiry into a straitjacket for naturalistic dogma. This sleight of hand evades the real question: does the evidence support design? Stephen Meyer has pointed out that ID employs the same inferential reasoning used in forensic science or archaeology—disciplines that routinely recognize intelligent causes without requiring supernatural explanations. But the video’s hosts, rather than confronting this methodology, prefer to hide behind semantic games.

Their reliance on appeals to authority further underscores the vacuity of their critique. They invoke the Kitzmiller v. Dover ruling as if a legal decision could determine scientific truth. This lazy appeal is typical of those who mistake consensus for correctness, as though the pronouncements of judges or academic gatekeepers could replace empirical evidence. It is worth noting that many of ID’s critics rely not on data, but on courtroom victories and institutional inertia to defend their position—a damning admission of the weakness of their case.

The dynamic between the two presenters is, at best, a feedback loop of self-congratulation, and at worst, an Orwellian exercise in groupthink. Neither challenges the other’s assertions, and both seem oblivious to their own biases. This insular approach creates an echo chamber where dissenting views are mocked rather than addressed, and where the search for truth is subordinated to the comfort of conformity. By refusing to engage with ID’s strongest arguments—such as the specified complexity of biological systems or the improbability of unguided processes—they render their critique a hollow exercise in self-affirmation.

Ultimately, the video’s greatest failure is its refusal to confront the positive claims of ID. Rather than grappling with the mathematical improbabilities of blind evolution or the profound implications of information theory, the presenters resort to ad hominem attacks and dismissive rhetoric. This is not science; it is propaganda masquerading as critical thought. A genuine debate would require acknowledging the limits of materialism and the growing body of evidence that points to design—arguments championed not by zealots, but by rigorous thinkers like Meyer, Behe, and Berlinski.

In conclusion, "Intelligent Design Is Complete Nonsense" is a vapid exercise in groupthink, more interested in preaching to the choir than engaging with reality. Its failures are not merely intellectual but moral, as it seeks to suppress genuine inquiry in favor of comforting dogma. If the hosts were truly committed to science, they would welcome debate, not avoid it. But as it stands, their critique is less an argument than a confession of their own intellectual insecurity.

Contrast that to the video I posted above from Denis Noble. One of the great scientists of the past 50 years.

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

That post is far too long. Where do you think you are, Notre Dame Divinity school?

 

[Tiger]

That post is far too long. Where do you think you are, Notre Dame Divinity school?

Just for you Myles….here’s a condensed version.

The video fails as a critique, relying on misrepresentation, logical fallacies, and an echo chamber of unchallenged biases rather than engaging with the substantive claims of Intelligent Design (ID). By caricaturing ID as mere "creationism," dismissing its arguments without addressing evidence like irreducible complexity or specified information and appealing to legal rulings and consensus rather than data, the hosts reveal their unwillingness to confront the real debate. Their reliance on rhetorical dismissal and a rigid naturalistic definition of science exposes their critique as shallow propaganda, more interested in reinforcing dogma than fostering open inquiry or serious dialogue.

Even better, here’s a version for 5 year olds......

The video is like two kids saying, "That idea is dumb!" without really explaining why. They make fun of the idea that the world shows signs of being designed, but they don’t talk about the actual reasons people believe it—like how some things in nature are super complicated and fit together perfectly, like puzzle pieces. Instead, they just say, "Everyone else thinks it's wrong, so it must be!" That’s like saying your drawing is bad just because someone else said so, without even looking at it. They also never ask each other hard questions, so it’s more like they’re just agreeing with each other to feel smart instead of really trying to understand.

If you’d prefer some child-like drawings to explain, then let me know.

 

[clarke-connolly]

Dawkins was definitely trying to cover himself there . Obvious he doesn't like Morgan - who proceeded to repeatedly interrupt him throughout that interview as well!

Piers Morgan is very Shallow just like Meghan Markle which is why they don't like one another ~ ~ Not enough shallow water for both together ! !

 

[SwordOfStZip]

What is Intelligent Design?

For anyone who wants to know what @Tiger's ID thread (which he calls Origins) is all about.. Please watch this summary -

Most Normie Catholics in Ireland and Anglicans in England understand the phrase "Intelligent Design" to mean Theistic Evolution (which I believe to be fundamentally rationally incompatible with any type of really meaningful Christian Faith). The idea of Theistic Evolution has been held by Western non-Christians since at least the 19 th century (I think before even- remember the Pre-Socratic Greek Philosopher Anaximander held to ideas close to what we call Evolution- but I cannot remember the details just now).

Louis Agassiz - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Tiger]

@SwordOfStZip

The conflation of Intelligent Design (ID) with Theistic Evolution (TE) reflects a modernist distortion that undermines both reason and faith. ID recognizes evidence of purposeful design in the universe—patterns and complexities that point to intelligence rather than randomness. TE, on the other hand, compromises Christian doctrine by attempting to harmonize Darwinian evolution (which is a dead concept) with belief in God. In doing so, it reduces God to a mere spectator of blind, death-driven processes, rendering Him unnecessary.

As you pointed out, TE is not a new idea but rather a rehashing of ancient materialist speculations, such as those of Anaximander, who imagined life evolving from simpler forms. In the 19th century, these godless theories were repackaged in scientific garb to provide secularists a means of discarding the Creator altogether. Tragically, many Christians, eager to appear “enlightened” and “scientific,” adopted TE without recognizing its incompatibility with the faith.

Christians must confront TE for what it is: a surrender to materialist ideology that replaces divine revelation with a hollow accommodation to the spirit of the age. It is not science but a betrayal of both reason and faith. As St. Thomas Aquinas taught, faith and reason cannot contradict each other. Intelligent Design, while not a theological framework, at least aligns with the evidence of purpose and intention in creation and offers a counterpoint to the nihilistic randomness of Darwinism.

