Origins Thread

[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

 

[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

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[feudalist]

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.

 

[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...

 

[Tiger]

@AN2

James, it’s clear that you are utterly clueless on the subject of evolution. Quite frankly it’s getting boring responding to your childish comments. You have never contributed a single worthwhile post to this discussion.

You need to raise your game to earn any kind of response from me. It’s getting boring having a one sided discussion.

You’re assertion that the evolution of the bacterial flagellum is a settled matter reveals a profound ignorance of the subject at hand. If the question had been resolved, there would be no mystery surrounding it—and yet, the fact that you think it’s “proven” exposes the shallowness of your understanding.

The evolutionary origins of the flagellum remain one of the great unsolved puzzles in biology, and a Nobel Prize awaits anyone who can provide a coherent, evidence-backed explanation. Yet, more than a century after Darwin's theory was proposed, not a single scientist has come close to claiming that prize. On the contrary, the more investigations are conducted, the clearer it becomes that we may never solve the problem, and the gap between evolutionary theory and biological reality only widens.

Nicholas J. Matzke, openly admitted that his hypothesis is highly speculative and entirely devoid of experimental proof. It’s fantasy. His conjectures join the fruitless endeavors of others like Howard Ochman, Milton Saier, and Kenneth Miller, who have all attempted—and failed—to provide a coherent explanation for how the flagellum, a marvel of interdependent complexity, could arise through blind evolutionary processes. Matzke’s stepwise model, which proposes that the flagellum evolved from simpler systems such as the Type III Secretion System (T3SS), is riddled with logical flaws and circular reasoning. Indeed, evidence suggests the T3SS may have devolved from the flagellum, not preceded it, exposing the hypothesis as a house of cards.

Such intellectual maneuvering underscores the desperation of modern evolutionary biology to uphold its materialistic dogma, even in the face of insurmountable biological complexity.

The bacterial flagellum remains a devastating rebuke to the claims of Darwinian gradualism. This molecular machine—a rotary motor composed of dozens of interdependent parts—ceases to function with the removal of even a single component. Evolutionary theory demands stepwise functionality at every stage, yet no one, from Matzke to Miller, has produced a shred of evidence to show how an incomplete flagellum could serve any useful purpose, let alone survive natural selection. Decades of laboratory experiments and computational modeling have yielded nothing but speculation, while fossil evidence for molecular systems like this is nonexistent. As Michael J. Behe aptly observed, the flagellum epitomizes irreducible complexity: a system that defies materialist explanations and points instead to intelligent causation. The ongoing failure to provide a satisfactory evolutionary account is not just a scientific shortcoming—it is a philosophical indictment of the reductionist worldview that so often masquerades as science

 

[Hermit]

James, it’s clear that you are utterly clueless on the subject of evolution. Quite frankly it’s getting boring responding to your childish comments. You have never contributed a single worthwhile post to this discussion.

You need to raise your game to earn any kind of response from me. It’s getting boring having a one sided discussion.

This video popped up in my YouTube recommended feed recently:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fefJDYeUAx0

 

[Tiger]

This video popped up in my YouTube recommended feed recently:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fefJDYeUAx0

Yes, ‘feeding pearls to swine’ is a very apt analogy for debating with James. Engaging with someone who has no interest in honest discourse reduces the exchange to a futile exercise, as their aim is disruption, not enlightenment.

Adding to the absurdity, James has recently claimed to have solved the puzzle of irreducible complexity (pure clown-world stuff) —something no scientist on Earth, despite decades of research, has achieved. This is the level of childish ignorance we’re dealing with: a man so blinded by his own ego and desperation to undermine genuine intellectual inquiry that he makes ludicrous, baseless proclamations. His contributions are unserious, and his own thread is an incoherent mess of nonsense, emblematic of his inability to engage meaningfully with complex subjects.

Silence often preserves the dignity of one’s arguments, avoiding entanglement in such worthless exchanges. Responding to bad actors like James merely validates their clownish performances and distracts from meaningful dialogue. Let him stew in his own irrelevance—it’s the most fitting response to his antics.

Ultimately, I think he's lonely and craves any kind of exchange as a distraction. He even reduces himself to posting stupid music videos just to get ‘clicks’. Daft, embarrassing stuff.

 

[feudalist]

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?

Animals probably have souls as well, but they have a different kind of soul, probably.

 

[Tiger]

Animals probably have souls as well, but they have a different kind of soul, probably.

Animals may have souls in the sense of life principles, but these souls are material and cease at death. Only humans have immortal souls, rational and spiritual.

Let me ask you this: In your framework, do you believe that modern humans come from two parents? What happened to the so-called “pre-hominids”? Did they survive alongside humans, or are you suggesting that humanity arose from one pair of pre-hominid ancestors?

Genetic research reveals something worth noting: studies on mitochondrial DNA and the Y chromosome point to a bottleneck in human history, indicating all living humans descend from one woman (“Mitochondrial Eve”) and one man (“Y-Chromosomal Adam”). These findings are often wrapped in evolutionary language, but they echo the Church’s teaching that humanity comes from a single, divinely created pair.

This evidence casts doubt on the evolutionary story of gradual, diffuse origins and instead affirms the unity of the human family. How does your model account for this? Does it reconcile these genetic, historical, and theological threads? Have you considered the implications of tying it all together?

 

[feudalist]

The way I understand evolution to work is that occasionally there is an aberration within the genetics of an animal at birth & this aberration can be useful or not. We probably started out as Lovecraftian sea-creatures before evolving through primates in to humans but maybe I'm mistaken.

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

Animals may have souls in the sense of life principles, but these souls are material and cease at death. Only humans have immortal souls, rational and spiritual.

How do you know that?

 

[Tiger]

How do you know that?

Myles, can you try to be clearer with your questions......are you asking how we know if we have souls or how do we know that animals and humans have different types of souls?

Myles, even the fact that you’re asking this question points to something beyond materialism. Asking how something as immaterial as consciousness could arise from mere atoms suggests that, deep down, you recognize the existence of something beyond the physical—the soul—which science cannot account for.

It is indeed illogical to suggest that the complexity of human consciousness—the ability to think, reason, reflect, and pursue truth—is merely the result of blind, random interactions of atoms. The notion that atoms could generate consciousness is a philosophical absurdity, a reduction of man to nothing more than a machine. Materialism has no answer for the rational soul that animates us, and any attempt to reduce thought to purely physical processes simply denies the obvious: that we, as human beings, are not the sum of our physical parts.

It is far more reasonable to conclude that our consciousness—the very ability to ask questions, ponder the eternal, and understand abstract concepts—points to something transcendent. If we were nothing more than atoms contemplating themselves, we would be no different from any other piece of matter, yet we are capable of intellectual, moral, and spiritual acts that no machine, however complex, can replicate. The very fact that we question and seek meaning beyond the physical world demonstrates that we are not bound to it.

To reduce this to atoms is to miss the essence of what it means to be human. It is to ignore the reality that we are beings of spirit and rationality, not just material processes. Materialism cannot account for the moral dimension of life, the existence of love, or the pursuit of truth beyond mere survival.