We must recognize that Darwinian evolution itself is at a crossroads. As biologist Denis Noble and others have highlighted (he says that "Neo-Darwinism is dead"), the traditional neo-Darwinian framework is increasingly untenable in light of advances in fields like epigenetics, systems biology, and the understanding of information in DNA. Darwin’s mechanism of random mutation and natural selection can no longer account for the complexity, adaptability, and interdependence observed in life. As this framework crumbles, a vacuum has emerged—a space where new ideas and paradigms are taking root.

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

That's the condensed version?!!!!

 

[AN2]

Most Normie Catholics in Ireland and Anglicans in England understand the phrase "Intelligent Design" to mean Theistic Evolution (which I believe to be fundamentally rationally incompatible with any type of really meaningful Christian Faith). The idea of Theistic Evolution has been held by Western non-Christians since at least the 19 th century (I think before even- remember the Pre-Socratic Greek Philosopher Anaximander held to ideas close to what we call Evolution- but I cannot remember the details just now).

Louis Agassiz - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

ID dresses itself up as science, the problem is - there isn't any (science)

 

[AN2]

lol How fragile is @Tiger that he has to reply to me in his crank ID thread here instead of here.

Oh yeah..

 

[Mad as Fish]

@clarke-connolly - in response to this post on the spam thread.

“ Is Dawkins all that smart really ? !

Didn't Darwin already do the heavy lifting in Dawkins speciality ? !”

It’s true to say that Richard Dawkins has hitched his entire reputation to Darwinism, but in doing so, he has tied himself to a sinking ship. His unwillingness to address decades of scientific challenges to the theory—challenges he conveniently ignores—has done more to undermine his credibility than to bolster the Darwinian framework he so fervently defends.

Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, once heralded as the final word on the origins and development of life, has been undermined by the very science that once championed it. Darwin painted a picture of slow, gradual changes giving rise to all the diversity we see today, a "tree of life" branching endlessly upward and outward. Yet, time and again, reality refuses to conform to his Victorian fantasies.

Take, for instance, his claim that the fossil record would reveal a multitude of transitional forms—proof of his gradualist vision. What we find instead is the abrupt appearance of fully formed species, most famously during the Cambrian Explosion, with little evidence of the painstaking evolutionary steps Darwin imagined. This phenomenon isn’t a minor oversight; it’s a direct challenge to the supposed slow march of evolution. Darwin’s defenders, unable to produce the transitions he predicted, resort to vague excuses about “gaps” in the fossil record.

Then there’s Darwin’s misunderstanding of inheritance. He believed in a “blending” model, where offspring would inherit a mixture of traits from their parents. This was dead wrong. Mendel’s work, ignored during Darwin’s lifetime, revealed that traits are passed down through discrete units—genes. Had Darwin understood this, he might have realized that blending would dilute advantageous traits out of existence rather than enhance them.

Darwin’s so-called "tree of life," where species evolve in neat, branching patterns, has also been shattered by modern discoveries. Horizontal Gene Transfer (HGT), where genetic material is shared across species—even across entirely different domains of life—reduces the tree to a tangled web. Bacteria, for example, can acquire resistance genes from their neighbors, completely bypassing the gradual accumulation of mutations Darwin envisioned. If life operates more like a genetic free-for-all than a slow, upward climb, what does that say about Darwin’s model?

And what about the lack of transitional fossils? Darwin suggested that evolution proceeds through slow, continuous change, yet the fossil record stubbornly refuses to cooperate. To explain away this glaring problem, evolutionary theorists devised the concept of "punctuated equilibrium." This idea proposes that species remain stable for long periods and then change rapidly, supposedly too quickly to leave behind transitional forms. But this smacks more of an excuse than a scientific explanation, conveniently sweeping the fossil gaps under the rug instead of addressing the core issue: Darwin’s gradualism simply doesn’t hold up.

Complex traits like the eye or the bacterial flagellum pose another insurmountable problem. Darwin argued that such features must arise through countless, incremental steps, each offering a survival advantage. But modern science has revealed that certain systems are irreducibly complex—they require multiple interdependent parts to function. Remove just one, and the whole system fails. How could such intricate mechanisms evolve gradually if they are useless until fully formed?

Even altruism in nature challenges Darwin’s theory. If survival is a ruthless competition, as he claimed, why do we see organisms sacrificing themselves for others? The simplistic idea that natural selection only favors selfishness falls apart when faced with the complexity of cooperative behaviors in nature. These traits point to something deeper than Darwin’s blind struggle for existence.

Darwin’s theory, upheld as dogma for over a century, is crumbling under the weight of its own contradictions. Far from providing the “final answer” to the origins of life, it looks increasingly like a relic of outdated 19th-century thinking. The modern discoveries that refute his gradualist model demand not just tweaks to his theory but a wholesale reconsideration of the forces at work in the natural world.

One or two points on the above.

HGT is an interesting idea, do you have any examples of where it might have happened in more advanced life forms than bacteria?

I think it unfair to be too critical of Darwin himself, he was expounding new ideas and faced much criticism at the time. If his ideas have proved incorrect then fair enough, that's science after all, but he has always struck me as a modest fellow who was working to the best of his knowledge, which was a great deal more limited then than it is now. As it turned out, he created a whole new area of science, his contribution is not to be dismissed lightly.

Having said that I would agree entirely that we need much more than Darwinism to explain evolution and the complexity of modern life forms and even with concepts such as HGT we are still probably only scratching the surface.

I have read that altruism may be explained through game theory and doesn't immedietly contradict the notion of the selfish gene.

 

[Tiger]

That's the condensed version?!!!!

Ah c’mon Myles, there was literally a version for 5 year olds!

How about this…

The video is an unscientific discussion where two poorly informed people merely affirm their shared belief against Intelligent Design without providing any evidence to support their claims.

Which is presumably why it appeals to James. It's for poorly educated people, who don't read books or know anything and anything.

 

[AN2]

Michael Behe & The Mousetrap #irreduciblecomplexity



View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4o__yuonzGE

Convinced?

 

[AN2]

LOL @

Post in thread 'Origins Thread' https://www.sarsfieldsvirtualpub.com/threads/origins-thread.639/post-125306

Not for the post itself really but the reply

@Mad as Fish doesn't seem to understand that for IDiots like @Tiger Darwin is the Devil

 

[Tiger]

One or two points on the above.

HGT is an interesting idea, do you have any examples of where it might have happened in more advanced life forms than bacteria?

I think it unfair to be too critical of Darwin himself, he was expounding new ideas and faced much criticism at the time. If his ideas have proved incorrect then fair enough, that's science after all, but he has always struck me as a modest fellow who was working to the best of his knowledge, which was a great deal more limited then than it is now. As it turned out, he created a whole new area of science, his contribution is not to be dismissed lightly.

Having said that I would agree entirely that we need much more than Darwinism to explain evolution and the complexity of modern life forms and even with concepts such as HGT we are still probably only scratching the surface.

I have read that altruism may be explained through game theory and doesn't immedietly contradict the notion of the selfish gene.

Yeah HGT has been increasingly observed in more advanced life forms, including plants, fungi, and even animals (Tardigrades and tiny freshwater fish called Bdelloid Rotifers)


As for Darwin, I understand the desire to respect his historical contributions. He was certainly a product of his time, working with limited knowledge, but we must be careful not to elevate him beyond critique. His ideas, while groundbreaking, were imbued with Victorian materialism and Malthusian assumptions that have contributed to some of the most destructive ideologies of the modern age. The modern evolutionary synthesis, built on Darwin’s foundation, often doubles down on these reductionist errors, failing to account for the real intricacies of life.

Darwin's contributions to science were undoubtedly revolutionary for his time, and it is important to recognize the context in which he worked—without the technological advancements we have today, including the microscope. However, critiques of Darwinism should not be interpreted as personal attacks on Darwin, but as challenges to the theory that bears his name. His initial model of evolution, which focused on gradual, random changes within populations, was framed within a 19th-century worldview that lacked insight into modern cellular biology.

Darwin’s understanding of life’s complexity was simplistic; he thought of organisms as being more complex on the surface but increasingly simple as one delved into their microstructure (in other words, the opposite of reality). This view led to the development of Neo-Darwinism in the 20th century, which, while building on Darwin's ideas, incorporated the concept of genetic mutations and natural selection as primary drivers of evolution. However, as advances in molecular biology and genomics have progressed, many predictions made by Neo-Darwinism—such as the idea of ‘junk DNA’ and the strict gene-centered view of inheritance—have been refuted (Lamarck, 2009). The rise of epigenetics, the role of symbiosis, and increasing evidence of Horizontal Gene Transfer (HGT) in complex organisms show that Darwinism, in both its original and modern forms, fails to account for the full complexity of biological life.

As for altruism and game theory, I’d argue this is another area where Darwinian explanations fall short. Game theory attempts to rationalize altruism within the framework of self-interest, but it ultimately reduces human dignity and moral action to calculations of survival advantage. Such theories strip the profound, self-sacrificing nature of true altruism down to an evolutionary byproduct—a view that is both impoverished and unworthy of the human spirit, in my opinion.

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

Oh boy

 

[AN2]

Michael Behe & The Mousetrap #irreduciblecomplexity



View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4o__yuonzGE

Convinced?

lol Flat-earthers & Creationists hate this science guy -



(I think that's probably enough on the Behe clown)

 

[Tiger]

Oh boy

I presume you’d like a version for the mentally impaired?

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

I'd like you to comment on the Walsingham thread

 

[AN2]

 

[it_is_what_it_is]

Okey doke

Where did you stop reading, was it here -

Post in thread 'Origins (Uncensored) Reprise' https://www.sarsfieldsvirtualpub.com/threads/origins-uncensored-reprise.1050/post-118531

I notice that you haven't cast your vote yet

Again, I have not the full thread, when I get a head space for it I might.

I am not wrong on the issues of theory, just like the big bang theory that was brought about by a Catholic Priest, it is a theory, and not a great one.

The baby and a bath water thing is again not a response I even thought was warranted, as I do not think you understood the heart of I am saying here regards where we are in the reality of the now, where I made more then a few points. The reality of medical science today as example, and many others that are not at least of the hardest of sciences that ye can spoof for now, is if the medical practice you are going under today, is based on 1990's scientific papers, where it is increasingly at the bottom of the hard sciences, the replication rate of said science was 90 percent, where you can expect that there would be some gibberish in the science, that would be wayladed under a healthy science of the time.

Over the last 25 years the replication rate, the procedure to verify a science, of medicine is now near 10 percent. So if you are being treated today under a published paper of today regards medicine for supposed X issue, it does not matter what the past Y years of science ever came about regards said science, it is being based on garbage driven by other means. Where it is not like this has not happened before in history, the fact that it is happening today is why the "Science" of today regards that which has the money behind it, due in many ways to a majority of a governments budget as example, health and education, being driving such corruption, is why the "Science" that has the most money behind it, is in a very bad way.

It is the similar when someone comes on to you about climate change, lots of money to be made here, and has been made there, which is like saying water is wet, as change is inherent in the word climate regards its meaning, double speak, where you would ask them first, do you know who Milankovic is, and they would not have a clue. How can ye talk about such a topic without knowing basics, or even the last two thousand years that we know of.

What is happening now is that the latest of a lot of science is a "Science", it is a belief system, throwing away all past knowledge or potential validations of where you came to be regards such ideas. That which has the most money behind it, is has been corrupted due to such.

 

[AN2]

I will just say that the theory of evolution is just that, a theory. The idea that people believe in an theory is a religion, it is a faith based argument. Theory is just that if you believe in such.

I'm sorry but you are hopelessly wrong.

Religion is certainly (a leap of) faith but a scientific theory is not -

Google Search

You are using, shall we say, a layman's term of 'theory'. Our stupidest poster @Mods vs Roc_ers did this when he imagined replacement theory (which refers to a conspiracy theory) in the same layman's term

I am not wrong on the issues of theory

Are you hard of hearing?

See above

 

[Tiger]

I'd like you to comment on the Walsingham thread

Myles, it’s challenging to know what you’re looking for in terms of discussion. Are you seeking thoughts on the video's content, its production quality?

It's common practice to give some context to an OP versus simply posting what appears to be a random choice of a video from you.

Sharing even a brief opinion or question would help guide the conversation. Otherwise, the discussion risks becoming a scattershot of random interpretations. Care to elaborate on your perspective?

 

[Tiger]

@AN2

In response to James’s lazy and unscholarly attempt at refuting the concept of Irreducible complexity by posting a lame video by the obnoxious YouTuber and fake ‘professor’ Dave last night on his shambles thread, I have taken the liberty of dissecting the video below. It’s clear that James's has no dignity and cannot amount any argument of his own beyond posting videos.



The 'Professor' Who Isn’t a Professor: An Obnoxious YouTuber Peddling Ideology


Let’s be perfectly clear from the outset: "Professor Dave" is not a professor, and he is certainly not a credible voice in the world of science. His YouTube channel is a platform for shallow, ideologically driven commentary masquerading as knowledge. When one considers his views on gender and biology—views that align more with a modern, politically correct agenda than with any semblance of biological reality—it becomes painfully obvious that his scientific opinions are rooted not in a pursuit of truth, but in the furtherance of a politically motivated narrative. He claims expertise where there is none, presenting himself as an authority while peddling the very same tired, unsubstantiated Darwinian dogma that has long failed to explain the complexity of life. For those of us who value real science, Professor Dave is a mere distraction—a charlatan whose utterances should be ignored.

To show his ideological bias and complete disregard for any semblance of ‘truth’, here is a sample video of him explaining his position on ‘trans people’, trying to give it some sort of grounding in science. As we saw earlier this week, even Richard Dawkins refused to stoop this low in an effort to confirm to crazy societal norms.


View: https://youtu.be/fpGqFUStcxc?feature=shared


To further highlight his shit lib bias as an establishment boot licker; here’s a video of YouTuber Dave’s position on Covid Vaccines.


View: https://youtu.be/-EPbylsBuzg?feature=shared


Anyhoo, back to his video on ‘Irreducible Complexity’….

An Analysis of 'Professor Dave's' Arguments: Shallow Rebuttals to Behe’s Substantial Critique


Dave’s rebuttal to Michael Behe is an exercise in misdirection, grounded in ignorance and a shocking disregard for the complexities of biological systems. His responses are a cocktail of half-baked theories and selective citations, aimed not at addressing Behe’s central thesis, but at defending the crumbling edifice of Darwinism. Let’s break down these arguments for what they are: vapid, ideologically driven, and thoroughly unconvincing.

1. Recombination: The Magic Bullet Fallacy

Dave’s attempt to redeem Darwinian evolution by pointing to recombination as some sort of "solution" to the problem of sequential mutations reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of Behe’s critique. Behe’s argument isn’t that recombination doesn’t happen—it’s that recombination alone doesn’t resolve the problems of mutation order and the sheer improbability of successive beneficial mutations arising by chance. Recombination doesn’t magically solve the problem of the "waiting time" Behe highlights, where the accumulation of beneficial mutations within a population is too slow to account for the evolution of complex systems. Recombination might shuffle existing genetic material, but it doesn’t create the new, functional complexity required for the kinds of biochemical systems that Behe discusses. To call this a "solution" is to ignore the deep flaws in Darwinian theory that Behe has already thoroughly documented.

2. Fitness Landscapes: Misunderstanding the Problem

Dave’s critique of Behe’s use of fitness landscapes is a case of him missing the point entirely. Behe isn’t arguing that evolution doesn’t involve changes in fitness over time; he’s arguing that the very process of crossing fitness valleys is staggeringly improbable. The idea that organisms can traverse these valleys via beneficial mutations in the right order is a fantasy that fails to account for the extreme specificity required in such a process. Sure, fitness landscapes are dynamic, but they don’t become less steep simply because Dave wants them to. In reality, the more complex a biological system, the more unlikely it becomes that a random mutation will be beneficial at every step of the way. Dave’s dismissal of this is nothing more than wishful thinking, designed to preserve a narrative rather than confront the hard truth about the limits of Darwinian evolution.

3. Darwinism vs. Modern Evolutionary Biology: A False Dichotomy

Dave’s attempt to separate Behe’s critiques from modern evolutionary biology is nothing short of laughable. Yes, modern evolutionary theory has expanded beyond Darwin’s original ideas, but it still relies on the same basic mechanisms: random mutation and natural selection. Behe’s argument is precisely that these mechanisms are insufficient to explain the emergence of complex biological systems. The fact that Dave wants to redefine the debate as a struggle between old and new versions of Darwinism is nothing more than a semantic distraction. Behe isn’t simply refuting the old version of evolution; he’s highlighting the inherent flaws in the very framework that modern evolutionary biology still clings to. Dave’s failure to address this is the hallmark of someone trying to keep the Darwinian train chugging along long after it’s run off the tracks.

4. Misuse of Evolutionary Examples: The Devil is in the Details

The examples Dave presents—drug resistance in malaria, HIV adaptation—are textbook examples of limited adaptation under intense selective pressures. But these examples don’t prove that Darwinism is a viable explanation for the evolution of complex biological systems. As Behe points out, these are cases of "devolution," where organisms adapt by losing function rather than developing new, complex features. Dave’s failure to distinguish between adaptation and true innovation is a glaring oversight. The fact that malaria evolves resistance to drugs doesn’t mean it’s evolving more complex systems—it’s just surviving in a specific context. That’s a far cry from the kind of large-scale, multi-functional innovations Behe discusses. The fact that Dave’s examples fail to address this distinction shows he’s more interested in scoring rhetorical points than in grappling with the real scientific issues.

5. Devolution vs. Evolution: A Reality Check on 'Advancement'

Finally, Dave’s dismissal of Behe’s point about "devolution" shows a lack of understanding of what real evolutionary change entails. Yes, mutations that reduce function can sometimes be beneficial in specific contexts, but this does not amount to the creation of new, more complex features. As Behe correctly points out, the evolution of systems like the bacterial flagellum requires a delicate orchestration of mutations that go far beyond mere survival adaptations. Dave’s attempt to minimize this by focusing on the occasional beneficial mutation in hemoglobin or metabolic pathways is a diversion. These examples don’t even begin to address the problem of how complex biochemical systems—systems that are irreducibly complex—could evolve through random mutations. This is the crux of Behe’s argument, and Dave’s shallow responses only reveal his inability to engage with the actual challenge.

Conclusion: Ideological Defensiveness, Not Scientific Rigor

Dave’s entire response is a series of distractions, half-truths, and ideological rationalizations designed to protect the failing theory of Darwinian evolution from the criticism it so richly deserves. His superficial knowledge of the subject is clear in his inability to engage with the real, substantive issues that Behe raises. The evolution of complex biological systems through random mutations is an idea that no longer holds up under scrutiny, and Dave’s feeble attempts to prop it up are an embarrassment to anyone who takes science seriously. In the end, his arguments are not the result of careful scientific inquiry, but rather the product of a stubborn commitment to an outdated and increasingly untenable worldview.

 

[AN2]

@Tiger

Please debunk this -


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-1Rstu5t4Js

 

[Tiger]

@AN2

Ladies and gentlemen, this is the undignified pinnacle of James’s debating level. A link to a crank video with no commentary. Dreary me.

James, you appear to be scraping the bottom of the internet barrel in your desperate search for answers. There’s something pitiable about that—like watching someone rummage through a bin and proudly holding up a piece of rusted scrap as if it were a crown jewel. This video you’ve presented is no better. It’s a collection of threadbare arguments stitched together with conjecture and misdirection, again; masquerading as scientific rigor.

Let’s be clear: this kneejerk enthusiasm for a theory that tickles the ear and aligns with a convenient confirmation bias is the very essence of the principle of imminence, something that you seem to suffer greatly from. It’s a short-sighted reaction, driven by the urgency to ‘settle’ the mystery of flagellum evolution with a palatable and immediate answer, without regard for any kind of deep scrutiny. You ‘re clearly just pumping word searches into YouTube and posting the first thing that pops up.

The video you’ve posted relies on the discredited work of Nicholas J. Matzke, who attempts to explain the origin of the bacterial flagellum with an all-too-familiar blend of conjecture and wishful thinking. Matzke’s model, like so many others in the realm of Darwinian apologetics, is an exercise in storytelling masquerading as science—devoid of any substantive empirical evidence and driven more by ideology than rational inquiry.

Although, you obviously didn't twig this from the silly, child-like YouTube clip you posted, there is a complete absence of plausible mechanisms in Matzke’s theory, which claims to outline how the flagellum could have evolved step by step, but it does so with all the rigor of a fairy tale. His narrative offers no realistic explanation for how intermediate stages of the flagellum would have provided any functional advantage or had any isolated function or purpose. This is not idle speculation—this is the fatal flaw that undercuts his entire hypothesis. Evolution demands that each step must have conferred a clear survival benefit, but Matzke's theory dances around this inconvenient truth, offering no plausible mechanism for the gradual emergence of such a complex and integrated system. At best, it’s a vacuous suggestion wrapped in scientific jargon.

There is a fallacy of randomness used as an explanatory principle which invalidates his work. Matzke relies heavily on randomness, invoking it as a magic wand to explain the emergence of the flagellum. This is where his argument falls apart—randomness is an insufficient explanation for the intricacies of the biological world. The flagellum is not a simple result of undirected processes; it is a highly specialized and complex structure, and randomness alone cannot account for its exquisite functionality. This is the classic error of Darwinian dogma, which Matzke uncritically inherits: randomness can only shape the course of evolutionary events within a context of natural selection, but here, we see an over-reliance on randomness that borders on intellectual laziness.

The concept of irreducible complexity, as articulated by Michael Behe and others, continues to be Matzke’s Achilles' heel. The flagellum is an irreducibly complex structure—meaning that all its components must be in place and fully functional for it to work. It literally doesn’t work in any other form. Matzke attempts to sidestep this inconvenient fact by suggesting that the parts of the flagellum could have been repurposed from other systems, but this is merely an unproven hypothesis, and a weak one at that. The idea that an evolutionary process could gradually cobble together a fully functional system from parts that do not initially serve the same purpose stretches credibility beyond its limits. Matzke’s argument crumbles when faced with the reality of how these components are integrated into an operational whole.

Most notable in his work is the complete lack of any concrete evidence to support his idea. What Matzke and others like him conveniently gloss over is the absence of solid, empirical evidence supporting their claims. There are no fossils to support the gradual emergence of the flagellum, no clear genetic evidence to demonstrate the evolutionary steps that would have led to its current form. Matzke’s model is built on theoretical frameworks that lack the kind of empirical testing and validation that real science requires. To accept his ideas would be to forsake the scientific method in favour of imaginative speculation.

Matzke's is essentially choc full of theoretical speculation in place of any proofs. Matzke’s model is a textbook example of how Darwinian evolutionists substitute theoretical models for observable facts. Science is not about cobbling together plausible-sounding hypotheses; it’s about empirical verification. Matzke offers no compelling evidence that the bacterial flagellum evolved in the manner he suggests. Instead, he peddles a theory built on conjecture, weaving together a series of “might-have-beens” that ultimately serve only to preserve a worldview, not to provide real answers.

In conclusion, Matzke’s model is nothing more than an intellectually dishonest attempt to salvage a failing evolutionary theory. It is an exercise in scientific obfuscation, relying on the same tired arguments and baseless assumptions that have been refuted time and again. The bacterial flagellum remains a challenge to the Darwinian paradigm—an enigma that Matzke and others have failed to solve. Until they present something more than weak conjecture, their theories should be regarded with the scepticism they so richly deserve

 

[Hermit]

@AN2

In response to James’s lazy and unscholarly attempt at refuting the concept of Irreducible complexity by posting a lame video by the obnoxious YouTuber and fake ‘professor’ Dave last night on his shambles thread, I have taken the liberty of dissecting the video below. It’s clear that James's has no dignity and cannot amount any argument of his own beyond posting videos.



The 'Professor' Who Isn’t a Professor: An Obnoxious YouTuber Peddling Ideology


Let’s be perfectly clear from the outset: "Professor Dave" is not a professor, and he is certainly not a credible voice in the world of science. His YouTube channel is a platform for shallow, ideologically driven commentary masquerading as knowledge. When one considers his views on gender and biology—views that align more with a modern, politically correct agenda than with any semblance of biological reality—it becomes painfully obvious that his scientific opinions are rooted not in a pursuit of truth, but in the furtherance of a politically motivated narrative. He claims expertise where there is none, presenting himself as an authority while peddling the very same tired, unsubstantiated Darwinian dogma that has long failed to explain the complexity of life. For those of us who value real science, Professor Dave is a mere distraction—a charlatan whose utterances should be ignored.

To show his ideological bias and complete disregard for any semblance of ‘truth’, here is a sample video of him explaining his position on ‘trans people’, trying to give it some sort of grounding in science. As we saw earlier this week, even Richard Dawkins refused to stoop this low in an effort to confirm to crazy societal norms.


View: https://youtu.be/fpGqFUStcxc?feature=shared


To further highlight his shit lib bias as an establishment boot licker; here’s a video of YouTuber Dave’s position on Covid Vaccines.


View: https://youtu.be/-EPbylsBuzg?feature=shared


Anyhoo, back to his video on ‘Irreducible Complexity’….

An Analysis of 'Professor Dave's' Arguments: Shallow Rebuttals to Behe’s Substantial Critique


Dave’s rebuttal to Michael Behe is an exercise in misdirection, grounded in ignorance and a shocking disregard for the complexities of biological systems. His responses are a cocktail of half-baked theories and selective citations, aimed not at addressing Behe’s central thesis, but at defending the crumbling edifice of Darwinism. Let’s break down these arguments for what they are: vapid, ideologically driven, and thoroughly unconvincing.

1. Recombination: The Magic Bullet Fallacy

Dave’s attempt to redeem Darwinian evolution by pointing to recombination as some sort of "solution" to the problem of sequential mutations reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of Behe’s critique. Behe’s argument isn’t that recombination doesn’t happen—it’s that recombination alone doesn’t resolve the problems of mutation order and the sheer improbability of successive beneficial mutations arising by chance. Recombination doesn’t magically solve the problem of the "waiting time" Behe highlights, where the accumulation of beneficial mutations within a population is too slow to account for the evolution of complex systems. Recombination might shuffle existing genetic material, but it doesn’t create the new, functional complexity required for the kinds of biochemical systems that Behe discusses. To call this a "solution" is to ignore the deep flaws in Darwinian theory that Behe has already thoroughly documented.

2. Fitness Landscapes: Misunderstanding the Problem

Dave’s critique of Behe’s use of fitness landscapes is a case of him missing the point entirely. Behe isn’t arguing that evolution doesn’t involve changes in fitness over time; he’s arguing that the very process of crossing fitness valleys is staggeringly improbable. The idea that organisms can traverse these valleys via beneficial mutations in the right order is a fantasy that fails to account for the extreme specificity required in such a process. Sure, fitness landscapes are dynamic, but they don’t become less steep simply because Dave wants them to. In reality, the more complex a biological system, the more unlikely it becomes that a random mutation will be beneficial at every step of the way. Dave’s dismissal of this is nothing more than wishful thinking, designed to preserve a narrative rather than confront the hard truth about the limits of Darwinian evolution.

3. Darwinism vs. Modern Evolutionary Biology: A False Dichotomy

Dave’s attempt to separate Behe’s critiques from modern evolutionary biology is nothing short of laughable. Yes, modern evolutionary theory has expanded beyond Darwin’s original ideas, but it still relies on the same basic mechanisms: random mutation and natural selection. Behe’s argument is precisely that these mechanisms are insufficient to explain the emergence of complex biological systems. The fact that Dave wants to redefine the debate as a struggle between old and new versions of Darwinism is nothing more than a semantic distraction. Behe isn’t simply refuting the old version of evolution; he’s highlighting the inherent flaws in the very framework that modern evolutionary biology still clings to. Dave’s failure to address this is the hallmark of someone trying to keep the Darwinian train chugging along long after it’s run off the tracks.

4. Misuse of Evolutionary Examples: The Devil is in the Details

The examples Dave presents—drug resistance in malaria, HIV adaptation—are textbook examples of limited adaptation under intense selective pressures. But these examples don’t prove that Darwinism is a viable explanation for the evolution of complex biological systems. As Behe points out, these are cases of "devolution," where organisms adapt by losing function rather than developing new, complex features. Dave’s failure to distinguish between adaptation and true innovation is a glaring oversight. The fact that malaria evolves resistance to drugs doesn’t mean it’s evolving more complex systems—it’s just surviving in a specific context. That’s a far cry from the kind of large-scale, multi-functional innovations Behe discusses. The fact that Dave’s examples fail to address this distinction shows he’s more interested in scoring rhetorical points than in grappling with the real scientific issues.

5. Devolution vs. Evolution: A Reality Check on 'Advancement'

Finally, Dave’s dismissal of Behe’s point about "devolution" shows a lack of understanding of what real evolutionary change entails. Yes, mutations that reduce function can sometimes be beneficial in specific contexts, but this does not amount to the creation of new, more complex features. As Behe correctly points out, the evolution of systems like the bacterial flagellum requires a delicate orchestration of mutations that go far beyond mere survival adaptations. Dave’s attempt to minimize this by focusing on the occasional beneficial mutation in hemoglobin or metabolic pathways is a diversion. These examples don’t even begin to address the problem of how complex biochemical systems—systems that are irreducibly complex—could evolve through random mutations. This is the crux of Behe’s argument, and Dave’s shallow responses only reveal his inability to engage with the actual challenge.

Conclusion: Ideological Defensiveness, Not Scientific Rigor

Dave’s entire response is a series of distractions, half-truths, and ideological rationalizations designed to protect the failing theory of Darwinian evolution from the criticism it so richly deserves. His superficial knowledge of the subject is clear in his inability to engage with the real, substantive issues that Behe raises. The evolution of complex biological systems through random mutations is an idea that no longer holds up under scrutiny, and Dave’s feeble attempts to prop it up are an embarrassment to anyone who takes science seriously. In the end, his arguments are not the result of careful scientific inquiry, but rather the product of a stubborn commitment to an outdated and increasingly untenable worldview.

Dave doesn't even write the script for his videos, he gets "experts" to do that for him. His whole shtick is to act as smug, arrogant and condescending as possible whilst using every logical fallacy in the book, relying mostly upon ad hominem schoolyard level insults. His success on YouTube is all because of his anti flat earth videos, without which he'd be just another nobody. Dave is such a bell-end that even evolutionists and globe believers post comments on YouTube saying how much they hate him; some have even said that his attitude has caused them to reconsider their position. No surprise he took the Covid vaccine too and mocked anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists in the same way.

 

[AN2]

So have we all realised by now that "irreducible complexity" (a cornerstone of ID) coined by the IDiot Michael Behe is bunkum, shall we move on to another ID proof argument (I don't think there's that many of them)

 

[AN2]

Btw to the other IDers who have not commented so far in this thread, @scolairebocht and @Mad as Fish, please don't be scared (it's only Tiger who's chicken, Bawk! Bawk!1), don't make do with giving your head honcho a pat on the bum in his own thread, debate me bro

 

[Tiger]

Dave doesn't even write the script for his videos, he gets "experts" to do that for him. His whole shtick is to act as smug, arrogant and condescending as possible whilst using every logical fallacy in the book, relying mostly upon ad hominem schoolyard level insults. His success on YouTube is all because of his anti flat earth videos, without which he'd be just another nobody. Dave is such a bell-end that even evolutionists and globe believers post comments on YouTube saying how much they hate him; some have even said that his attitude has caused them to reconsider their position. No surprise he took the Covid vaccine too and mocked anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists in the same way.

Agreed. Dave is little more than a grifter, preying on those who lack the courage or curiosity to examine real evidence, preferring instead to have their Godless ears tickled with the pablum of modern scientism. He is the archetype of the smug, self-satisfied pseudo-intellectual—a court jester masquerading as a sage.

People like James are easy prey. Look at James's ridiculous reply to showing him that the (randomly searched) video he posted is spurious made-up nonsense, with zero evidence or even a basic model to even try and test.

Poor Dawson can barely string a sentence together to protect his own credibility. YouTubers like Dave have no end of fodder to feed from.

 

[céline]

I think we evolved from primates but I still believe we have souls, free will & that there is a God. I don't think the two completely cancel each other out.

 

[AN2]

@feudalist

Uh-oh, roc moment..

Post in thread 'Origins Thread' https://www.sarsfieldsvirtualpub.com/threads/origins-thread.639/post-125390

We are primates my dude

To eh, psychologise for a second, I don't think you would see humans as part of the animal kingdom, we're distinct, special. That of course is a very theistic POV

 

[céline]

@feudalist

Uh-oh, roc moment..

Post in thread 'Origins Thread' https://www.sarsfieldsvirtualpub.com/threads/origins-thread.639/post-125390

We are primates my dude

To eh, psychologise for a second, I don't think you would see humans as part of the animal kingdom, we're distinct, special. That of course is a very theistic POV

What is your point, exactly?

 

[AN2]

Musical Interlude


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lDK9QqIzhwk

 

[AN2]

What is your point, exactly?

Which one?

I made two points;

We didn't evolve from primates, or, does evolving from primates.. to.. primates make sense to you?

I don't think that you would view humans as part of the animal kingdom - which is a theistic point of view

 

[AN2]

Excellent article here

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-flaws-in-intelligent-design/

ID proponents “avoid scientific meetings like the plague” in favor of educational or pop culture debates — “they’d rather try to convince schoolchildren than adult scientists who are prepared to rebut and refute the evidence.”

 

[Tiger]

I think we evolved from primates but I still believe we have souls, free will & that there is a God. I don't think the two completely cancel each other out.

Without getting into the weeds regarding the lack of scientific evidence to support this view, your position reflects a common but deeply flawed attempt to reconcile two fundamentally opposed worldviews. Let me ask you: At what precise point in the evolutionary process does God, according to your belief, infuse the soul? Was it when an ape-like ancestor first walked upright? Or perhaps when they began to use rudimentary tools? And why would God reserve this gift of an immortal soul only for humans? Are other animals, which also exhibit intelligence and social behaviours, entirely excluded from this divine act?

To accept that we "evolved from primates" is to adopt a worldview in which man is merely an advanced animal shaped by random mutations and the pitiless forces of natural selection. Yes, we have animal bodies, however in such a schema, where is the space for the soul, which transcends materiality? Where is the room for free will, which defies deterministic processes? And where, one must ask, is the evidence—clear, observable, and sufficient—that such a blind and unguided process could produce not only the physical complexity of human beings but also the intangible realities of consciousness, morality, and the longing for transcendence? How can one assert, without verifiable proof, that this purposeless mechanism explains the very attributes that distinguish humanity from the rest of creation? Evolution leaves no room for these higher realities because it denies, a priori, the existence of anything beyond matter and energy.

You suggest that belief in God and the soul can coexist with this godless, reductionist theory. But this is a modern delusion, a compromise driven by the desire to placate the secular consensus rather than pursue truth. If man is simply a product of evolutionary chance, then the notion of divine intervention to “infuse” a soul at some arbitrary point is a theological absurdity. Such an act would make God complicit in a brutal process of death and suffering—a notion utterly alien to the God revealed in Sacred Scripture.

Can you clarify these broad details within the hybrid model that you postulate?

 

[Tiger]

@AN2

Before engaging with the hopeless shit-lib article “The Flaws in Intelligent Design,” which our illiterate friend James (I don't know what day of the week it is) Dawson has posted on his shambles thread which is devoid of any real intellectual debate.....let me say that it is crucial to understand the broader ideological framework of the so called 'Center for American Progress', the publisher of this critique that James has attached himself to like a raging imbecile.

James clearly never bothers to look at where his shit-lib information is coming from. Literally never.

This organization promotes positions such as unrestricted abortion rights, open-border immigration policies, and state-centred healthcare reforms—stances that reflect a materialistic, utilitarian worldview. Such a philosophy prioritizes the autonomy of the individual and the power of the state over transcendent moral principles or objective truth. It should come as no surprise, then, that this same framework underpins their attack on Intelligent Design. By rejecting even, the possibility of a Creator, they seek to fortify a vision of humanity detached from accountability to God and unmoored from the moral and metaphysical foundations that have guided civilization for millennia. This context casts their critique of ID not as a quest for truth, but as a defence of a worldview hostile to the very idea of design. This highlights the sewers in which James has to swim in, in a sad attempt to try and find a voice that backs up his view. It's pathetic.

See a page link….

So we’re dealing with pro-abortion, pro immigration shit-libs. So now onto the crap article that he posted from their shite ideologically driven, completely biased, anti-science website…

The article “The Flaws in Intelligent Design” reflects the intellectual shallowness of a culture more eager to affirm its materialistic presuppositions than to grapple with the weight of evidence. Like much of the modern critique of Intelligent Design (ID), it avoids engaging with the arguments on their merits and instead relies on caricature, rhetorical sleight of hand, and circular reasoning. This is not an exploration of truth; it is a defence of dogma, dressed in the language of science. As John Lennox has aptly observed, such critiques betray an underlying fear: a refusal to acknowledge that the universe may be more than just the product of blind, purposeless forces. If the authors of this piece aim to challenge ID, they must first rise above their kneejerk allegiance to materialism and confront the evidence head-on.

Central to the article’s critique is the tired accusation that ID is merely a “God of the gaps” argument. This is a gross distortion. ID does not appeal to ignorance but to knowledge—specifically, the hallmarks of design evident in nature. As Stephen Meyer has rigorously argued, the digital code embedded in DNA and the information-rich structures of living cells point unequivocally to intelligent causation. These are not gaps in our understanding; they are positive indicators of purposeful design, based on well-established principles of causation. The authors’ refusal to engage with these core arguments speaks volumes about the weakness of their position. Where is the evidence, as Lennox might ask, that random mutation and natural selection can account for such intricacy?

The article sidesteps one of ID’s most devastating challenges to Darwinian orthodoxy: irreducible complexity. Michael Behe’s work has demonstrated that biological systems like the bacterial flagellum require multiple, interdependent components, all functioning in concert. Remove one part, and the entire system fails. This defies the stepwise, trial-and-error mechanism of natural selection. Rather than addressing this evidence, the article pretends it doesn’t exist, retreating into vague assertions about ID’s supposed lack of scientific rigor. But this is no rebuttal; it is evasion. The Cambrian explosion, with its sudden appearance of complex life forms, remains another stubborn problem for Darwinism that the authors conveniently ignore.

Perhaps the article’s most glaring flaw lies in its uncritical assumption of methodological naturalism—the belief that science must exclude intelligent causation by definition. This is not science; it is philosophy masquerading as science. By arbitrarily ruling out design as a legitimate explanation, the authors impose a materialistic framework that precludes certain conclusions before the investigation even begins. As Meyer and Lennox have pointed out repeatedly, such circular reasoning is not a pursuit of truth but a defence of ideology. If the evidence points to design—and it does—why should this possibility be dismissed outright? Intellectual honesty demands that we follow the evidence wherever it leads, even if it unsettles our preconceived notions.

In the end, this article is not an argument against Intelligent Design; it is a testament to the desperation of its critics. Unable to confront the evidence for design, they resort to misrepresentation, logical fallacies, and appeals to philosophical naturalism. But the universe cares little for our ideologies. The intricate order of DNA, the irreducible complexity of biological systems, and the stunning fine-tuning of the cosmos all testify to a reality that transcends materialism. The question is not whether ID is compatible with science; it is whether science can remain honest in the face of such overwhelming evidence for design. As Michael Hoffman II might put it, this is the line where modernity must choose between truth and the seductive lies of a godless worldview. The evidence awaits those with the courage to see it.

Maybe one day James will read a book. Then something might change in him....until then...

 

[AN2]

So now that we're done with the mousetrap guy, I thought I might have a go at another ID sproof, this time in my own words (Prof. Dave seems to trigger the f*ck out of them )

I mean, ID is a bit like flat-earth, I'm learning as I go along but it goes something like this..

Genetic code is like [non-binary] computer code..

Wait, isn't computer code written by yoomans (a lot of it's probably written by AI nowadays but nonetheless)..

And aren't humans conscious/intelligent..

Et voila, intelligent design, it's God whatdunnit, evolution is a load of BOLLLLIX!

Is that about right, @Tiger?